How do you position your monitors and why?

[BDiNkY30]

Plain and simple, how do you position your monitors? how high, how low, distance from, distance between etc. It would be even better if you could elaborate on why you position them that way. gracias friends

 

[happymatty]

i like to keep it all triangle, you and the two monitors being the corners,

then angle is down to preferance i think. facing in you'll hear more treble facing out youll hear more bass.

just tweak and tweak over and over!

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

The Feng Shui of Monitors

G.

 

[Ethan Winer]

^^^ Nice article Glen!

--Ethan

 

[miroslav]

Yeah...nice article on positioning, Glen.
I see you mention that size IS important for some things (just not speakers ).

Carl Tatz Design (http://www.carltatzdesign.com/) did an article recently in EQ magazine about the *perfect* position for monitors, and he was/is very adamant about the distance between monitors (center point to center point) should be exactly 67.5" and nothing more or less....which makes for a rather larger equilateral triangle using that length for each side. He also said that following those dimensions...the apex of the triangle then needs to end up at 18" from the front edge of your console/desk, and that's where you sit and your ears are at that apex.

I wrote to him and said I was currently using a 60" sided triangle...he said nope, it had to be 67.5" to be correct.
Looking at most setups in your typical home/project studio environment, I don't see too many guys that even come close to the 60" spread...and that's a tough setup for many, especially for the guys mixing in front of their computers with nothing more than a small/narrow control surface. Placing the apex at 18" out from the edge of those small "desks" means that the monitors would need to be waaaaaay behind the desks and way out to the sides using the 67.5" length.
Most home/project people seem to have these 2'-3' small triangles for their mix setup.

His argument about the 67.5" width and the 18" apex out in front has to do with the stereo imaging. He feels that anything smaller and your L/R image starts to collapse...anything wider and you have a hole.

I originally had my monitors about 72" when I first set up my room...and found that to be too wide...then I tried them as close as 48"...and that killed the stereo image...so I split the difference and went with 60".

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

^^^ Nice article Glen!

Xie xie ni, Winer xiansheng

G.

 

[BenignVanilla]

At the far corners of my desk...because that is how I listen to music.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

His argument about the 67.5" width and the 18" apex out in front has to do with the stereo imaging. He feels that anything smaller and your L/R image starts to collapse...anything wider and you have a hole.

I have to admit that I haven't had a chance to check out that article, but off the top of my head, that doesn't make much sense to me.

The "width" and/or collapse of the stereo image has to to with the apparent angle between the two speakers, with the listener defining the apex, not the actual distance between speakers. Put simply, as long as that angle to the listener doesn't change, neither will the viability of the stereo image. The wider the speakers, the further back the listener, and the angle and the image remain static.

According to his dimensions, the best CRs with the best soffet-mounted or mid- or far-field arrays are unviable.

G.

 

[miroslav]

I have to admit that I haven't had a chance to check out that article, but off the top of my head, that doesn't make much sense to me.

The "width" and/or collapse of the stereo image has to do with the apparent angle between the two speakers....

Well...he went on to also specify that the monitors MUST be toed in 30 degrees, which makes the angles exactly 60 degrees at each of the three corners...the proverbial equilateral triangle.
What I think he's pointing out is that if you use a shorter sided triangle and then turn the monitors in/out to compensate for it...you are basically screwing up the whole equilateral triangle concept.
So he's stuck on those three numbers...67.5" sides, 30 degree toe-in on the speakers (aka 60 degree angles at the corners...I wish he had just said it that way! ) and the 18" distance of the apex at the front of your desk.
He apparently designs a lot of setups and he said that's what he always uses. His exact words in the email to me were: “This is not a suggestion but a mandate if you want great imaging.”

At this point…I’m still at my 60” spread, though my angles are 60 degrees and my mix position apex is at about the 18” mark. I reevaluated his suggestions, and he might be right, but my 60” spread is close enough for R&R!
For me to use 67.5”…I would have to pull my entire rig probably another foot away from my front wall, so I can push the monitors back further in order to maintain that 18” apex distance…and still keep the monitors the 2’ distance from the front wall at their face….which is where they are now.

The article was in the August EQ issue, though they typo’d his 18" comment and said you had to be 18" inches inside the apex ...and that's what made me write to him, 'cuz that totally made no sense. He then had them to a correction in the October issue.
Anyway...he was easy to talk to...even gave me his number to call him as he wasn't keen on typing email responses, and I did.
I'm sure if you had points to discuss...he would be willing....

 

[miroslav]

This is what he was describing...of course, the other room dimensions and distances/percentages from front/side/back walls still all apply.

*This is not the whole room layout...just the monitor/mix position he was getting at.*



Opinions...?

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

His exact words in the email to me were: “This is not a suggestion but a mandate if you want great imaging.”

I think "great imaging" an overrated concept, TBH. You may remember that my cohorts set up the new studio with the speakers way wide, and that we both commented on that in the pictures. Well, since then, after actually using the studio for a while, I couldn't care less either way when it comes to the "image". It's just as easy to mix and create the proper mix image that way as it would be if the speakers were two feet closer together.

Would I rather have them closer together. Well, that would be my second choice. I'd rather leave them that wide have the listening position be a couple of feet further back (I much prefer a mid- or far-field setup, especially with those JBLs. Staying seated where I'm at and moving the speakers closer would be a second choice, sure. But honestly, leaving them where they're at has not been an issue with any of us; you get used to it real quick, and it doesn't really hold you back, as long as you have the room space.

Not that I'd recommend it to anyone, I'd still recommend getting as close to by the book as one can, but at he same time, I wouldn't loose sleep over it too much either.

G.

 

[miroslav]

What I noticed when they were too wide, like when I tried mine at 72"...if you leaned in a bit, which is normal when you reach for the knobs-n-stuff on the console...the image would start to split L/R and wrap around the sides too much.
So that's why after lots of experimenting I ended up at 60"...as it allows me with my console/setup to both lean in when needed, and also roll the chair back a bit away from the apex when I don't want as much hype from the speakers...and in both cases the image would still hold up really well.

I think when you design rooms/systems and get paid good $$$ for it...you have to have some kind of specifics (or Mojo ) to throw out, so you don't appear to be just wingin' it and have the customer raise an eyebrow at you… ....but looking at the various pro, semi and home setups...yeah, there’s plenty room for personal needs/tastes that will work well enough.
I didn't quite see the absolute need for the 67.5" spread..unless you got some really deep-assed console! Though I do think if you jam them in too close like some home guys do...you're basically hearing what amounts to a mono-ish mix.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

think when you design rooms/systems and get paid good $$$ for it...you have to have some kind of specifics (or Mojo ) to throw out, so you don't appear to be just wingin' it and have the customer raise an eyebrow at you…

I think you hit the nail on the head with that one.

G.

 

[Ethan Winer]

Carl Tatz ... was/is very adamant about the distance between monitors (center point to center point) should be exactly 67.5" and nothing more or less

That's silly. What matters is the angle, not the absolute distances. Further, with a fixed spacing between loudspeakers, the perceived width will vary as you move closer or farther away. The true key to good imaging is absorbing all early reflections from the side walls and ceiling, and possibly the floor too.

--Ethan

 

[miroslav]

That's silly. What matters is the angle, not the absolute distances. Further, with a fixed spacing between loudspeakers, the perceived width will vary as you move closer or farther away. The true key to good imaging is absorbing all early reflections from the side walls and ceiling, and possibly the floor too.

Maybe you can engage Carl and get some better/detailed explination as to why the 67.5" spread.
He does mention your Real Traps in some of his design articles...so he'll know who you are.

Like I said...when I told him I was only using a 60" spread...he said that's "wrong...it should be 67.5". *shrug*

Though yes...he does specify that the angle must be *exactly* 60 degrees (or as he puts it, toe-in the speakers 30 degrees). He said any changes to that angle will totally screw up the imaging.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

This is what he was describing...of course, the other room dimensions and distances/percentages from front/side/back walls still all apply.

*This is not the whole room layout...just the monitor/mix position he was getting at.*

View attachment 62687

Opinions...?

You could replace the inches indicators with feet or meters or cubits or light years, and it would be exactly as valid (though if you used light years, you'd have to have one hell of an amplifier and would have a bit of a latency problem ) You could also change any of those numbers equally and they'd still be valid.

The only thing there that matters is the 60° angle at the apex of the listening position and the equal distance from that position to each monitor (for those one or two people on the planet that actually remember their high school geometry, it's the SAS [Side-Angle-Side] theorem at work.)

He said any changes to that angle will totally screw up the imaging.

The only image that's screwed up is the image of reality that he has in his head.

G.

 

[miroslav]

The only thing there that matters is the 60° angle at the apex of the listening position and the equal distance from that position to each monitor

............

The only image that's screwed up is the image of reality that he has in his head.

Not sure what you're trying to say?

You agree on 60 degrees for the angles...but then you don't seem to agree with his comment about angles...?
Aren't you both saying the same thing - 60 degrees is the right number for the conrner angles?
There's really no other to do an equilateral triangle.

Or...are you saying only the apex angle has to be 60 degrees...but then what are the other two???

Or...are you saying his idea of the spread is what's screwed up...but you agree with him on the angles?

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Just by way of explanation; stereo imaging depends upon the *timing* of signals getting to your left and right ears. In order to keep the stereo image correct, therefore the distance from the center of your head to each monitor should be the same so that any distance changes do not screw up the timing at which the sounds are received.

While 60° is usually considered optimal, it's really not absolutely necessary. The angle could be 75°, but just as long as the distance to each side remained the same. the stereo image remains valid, because the timing differences between the ears will remain the same.

It will be stretched wider, sure, increasing the potential "gaps" between any two instruments in any two given pan positions, but their relative positions within the angle of spread will remain correct.

The idea of a "hole" in the center is false; center pan in a stereo image is caused by equal amounts of amplitude coming out of both stereo channels. This does not change because of angle. Center panned remains center panned regardless of the angle. Want proof? Go ahead and play a mono signal through stereo speakers spread wider than 60°. The mono signal does not disappear into a "hole", nor does it move left or right; it still comes out sounding centered.

Even headphones, which provide a 180° spread, give a perfect center image. Because of their proximity to the ears and lack of spacial reference from the room itself, we hear it as on top of our heads instead of in front of us, but that's just a perceived change in altitude, not in azimuth; it's still centered between our ears.

G.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

r...are you saying only the apex angle has to be 60 degrees...but then what are the other two???

The SAS theorum states that when you know the apex angle and the two sides radiating from that apex, everything else falls into place and can only have one value.

In this case as long as we know that the two speakers are an equal distance from the listener - which they have to be in order not to shift the stereo image - and that the angle between them is 60°, we don't even need to specify the rest because they will automatically *have to* be at 60° and and a hypotenuse of equal length as the two legs.

But to look at another example, lets say that the listening angle is 75°, and the distance to each speaker is the same (which it needs to be). Then we automatically know that the other two angles will be 52.5° each ((180-75)/2) and that the distance between them will be determined automatically by the Pythagorean Theorum (A^2 +B^2 = C^2)

Either way, it means we don't need to specify anything other than the apex angle and the lengths of the two sides to define the whole triangle, the rest of it falls into place.

It also means, as I explained in my last post that the apex angle isn't really all that important. 60° is usually agreed upon as the optimal spread, but it's not really fixed in stone as absolutely necessary to ge one's mixing done properly.

G.

 

[miroslav]

I get all the math...that's not the question, but AFAIK...the "agreed upon" monitor/mix position setup always indicted an *equilateral* triangle to be used.

So...I don't get how only the apex angle and the two sides from it are important but not the other two angles and the length between the speakers...?
If it's an equilateral triangle...all three sides are the same length, and then all three angles have to be the same ...and there's only one angle that works in that scenario...a 60 degree angle at each of the three corners....right?

If you're talking about using other angles...does that not kill the whole concept of an equilateral triangle for the monitors/mix position...???

This is where I’m not understanding what you are trying to say.
On the one hand you say 60 degrees, which makes sense as that’s what’s needed for an equilateral triangle…but then you say the angles are not important…???
Are you saying an equilateral triangle is NOT key in monitor/mix position setup?

Please clarify…