Monitor Speaker Position

miroslav said:
If you spread speakers 8' apart and sit up close, like say only 2' away from their L-----R line...you end up with a hole in the center of your image.
Click to expand...
No, you actually don't. That's the fallacy. A center-panned track still appears in the center and one panned 10% left or right still appears to be 10% left or right, etc. There is no hole anywhere.

The only thing that happens is that the spread is wider; i.e. that each degree of pan translates into just a little more lateral distance. For example the difference between two speakers spread, say, 4' apart and ones spread 8'apart is that 50% pan is 1' off center in the shorter configuration and 2' off center in wider one. You're stretching the pan space in a way whereas it's like your zooming into it with greater magnification. But there's no actual "holes" in the representation anywhere.

All the manuals also say to record as hot as you can, and we all know that's wrong. And so is the myth that spreading speakers wide causes holes in the panning. It doesn't matter how many people parrot that myth, it's still a myth. When you stretch things out, nothing disappears down any hole. Everything is perfectly audible exactly where it should be in the pan space. That's how stereophonic sound works.

Like I say, if you doubt it, try it yourself. Just put on a pair of headphones, which are a flat line 180° spread, with no holes in the image.. And if that doesn't convince you, try it with your monitors at 180°, or 120°, or whaatever you want greater than 60°, and see that the only reason I say it is because it's real and it's true.

Don't get on Galileo's ass for looking through the telescope instead of just agreeing with what it says in the book along with everyone else.;)

G.
 
Last edited:
That's just it...I actually tried a LOT of monitor positions (as I mentioned in my lengthy post) and I do have options in the mixing area for a lot of different positions, so I'm not restricted by the desk or the walls. I didn't just read it somewhere and then adopted it without considering/trying other setups.

Thing is...(and we ARE talking about nearfield monitors)...if you spread them too far apart, they can collapse the center image or they get this very disconnected L/R image, even if you still can hear things L/C/R (as Lt Bob was also pointing out).
Maybe that kind of image doesn't bother some folks, and that's fine for them, but I've easily heard image differences with as little as a few degrees change to the monitor's angles...and to the quality of the center image with just several inches difference in the spacing between them.

Also...headphones and monitors are two different systems...not sure I need to even point that out to you. ;)
The reason 180° works with them is because you remove the room space from the equation.

AFA doing what others say...you know, it's not always just some "myth" that is getting frivolously passed around audio circles and being adopted by many engineers, unchallenged....until it gets to you here on the forums, Obi Wan. :)

Find me one pro level studio designer who doesn't have rather specific views on monitor placement and who suggests that the only concern is that you sit equally between them, but with no real concern about angles or actual distances for given types of monitors, and maybe I'll consider that all I've read up to this point was/is just a myth.
There must be a reason why you never see monitors placed way off on the left/right sides, pointing inward horizontally...but hey, they could ALL be wrong...in ALL the studios. :D


IMHO, YMMV, CTA, MTA, AMTRAK, ETC
 
95% of the people CAN be wrong. The fact that they agree with each other doesn't make it right. What all the studios do or don't do can be based on what all the studios do or don't do and have little to do with perception of hearing. If my speakers are 8' apart and I am inside the triangle, how does that change my perception of the sound if the speakers are 5' apart and I am inside the triangle? If I close my eyes and use my absolutely ordinary hearing to try to estimate how far away the speakers are without knowing beforehand, I am pretty sure I would fail my estimate by up to 30 percent and that with a guess based on the probabilities.

So I just stood up now and grabbed the farther of the speakers and placed it on the printer (no I cant leave it there), creating a 6' triangle - and the hole I didn't know was there disappeaered, giving a fuller sound if that makes sense.

There is no way in the world that I can describe this - except to say that it works. I don't know why it works but it changed the sound.

Ok, a microphone stand will occupy that spot on the floor behind the printer and these speakers are microphone-stand-mountable so.... thats what I will do

Enjoyable conversation guys, thanks heaps
 
GuitarLegend said:
So I just stood up now and grabbed the farther of the speakers and placed it on the printer (no I cant leave it there), creating a 6' triangle - and the hole I didn't know was there disappeared, giving a fuller sound if that makes sense.

There is no way in the world that I can describe this - except to say that it works. I don't know why it works but it changed the sound.
Click to expand...

I guess then...95% of the pro studios can't be wrong. ;)

That has been my biggest point...that I tried a lot of positions, angles, distances...and YES, it all makes a difference, and YES there are some ranges/positions that DO sound better. :)

Maybe we can now put this thread topic to rest.... :D
 
I opened this thread by stating that I had discovered something I didnt know and how it improved the sound. I learned a lot in this thread but even so, I have managed to 80+ recordings or so without knowing this. It just increased my listening pleasure.

I think a point has been made but it was still an interesting topic. I got a lot from it, I am sure others did too

Thanks for your participation :)
 
Last edited:
Just bought a monitor stand that occupies the space on the floor that now puts the two speakers 6' apart. I can't get them any closer but it IS a noticeable difference
 
miroslav said:
I guess then...95% of the pro studios can't be wrong. ;)

That has been my biggest point...that I tried a lot of positions, angles, distances...and YES, it all makes a difference, and YES there are some ranges/positions that DO sound better. :)

Maybe we can now put this thread topic to rest.... :D
Click to expand...
Don't you dare ever disagree with SSG.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
Is it conventional to have them closer? Yes.Would I prefer to have a tighter angle than we have at Product? Yes. Is there anything special or magical about 60°? Absolutely not. And I dare you to find any actual treatise on how stereophony actually works that says that 60° - even give or take 15%, or 30% - is required for consturction of the image. You won't , because it's not. It doessn't matter how many people claim otherwise, there's no opinion that overrules the actual mathematics and physics of it. Mother nature's opinion trumps all.
Click to expand...

So like...in one paragraph you basically agree about closer placement and tighter angles...and then turn around and argue that there's no reason to follow any of that because no one has done a scientific treatise for you to follow...??? :laughings:

OK...how about then you provide a scientific treatise to support your position that distance & angles make NO difference...oh wait, you just said you would rather have 'em closer and with tighter angles.
But...but why...???...if it makes NO difference.
Glen...you're chasing your own tail. :D

Use your ears...isn't that what you always tell people. ;)
Heck, even the OP quickly heard the difference....went out and bought monitor stands, and changed his setup accordingly.

AFA the 60°...I simply pointed out that you can NOT talk about equilateral triangles with having three equal angles...which just happens to be 60° each..that my friend is mathematics and physics.
That said...the equilateral triangle (w/60° angles) has been used so clearly/definitively in most all monitor placement discussions and articles on a multitude of websites and hardcopy...that it's about as close to a "treatise" as you can get.

But hey...go with what works for you.
Hang 'em on the ceiling and point them down...it makes no difference, right? :)
 
miroslav said:
So like...in one paragraph you basically agree about closer placement and tighter angles...and then turn around and argue that there's no reason to follow any of that because no one has done a scientific treatise for you to follow...??? :laughings:

OK...how about then you provide a scientific treatise to support your position that distance & angles make NO difference...oh wait, you just said you would rather have 'em closer and with tighter angles.
But...but why...???...if it makes NO difference.
Glen...you're chasing your own tail. :D
Click to expand...

Lol. Pwnd.
 
miroslav said:
Maybe we can now put this thread topic to rest.... :D
Click to expand...
I'd ask you the same thing, miro, what is the science or math behind the equilateral triangle being needed? Stereophonic playback requires the following and the following only: That a listener with two ears have those ears basically in a line parallel to the line between the two playback speakers and that those speakers be of equal distance from the listener. Period. Its that equal distance that ensures that the stereo inage is not shifted right or left because of a bias created by a difference in distance.

But there's nothing in the science or math that says anywhere that the difference in angle will cause any holes. What you guys are hearing as "holes" are not holes, it's just a wider spread in the image. At 60°, a stereophonic representation of a 180° spread will compress three degrees of image into every one degree of physical spread. Or to put it the other way around, a pan of, say, 20% right right would sit at an angle of 6° off center.; i.e. there will be 6° between a sound center-panned and one panned 20% right..

At, say, 90° from one speaker to another, the exact same 20% pan will now "present" that panned sound at 9° off-center. Now, you may try to argue that a 3° "hole" opened up, but that's not the case, There's no hole, that hole can still be filled. It's just that the stereo image has been stretched wider, making the space *that's already there* between panned images appear larger and therefore more noticeable.

And I'm not chasing my tail or contradicting myslef; you're just using debating club tactics to obfuscate the truth instead of actually reading what was actually said. I said I would *prefer* that the speakers at Product be closer, yes, and I still say that. But I also said that despite my preferences, the reality is that having them apart like that really has not turned out to be an issue. The only conclusion that one can rightly make from that is that my preferences are based upon personal bias and not upon reality. I would prefer them closer because that's what I'm used to after a half-century of listening to stereo systems, which rarely had the speakers spread that far apart (car stereos excepted.)

Yeah, we'll put it to rest, because no one is going to convince anybody of anything here. I'll just keep using my Mackies at about 95° apart on my overbridge (I just measured, actually) and hearing and managing the stereo image just fine, and me and the four other engineers - not to mention guest clients - will keep using that wide spread I pictured above at Product Recording with absolutely no problem hearing and managing the stereo image, and think that, hey, 95% of the people out there will tell us that what we are doing is impossible, and just smile and keep dong the impossible without care.

G.
 
Last edited:
95% was a statistic that I borrowed from elsewhere on a matter considerably less testable than the placement of speakers. I have no idea what the statistics are for the audio engineering community. But yeah I know what my ears tell me and I thought it was worth going out and buying whatever was necessary to facilitate the placement of my speakers so that I could enjoy the benefits so, I guess I was convinced. I don't think something should be put to rest if there is some active discussion happening. When I was a kid my mother used to forcibly stop me from arguing with my older brother and even as a young kid I thought that resolves nothing. The discussion should have been allowed to take its course until one of two outcomes was reached - either a point of view would win out or they were purely differing opinions that could never be agreed upon. The second outcome was forced in this case.

I think this is more than just opinion, it is something that can be tested which means there must be some science behind it.

At a recent concert that I attended, there were 70 speakers, that I could see, each side of the stage. As a pure guess, I estimated about 50,000W of amplification. I was right next to the engineers shack that had a formidable array of gear that I would love to have got my hands on. But the sound that came from the stage was simply unbelievable!! I was at least 120 yards from the stage but the sound was pure and powerful and could have been coming from a decent audio system just ten feet away. It was an open air concert so there was no room reverb involved and no nearby surfaces to reflect the sound so everything I heard was coming from the stage and there is no way that I could have estimated the distance from the source just using my ears alone.

I haven't finished with my research on this subject but apart from the elimination of room reflections, why does it make a difference whether the speakers are 4', 5', 8' or 15' apart? Yes, I know it makes a difference but why? I just bought some stands that close up the angle of the speakers to about 80 degrees from their previous wider angle and SOMETHING sounds better. But if I maintained that angle and pushed the speakers further away, how would that change anything if the SPL measured at my ears remained the same, room reflections notwithstanding?
 
GuitarLegend said:
I think this is more than just opinion, it is something that can be tested which means there must be some science behind it.
Click to expand...
There is. And what kills me, is how few bother to even look up the science (beyond looking in Wikipedia, which is about as scientificly robust as USA Today.) And as far as testable goes, the definitive tests are to do the math and to measure it with impartial instrumentation. I've explained the math. I don't have the lab instruments to definitively test it, but I trust bot the the math and the results of my own two home studio setups, where these supposed "holes" do not appear. I described in the previous post what I think is what many people think they hear as "holes", when there are no actual holes there.
GuitarLegend said:
I just bought some stands that close up the angle of the speakers to about 80 degrees from their previous wider angle and SOMETHING sounds better. But if I maintained that angle and pushed the speakers further away, how would that change anything if the SPL measured at my ears remained the same, room reflections notwithstanding?
Click to expand...
There's a number of things worth pointing out there. First is the stands themselves; which can noticeably change the sound from your previous setup. Second is you can't put the word "notwithstanding" after the phrase "room reflections" ;). Change the positions of the speakers within the room, and those reflections do change, and will affect, what you're hearing.

Third, and what I find the most interesting to the debate, is you said you moved the speakers closer together and they sounded better. However you also said that they are still about 80° apart, which is a good 1/3rd farther apart that the magical 60° equilateral triangle theory demands. Which is experimental evidence right there that the 60° requirement is baloney. But if you want to really know, move them even closer so that they are 70° apart, and see if that gets better than what you have now. then 60°, and seeif that's absolutely best. Then move them even a little closer, say 50° apart and see if that makes it sound worse again.

Of course, if you're not doing this in an anechoic chamber, who knows how the results may skew.

G.
 
The stands might affect something but it doesnt sound any different to when I experimentally placed the farther speaker on top of a printer which was the only place I had to put it. Getting a stand enabled me to find a more permanent spot for it. I can change the 80 degree angle to 60 degrees by sliding my chair back 2' - but I guess thats not the same thing

All I can say is that I got a better sound when I pointed the speakers in towards me. And I got an even better sound when I brought one of the speakers in closer so the speakers were equidistant. I dont think there is anything beyond those two things that I would make a difference to me, but I am willing to experiment.
 
GuitarLegend said:
I can change the 80 degree angle to 60 degrees by sliding my chair back 2' - but I guess that's not the same thing
Click to expand...
That's the same thing geometry-wise, but not the same thing room acoustics-wise. Which begs a point:
GuitarLegend said:
All I can say is that I got a better sound when I pointed the speakers in towards me. And I got an even better sound when I brought one of the speakers in closer so the speakers were equidistant.
Click to expand...
Actually there's a couple of points there. The first is you say that things sound "better". I'm truly glad to hear that, but I don't know what that means. How do they sound "better"? Is that "betterness" attributable to an actually more accurate creation of the stereo image itself, or due to something else like a shift in frequency resoinse or something like that?

In other words, are there things located at certain percentages of pan (center, left or right) that aren't properly present when you have the speakers wider, and can you tell how much, if any, of such a potential difference, if any, is due to the angle of separation and how much is due to the room?

Second, you say that you got a better sound by making them equidistant, which is an attribute which pretty much everybody agrees upon. If you made that change at the same time you narrowed the angle, you have no way of knowing how much either the narrowing of the angle or the evening of the distance alone made in the sound. Or did you do them separately?

G.
 
Yep, I understand that "better" is not a quantitative description, only qualitative. If I had to describe it I would say it had a richer quality to the sound which in turn has to mean that I was aware of more detail. So I guess it is a frequency response thing. When I pointed the speakers towards me, I heard more detail than I did before. Then things started to get interesting with the actual distances. When I said that my speakers were 8' apart it seemed to evoke reactions of horror.

The room is a fairly large area with furniture. amps and instruments more or less cluttering the free-space that would otherwise give an unacceptable level of reverb. The floor is carpeted.

When I changed the angle, that is, pointed the speakers inward, I heard one level of improvement. When I brought the farther speaker closer in I heard another level of improvement. Once again, the word "improvement" is qualitative but I hope you get my meaning without me having to use words I don't have to describe something I experience with my sense of sound. I dont think there is an onomatopoetic word to describe the improved "quality" of the sound - but it sounded ... better.. to me after both of these changes. I did say that a hole that I was previously unaware of had become conspicuous by its absence when I closed up the speaker separation. I don't know how to describe it any better than that.
 
GuitarLegend said:
When I changed the angle, that is, pointed the speakers inward, I heard one level of improvement. When I brought the farther speaker closer in I heard another level of improvement. Once again, the word "improvement" is qualitative but I hope you get my meaning without me having to use words I don't have to describe something I experience with my sense of sound. I dont think there is an onomatopoetic word to describe the improved "quality" of the sound - but it sounded ... better.. to me after both of these changes. I did say that a hole that I was previously unaware of had become conspicuous by its absence when I closed up the speaker separation. I don't know how to describe it any better than that.
Click to expand...

I'm sure Glen will spend at least another 3-4 posts trying to convince you that the improvement you *actually heard* is all in your mind...and that it doesn't make any difference what distance or angles you use (even though he himself would prefer a shorter distance and tighter angles in the setup he uses). :D

Careful...by the time he's finished...you'll be returning those stands and putting your speakers back where they were! ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top