R
RFR
Well-known member
Eh, I put one speaker on my patio and the other in the bathroom. Then I walk around the house looking for the sweet spot. 
JimmyS1969
MOODerator
Just a note. Look at the size of that board. The monitors in the positions they are in are for certain points during the recording/mixing. Likely you would not hang out in the center of that huge board for editing now would you?
And the video monitor with the logo is obviously not where it is placed...haha! Position in a room like that is not relative to the center of the room because the room is large and well treated. Hell, even if the room wasn't acoustically treated it is better than most folk in a 8 x 10' room mode nightmare situation.
It is not always ideal that everyone has an optimal room to place monitors correctly. But there are ideals for starting point. No need to argue that as it is just proven acoustic fact of what is most ideal.
Corner placement is never good and vocal isolation rooms smaller than a 13 x 12 x 8' room is likely a complete waste of time. Unless what you are looking for is a way to hide because you are too shy to sing in front of others... They can still hear you in the small room just as well as in the big one unless you do a shit ton of isolation, which is not really physically possible in such a small space.
What I am saying is that you will have better recording results in the biggest (untreated room) than you would in a small closet sized box. Even with good (impossible) acoustic treatment in a 5x7x8' closet, at most you could expect maybe a bit of isolation for vocals. I would never even attempt such a thing as it is just not possible nor productive to try IMO.
Get the best with what you have, but also realize that there is science behind most of the suggestions given. Yes, if you have experience to understand what bad placement may be affecting what you hear, and you know what the hell you are doing? - well then nothing matters does it?
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Right.
The "ideal" or "optimal" mixing position setup is a target. At times you have to make some adjustments around that target for things that are beyond your control...but to simply call things a "myth" is basically saying "anything goes".
I see that way too often in home rec discussions...where the things that are beyond our control lead someone to a point of denial, and pretty soon they feel that nothing matters...basic acoustics and the science of audio become irrelevant because it's easy for people to get around their limitations when rules get tossed out.
It's especially obvious in the studio building threads...where you have someone with a ridiculously bad space, and they want to live in denial about why everything sounds like shit and their mixes fall short when they take them elsewhere...yet there's a perpetual "dodge" (aka head in sand) of the real problem because basically, they don't have either the means or the budget or the rights/permission (living in an apartment) to fix the problem.
Pretty soon...they view acoustic treatment as a myth...and are asking if hanging blankets on hooks is good enough...etc...etc...etc.
gecko zzed
Grumpy Mod
That's the craziest definition of a nearfield monitor that I have come across.
More typically they are defined thus:
"Nearfield monitors are designed to be positioned approximately one to two metres away from the listener, making them ideal for smaller studios, whereas mid-field monitors are generally larger and optimised for positioning between two and four metres away from the listener."
Thomann Online Guides Monitor Speakers Nearfield & Midfield – Thomann UK
This shows a typical studio set up recommendation. This is from Ethan Winder, who is an acoustic design specialist:
http://realtraps.com/art_room-setup1.gif
E
ecc83
Well-known member
Looks pretty equi-bloody-lateral to me! The BBC do have a certain reputation for audio excellence and technical knowledge?
Ooops! "Oil be beck!"
Dave.
Ooops! "Oil be beck!"
Dave.
E
ecc83
Well-known member
E
ecc83
Well-known member
"and are asking if hanging blankets on hooks is good enough...
Can be!
Dave.
Can be!
Dave.
cyrano
Member
It seems we have a semantic problem...
"Equilateral triangle" means a triangle with 3 equal sides, according to Google Translate. And Wikipedia seems to agree:
Equilateral triangle - Wikipedia
What some of you seem to confuse with, is equal distance to the speakers, from the listening position. An entirely different thing.
I agree that equal distance to the speakers is required, or at least preferred. But that is NOT an equilateral triangle.
And in reality, it isn't even a triangle, unless you only have one ear.
And I know, because I've read about every paper published by the BBC on the subject of stereo. And that is the only institution that has done a massive amount of research into stereo. Well, Japanese and Korean radio have done some too, but I can't read most of it because it wasn't translated.
"Equilateral triangle" means a triangle with 3 equal sides, according to Google Translate. And Wikipedia seems to agree:
Equilateral triangle - Wikipedia
What some of you seem to confuse with, is equal distance to the speakers, from the listening position. An entirely different thing.
I agree that equal distance to the speakers is required, or at least preferred. But that is NOT an equilateral triangle.
And in reality, it isn't even a triangle, unless you only have one ear.
And I know, because I've read about every paper published by the BBC on the subject of stereo. And that is the only institution that has done a massive amount of research into stereo. Well, Japanese and Korean radio have done some too, but I can't read most of it because it wasn't translated.
cyrano
Member
I suppose you mean Ethan Winer?
I like Ethan. He doesn't support BS. But again, there's no equilateral triangle in that picture. And without knowing what it is illustrating, I don't understand what it might be illustrating...
And Ethan is an electronics engineer, IIRC. But I'll take his advice when it comes to acoustics too
[MENTION=199104]vladadrian[/MENTION]:
If you put the desk in a non-parallel position to the walls, it might be possible to even out the acoustic imbalance. It would require to put the speakers in a non-standard position too. Do you have room for that?
I can't tell the inclination. It would require a lot of experimentation, or measurements to find that out.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
It seems we have a semantic problem...
"Equilateral triangle" means a triangle with 3 equal sides, according to Google Translate. And Wikipedia seems to agree:
Equilateral triangle - Wikipedia
What some of you seem to confuse with, is equal distance to the speakers, from the listening position. An entirely different thing.
I agree that equal distance to the speakers is required, or at least preferred. But that is NOT an equilateral triangle.
And in reality, it isn't even a triangle, unless you only have one ear.
And I know, because I've read about every paper published by the BBC on the subject of stereo. And that is the only institution that has done a massive amount of research into stereo. Well, Japanese and Korean radio have done some too, but I can't read most of it because it wasn't translated.
I think maybe you are the one confused by the terminology...and why you think it's all a "myth".
When it's said "equal distance to the speakers"...that IS talking about an equilateral triangle.
Otherwise...what the heck do you think "equal distance to the speakers" is actually talking about?
You're not going to be closer to one speaker than the other...so then "equal" to what exactly?
The answer is...
Your distance to the speakers should be equal to the distance between the speakers, which means three equal distances...
...which is an equilateral triangle.
Look at the diagram I linked to...it's pretty clear how it all works.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
For what, exactly...?...cutting out some high-end at most, but not as proper room treatment.
gecko zzed
Grumpy Mod
Yep, my typo.
I've superimposed an equilateral triangle on the picture so you can see that there is one. It is formed by the distance between the two speakers and the distances from each to the listener
Here is more from Ethan. There is another diagram that shows the equilateral triangular configuration of listener and speakers. I should have included an explanation with the earlier post because some people don't understand diagrams very well.
Acoustic Treatment and Design for Recording Studios and Listening Rooms and shapes
E
ecc83
Well-known member
This is another area where there is confusion between full treatment, trapping for control of the bass end FOR MONITORING purposes and reducing the impact of a room FOR RECORDING.
The Home Recordist (remember him/her?) often cannot have masses of trapping for economic, space or legal reasons. They CAN hang a few blankets up and do a decent VO.
Dave.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
I'm talking about what's needed to have recording AND mixing space...not just doing VO.
If all people did was VO...then talking about blankets in lieu of anything else, might be of "some" minor use...but usually there are instruments that need to be recorded, and then the mixing...not to mention the so-called "mastering" many attempt to do... none of that is going to benefit much from hanging a couple of blankets, though if you're trying to say that a couple of blankets is better than bare walls, OK...but it's a very minor point with little real benefit.
If anything, it's like a placebo effect...they think it's better...but it's not.
cyrano
Member
The word "equilateral" figures 1 time only on the entire Ethan Winer site. On this page:
Acoustic Treatment and Design for Recording Studios and Listening Rooms
And it is still somewhat ambiguous because Ethan calls it symmetry. I agree that the distance from your head to the speakers should be equal.
But I see no reason at all why the distance between speakers should be equal to the distance from one speaker to your head.
Try it out. There's always an optimum distance between the speakers and I prefer to be further away from the speakers.
Take as example, good monitors that have a good omni characteristic. You need to place those differently from most speakers. Besides, you can turn the speakers inwards, or not. And look at what is considered ideal (if you treat the room): speakers mounted flush in the wall. In that case, I've never seen a triangle setup.
And I'm not the only one wondering if that rule is really anything more than a starting point to try and figure out how to place your speakers:
Gearslutz Pro Audio Community - ok to violate the equilateral triangle?
I became very aware of this problem as I'm trying to set up 4 speakers in a difficult room. It gets even worse when I will be trying 8 speakers for a 3D setup. Even if ambisonic playback tools provide the means of compensating for speaker placement. Have a look at what ITU recommends for a 5.1 surround setup:
Surround Sound Speaker Placement | 5.1 & 7.1 Setup Guide
No equilateral triangles at all, but prescriptions for angles. And the distance is usually guided by room dimensions...
Acoustic Treatment and Design for Recording Studios and Listening Rooms
And it is still somewhat ambiguous because Ethan calls it symmetry. I agree that the distance from your head to the speakers should be equal.
But I see no reason at all why the distance between speakers should be equal to the distance from one speaker to your head.
Try it out. There's always an optimum distance between the speakers and I prefer to be further away from the speakers.
Take as example, good monitors that have a good omni characteristic. You need to place those differently from most speakers. Besides, you can turn the speakers inwards, or not. And look at what is considered ideal (if you treat the room): speakers mounted flush in the wall. In that case, I've never seen a triangle setup.
And I'm not the only one wondering if that rule is really anything more than a starting point to try and figure out how to place your speakers:
Gearslutz Pro Audio Community - ok to violate the equilateral triangle?
I became very aware of this problem as I'm trying to set up 4 speakers in a difficult room. It gets even worse when I will be trying 8 speakers for a 3D setup. Even if ambisonic playback tools provide the means of compensating for speaker placement. Have a look at what ITU recommends for a 5.1 surround setup:
Surround Sound Speaker Placement | 5.1 & 7.1 Setup Guide
No equilateral triangles at all, but prescriptions for angles. And the distance is usually guided by room dimensions...
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Equal to what?
What do you mean "monitors that have a good omni characteristic"...?
AFAIK...speakers fire in one direction (not counting the LF ports/radiators you see on some that are in the rear or side).
There may be a difference in dispersion from one model to another...but "omni" is not a characteristic I would describe a speaker with, because that implies firing in all directions pretty evenly.
Also...it's not just about turning them in or not. If you're far back from a set of speakers that are close to each other...you have minimal to no stereo spread.
The two speakers close to each other with you further back become a mono point source to a great degree...regardless of how much you turn them in or not.
AFA the flush mounted speakers...the triangle is between them and your centered mix position.
That's what the whole Left-Right thing is about, with you in the center and back the same distance as the speaker spread. If you are in-between them on the same or close to same plane...you end up with a "hole" in the center of your image.
Like was said earlier...the toe-in has a range, usually 20 to 45 degrees...with the 30 degree being considered by many as the optimal point to start from, and then depending on the dispersion of your speakers, you can toe them in/out within that range and still maintain a credible response from them...but ideally, you want to be sitting just inside the apex of where the speakers are aimed at. If they are toed in and pointing at your face...then you are listening to the sound of the speakers and getting their full hype...if they are pointing way to far in back of you...you're missing out on some of the information.
Using the equilateral triangle eliminates a lot of the potential issues...and the spread of the speakers should be at a specific distance from each other (and also from you) for the best stereo imaging. If they are spread only a couple of feet apart...how do you then get "inside" the apex...and if you are further back, you're just hearing the speakers and not your mix correctly.
Look...you can imagine whatever "myth" you want, and you can buck the equilateral thing...but if you compare the equilateral setup with proper speaker distances to some unorthodox setup with speakers real close to each other and toed in/out to some extreme angles, you will easily hear how much better things sound with the former, and how much better you stereo image is when you sit at the correct spot inside the triangle.
AFA the links from GS...I really don't care, that place has a hard time agreeing on too many things. Look at the links I posted earlier from AES and other sources.
The other thing about the room size...well yeah, if you have a 10' x 10' room...it's pretty hard to do a 67" speaker spread and put mix position at the 38% mark...etc....but that's got nothing to do with how things should be.
Being in a small and/or bad sounding room doesn't somehow make unorthodox speaker setups valid...just because you have no other choice. So that's not an argument anyone should even make...though I see people here do it all the time. They use their limitations (whatever they are) to create a new "valid" perspective about how things should be. That's just called living in denial.
The point here is that it's not a "myth"...and yes, sometimes you have no choice but to deviate from the accepted norms...but the norms should always be the target, and not what you had to deviate to.
This link you posted uses EXACTLY the equilateral triangle setup: Surround Sound Speaker Placement | 5.1 & 7.1 Setup Guide
Anyway...here it is again, the link I posted on page 1....look at it, try it out and hear for yourself... and then do whatever want. It will only matter to your mixing.
https://www.carltatzdesign.com/acoustic-tools/the-null-positioning-ensemble.pdf
R
RFR
Well-known member
JimmyS1969
MOODerator
The blankets are for keeping out drafts in the winter, duh!
And also for accidentally smothering your mother in law... I hear it is legal in some states.
I need to move there. lol
Just kidding. Kinda.
Different strokes for different folks. You do what you can to make the best of what you have. Take advice as you see fit for you, but try not to deny others experience. Nobody is judging. Nobody has a perfect room. We learn by our own experience and from the trial and error of others. Some people have better spaces and ability/means/desire to acoustically treat and set them up as well as possible. Some do well for themselves without even trying. It is the level of quality one is looking for that determines the needs. There are really no set rules. Only the science and the ability of any person to work within a given environment. If you can mix in a box, then I commend you. I would rather work in an environment that gives me the best results possible within my level of talent in doing so.
Just ranting on before bed after a long session...
No blanket party here. Don't even Google that shit. It is disturbing...
E
ecc83
Well-known member
Re "Omni" speakers. Many years (decades!) ago a company call "Sonab" produced some pretty pricey speakers based on the 'totally omnidirectional" concept.
They fired the tweeters at the ceiling and had reflector panels to scatter sound about the room. Hi -Fi News magazine reviewed them (before they became beardy, tweaky audiophools) and concluded that although they produced good levels and a general good quality sound, stereo imaging was jack shit!
Dave.
They fired the tweeters at the ceiling and had reflector panels to scatter sound about the room. Hi -Fi News magazine reviewed them (before they became beardy, tweaky audiophools) and concluded that although they produced good levels and a general good quality sound, stereo imaging was jack shit!
Dave.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Yup.
It may seem like overkill to some folks...but every step up the quality level with your tools, will ultimately have a positive effect on the quality of your work.
I find it puzzling when someone kinda argues against that logic...either because they don't know any better or because they want to believe it isn't true.