Why not place your speakers like this...

D

darkecho

New member
While moving my junk around, i took a break and my speakers, in relation to me, were at a very wide angle... they are about 30 degrees off axis.. my head is at the obtuse angle of what seems to be about 120 degrees. each speaker aimed at my ears...

what i noticed was that i can "see" the stereo image MUUUCH better than ever before... i can point to where the guitar solo is coming from and everything seems so much clearer. The phantom center is so obvious its spooky. (hhehe no pun intended)

so anyways, why do I keep hearing about this equilateral triangle setup when I seem to have stumbled upon a more "visual" setup..

is there something wrong with the way my speakers are setup now? in other words, why not this way?

The center of the speakers faces are 4 feet from each other, and the speakers respective faces are almost 3 feet to my ears.
 
....................................
..[]...........................[]..
................[]..................
.....................................

my head is ^ that one
 
Maybe it's just your room. Have you done any acoustical treatments at all?

Just as mic placement is crucial in recording in an acoustically imperfect environment, then perhaps so is monitor placement. I say if it works for you then go with it.
 
FYI, the angle subtended at the mix position by the speakers would be about 84 degrees based upon 4 feet between speakers and 3 feet from your ears to the speakers. I'm neglecting the width of your head... please don't take it personal! :)

I can check for references on the subject, but my half-baked recollection/SWAG is that the obtuse angle tends to weaken the center of the stereo image illusion. If you like that, go for it.

Cheers,

Otto
 
This is one of those cases where there is the general textbook rule - in this case the equilateral triangle - to which there can be exceptions to or stretching of the rule due to other mitigating factors. In this case those factors can include: room properties and acoustics, response and dispersion characteristics of the spekers themselves, and - perhaps most of all - the personal preferences of the engineer and his/her ear.

Many people like the wide "hypoenuse" for the very reason you mention, it can seem to stretch out the stereo image and allow for a higher resolution look into the left-right soundstage. It is not uncommon for some to place their head just barely inside the apex of the perfect equalateral for this very reason (I do this myself)

The downside is that if you overdo it even a little, one can find a "hole" start to develop near the middle of the stereo image; perhaps dead center may be OK (often perhaps not), but slight pans in either direction of just a few degrees can easily get lost or skewed.

There's all sorts of theory and physics behind it, but it boils down to one thing; whatever gives you the best environment for making great-sounding mixes that translate well to the real world is what you need to go with. In theory, on paper, and in a properly controlled and calibrated environemnt, equalateral is the best bet. But in your situation whether great translations mean a equallateral, acute, obtuse, right or isosceles tringle is unimportant; as long as it works.

G.
 
Oh, yeah. An angle of 84 degrees is, of course, not obtuse. Sorry about that.

Cheers,

Otto
 
why is it that when wearing headphones I can tell the center just as easily? those speakers are aimed directly opposite eachother, perpendicular to the ear...
 
darkecho said:
why is it that when wearing headphones I can tell the center just as easily? those speakers are aimed directly opposite eachother, perpendicular to the ear...
Click to expand...
While maybe technically oversimplified, you can think of it this way: With the loudspeakers, it's the relative apparent seperation that actually matters, the angle is incedental.

The fact that your headphone elements have a virtual angle of 180° is not the issue; that their apparent seperation is only a matter of inches is the overriding factor for this discussion.

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
While maybe technically oversimplified, you can think of it this way: With the loudspeakers, it's the relative apparent seperation that actually matters, the angle is incedental.

The fact that your headphone elements have a virtual angle of 180° is not the issue; that their apparent seperation is only a matter of inches is the overriding factor for this discussion.

G.
Click to expand...

Accordingly, headphones produce a stereo image that is limited to inside your head. This is probably the primary deficiency of headphones in producing a satisfying listening experience in many cases.

Cheers,

Otto
 
ofajen said:
Accordingly, headphones produce a stereo image that is limited to inside your head. This is probably the primary deficiency of headphones in producing a satisfying listening experience in many cases.

Cheers,

Otto
Click to expand...
I actually like headphone listening for some of the time, apart from the physical discomfort issues. But I would have thought the main audible difference between headphones and speakers is the exaggerating of the stereo image width. It would probably be different if the panning of the mix had been done using headphones.
I guess we have, for better or for worse, a convention of mixing using monitors in a certain configuration. I dont see it as sacrosanct but I guess mixing and monitoring has to have a certain standardisation about them to get repeatable results.

Tim
 
Tim Gillett said:
I guess we have, for better or for worse, a convention of mixing using monitors in a certain configuration. I dont see it as sacrosanct but I guess mixing and monitoring has to have a certain standardisation about them to get repeatable results.
Click to expand...
You're right, it's not sacrosanct. I don't really see it as "standardization", however. Rather, it's a formula that describes a theoretical or "on paper" ideal based upon the known laws of physics and psychoacoustics.

As with any formula, the plugged in values need to be adjusted to the real world circumstances ranging from the practical to the subjective. When those adjustments are made, the ideal solution can and usually will vary somewhat from the theoretical. In this case that variance is in the length of the sides of the triangle.

Most will find, however, that the variance from ideal is limited. While not everyone has a perfect equilateral triangle working for them all the time, it usually comes close enough. I don't think that you'll find many people advocating the angle from the head to the two speakers be greater than 90°, no matter how much of an accentuated stereo image they want, for example. Nor will you find many advocating that the distance from the head to monitor L be different than the distance from the head to monitor R (unless the engineer is trying to make up for a hearing deficieny in one ear). Similarly, very few, if any would advocate that the distances of each speaker from its nearest two walls be different.

So the exact numbers coming out of the speaker triangle formula may be flexible, but there are reasonable limits to that flexibility set at least in part by other "rules" imbedded within the formula.

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
It is not uncommon for some to place their head just barely inside the apex of the perfect equalateral for this very reason (I do this myself) one can find a "hole"
Click to expand...

:D :D (sorry)
 
sooooo

basically the reason not to do what i have described above is because for whatever reason, using the equilateral triangle has been what has provided audio engineers with the most equally translatable product for all mediums...


and unless i am happy with the mix resulting from this arrangement, i should not use it.


I have monitor stands but they seem to be of low quality(one slightly tilts and they arent exactly the same height), and the base is a giant triangle making it hard to place in certain areas (would have been nice to have a flat square base) I cant ever really seem to get the speakers where I want them. I am considering getting a wider desk and just putting them on the edges of my desk.
 
i've been studying with the most juno nominated engineer in the world for the last two years (Kevin Doyle - worked with andrea bochelli, alanna myles, kiss and a whole lot more) and he claims that often when mixing its best to sit just inside the equallateral triangle so that you aren't always getting the clearest signal. the argument is that it is very rare for a listener to have a great set of speakers and be sitting in the exact optimum position. you certainly have to A-B things to make sure there isn't a significant difference but usually if you can make something sound great just a little outside of the optimum position, it'll sound great when you move into the sweet spot.

Its certainly a pretty interesting approach but it has obviously proven to work for him. its all about understanding the needs of the listeners and considering their listening habbits.
 
With the help of the guys here, I've found that speaker stands and widening the speakers really helped with my mixes. I've got a pair of $30 computer speakers (single driver) on either side of my computer monitor for an A/B reference that I can use summed in mono as well. Optimally, I'd have one Auratone type speaker right above my LCD and a pair of full range monitors spaced way out.
 
well, the idea is to setup speakers in relation to how our ears naturally locate sounds in any given space. But the problem is, no two ears are the same.


You get all these cues that are naturally occuring and unique to every human being; sound localization cues if you will.

The cues that don't change are what we call static cues. These remain constant, no matter what. And within that you have your things like:


interaural time difference, which refers to the delay times between sounds arriving to each ear. Which is why perfect symetry in control room design and sound system design is always a huge factor.

interaural intensity difference, which is the difference of intensities between ears. This is why it's important to calibrate your speakers properly. All it takes is a small level of difference between speakers to throw off a mix significantly.


Pinna Response is a big one. The pinna is basically the part of your ear that you can see, the cone. No two ears are ever alike, which is why we can never assume to hear like anyone else. The design of your pinna helps you determine things like horizontal and vertical positioning of sounds, as well as sounds comming from behind you.

If you need further proof of how dramtic pinna design can be, cup your hands around each ear to extend your pinna (creating bigger ears).

Shoulder Echo, is overlooked many times. It's pretty self explanitory, but is very individual to our bodies.

And of course, these aren't things you have to bring up 24/7, but it helps to know how the ear works.

The part where it gets tricky, and the one that relates directly to your case is where you get into dynamic cues. Those vary by location, environment and beleive it or not, even things like tempurature affect how things sound. So within those dynamic cues, you get: head motion (which pertains to the movement of your head within a sound source), vision, (confirming sounds you hear by looking at them), early echo response (the first reflections of a sound, which allow you to pinpoint them), and reverberation (does without mentioning).

So I think the issue is really taking the time to calibrate your stuff too. Usually the rule is to have the equallateral triangle (as glen mentioned) because of it's proven response to our design. However, the issue will always remain that speaker systems are designed to address a general set of ears, not a specific type. This being the reason why a mastering facility is under the microscope, more so than a recording and mixing facility (usually).

However, if you develope a set of standards, meaning:

- you can calibrate your gear properly
- you can set it up properly
- you can assess the room and treat it properly
- you can address the problems in an intuitive manner

then you can get to the problem quickly. So in other words, sounds like you just need to experient a little and make note of the results. Then just tweak from there.
 
When you locate that far inside the image it exaggerates the image and as a result our mixes change, usually not in a good way. Angling the speakers like this also greatly varies the phasing that we do and do not recognize which often times has a huge negative effect on our mixes. Headphones are a different story because they are a controlled and contained environment capable of predictable results. Basically, your headphones will sound the same no matter where you listen to them.

My far field monitors in my studio are a little closer than I would like due to space issues of the room. As a result, I always have to scoot back a bit when listening to them so that I am not located inside the image, but at the sweet spot of the image. If I do not move back the unnatural phasing and wide image gives me a major headache after a while.
 
There are a few reasons for this. Mainly - Your room is probably creating a lage amount of standing waves and is defusing frequencies to much. Read some room acoustic articles and check it out.

A peak system will alow you to move anywhere in the room and pin point (with perfect imagery) any of the instruments in the sound stage. There should be no point of reference (i.e., no specific place for you to sit in order to get accurate imagery).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top