OT-Speaker Placement

[soundtrack2life]

I am toying with the idea of modifying my studio furniture to allow for both of my computer monitors to be side by side. Even with two computer monitors I find myself only using the one because I have to turn completely to the left to view the 2nd monitor. Of coarse the 2nd monitor location was added as an after thought. So this brings me to the topic of this post . . . If I am going to be modifying things . . . I already have been emptying out some of my racks of things that I really don't use anymore and can sell on ebay. I will not need all of the space any longer in the racks above the table that my speakers sit on. I could lower the speakers to allow for vertical placement instead of horizontal. So this is were I ask the big question . . . What is better vertical or horizontal placement of speakers?? I have read the Dynaudios can be placed in either position. So You can see some current pictures below http://www.myspace.com/tunedinmusicandmedia of the studio and I am open to suggestions.
TIA
Joe

[Cary B. Cornett]

Many, if not most, studio monitor speakers are best used "vertical". If you want consistent and sharp stereo imaging, you want LF and HF drivers "stacked" instead of side by side. A long time ago researchers determined that our hearing is much more precise on azimuth (left to right) than elevation (top to bottom).

A few speaker manufacturers, most notably Tannoy, get around the need to make this choice by offering systems with concentric drivers (tweeter is actually in the center of the woofer) so as to provide the nearest possible approach to a true "point source". Most of the systems out there, though, use separated drivers which cannot both occupy the same place. A fussy studio designer will either place the monitors so that the tweeters are at ear level or at least aim the tweeters toward where the engineer's ears are. When such speakers are turned "landscape" as yours are in the picture, the sound stage is actually a bit wider at high frequencies than at low frequencies, and some users have reported that turning their near speakers that way "smears" the imaging a bit.

So yes, turn your speakers in the vertical orientation, and, if you can, place the tweeters at ear level.

BTW, back when I was using dual displays I had them side by side directly in front of me. I even built myself a special stand to put the two screens down and back "like a book". This turns out to be more comfortable (a fair number of ergonomics experts now recommend it) than the older recommendation, and has the neat side benefit of keeping the top edge of the displays low enough to be out of the way of the sound from the speakers.

I more recently went back to using a single screen but with the desktop area much larger than screen area (a fair number of laptops are designed to allow this, and at least some dual monitor cards can give you this option). You would be surprised how well a "pan and scan" arrangement like this can work if you need two or more applications on screen at once (as I often do with SawStudio and TotalMix, not to mention having the extra "space" to keep plugins off to one side).

[Ian Alexander]

I have always felt that my ears were more sensitive to horizontal differences than vertical differences, so I'd agree that having the woofers above or below the tweeters is better than beside.

I now have two computer screens mounted vertically, with the speakers beside them. This arrangement allows me to look up at the plugins as needed, with the rest of SS on the lower screen. It also allows me to keep the speakers closer together, in a very near field pair. That keeps the room out of the mix a bit more.


The monitor stand is an Ergotron DS-100.
HTH.

[Cary B. Cornett]

I now have two computer screens mounted vertically, with the speakers beside them. This arrangement allows me to look up at the plugins as needed, with the rest of SS on the lower screen. It also allows me to keep the speakers closer together, in a very near field pair. That keeps the room out of the mix a bit more.

The term "near field" has been seriously abused and misused by marketers of studio monitor speakers. In most areas of physics, being "in the near field" means that you are too close to the source to get accurate measurements by normal methods (this definition is already oversimplified, but anything more accurate becomes even more difficult to understand or explain). For acoustics, quoting from the ICAD website,

...the near-field is defined as the region of space within a fraction of a wavelength away from a sound source. According to this definition, the outer boundary of the near-field region varies inversely with frequency.

For our purposes, we are talking about the difference between the speaker and your ear. If you include any sound reflector (such as a wall, floor, or ceiling) as a "source", in most small rooms you actually cannot get OUT of the Near Field for any frequency below about 300 Hz.

Even if we accept the "popular" definition of "near field", what counts is the distance from speaker to ear, not the distance between speakers. For the widest possible stereo image without "losing the center", it is usually best to have the distance between the speakers the same as the distance from each speaker to the center of your head.

Let's just say that getting accurate monitoring in a small room is not nearly as simple as the speaker merchants would have us believe.

[Ian Alexander]

[snip] For our purposes, we are talking about the difference between the speaker and your ear. If you include any sound reflector (such as a wall, floor, or ceiling) as a "source", in most small rooms you actually cannot get OUT of the Near Field for any frequency below about 300 Hz.

Even if we accept the "popular" definition of "near field", what counts is the distance from speaker to ear, not the distance between speakers. For the widest possible stereo image without "losing the center", it is usually best to have the distance between the speakers the same as the distance from each speaker to the center of your head.

My small room is definitely not ideal for mixing, but it's what I have. I think the more I can do to reduce the impact of early reflections, the better. And I assumed that most readers here knew about the equilateral triangle approach to monitoring.

A concept I haven't thought of as I struggle with a lack of horizontal space. Thanks for the tip.

Mark

It does require a little bobblehead now and then, especially with bifocals. I seem to recall you have those, as I do. But with plugs on the top, it's an occasional adjustment or reference, not a constant viewing. It's often enough that I find it worth the second LCD.

[TotalSonic]

fwiw - A really nice online Java based calculator for helping determine potentially optimal speaker placement that allows you to enter lots of parameters including room size and treatments is at http://www.hunecke.de/en/calculators/loudspeakers.html

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Ian Alexander]

Er, I forgot about that. I struggle with that issue now, with my LCDs on the shelf with my speakers. If I move the studio again as I fantasize, I'll go for speaker stands and LCDs at desk level. But your pic looked like a good alternative until you reminded me that I'm blind.

Currently, I have a special pair of bifocals with the distance vision set for LCD distance, and the near vision set for reading distance. That "mid vision" window of where the monitors are in max focus is narrow.

mark

Hm, my glasses are called progressive. The area of the lenses that have any given focal length is short vertically, but fairly wide. With occasional glances up at the upper screen, it's okay.

I have considered getting a pair of glasses devoted to that focal length, and just leaving them at the computer. So far, so good, though, with less used things on the upper screen.

[soundtrack2life]

Last week I finally got around to modifying my desk. What a PITA!! First I had to unwire and then rewire the desk after I did the carpentry work. All in in all this was about a $80 venture with materials from Home Depot. I even got them to cut the oak veneer plywood to the sizes I needed. The day I had about 70% of it rewired I got a call to do a session . I had to jury rig a couple of things but I made it through. Anyway besides the connivence of having both monitors side by side, by lowering the speakers, flipping them vertical and spreading them apart by an additonal 15" I have improved my mix position greatly. Much better separation & clarity and for what it is worth I find myself only turning the monitors up about 2/3 of what I was in the previous layout. As you can see in the picture I can now have SAW and SAC happily side by side. Best $80 and aching back I could of invested in the studio!
Joe

[Dave Labrecque]

Last week I finally got around to modifying my desk. What a PITA!! First I had to unwire and then rewire the desk after I did the carpentry work. All in in all this was about a $80 venture with materials from Home Depot. I even got them to cut the oak veneer plywood to the sizes I needed. The day I had about 70% of it rewired I got a call to do a session . I had to jury rig a couple of things but I made it through. Anyway besides the connivence of having both monitors side by side, by lowering the speakers, flipping them vertical and spreading them apart by an additonal 15" I have improved my mix position greatly. Much better separation & clarity and for what it is worth I find myself only turning the monitors up about 2/3 of what I was in the previous layout. As you can see in the picture I can now have SAW and SAC happily side by side. Best $80 and aching back I could of invested in the studio!
Joe

Nice.

[bcorkery]

Joe,

It looks great!

Hey ... if I gave you $80 would you ....
Nah! Didn't think so.