Monitor position

[TNGator]

Apologies if Im posting this question in the wrong place guys. Im looking at a YT vid on home studio setup. If you go to 10:27 he is talking about monitor positions. His recommendation is using stands for the monitors which allows you to push the monitors up against the wall. Now correct me if Im wrong...but I was told by a studio owner never to put monitors against he wall but move them a few feet away if possible.
Im in a small cube room so saving every inch of space is important. If taking the monitors off my desk and onto stands up against the wall will work I would go for it. Any thoughts on this guys suggestion guys? Thanks

[CS70]

In general the manufacturer gives advice because it depends on the design. Back ported monitors won't work

Otherwise, it depends on the monitor. Putting them near the wall boosts the bass frequencies. So if your monitors are vanilla, you're gonna have a skewed picture of your bass - not good for mixing. If your monitors have internal EQ tough, it's possible to set them up so that the bass boost is counteracted - to a degree.

An empirical trick I use is to listen to the bass level of a reference track on the monitors and on headphones (assuming a reasonably treated room, otherwise room modes can play tricks on your ears) and judge if - at the same nominal volume - the bass level is similar.

The first step is to to calibrate the overall volume by ear - and to do so you can hipass the track from say 200Hz (it will sound like crap but you'll have an easier time judging the relative volumes) and use the mute switch. Then you rest a few minutes and re-add the bass, judging by ear how much bassier it sounds on monitors or headphone, and finding a reasonable position for the monitors EQ setting and their physical position so that they match. After all when mixing is your perception that matters, not the quantitative levels.

Not very scientific but kinda does the job for me.

[Logarhythm]

This article is a useful read: SOS article on monitor placement

[TNGator]

Thanks guys. I need to up the ante on my recording. My main focus is improving my song writing. But even if you write a hit...to either pitch it or try get into the DIY musician thing and sell it as an indi artist...it has to be a good recording.

[Hugh Robjohns]

His recommendation is using stands for the monitors which allows you to push the monitors up against the wall. Now correct me if Im wrong...but I was told by a studio owner never to put monitors against he wall but move them a few feet away if possible.

As always... It depends!

Placing a speaker against a boundary wall at the front of the room (or better still, soffit-mounted within it) moves it into what's known as 'half space' because the sound can only radiate into a hemisphere. This significantly improves the efficiency of the bass reproduction, so the (uncorrected) speaker appears to have a bass boost. Some monitors have built-in EQ options to correct the frequency response for this condition, and when corrected there is a useful benefit in that the speaker gains some extra LF headroom for the bass amp/driver.

Moving the speaker away from the wall reduces and then removes that boundary effect, and most speakers are equalised to sound flat away from all walls... But, if the wall is acoustically reflective at low frequencies (and almost all are!) that reflected LF will add in some way to the direct sound from the speaker. Since there will be a short delay between the direct and reflected bass, there'll be a frequency-dependent phase shift and so at some frequencies there will be partial cancellations. The overall result is an inevitable dip in the frequency response at low-mid frequencies -- the centre frequency of the dip being related to the distance between speaker and wall.

The effect can be minimised by reducing the reflected energy, which means either a cardioid-response speaker (possible, but relatively rare), effective bass trapping absorbers on the front wall, or a very flimsy wall construction! Alternatively, there's a school of thought that favours one or more carefully aligned subwoofers in the room to fill in the 'missing' energy.

There's an article on this low-mid response dip problem here:

https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/elephant-control-room

[Zukan]

Interesting article. Thanks Hugh.

[TNGator]

Saw this TY vid last night so I downloaded the software. I dont have a mic specifically designed for room tests so I'll have to just use whatever I have. Looking forward to trying it out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4uSR3c ... ex=2&t=44s

[TNGator]

His recommendation is using stands for the monitors which allows you to push the monitors up against the wall. Now correct me if Im wrong...but I was told by a studio owner never to put monitors against he wall but move them a few feet away if possible.

As always... It depends!

Placing a speaker against a boundary wall at the front of the room (or better still, soffit-mounted within it) moves it into what's known as 'half space' because the sound can only radiate into a hemisphere. This significantly improves the efficiency of the bass reproduction, so the (uncorrected) speaker appears to have a bass boost. Some monitors have built-in EQ options to correct the frequency response for this condition, and when corrected there is a useful benefit in that the speaker gains some extra LF headroom for the bass amp/driver.

Moving the speaker away from the wall reduces and then removes that boundary effect, and most speakers are equalised to sound flat away from all walls... But, if the wall is acoustically reflective at low frequencies (and almost all are!) that reflected LF will add in some way to the direct sound from the speaker. Since there will be a short delay between the direct and reflected bass, there'll be a frequency-dependent phase shift and so at some frequencies there will be partial cancellations. The overall result is an inevitable dip in the frequency response at low-mid frequencies -- the centre frequency of the dip being related to the distance between speaker and wall.

The effect can be minimised by reducing the reflected energy, which means either a cardioid-response speaker (possible, but relatively rare), effective bass trapping absorbers on the front wall, or a very flimsy wall construction! Alternatively, there's a school of thought that favours one or more carefully aligned subwoofers in the room to fill in the 'missing' energy.

There's an article on this low-mid response dip problem here:

https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/elephant-control-room

Great article Hugh. Still reading it. Its gone 11 here so hitting the hay. Will continue tomorrow.

[awjoe]

FWIW, Sonarworks has an e-book on their site called 'Successful Studio Setup' that covers not only monitor distance from walls, but just about everything you need to know about creating the best listening environment out of your studio that you can. Well, 'everything you need to know' is relative, but you get my meaning. It's pages long, written by a handful of authors, and it's very, very free.

https://www.sonarworks.com/blog/ebook/s ... ome-studio

[Zukan]

Good link Awjoe.

Neumann also have a great tutorial on how to set up monitors, not the room though. Their manuals even have 'print and match' type of monitor positioning diagrams, plus a ton of plots and data sheets.

[TNGator]

Some great links and info there guys. Thank yall.
The only I lack is one of those special test mics. But I don't think I'd buy a mic just for one use. Once you have your room setup you're good to go. I have a t bone pencil mic which is a condenser. I also have two wide diaphragm mics and an sm57. Maybe one of this will work.

[Hugh Robjohns]

The only I lack is one of those special test mics. But I don't think I'd buy a mic just for one use.

Acoustic measurements should be done with a miniature omni capsule. The cheapest I'm aware of is the Behringer ECM8000:

https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/ECM8000--behringer-ecm8000-measurement-condenser-microphone

*Other retailers are available...

H

[Dr Huge Longjohns]

They SHOULD, yes, but you can get very usable results with other mics too. Don't want to put the poster off doing some proper testing because he hasn't got the optimum kit.

[Hugh Robjohns]

I'm not sure I'd describe the ECM8000 as 'optimum kit'

Yes, obviously acoustical measurements can be made with any mic that comes to hand, and they may even be useful if used purely to assess comparative changes rather than to determine absolute figures.

But 'proper testing' means trying to assess the room acoustics in the correct way, surely? As a minimum, that requires an omni pattern mic with a reasonably flat response. While the pros might insist on using a calibrated B&K, AP, or Gefell measurement mic, I'd suggest that for a more casual interest the ECM8000 delivers reasonably accurate results -- better than using any old studio mic from the cupboard -- without breaking the bank.

H

[John Willett]

I agree with Hugh - and micW do a nice little inexpensive measurement mic. as well.

[Sam Spoons]

Just had a look on the micW page as I have been considering one of their iPhone mics. While browsing my eye was drawn to the "Hindenberg Field Recorder Lite" app. To me that name implies that it is a working but feature reduced app however it is actually the demo version which stops recording after 60 secs. Now this sort of thing annoys me, not because the app is crippled, fair enough, they want to sell the full version and make some money, but because they are disingenuous enough to call it 'lite' rather than 'demo'. I can't see what they are trying to achieve by this minor deception.

It won't stop me buying the mic if I decide it suits my purpose mind you

[John Willett]

Just had a look on the micW page as I have been considering one of their iPhone mics. While browsing my eye was drawn to the "Hindenberg Field Recorder Lite" app. To me that name implies that it is a working but feature reduced app however it is actually the demo version which stops recording after 60 secs. Now this sort of thing annoys me, not because the app is crippled, fair enough, they want to sell the full version and make some money, but because they are disingenuous enough to call it 'lite' rather than 'demo'. I can't see what they are trying to achieve by this minor deception.

It won't stop me buying the mic if I decide it suits my purpose mind you

I bought the little micW iPhone measurement mic. for the iPhone before I bought my more expensive Gefell one.

But the phone *does* have to have a headphone jack socket to use it.

A few apps also have the mic characteristics selectable for specific mics which matches the mic to the phone so you get a correct reading.

[Sam Spoons]

But the phone *does* have to have a headphone jack socket to use it.

My iPhone does have the jack but they have a lightning version too (which since they're handling the A/D conversion should be better still)

[TNGator]

I see Thoman have this guy for 49 euro
Sonarworks XREF 20 Mic

[TNGator]

wow,,,the ECM is only 32? ok... I CANT argue with that price.

[TNGator]

I'm not sure I'd describe the ECM8000 as 'optimum kit'

Yes, obviously acoustical measurements can be made with any mic that comes to hand, and they may even be useful if used purely to assess comparative changes rather than to determine absolute figures.

But 'proper testing' means trying to assess the room acoustics in the correct way, surely? As a minimum, that requires an omni pattern mic with a reasonably flat response. While the pros might insist on using a calibrated B&K, AP, or Gefell measurement mic, I'd suggest that for a more casual interest the ECM8000 delivers reasonably accurate results -- better than using any old studio mic from the cupboard -- without breaking the bank.

H

Well you make an interesting point Hugh. Do i need absolute figures or would i like to test the room in its original state followed b a test with my DIY acoustic treatment installed. It would at least tell me how effective my hanging duvet etc is responding.

[Martin Walker]

Well you make an interesting point Hugh. Do i need absolute figures or would i like to test the room in its original state followed b a test with my DIY acoustic treatment installed. It would at least tell me how effective my hanging duvet etc is responding.

Hi TNGator,

Yes, that's the perfect way forward - first find out with your measurement before acoustic treatment, which should help you relate problem frequencies (peaks, troughs, and 'ringing on') to your room dimensions.

This in turn will help you to find the most effective places for your duvet, bass traps or whatever - a duvet won't make a lot of difference at lower frequencies (where DIY bass traps would probably make more sense), but a measurement mic with suitable software (such as the freeware Room EQ Wizard) should still show any improvements.

Take the basic test, position your duvet, take another test, spot the difference, then try another position until you get the most effective position.

However, where you place your listening position in relation to the corners of the room will greatly determine how neutral your basic room sound is, so do experiment with that first before getting the duvet out. As others have said, the monitor position can make a huge difference, although with your cube-shaped room you have the trickiest problems, because all these peaks and troughs pile up at similar frequencies.

Hope this helps!

Martin

[TNGator]

Well you make an interesting point Hugh. Do i need absolute figures or would i like to test the room in its original state followed b a test with my DIY acoustic treatment installed. It would at least tell me how effective my hanging duvet etc is responding.

Hi TNGator,

Yes, that's the perfect way forward - first find out with your measurement before acoustic treatment, which should help you relate problem frequencies (peaks, troughs, and 'ringing on') to your room dimensions.

This in turn will help you to find the most effective places for your duvet, bass traps or whatever - a duvet won't make a lot of difference at lower frequencies (where DIY bass traps would probably make more sense), but a measurement mic with suitable software (such as the freeware Room EQ Wizard) should still show any improvements.

Take the basic test, position your duvet, take another test, spot the difference, then try another position until you get the most effective position.

However, where you place your listening position in relation to the corners of the room will greatly determine how neutral your basic room sound is, so do experiment with that first before getting the duvet out. As others have said, the monitor position can make a huge difference, although with your cube-shaped room you have the trickiest problems, because all these peaks and troughs pile up at similar frequencies.

Hope this helps!

Martin

Thanks Martin. Yes my room is a bit of a problem for sure. Its a cube and its a walk through room (door on each side) so Im limited where i can set up my desk. Im facing the window with a door on each side. I also dont have room to put in real bass traps. But I watched this YT vid and this guy tested various home products and found that normal bathroom towels did a great job of absorbing. Have a look https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pABvTWS ... dex=7&t=0s
Of course the fun part of all of this will be trying to learn how to use the test software. At present...I dont even know what Im supposed to be seeing when the software runs its tests. But it will interesting moving things around and seeing the different results. But Im looking forward to learning the software. And lets not forget some home made diffusers also. In a cube room diffusers are probably just as important as absorbers to break up the sound waves. I guess like breakers on a beach.

[Martin Walker]

Hi again TNGator,

Yes, that's nicely made and fun video, and although somewhat useful, rather flawed (except see later on in my post )

First, he confuses sound absorption with soundproofing - for absorption you need an open-cell structure (i.e. with these various foams if you try to blow through them your breath will come out the other side. This means that some of the sound energy gets dissipated inside the foam.

Some of those materials won't be open cell, so while they may attenuate the sound slightly, that's simply because they create a barrier between sound source and measurement, but will offer no absorption.

Also, his test frequencies range between 17kHz and 7kHz, a rnge that WILL be easily absorbed by open cell foam, and could therefore be useful in your cubic studio. However, most of the most troublesome room mode problems will be happening at 200Hz and below, where you'll find the biggest peaks and troughs.

The reason that the folded towel is most effective is that the sound is passing through four layers of towel, each separated by a small air gap, making the absorption more efficient. Also if you hang towels like that in your studio a few inches from the walls (particularly in the four vertical corners of your studio) they will be more effective down to a lower frequency. IN some ways they are very basic type of limp mass bass trap, where the sound tried to move all the layers as well as absorbing sound.

If you really haven't space for a 2 to 4 rockwool DIY bass traps (best at least 2 foot by 4 foot in size) then it's probably worth trying the towels - they won't do any harm and will tighten up the top end, particularly when placed at either side of your room at 1st reflection points (in your case this could be hanging on the back of those doors, again preferably spaced a short distant away from the doors.

However, having those two doors either will actually act as bass traps, since a lot of the bass end will sail right through the doors (see what it sounds like from the other side of the door to judge what frequencies got through and therefore 'escaped' the room.

EDIT: Watching to the end of that video, his final approach with a stack of towels WILL absorb significantly better (basically, the thicker the stack, the lower the frequency it will operate down to), and he does say that even as low as 500Hz he measured a decent amount of attenuation, so this IS well worth exploring. It won't cure room problems below this, so you're still likely to have a very 'lumpy' bottom end, but I'm sure it would with some mixing decisions, and it will certainly 'damp down reverberation as he claims.

All in all, a very cheap DIY approach that surprisingly I think is rather more worth exploring than I originally thought

Hope this helps!

Martin

[Hugh Robjohns]

But I watched this YT vid and this guy tested various home products and found that normal bathroom towels did a great job of absorbing.

Oh dear... That's a classic case of a little knowledge is a dangerous thing! His testing didn't actually measure or prove what he thought it was doing at all...

He was actually measuring acoustic transmission, not absorption, so it was hardly surprising that the materials with greater mass were more effective... Unfortunately, it's the absorption that's important in dealing with the room's sound character.

The fact that he ended up with an effective 'towel' trap was more luck than judgement, and he'd actually have been much better off filling the void behind his towelling cover with a slab of mineral wool. It would have been a lot quicker and easier to install (none of that fiddly sewing), probably cheaper, certainly more fire-resistant, and at least as acoustically effective, if not more so!

Ho hum...

H