DO's and DON'TS of MONITOR PLACEMENT

[Plankis]

It's because of the physiology of the human head..
I don't know why but in Germany the term "Stereodreieck" (stereo-triangle) is well-known but I couldn't find an appropriate expression in english.

http://buschmeier.org/bh/study/soundperception/
All angles of the stereo triangle are 60° and so the speakers are angled 30°, from the listeners point of view.

If you have a smaller angle just sit a bit closer so that your ears hit those "lines".
I looked it up in University Physics but couldn't find anything that would support that 30 degrees is the shiz. Only that if you'll get constructive interference if the speakers are equidistant.
Maybe he just pulled that number out of his ass so that his comment about "18 inches behind your head" would be correct?
Maybe he pulled 30 degrees because it's easy to calculate with?
sin(30)=sin(pi/6)=0.5 and
cos(30)=cos(pi/6)=3^0.5/2

 

[locus_coeruleus]

It's because of the physiology of the human head..
I don't know why but in Germany the term "Stereodreieck" (stereo-triangle) is well-known but I couldn't find an appropriate expression in english.

http://buschmeier.org/bh/study/soundperception/
All angles of the stereo triangle are 60° and so the speakers are angled 30°, from the listeners point of view.

It might be because the inner ear lays in the same direction as the petrous portion of the temporal bone which I guess is about 30 degrees from a horizontal axis across the human head (from ear to ear). If taht is the reason it doesn't seem to make any sense because the outer ear is pretty much in the same horizontal axis.



Red is the first angle I mentioned. Blue is a projection of the outer ear (as you can't see it from the endobase of the cranium) [click to expand]

Actually, now I see it, it seems like the petrous portion is more in a 45-degree angle...

 

[jipchen]

If you have a smaller angle just sit a bit closer so that your ears hit those "lines".
I looked it up in University Physics but couldn't find anything that would support that 30 degrees is the shiz. Maybe he just pulled that number out of his ass so that his comment about "18 inches behind your head" would be correct?
Maybe he pulled 30 degrees because it's easy to calculate with?
sin(30)=sin(pi/6)=0.5 and
cos(30)=cos(pi/6)=3^0.5/2

Haha yeah but it's apparently not the same. I read this HUUGE article on this exact topic but I can't find it for the life of me. Godfuckingdamnit.
I just spent half an hour researching the topic but I can't find anything either..
But it's not like he invented the number, it's all over scientific articles and shit. Just can't find an exact answer why..
Perhaps it's really just a number that has been taken as "standard" some time and now it's used because most studios mix "for" this 60°-triangle and thus you get the best listening experience doing so aswell.

I'm thinking of asking Mr. Blauert himself

 

[gabriel g.]

It means 30° to the listening position, so I would say 30° from the wall.
I got it from the Audio-technics book of Thomas Görne.

As far as I can remember his audio-design semester it has to with the human brain and how it translates audio.
To get the perfect stereo image the 30° are ideal so everything in stereo gets translated in stereo and everything mono will be translated as mono.

I found nothing about 1,7m in his book. He wrote that this is free of choice because of the difference in rooms.

Think abot full range speaker blasting your ears with ONLY 1,7m between them or small near fielders with 1,7m between them, I dont think you will get a good stereo image with that distance.

 

[abt]

IMO some of these theories on why it 30° are taking it too far. The simple fact that the speaker cone is going to perform best when pointing at your ear, taking into account all the realms of possibility, speaker is not too close together and not too far apart, the angle of 30° is derived simply by the fact that the distance the user is going to sit for the vast majority of near field monitors, 30° or close to that, the speaker cone will be pointing towards the ear.

 

[abt]

As the distance between monitors to simply say it should be 1.7m apart is incorrect, however it is probably close due to the similar physical dimensions of most near field monitors. You need to make sure they're not too wide as you will end up panning too much stuff to the middle and not too close together as you'll end up panning too much stuff to the left and right.

 

[jipchen]

I wrote an email to Eberhard Sengpiel (sound-engineer and lecturer at the Berlin University of Arts), I'm curious what he will answer.

 

[Plankis]

Use this if you got problems calculating:
http://www.mathopenref.com/triangle306090.html
B=Right loudspeaker
A=Listening spot

 

[Erik Monsonis]

It might be because the inner ear lays in the same direction as the petrous portion of the temporal bone which I guess is about 30 degrees from a horizontal axis across the human head (from ear to ear). If taht is the reason it doesn't seem to make any sense because the outer ear is pretty much in the same horizontal axis.



Red is the first angle I mentioned. Blue is a projection of the outer ear (as you can't see it from the endobase of the cranium) [click to expand]

Actually, now I see it, it seems like the petrous portion is more in a 45-degree angle...

By your name and the detailed description I must assume you are a neuroanatomist. Props for that!

 

[locus_coeruleus]

By your name and the detailed description I must assume you are a neuroanatomist. Props for that!

haha, thanks, but I am just a medicine student. I do like neurology and anything related, though.

 

[pitoga]

I've been reading in the john sayers forum for many month even years, and visit it daily. There they say that 30 degrees is not written in stone, in fact john designed studios that where at 45 degrees with equal success. Some of they say it's more of a "industry standard (LOL) type of thing". So that wherever you go to work at you have the same stereo image and more. They encourage you to choose the angle based on your room, because you might want to be in the 38% of the length of the room and sometimes if you put the speakers at 30 degrees this won't work.

 

[Wolfeman]

And a side note.... I've been in and seen many pro studios (big name guys that make big name albums bringing in big bucks) where they could give two shits about monitor placement, and they seem to have no problems making great sounding music

Just a thought.

 

[abt]

That's a valid point. At the end of the day it doesn't matter what you do or how you do it if you get results. Having said that most pro studios are designed with good acoustics in mind. Get that right and you've dealt with most monitoring problems right off the bat.

 

[Pedro Teixeira]

And a side note.... I've been in and seen many pro studios (big name guys that make big name albums bringing in big bucks) where they could give two shits about monitor placement, and they seem to have no problems making great sounding music

Just a thought.

+1. I've seen that myself as well. It's hard for me to understand though as I'm really anal with everything

 

[gabriel g.]

+1. I've seen that myself as well. It's hard for me to understand though as I'm really anal with everything

I know what you mean, but the girlz dont like it always

As long as you know your room, and know what you have to do to get in the ballpark everything is perfectly fine!!!

For example:
Thomas Görne wrote in the same book, that if you mixing music FOR a chill-zone, your control room should sound like a chill-zone.

If you mix FOR cinema-movies, you should mix IN a cinema.....

I wont comment on what he wrote, because it makes sense on one hand, but on the other hand music isnt always played in only ONE location....

Audio is like religion, everyone is fanatic about their theories

 

[Pedro Teixeira]

Yeah, that makes absolute sense!

But taking the last bit literally then I'm gonna start mixing with ipod earbuds

 

[jipchen]

Okay, I got a huge answer from Mr. Sengpiel.. I'll try to sum it up and translate it:
The stereo-triangle with its 60° angles as we know it, is basically an empiric result.
Lots of practical experience and experiments just lead to it, it is a median or starting point for placing two speakers in a stereo listening situation.
An angle too wide creates a hole in the stereo image, and placing the boxes too close to each other (and yourself) narrows the stereo image too much. Plus, if you are too near to the speakers, the phantom centre (you know, the one you get when sitting in the sweet spot) tends to elevate. That's because your brain realizes that it has been tricked into the phantom centre. The effect is called "elevation", can't seem to find it in english but I guess it's the same. As a result, the brain locates the phantom centre higher than the monitors actually are.

A dutch guy named "De Boer" made experiments with two speakers in 1940: He placed them 5 meters from each other and himself 5 meters from the line connecting the speakers.. That resultet in a triangle with two 53° angles. Alan Blumlein hat similar thoughts even earlier.

So 60° (30° angled monitor from the listeners point of view) is only a practical, empiric number that has become an unwritten standard. According to him there's no scientific or divine logic behind it.

 

[jimwilbourne]

Okay, I got a huge answer from Mr. Sengpiel.. I'll try to sum it up and translate it:
The stereo-triangle with its 60° angles as we know it, is basically an empiric result.
Lots of practical experience and experiments just lead to it, it is a median or starting point for placing two speakers in a stereo listening situation.
An angle too wide creates a hole in the stereo image, and placing the boxes too close to each other (and yourself) narrows the stereo image too much. Plus, if you are too near to the speakers, the phantom centre (you know, the one you get when sitting in the sweet spot) tends to elevate. That's because your brain realizes that it has been tricked into the phantom centre. The effect is called "elevation", can't seem to find it in english but I guess it's the same. As a result, the brain locates the phantom centre higher than the monitors actually are.

A dutch guy named "De Boer" made experiments with two speakers in 1940: He placed them 5 meters from each other and himself 5 meters from the line connecting the speakers.. That resultet in a triangle with two 53° angles. Alan Blumlein hat similar thoughts even earlier.

So 60° (30° angled monitor from the listeners point of view) is only a practical, empiric number that has become an unwritten standard. According to him there's no scientific or divine logic behind it.

I understand the concept of the elevated phantom center. as of late, it seems that my vocals have been popping out a lot more because I lean in closer to see things on my screen after the change in resolution.

 

[drew_drummer]

Talking about monitor placement is like dancing about chocolate dildos on fire on top of an aqueduct.

Or something.

 

[jipchen]

(It doesn't even make sense but I love the picture and wanted to use it)