placement of nearfields

[baggysound]

Hi all,

I'm just setting up my home-studio at a new house and for that I bought a new table, however that leaves me somewhat in a dilemma.

If I place the monitors on the top board next to the screens they will be too high so my ears won't be at the tweeter height, but more the woofer height.
Also I will run into the issue that only one screen will fit in between them on the table.

If i place them on my speaker-stands parts of the table will obstruct the view (to the woofer, the tweeter will be fine), and I won't be able to form an equilateral triangle due to the width of the table.

Which of the two solutions is eventually the better one to go with?

I have attached some images with my MBP currently as a placeholder for the screens. The last 2 images are taken from the seating position.

Any comments/help is appreciated!

[Jens Eklund]

Learn how to take measurements and how to use the ETC:

Monitor & Mixing Desk Placement - Reflection Issues

[John Suitcase]

Though not perfect, I'd put them on the shelf, aimed at you to preserve the triangle, then angle them down slightly. If you have a small mirror you can attach it to the monitor as close as possible to the tweeter, while figuring out the angle. You should see yourself in the mirror when it's right.

[Jens Eklund]

Originally Posted by John Suitcase

If you have a small mirror you can attach it to the monitor as close as possible to the tweeter, while figuring out the angle. You should see yourself in the mirror when it's right.

Caution ... see the thread above.

[Glenn Kuras]

Originally Posted by baggysound

Hi all,

I'm just setting up my home-studio at a new house and for that I bought a new table, however that leaves me somewhat in a dilemma.

If I place the monitors on the top board next to the screens they will be too high so my ears won't be at the tweeter height, but more the woofer height.
Also I will run into the issue that only one screen will fit in between them on the table.

If i place them on my speaker-stands parts of the table will obstruct the view (to the woofer, the tweeter will be fine), and I won't be able to form an equilateral triangle due to the width of the table.

Which of the two solutions is eventually the better one to go with?

I have attached some images with my MBP currently as a placeholder for the screens. The last 2 images are taken from the seating position.

Any comments/help is appreciated!

How about getting a higher chair? You do not want them stuck in the corner that far.

[John Suitcase]

Originally Posted by Jens Eklund

Caution ... see the thread above.

I wasn't referring to using a mirror to identify first reflections, etc. I was suggesting he use it to ensure that the tweeter was pointing directly at him. I also said that angling speakers wasn't ideal.

I use mirrors to position monitors all the time, works great. And they can be a useful way to identify potential problems on nearby walls, ceiling, etc.

In the thread you mention, he obviously had the speakers way too low, I'm not an advocate for having anything between any part of the speaker and the listener.

[baggysound]

thanks all for the advices given so far..

i agree taking measurements is the best way to go, but as i haven't started with any form of acoustic treatment at this point i don't think it would be that helpful (yet)

a higher chair was my initial thought as well, however this is unfortunately not possible, because then I couldn't sit normally at the desk anymore as the pc-keyboard would be in the way for my legs..

In the first image I just placed the monitors directly onto the table, however when placing them on foam i could have them angled downwards, that should be an option.. i guess then i will have to get used to just using one screen

thanks a lot

[SörenHjalmarsson]

Originally Posted by John Suitcase

I wasn't referring to using a mirror to identify first reflections, etc.

But that's exactly what you are doing later in your post...

I was suggesting he use it to ensure that the tweeter was pointing directly at him.

Actually, the tweeters shouldn't generally be aimed directly AT, but behind, the listener...

I also said that angling speakers wasn't ideal.

Not only is it "not ideal", but angling the speakers downward would actually force even more energy to be incident upon the work surface.

I use mirrors to position monitors all the time, works great. And they can be a useful way to identify potential problems on nearby walls, ceiling, etc.

No they can not! That's an old hillbilly trick...

Originally Posted by baggysound

i agree taking measurements is the best way to go, but as i haven't started with any form of acoustic treatment at this point i don't think it would be that helpful (yet)

au contraire, It would be very helpful... in the sense that it would tell you how, where, what and how much to treat.....

[baggysound]

Originally Posted by SörenHjalmarsson

au contraire, It would be very helpful... in the sense that it would tell how, where, what and how much to treat.....

i know that it's not really an easy process, but shouldn't i at least have the position of the monitors pretty much in place before starting to treat the room?

[DanDan]

Let us not forget this is about audio. How do the speakers sound right now?
Some speakers are designed to focus as Soren said, not directly tweeter (or acoustic centre) to ear. Big PMC's focus overhead and with only an 11 degree toe in from memory.

The Mirror works fine within limits, and certainly when you you add a bit of leeway. I have tested this in several real world studios.
Desktop Reflection Revealed
The Mirror will give a very strong warning. If you can see the speaker, you certainly have an audio path. If you get the speaker out of vision by tilting, height or whatever, go a bit further and you should be fine.
If you really want to see what is happening, view the actual comb filtering and the ETC showing the reflection.

DD

[Glenn Kuras]

Originally Posted by DanDan

Let us not forget this is about audio. How do the speakers sound right now.
Some speakers are designed to focus as Soren said, not directly tweeter (or acoustic centre) to ear. Big PMC's focus overhead and with only an 11 degree toe in from memory.

The Mirror works fine within limits, and certainly when you you add a bit of leeway. I have tested this in several real world studios.
Desktop Reflection Revealed
The Mirror will give a very strong warning. If you can see the speaker, you certainly have an audio path. If you get the speaker out of vision by tilting, height or whatever, go a bit further and you should be fine.
If you really want to see what is happening, view the actual comb filtering and the ETC showing the reflection.

DD

Agreed. Testing is ideal but if you are only 4 feet or so from the monitors then use a 4'x4' panel and it will hit the whole area.

[baggysound]

Originally Posted by SörenHjalmarsson

Actually, the tweeters shouldn't generally be aimed directly AT, but behind, the listener...

behind? i was under the assumption (and that's the way my manual tells me) to form an equilateral triangle with them, so that would make them point at me..

Originally Posted by SörenHjalmarsson

Not only is it "not ideal", but angling the speakers downward would actually force even more energy to be incident upon the work surface.

i have heard before, that it's not really good, however when having to compromise (like i do) what in your opinion is the better solution? angling the monitors a little (around 5 degrees should be sufficient) or having them "too far in the corner, not correctly distanced and an obstacle in front of the woofer"?


@DanDan:
thanks for the input as well, the speakers are Event ASP8, and as this is a very new setup and they have not been fit to that room (speakers and treatment) it's clear that they sound a bit muddy..

my thoughts were to first position them properly and then based on that start with the treatment.. first based on visual information i.e. mirror, and then once i have gotten to read myself into taking measurements doing the "fine adjustments" this way..

[DanDan]

The manuals are not always written by the designers.
I am surprised they sound muddy. Does your room have some concrete boundaries.
Please forget about rules of thumb, they are 50/50 at best.

Try your speakers upside down. Don't laugh, Mission do it with good reason. Use books or whatever to adjust height and angle them up if you wish. Tweeter below like this can help time align the Woof and Tweet. If you like it, buy some Recoil Stabilisers or MoPads.
DD

[darkbuddha]

I thought I'd share my anecdotal input, especially since I have a desk with similar issues.

I just went through this with my own room and tried a bunch of different setups. What I found was that I got more of the sound I wanted with a wider than equilateral triangle setup and aimed 18" behind my head. This gave me a great depth of field and a great stereo field. I also found that there was very little measured frequency response difference or audible difference whether my monitors were at or above my ear level, though having them above the height of the third tier of my desk was definitely better than slightly below (just as you have now). And based on my experience since building my own stands, I'll never put another set of monitors on a desk, table, or meter bridge. BTW, the base of my monitors are at a height of 40", with the tweeter around 52-53", and my ears are at about 46-48".

My point in mentioning this is that testing and placing them where they work is more important than following some prescribed "rule", which isn't really a rule, but rather a general starting point. In fact, based on what I've learned, there are no "rules", just guildelines.

[localhost127]

Originally Posted by darkbuddha

And based on my experience since building my own stands, I'll never put another set of monitors on a desk, table, or meter bridge.

^ +1

[SörenHjalmarsson]

Originally Posted by baggysound

i know that it's not really an easy process, but shouldn't i at least have the position of the monitors pretty much in place before starting to treat the room?

But how will you find the best speaker position without measuring? Other than subjectively i mean...

Originally Posted by DanDan

Some speakers are designed to focus as Soren said, not directly tweeter (or acoustic centre) to ear. Big PMC's focus overhead and with only an 11 degree toe in from memory.

Just FRT (i.e. not for your benefit DD ): Even when the speakers are designed to be listened to at tweeter hight, or at the acoustic center, they should generally be aiming past the listener.

The Mirror will give a very strong warning. If you can see the speaker, you certainly have an audio path. If you get the speaker out of vision by tilting, height or whatever, go a bit further and you should be fine.
If you really want to see what is happening, view the actual comb filtering and the ETC showing the reflection.

That's my point exactly! If you don't look at the actual ETC you wont see what is actually happening (viz. if your sweet spot is free from early arriving high gain energy) only possible improvements. Not saying that mirror tricks cant get you far, just that you wont know for sure how far....

Originally Posted by Glenn Kuras

Agreed. Testing is ideal but if you are only 4 feet or so from the monitors then use a 4'x4' panel and it will hit the whole area.

Agreed. verification of a certain action, before proceeding, is ideal!

Originally Posted by baggysound

behind? i was under the assumption (and that's the way my manual tells me) to form an equilateral triangle with them, so that would make them point at me..

Not exactly. Generally the listeners head should be placed inside the triangle, not at the tip. Why? because otherwise you will have the steroe image kind of in front of you.

i have heard before, that it's not really good, however when having to compromise (like i do) what in your opinion is the better solution? angling the monitors a little (around 5 degrees should be sufficient) or having them "too far in the corner, not correctly distanced and an obstacle in front of the woofer"?

Personally, i would have secured a smaller desk - ALOT smaller! It makes life so much easier... All you can do is to play around with different placements, until you find the best possible solution (both from an acoustic, practical and subjective view). Your desk solution isn't ideal and you need to decide what to compromise....

Originally Posted by darkbuddha

My point in mentioning this is that testing and placing them where they work is more important than following some prescribed "rule", which isn't really a rule, but rather a general starting point. In fact, based on what I've learned, there are no "rules", just guildelines.

[John Suitcase]

Søren- Every now and again when I come into this subforum and get lit up by you, I check your website to see your setup. I'm curious to see your studio, can you post some pics? And some measurements, since we can't tell anything from pics (or our ears, apparently!)

[BriHar]

Just for further clarification, the tweeters are generally aimed at your ears (left to left, right to right), forming an equilateral triangle. It should be obvious that due to the width of your head, the true geometric apex of the triangle will be behind your head.

Another option you might consider, is modifying your desk - specifically the shelf, (shortening, removal etc.) I've modified my desk many times, and am currently planning the next set of modifications.

In your situation, IMO the shelf doesn''t afford enough separation so I'd shorten it or remove it allowing the speakers to show through unimpeded. Also put some trapping behind them!
(When I speak of shortening, this can also be done by replacing the existing shelf with a shorter DIY one, the original can be stored and reaffixed if you ever find it necessary.)

[SörenHjalmarsson]

Originally Posted by John Suitcase

Søren- Every now and again when I come into this subforum and get lit up by you, I check your website to see your setup.

Only on the occasions when you get lit up? how so? That's kind of like asking the Doctor to prove he's health, before you are prepared to follow his recommendations and prescriptions... i.e. it's irrelevant to the subject matter!

Seriously: Whenever i see confusion or myths being uttered, i try to clear them up immediately. I think it's better to get everything out in the open as soon as possible, so as to keep the debate (thread) constructive. My root goal is to reprimand you John. Whenever my understanding on a certain subject is faulty, i sincerely hope that whoever is sitting on the proper knowledge will let me know - and explain to me how and why i am wrong. I hope that you don't take offence by my multi quote "pin point posting", my only goal is to keep the thread evolving in the best possible direction - so that we can all learn from eachother.

I'm curious to see your studio, can you post some pics? And some measurements, since we can't tell anything from pics (or our ears, apparently!)

I hope that you wont be dissapointed John, but all i've got is a modest and private home/project studio setup, which i am continuously looking to upgrade and improve, it is full of compromises just like everyone else's... that's life! Knowledge is the key to improvement though (and money ). We all have to work with what we've got and plan for the next, better setup/room....

You can send me a PM if you are further interested John, i wont clutter this thread with personal OT pictures, not without it being relevant to the subject!

PS: You can tell alot by using your ears, the important thing is to know what! viz. The objective improvements needs to be taken care of before making subjective improvements. Pics on the other hand, without further information, can be very misleading...

Originally Posted by BriHar

Just for further clarification, the tweeters are generally aimed at your ears (left to left, right to right), forming an equilateral triangle. It should be obvious that due to the width of your head, the true geometric apex of the triangle will be behind your head.

Exactly! Too often we see people aim the speakers at their nose, or at the middle of their forehead. (such aiming is better left to sniper school folks! )

How far apart your speakers are placed and/or how far past the listener's head the speakers are aimed, is judged by the subjective impression of the stereo field. (assuming of course that the objective aspects are allready taken care of)

Another option you might consider, is modifying your desk - specifically the shelf, (shortening, removal etc.)

+1 I would remove the top shelf and angle what's left of the desk according to need (although procuring a smaller desk would be even better) and keep the speakers on separate stands behind the work surface - you will most likely need to move your desk a bit closer to the rear wall aswell...

This will allow a better placement of the speakers without the top shelf impeeding destructively....

It will also allow you to keep the screen on the lower part of the desk, which is much better ergonomically.... Acoustically it would be even better to get the screen of the desk, on to a separate stand and in line with the speakers...



--Sören

[SörenHjalmarsson]

Baggysound,

I took a look at your pictures again... If you place your speakers like in picture Nr 2, you could experiment with the desk and speaker positions (before removing the shelf i mean). Since your speaker hight is fairly low wrt to the shelf, alot of specular energy will pass below the shelf and so you might be able to find an acceptable position (where there are no specular early reflections interfering at the reciever). Move the desk closer to the rear part of the room, place the speakers closer together and start taking measurements.

You will still have alot of desk going on between yourself and the speakers, which is bound to influence the response in some way... The question is how much and if you can reach an acceptable response without modifying/replacing the desk.... and if you can't, you need to decide what to compromise...

[John Suitcase]

Søren - My point was simply that it seems like if I try to offer any pragmatic, heuristic advice, I get pounded with admonishments that I can't tell if things are working without measuring it. Of course, measurements are great, but they don't tell you where to position things to start with. You have to have some kind of rule of thumb to work from, unless you want to bring in a acoustical engineer to measure, calculate every nuance, etc. Most of us, yourself included, don't have those resources.

Rules of thumb, heuristics, etc are used because they are a way to get close quickly. They won't get you all the way there, and there will be instances where they fail, that's life. But engineers in all fields, doctors as well, use them as starting points.

The idea of using mirrors to help position monitors is one that has been used by many engineers, and it works. Does it aim slightly behind your head? Yes, if you turn your head to look at the right monitor, get it right, then turn your head to the left to do the other monitor, you'll end up with the apex just behind your head. It may not be perfect, but it works very well. Of course, from there, you may open the angle up a bit, you have to use your ears.

Using a mirror to find first reflections isn't perfect, but it's a starting point. If you have measurements showing comb filtering, how do you know where to put any treatment?

I want to grow my knowledge as much as anyone, and I don't have a problem with logically arguing good points, and I think you likely have spent much more time on this subject than I have. But you have a manner of discourse that comes across very aggressively. Not like a search for knowledge or a measured consideration of the value of time-tested rules of thumb. Calling everything a myth doesn't help convince me of anything.

I didn't mean to come off like a jerk, either, my point in asking about your setup was that you spend a lot of time on this, I'd imagine you have things well dealt with.

[SörenHjalmarsson]

Originally Posted by John Suitcase

Søren - My point was simply that it seems like if I try to offer any pragmatic, heuristic advice, I get pounded with admonishments that I can't tell if things are working without measuring it.

I'm sorry if i seem harsh John, thats not my intent. I will try to continue more gentley!

Well, the hard truth is that you can't actually tell if treatments are doing what they are supposed to do without objective measurements.

Of course, measurements are great, but they don't tell you where to position things to start with. You have to have some kind of rule of thumb to work from, unless you want to bring in a acoustical engineer to measure, calculate every nuance, etc. Most of us, yourself included, don't have those resources.

Yes, they DO tell you where to position things. They will show Boundary interferences, modal coupling and specular energy etc., which would be impossible to distinguish by ear. Like DD said rules of thumbs are 50/50 at best. The only resource you need is a good omni measurement mic and a meaurement software (and the knowledge to use them) and most on this subforum utilize that regularly.

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/7425932-post6.html
http://www.realtraps.com/art_measuring.htm

Rules of thumb, heuristics, etc are used because they are a way to get close quickly. They won't get you all the way there, and there will be instances where they fail, that's life. But engineers in all fields, doctors as well, use them as starting points.

If you care about the results you need to get involved with the science, why? Because rules of thumb are no guarantee... they might fail... they might even make things worse... and without science you wont even have verified which it did...

The idea of using mirrors to help position monitors is one that has been used by many engineers, and it works. Does it aim slightly behind your head? Yes, if you turn your head to look at the right monitor, get it right, then turn your head to the left to do the other monitor, you'll end up with the apex just behind your head. It may not be perfect, but it works very well. Of course, from there, you may open the angle up a bit, you have to use your ears.

I was only refering to the mirror trick wrt destructive early arriving reflections, i've never heard about how to utilize it for placing speakers...

Using a mirror to find first reflections isn't perfect, but it's a starting point. If you have measurements showing comb filtering, how do you know where to put any treatment?

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/7487829-post13.html

Calling everything a myth doesn't help convince me of anything.

I didn't necessary mean that YOU have uttered any "myths", but whenever i see misconception or presumptions it might be that i sometimes type a bit too quickly... It is not my intention to come across as agressive (if i'm percieved as such) only efficient!

I didn't mean to come off like a jerk, either, my point in asking about your setup was that you spend a lot of time on this, I'd imagine you have things well dealt with.

No prob John, i did not take any offence whatsoever, these things are what happens on a forum - typing is a risky way of communicating.

I have delt with things in my setup as best i can, according to my current knowledge, so as to counter the limitations of the space. When it comes to the work surface, i utilize the smallest possible desk i could find (it only hold my mouse and keyboard) and angled it according to need (as dictated by my measurements) and keep all outboard gear in a low rack, placed to the side so as to avoid disturbance from it. \m/ \m/


--Sören

[SörenHjalmarsson]

Originally Posted by John Suitcase

Rules of thumb, heuristics, etc are used because they are a way to get close quickly. They won't get you all the way there, and there will be instances where they fail, that's life. But engineers in all fields, doctors as well, use them as starting points.

I hope that's not true.... Ones hope is that doctors will analyze you properly before treatment and that they will verify that the surgery went well...

Recently though, a friend of mine went in for surgery of her left foot, but they ended up 'fixing' her right one instead... they must have used some kind of thumb-rule there...

Can you imagine:

Dr Nr 1: We are going to do a surgery of this womans foot today
Dr Nr 2: Which one?
Dr Nr 1: I don't know...
Dr Nr 2: Do you think we should analyze it and then verify afterwards?
Dr Nr 1: No need, statistics show that it usually is the right one!


--Sören

[DanDan]

If the desk position and angle is not for negotiation, the Mirror can indicate where NOT to place speakers.

EDIT, they could have asked the woman!

Good points, well stated.

Interpretation of REW results to the point of usefulness is very difficult.
Including movement of speaker and listener can greatly help in teasing out what is causing what.

A nail gun is undoubtedly better than a hammer in particular context.
But the apparently simpler methods can be in fact superior, in context.
In extremis, when there is no computer the Mirror becomes very useful.
But this is also true to a REW beginner.

When one has experienced what one considers to be superior methods, one can feel inclined to share the new wealth.
It is very difficult to say 'I have found this to be better' without hurting a previous poster who has suggested using the hammer.

There is a big difference between a joyous sharing of found knowledge and other, perhaps ego related motive.

Let's try to make that difference obvious.

DD

[John Suitcase]

Rules of thumb are extremely useful and important. Most of the things we do every day are basic heuristics. Using a more accurate and technically advanced method may be superior, but in cases where those tools are not available, or where their use isn't warranted, a rule of thumb is helpful. Rules of thumb aren't just random thoughts by uninformed folks. They are the result of actual experience, in the field. They are usually borne out by experiment, theory, analysis, etc.

Many of the innovations in acoustical engineering started out as simple heuristics. Then someone said, why? They did the tests, created the analytical tools, etc, and said 'That's why!' But the heuristic came first in most instances.

I'm not saying that you're wrong about superior tools or methods, but rules of thumb shouldn't be thrown to the trash heap quite so quickly.

You don't need to conduct a lengthy analysis to determine that a light switch turns on the light. It's possible that it does some other thing, but a rule of thumb is that a switch placed about elbow high next to a door turns on the lights. It's not perfect, but it's superior to checking the wiring schematics of every building you visit. At least it is in the realm of reality, where we have limited resources such as time, tools, money, etc.

The doctor example is particularly fitting, as in an ER. There are loads of if-then heuristics that determine how to proceed. You don't load every person into an MRI machine, you follow a set of heuristics, which lead to the right diagnostic tool, most of the time. There will be exceptions, because reality is complex. But those triage methods save many lives, more than would be saved by putting every patient through an extensive workup when it's not necessary.

(not trying to be argumentative, just pointing out that human progress is largely the result of the use and spread of rules of thumb, heuristics, etc.)

[DanDan]

Point made I think John. However perhaps misdirected.

a joyous sharing of found knowledge

In my experience this would be Soren the vast majority of the time.

DD

[SörenHjalmarsson]

Originally Posted by DanDan

EDIT, they could have asked the woman!

Well, she was sedated during the operation... They had even made a mark on the left foot prior to the operation, yet they still managed to mix them up somehow! I guess Doctors have bad days too!

Interpretation of REW results to the point of usefulness is very difficult.
Including movement of speaker and listener can greatly help in teasing out what is causing what.

A nail gun is undoubtedly better than a hammer in particular context.
But the apparently simpler methods can be in fact superior, in context.
In extremis, when there is no computer the Mirror becomes very useful.
But this is also true to a REW beginner.

When one has experienced what one considers to be superior methods, one can feel inclined to share the new wealth.
It is very difficult to say 'I have found this to be better' without hurting a previous poster who has suggested using the hammer.

There is a big difference between a joyous sharing of found knowledge and other, perhaps ego related motive.

Let's try to make that difference obvious.

Yes, joyous sharing is a good description, thanks Dan!

There are different kinds of OP's out there: Some just want a quick fix or some small advice, while others want to learn and are prepared to take it a bit further. Personally i belong to the second group. I prefer to set the bar myself, rather than having someone set it for me. I just love it when the BIG guys on here start to share their knowledge, so that we get a chance to understand the underlaying principles. Everytime i read such a post it unconsciously makes me raise my game a couple of steps (even if i don't take it to the extremely slutty level of the poster). I think that everybody tend to post the kind of info that they themselves would have liked to recieve, and that's the reason why i try to give the complete picture in my posting. It isn't to confuse the OP, it is to raise awareness, so that he may make educated decisions for himself. Of course if the OP doesn't show an interest in evolving, i don't persist for long, but i think it is important to at least make him aware of the nail gun. I totally see what you guys are saying "don't complicate matters more that necessary", but just remember that it works the the other way around aswell. One shouldn't set the bar to low for someone who is willing to learn... It only makes them frustrated later, when they realize that they could have done more, or could have done things in a better way, if only someone would have taken the time to enlightened them...

Compromise and Collaboration

The best thing in a situation like this would perhaps (instead of posters bickering over who's right or wrong) be to give the OP some guidelines which he can try. Then proceed by telling him that if his desire is to verify that his treatment actions helped and to fine tune further, he needs to take it up a notch. It does not have to be THAT difficult: > Apply your treatments (using the hillbilly guidelines ) > Set up a measurement mic and play some sine sweeps using your free REW software > post the results here and ask for help with analysing them > If you don't recieve the help you need you've got three options: 1. Let it be 2. Hire someone to help you 3. Put in the extra effort and learn how to do it yourself

Originally Posted by John Suitcase

I'm not saying that you're wrong about superior tools or methods, but rules of thumb shouldn't be thrown to the trash heap quite so quickly.

Over here at the acoustics forum the matter of throwing out rules of thumb too quickly is rarely an issue, quite the opposite! People LOVE to believe that it's as simple as ABC and 123 YOUR FINISHED!! And then they go around thinking that that's all there is to it.....

I see what you mean by "You don't need to conduct a lengthy analysis every time", but that depends on what your goals are. Sure, you can follow the 38% rule > Place the panels with a mirror > stuff some material (of some unknown airflow resistivity) in the corners > etc., etc., And this might very well take you far, but it wont take you all the way and it isn't the optimal way of doing it. It all comes down to your goals again... Are you interested to see how the pro's are doing it, or will you settle for less and won't bother with that....



/Sören

[Jens Eklund]

Originally Posted by SörenHjalmarsson

Sure, you can follow the 38% rule > Place the panels with a mirror > stuff some material (of some unknown airflow resistivity) in the corners > etc., etc., And this might very well take you far, but it wont take you all the way and it isn't the optimal way of doing it.

+1 !

I always try to offer "the red pill" (as another member so elegantly said in another thread) and if you don’t want it, you don’t have to take it. You can choose to take the blue pill and live happily thinking your studio is acoustically fabulous…

4m x 5m x 2.5m room - modal resonance problem


EDIT: Added link.

[kasmira]

Cut the wood on the top shelf of the desk. Problem solved.

[SörenHjalmarsson]

Originally Posted by Jens Eklund

+1 !

I always try to offer "the red pill" (as another member so elegantly said in another thread) and if you don’t want it, you don’t have to take it. You can choose to take the blue pill and live happily thinking your studio is acoustically fabulous…

Haha.. that's a great analogy! That should have been our first question to the OP "Do you want the red or the blue pill"?

The funny thing is that if you so much as hint at something in the way of a thumb-rule over at the sound engineer related forums, you get scolded BIG TIME! That's an art! You can't just apply "Mastering chain preset Nr 3" and then relay the material to the manufacturing plant, without even having listened to/verified the result. Yet when it comes to acoustics people are perfectly happy to do so, as if there are less variables in acoustic engineering, or as if they for some reason are of lesser importance. One could argue the opposite... The clients of an acoustician are generally very strict about their sound, whereas the music consumer generally will listen to the sound engineers artistic achievements through his new Iphone!

Thumb rules can be great, but to reap the benefit of them you need to undertand the principle that lead to them. Otherwise you wont know when to apply them, when not to, or when to apply them differently - with tweaking and verification. Thumb rules should be handed out with caution and explanations on the variables involved, not as fact!

"Vocal EQ preset Nr1" might be just the thing in some cases, but sometimes you need to tweak it a bit and sometimes you wont need it at all! It's better to listen and make case specific decisions, rather than apply it blindely.


/Sören