The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Are 6-7 feet or 1,94 meter too much distance between Nearfields? Reverb/Delay Processors (HW)
Old 2 days ago
  #61
Gear Guru
 
DanDan's Avatar
Relatively Connected

I believe the Optimum Listening position can change with different speaker positions. I use the Pink Noise PN and RTA or Spectrum in REW to check whether the chosen OLP shifts with each change of Optimum Speaker Position.

DD

View most liked answer
Old 2 days ago
  #62
Gear Head
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike's Mix Room View Post
After all you've done already, it's admirable that you're willing to try a different position. It may not be better, but it might. There's only one way to know.

This more goes back to you saying the room didn't feel right, despite what the graphs are saying. I get it.

I used to do sessions at a fairly big studio (which is huge now) from time to time. They hired Coco Brandon to tune their room once, and when I heard what he did, I was blown away. I had never heard big monitors sound that good. The image was big, tall, clear, the low end was fast and easy to hear. It was incredible.

The next time they needed to tune the room (because someone messed with it) they hired a different guy. He's a highly respected room tuning guy, and was a wonderful to hang with. He really knew his stuff and his rig. After he tuned the room, I hated it. I was there when he tuned it, saw the graphs, and saw everything he did. But despite all of the evidence that it was "true", it was awful to mix in. I never used to big monitors ever again.

What I'm trying to say is that I understand the room not feeling right. I've been there.

Good luck with the rebuild/test. I hope it's worth it! I'm rooting for you!
You say it right. It is just a test. And even if just gives me the chance to compare two positions with comparable frequency response (no roll off between 120 and 160 hz, i have won a lot. Then i can see if i will really like a narrower triangle. Maybe it sounds in the end not as good to me.

It is not that i am not happy with what i hear now at the 1,94 triangle. It sounds like you describe. Big, but clear and deep.
But i have the feeling - and this is really just a feeling - that i would like it even more if i would sit a little closer to the speakers with a little less spacing - so around 1,6 - 1, 7 meter.


We will see.
Old 2 days ago
  #63
Gear Head
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
I believe the Optimum Listening position can change with different speaker positions. I use the Pink Noise PN and RTA or Spectrum in REW to check whether the chosen OLP shifts with each change of Optimum Speaker Position.

DD
Yes this function of REW is very good. And it is amazing how close the RTA is to a real measurement.

I guess no one will disagree that the optimum listening position is depended on the placement of the speaker. You can not isolate one from each other. As i said - i get the best response with all the treatment in the center of the room. Straight in the middle. I even get the biggest sweetspot at this position. The only rule that applies for speaker and listener placement is moving them around till it sounds good and measurements are ok. If 50 30 28 or whatever percent this will be from wich wall - who cares if it works.


Tom
Old 2 days ago
  #64
Gear Head
 

Thread Starter
Test is over.

Result as expected. No better results closer to the front wall.

I am glad it took less than 3 hours to put the stuff away - guess it will take the same time to put it back.

I am glad i did this test. Makes me stop thinking about too much further options.

The last 2 visits in the cinema with my wife were a bigger waste of time... (i love my wife - but i hate the movies she likes to watch)


Tom
Old 1 day ago
  #65
Gear Head
 

Thread Starter
sometimes the solution is much more simple as expected.

by raising the speakers and listener higher i can go closer together with them. At the same time the frequency response stays comparable to the 1,94 triangle.


This now finally gives me the option to comapare just the distances. To see if i narrower triangle really "feels" or sounds better to me.


so simple. i hope i like the bigger trianlge more - otherwise i will have to raise the floor in the front area of the room...

Tom
Old 1 day ago
  #66
Gear Head
 

Thread Starter
Yeah that works. It also gives a better comparable response regarding frequency at different triangle sizes. For now i like it the most around 1,60 to 1,70m.

At speaker height of 1,30 - 1,40m + listener´s ears at 1,30 - 1,40 m above the floor there is somewhere the sweetspot.

Further improvement by making a fake new floor with osb at a height of 10 - 20 cm above the actual floor.


Tomorrow i try to find the best spot. I will put the speakers on their stands so that they are 120 cm above the floor, mic also 120 cm above the floor.
Then i will raise the actual floor in the front area in 20 mm steps by putting 20 mm OSB Stripes under 3 big OSB Plates. Those 3 Plates measure each around 67 x 250 cm and will cover almost the complete floor area in the front of the room. Using RTA and see how things are going. Target will be to get the same good response as now + to go just as high as needed by getting a triangle around 160 - 170 cm.


Tom
Old 18 hours ago
  #67
Gear Guru
 
DanDan's Avatar
Accurate

Tom, it would be worth checking the response at both ear positions. See if they are similar or not and how they sum.
There is a case to be made for binaural or similar technique to measure what is really going on. Nobody Nose.....;-)
Perhaps there is an excess focus on solutions, where I am not at all convinced that there is a problem.
DD
Old 16 hours ago
  #68
Gear Head
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
Tom, it would be worth checking the response at both ear positions. See if they are similar or not and how they sum.
There is a case to be made for binaural or similar technique to measure what is really going on. Nobody Nose.....;-)
DD
Yes sure. As i mentioned earlier i can draw a circle of around 45 cm around the sweetspot with not huge change in response. This includes both ear positions.


I always check more than one position when measuring. Much easier with RTA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
Perhaps there is an excess focus on solutions, where I am not at all convinced that there is a problem.
DD
Yes i agree totally. I am also not sure if there is a problem at all.

But i have one thing that bothers me to hell.

with a smaller triangle i can get also a little closer to the speakers. And details in the mix are more clear to hear if i am closer to them.
I always use the same few reference songs by testing this.
And i noticed elements in the mixes that i did not hear at the bigger distance.

At a triangle of 1,5 meter the whole thing becomes to narrow for my taste.

1,6 to 1,7 feels perfect. The sound has more depth. It is overall better sounding.


On the paper this are just a few cm difference. But the difference is big in my ears.


And i hate that it is that way…


Tom
Old 15 hours ago
  #69
Gear Guru
 
DanDan's Avatar
Wide Boys

The 'acoustic axis' of mine are at 1.4, tweeters a bit further out. This feels plenty wide to me.
Many people break rules, ignore response. Listening in close, off axis, what I call 'big headphones' is common. Oddly this is much wider than your scenario, think about it. But people do all sorts of acoustically daft things, speakers on the desk.....
I asked before, what are your speakers, there may be options.
This jockeying for position is all about LF, but with a HF imaging consequence.
Speakers upside down places your woofers in a very different place in terms of LF/Height.

DD
Old 12 hours ago
  #70
Gear Head
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
The 'acoustic axis' of mine are at 1.4, tweeters a bit further out. This feels plenty wide to me.
Many people break rules, ignore response. Listening in close, off axis, what I call 'big headphones' is common. Oddly this is much wider than your scenario, think about it. But people do all sorts of acoustically daft things, speakers on the desk.....
I asked before, what are your speakers, there may be options.
This jockeying for position is all about LF, but with a HF imaging consequence.
Speakers upside down places your woofers in a very different place in terms of LF/Height.

DD

Party is over.

I took a more critical look at measurements with a narrower triangle.

I hate that i did not check this earlier.

At a narrower triangle there is a roll off between 120 - 160 hz.
But all high frequency content is also much higher in level compared to the flat curve.
This is the reason why everything sounds clearer and more detailed. It is a combination of bass roll off with increased high frequency. Increasing the high frequency at the speaker let´s me hear almost the same things. same detail at the bigger distance.
Oh boy - so much trouble for nothing….


I am glad everything is fine now.


Big soundstage - flat response and all the detail i want to hear.

Tom
Old 10 hours ago
  #71
Gear Head
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
Listening in close, off axis, what I call 'big headphones' is common. Oddly this is much wider than your scenario, think about it.
DD
Do you mean with this, that they sit much further inside the triangle that they actually should do?

Tom
Old 10 hours ago
  #72
Gear Guru
 
DanDan's Avatar
Yes

Exactly. I can guess why it works for them. VERY Direct field, no room, and rolled off HF because of off Axis.

DD
Old 10 hours ago
  #73
Gear Head
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
Exactly. I can guess why it works for them. VERY Direct field, no room, and rolled off HF because of off Axis.

DD

Ok but are there not any drawbacks? I mean you hear the sound of left and right more separated. Will this not decrease the strength of the center image?
Old 9 hours ago
  #74
Gear Guru
 
DanDan's Avatar
Absolutely

Absolutely! And the panning will be more conservative. But I mixed some of my best stuff on headphones. Mix engineers are product, output, focussed. The brain does a lot of automatic stuff that I am only now beginning to fully realise. Have a look at Canopener Studio, the stuff about the Centre. In Mastering, I often use M/S processing. You would be amazed at the level difference. 80-90 % of the energy is Mono.
DD
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump