Soffit mounting?

Hi all, I am at the framing part of my build and i have run into a HUGE problem with my soffit design. As shown in the picture, my main monitors are too big for the cavity, I was looking at the dynaudio M3A, but with a depth of 19.8" It seems to be impossible. I was also looking at the ADAM S3A, but with a depth of 13" it still interferes with my framing. Please help! any recommendations? Would it be acceptable to remove a section of the framing to accommodate the Box for the monitors?

gullfo wrote:

option 1 or 3 for the traps. for the monitor angles, even though the general rule is 30 degrees, if the speakers need to be 45, or 38, or 26, or 22.5, then thats what they need to be....

I love this place! This is exactly what I needed to know for my tiny control-room design. I've been desperately trying to figure out how on earth to keep my head at the recommended "1/3-of-room-length" point, and also keep my speakers at the recommended 60 degree angle, while also having them far enough apart to get a decent stereo image. I figured out that I'd need to bend the laws of physics to make that happen, so I started searching the forum, all over... And here is the solution! Now I see that I DON'T need to keep the 60 degree angle at all, and I can make it whatever works well for the room! Whew! You just saved me a whole bunch of headaches. Thank you, Gullfo!

if it's tight and you want a wider image go 90 degrees like "Hello Testing" http://johnlsayers.com/Pages/Hello_Testing.htm

Thanks John! But does it have to be only 60 or 90? Can it also be, for example, 70 or 83.2, or 68.7 or whatever, like gullfo said? In my case, if you look at my rough plans so far, I think somewhere around 70 degrees would probably work out fine. 60 doesn't work, and 90 seems like too much for the room width. Is any angle OK (within reason), as long as the triangle stays equilateral and you splay the walls to the corresponding angle too?

bump.

sorry - I forgot to get back to you. It's an interesting question - this is how I see it. the aim is to have a standard so everyone works with a similar axis to the speakers for uniformity. In the two systems I've drawn below I've shown the angle generated by each speaker plus the angle created by the high end of the speakers. The difference is where you sit relative to the speakers. In the 60 degree system you actually sit within the angle created by the speakers whereas with the 90 degrees system you sit at the cross point of the speakers but have a narrower field. Both end up at the same angle to the speakers so uniformity is maintained. As you can see the 60 degree system has a wider field to sit within thus allowing the engineer to lean out to the end of a long console and not loose your high end response and it allowed for a producer to sit beside you also without loosing high end response. The wider field was very important when you had 20ft long consoles ;) I hope this helps cheers john

Thanks again, John. Your explanation is appreciated. So the only real drawback is the narrowed "sweet spot" field? I guess I can live with that. Especially since my console isn't 20' long! Right now I have my angle down to about 82 degrees, and I'm working on getting it down so more, but it's REALLY hard in such a tight space as I have!

barefoot wrote:

The reason I believe some recording engineers don't like soffit mounting is because it's often done improperly. The most critical aspect of soffit mounting is making sure the monitors are properly designed to work in such an application. Most nearfields and a good deal of midfields are not. Thomas

Would you suggest soffit mounting Event 20/20bas monitors? They are labeled "Direct field Monitors" in the manual (neither near or mid field). They have an 8" cone and a frequency response that extends down to 38 Hz. Any advice would be greatly appreciated! Thanks, Spencer

Spencer - I've heard Events soffit mounted and they sound great! Their excellent low end is even tighter. cheers john

Thanks so much John! I don't want this to turn into a "would this monitor work..." questioning, but would Adam A7's (7" cone) be too small to be soffit mounted? They are definitely nearfield monitors, and I'm not sure if they are meant to be soffit mounted, (re: Thomas Barefoot had stated many nearfields are not mean to be soffit mounted). Your advice is greatly appreciated! Spencer

I myself i'm in the process of deciding wether to soffit or not. Anyone heard the Dynaudio BM6a soffit mounted? Can they be soffit mounted? Thanks alot!

Spencer - here's A7's soffit mounted What Barefoot was refering to was that some of the nearfield monitors were designed with a bass boost to make up for the free standing loss. If you soffit mounted those speakers the low end was too strong and out of wack.

The funny thing is; These monitors are called "near fields" which basically mean they create a field near the monitor. The best listening point is within that field, which is near the monitor. Soffit mounting them makes the distance usually bigger than those monitors were build for. So be careful while spacing them away from your desk.

John Sayers wrote:

Spencer - here's A7's soffit mounted

External image, not preserved — original: http://johnlsayers.com/Studio/Images/Somewhere/control6.jpg

What Barefoot was refering to was that some of the nearfield monitors were designed with a bass boost to make up for the free standing loss. If you soffit mounted those speakers the low end was too strong and out of wack.

Those A7's have a Room EQ knob in the back to attenuate or boost 150Hz by 6dB. Did you use this feature when you soffit mounted them to make up for anything? I want to soffit mount mine and I am wondering if I should do this or not.

Apologies in advance if I've posted this in the wrong place, and for my naivité. I've been reading all the threads I can find on this topic, and this one seems the most relevant . I'll try to be succinct in my questions. 1-It seems to me from this thread, and others, that when choosing to soffitt mount speakers one assumes certain things: a) That one owns a medium to large set of 'farfield speakers.'. They are best soffitt mounted, as they will sound better that way. They are designed to function at a greater distance from the listener. b) That one owns a second set of 'nearfield monitors,' like NS-10's or similar, which one uses for the bulk of mixing. They are typically to be free standing, placed very close to the engineer, like 3-4 feet away, in locations such that the egineer's head, and the two speakers, form an equilateral triangle. Therefore, if I ONLY have a set of nearfield monitors(I have Wharfedale Diamond 8.2 Pro Actives, in a modest home studio), it sounds like I would simply place them on my desk, or console, and postion them at ear level. And I would save the soffitt mounting idea for the day if, and when, I buy a set of far-fileds. Am I correct in this, or is my train off the rails??? 2-I've come across a few references here to soffitt mounting boosting the bass. I think 6dB is the amount that's been mentioned. If that's the case, then in theory, this addition of extra bass would not be giving a completely flat, or true representation of the mix. a) Is THAT a true statement? b) If so, then one would need to address it. Would it be simplest to dial up an EQ in the master, find out where that spike is, attenuate it, and then use that EQ setting each time one employed the soffitt mount speakers? A comment. Regarding soffitt mounting a set of powered speakers: It seems to me that it's a big pain to soffitt mount them, and then have to create airflow for venting and such. On my powered speakers, all the guts are located on a panel on the back of the speaker. Seems to me the simplest thing would be to remove that panel, mount it on the front of the soffitt somewhere(or wherever you want), and then run wires from it to the speakers. This way you maintain access to all the jacks, volume, bass cut, and power switches. And the cooling fins are right out there in the open. Cool as cucumbers. Wouldn't that be a lot simpler than doing cartwheels and handstands in the design and construction? I suppose you'd want to wait til you'd owned them for a year, as it might void the warranty :mrgreen: Thanks. I appreciate the expertice here. Peace Keith

took-the-red-pill wrote:

1-It seems to me from this thread, and others, that when choosing to soffitt mount speakers one assumes certain things: a) That one owns a medium to large set of 'farfield speakers.'. They are best soffitt mounted, as they will sound better that way. They are designed to function at a greater distance from the listener. b) That one owns a second set of 'nearfield monitors,' like NS-10's or similar, which one uses for the bulk of mixing. They are typically to be free standing, placed very close to the engineer, like 3-4 feet away, in locations such that the egineer's head, and the two speakers, form an equilateral triangle. Therefore, if I ONLY have a set of nearfield monitors(I have Wharfedale Diamond 8.2 Pro Actives, in a modest home studio), it sounds like I would simply place them on my desk, or console, and postion them at ear level. And I would save the soffitt mounting idea for the day if, and when, I buy a set of far-fileds. Am I correct in this, or is my train off the rails???

Yes you are off the rails. Just as an obvious example, the speakers in the several posts immediately above your post are in comparison to your speakers smaller: 14"x12.5"x8" Wharfedale Diamond 8.2 Pro Active 13"x11"x7" Adam A7

2-I've come across a few references here to soffitt mounting boosting the bass. I think 6dB is the amount that's been mentioned. If that's the case, then in theory, this addition of extra bass would not be giving a completely flat, or true representation of the mix. a) Is THAT a true statement? b) If so, then one would need to address it. Would it be simplest to dial up an EQ in the master, find out where that spike is, attenuate it, and then use that EQ setting each time one employed the soffitt mount speakers?

Every speaker system should be setup for optimum performance in its location. If your speakers do not have sufficient adjustment, build Barefoot's eq circuit, detailed in the speakers section

A comment. Regarding soffitt mounting a set of powered speakers: It seems to me that it's a big pain to soffitt mount them, and then have to create airflow for venting and such. On my powered speakers, all the guts are located on a panel on the back of the speaker. Seems to me the simplest thing would be to remove that panel, mount it on the front of the soffitt somewhere(or wherever you want), and then run wires from it to the speakers.

That is what I would do. Andre

took-the-red-pill wrote:

A comment. Regarding soffitt mounting a set of powered speakers: It seems to me that it's a big pain to soffitt mount them, and then have to create airflow for venting and such. Keith

Hey Keith, That is addressed with one of Johns designs on page one(1) of this same thread. He shows an air flow area that suggests powered speakers can be soffit mounted.

took-the-red-pill wrote:

1-It seems to me from this thread, and others, that when choosing to soffitt mount speakers one assumes certain things: a) That one owns a medium to large set of 'farfield speakers.'. They are best soffitt mounted, as they will sound better that way. They are designed to function at a greater distance from the listener. b) That one owns a second set of 'nearfield monitors,' like NS-10's or similar, which one uses for the bulk of mixing. They are typically to be free standing, placed very close to the engineer, like 3-4 feet away, in locations such that the egineer's head, and the two speakers, form an equilateral triangle. Therefore, if I ONLY have a set of nearfield monitors(I have Wharfedale Diamond 8.2 Pro Actives, in a modest home studio), it sounds like I would simply place them on my desk, or console, and postion them at ear level. And I would save the soffitt mounting idea for the day if, and when, I buy a set of far-fileds. Am I correct in this, or is my train off the rails???

That is EXACTLY what I was talking about. I'm not a fan of mounting NEARfields since the distance is usually to great from speaker to ear. You can't call it nearfield anymore. So, YES, as far as I'm concerned you are correct, Keith. But hell, every one does it so I must be the fool...

Ro wrote:

I'm not a fan of mounting NEARfields since the distance is usually to great from speaker to ear. You can't call it nearfield anymore.

Please explain. Nearfield/farfield refers to distances where the room ambience is greater than the direct sound. Using as a hypothetical example a 12x15x8' room treated to EBU specs, the critical distance is ~12'. With flush mounting the radiator Q becomes 2 because it is radiating into a 2π space. working 38% back on the long dimension places the listener ~6' from the speakers. with the increased speaker loading from the baffle, low end distortion is reduced permitting greater output countering any loss of level from the greater distance. Andre

That is EXACTLY what I was talking about. I'm not a fan of mounting NEARfields since the distance is usually to great from speaker to ear. You can't call it nearfield anymore.

I guess it all depends on what your definition of "near" field is. I've seen different definitions from different speaker manufacturers, and there doesn't seem to be a lot of agreement. Is 2m "near"? 3m? 5m? 1m? Does it depend on the room dimensions? Where do you draw the line between "near" and mid? And the other line between "mid" and "far"? Does that line depend on speaker size, or is it a fixed distance, regardless of speaker dimensions? I'd really like to see some science on this subject. What exactly makes it a "near field" monitor, anyway? I mean, in what way is it different from a "mid" field monitor? I bet if you ask half a dozen manufacturers of near-field monitors, you'll get half a dozen different answers. . .

Lots of re arranging in quotes. the original quoted text is in the post immediately above.

Soundman2020 wrote:

I've seen different definitions from different speaker manufacturers, and there doesn't seem to be a lot of agreement. I bet if you ask half a dozen manufacturers of near-field monitors, you'll get half a dozen different answers. . .

That is confusing acoustics with advertising.

Where do you draw the line between "near" and mid? And the other line between "mid" and "far"? I mean, in what way is it different from a "mid" field monitor?

A "mid field" monitor is advertising speak. there is no definition for such a thing.

I guess it all depends on what your definition of "near" field is. Is 2m "near"? 3m? 5m? 1m? I'd really like to see some science on this subject.

Near field is clearly scientifically defined as the space where the sum of the direct and indirect room ambience together is dominated by the direct sound. It is a function of the source q and reverberation in the space. Small rooms are dominated by modal effects. For further reading seeJBL Pro Sound System Design Manual pt 1 pdf pages 50 - 58. this document has a rich history. The latest versions were edited by John Eargle. The original was written by George Augsburger. Two giants in the field of control room acoustics.

What exactly makes it a "near field" monitor, anyway?

Designed for use in a 4π field. Usually to give a good sound at close distances also. Close meaning set near the meter bridge of a console, etc. They still sound good further away. Andre

I should have know that André would have the answer! :thu: OK, more research! Thanks for the link, Andre.

That is confusing acoustics with advertising.

Yup, that's for sure! If only half of what some manufacturers say was actually true, all the others would be out of business in a week... - Stuart -

Soundman2020 wrote:

OK, more research! Thanks for the link, Andre.

You are welcome. I was debating in my head which, if any link to provide for further information when I remembered that you enjoy knowing the complete truth. That made it then just a question of how technical an answer to link to. The JBL doc is geared towards sound reinforcement, but the underlying principles are the same in control room design. I hope you enjoy it. Andre

AVare wrote:

Yes you are off the rails. Just as an obvious example, the speakers in the several posts immediately above your post are in comparison to your speakers smaller:

Okay, but I read this:

barefoot wrote:

The most critical aspect of soffit mounting is making sure the monitors are properly designed to work in such an application. Most nearfields and a good deal of midfields are not. Thomas

Then I read this:

John Sayers wrote:

for some reason, no matter how nice the soffits, it all ends up with NS10's on the console bridge

:D - actually there is a reason for that. Nearfield mixing is easier on the ears over time but you still need a good soffit system to check the low end as NS10 roll off at 100hz. A nice combination I had once in a studio was NS10s nearfield, NS1000s soffit mounted.

Then I read this:

Ro wrote:

The funny thing is; These monitors are called "near fields" which basically mean they create a field near the monitor. The best listening point is within that field, which is near the monitor. Soffit mounting them makes the distance usually bigger than those monitors were build for. So be careful while spacing them away from your desk.

I certainly don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, or start a war, but these statements led me to believe that the recommended idea was: nearfields up close, and big ones in the soffits, IF you own both. However, if for sure my speakers will sound better, then I'm all in. I was just checking. One more thought

AVare wrote:

What exactly makes it a "near field" monitor, anyway?

Designed for use in a 4π field. Usually to give a good sound at close distances also. Close meaning set near the meter bridge of a console, etc. They still sound good further away. Andre

Question: Would one be correct in in expanding on your statement to say: "They still sound good further away..." but only if the acoustics of the room are good? A greater distance from the listener to the speaker intruduces more ambient sound from the room at listening position. If my room has issues, due to it being designed and built by an amateur such as myself, I would think that I would be in danger of adding a lot of 'nasties' to the sound I'm hearing in mix position. Is THAT a fair statement? Regarding the 6dB boost in the bass:

AVare wrote:

Every speaker system should be setup for optimum performance in its location. If your speakers do not have sufficient adjustment, build Barefoot's eq circuit, detailed in the speakers section

On further evaluation, the Wharfedales do have a "6 dB per octave filter" that might do the trick. Question: But if not, is the EQ option, on the master bus, at least an option? Thanks for all the input. This helps a lot to clarify. Keith

Thanks for the (good) lengthy explanation of your thought process.

Question: Would one be correct in in expanding on your statement to say: "They still sound good further away..." but only if the acoustics of the room are good?

Yes. You have the resources here and at other websites to build a first class control room. Read and ask questions. People here and at other websites are very helpful if it shows that you are learning. One strong suggestion is to create one thread on one site with all your main questions for your room. Trying to keep track of what was posted on one site and replying on another with that information is a daunting task.

Question: But if not, is the EQ option, on the master bus, at least an option?

An awkward option. Better to put the eq on the monitor circuit so that every time you select those monitors, the system is automatically set up. Andre