Optimizing Nearfield Placement / Treatment in Project Studio

Plans and things, layout, style, where do I put my near-fields etc.

Moderators: Aaronw, kendale, John Sayers

Kooks
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 6:40 am
Location: Calgary, Canada

Optimizing Nearfield Placement / Treatment in Project Studio

Post by Kooks »

Hey there!

I've had this project studio of mine for a little while now. This is a 11'x12' room loaded with the popular Primacoustic London 12 kit and 2 Primacoustic bass traps.

I recently went over to a friend of mine's studio and his speakers (exact same as mine) seemed to perform a lot more accurately than mine do, primarily in the mid to low-mids. I figured there could be a problem with either the acoustics or the placement of the speakers themselves in my current setup. My main concern is the way the nearfields are placed. The spiral grooves are quite close to overlapping with the desktop monitors and the NS-10's are close to those, but I couldn't think of anything more practical while still retaining the 'triangle ratio' and the recommended distances from adjacent walls. Another concern of mine is the inherently square dimension of the room, and how close the speaker placement forces me to sit in the centre of that.

If you could, have a look at these pictures and let me know if there's anything wrong that jumps out at you right away. Unfortunately this is the only room currently at my disposal. :(

Thanks a ton guys!

Image Image Image
Image Image Image
soundpressurestudios
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 11:29 pm

Re: Optimizing Nearfield Placement / Treatment in Project St

Post by soundpressurestudios »

We need more low-end absorption than broadband! You need to have bass traps from the floor to the ceiling in all 4 corners. You also need a cloud on your sweet spot and on the ceiling in front of you, covering half wall and ceiling!
Take a look at the image... it's a good example!
Control-Room-DeskWide-DW.jpg
John Sayers
Site Admin
Posts: 5462
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2003 12:46 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Optimizing Nearfield Placement / Treatment in Project St

Post by John Sayers »

You didn't show us your rear wall which is the most important wall.

cheers
john
John Sayers Productions

If this site helps you build your studio please use the Donate button.
Soundman2020
Site Admin
Posts: 11938
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 10:17 am
Location: Santiago, Chile
Contact:

Re: Optimizing Nearfield Placement / Treatment in Project St

Post by Soundman2020 »

HI there " Kooks".

Please read the forum rules for posting (click here). You seem to be missing a couple of things! :)

As John said, we'd need to see how the rear wall is treated, and we'd also need a lot more info about the room in general, including detailed dimensions. For example, you say the room is 11' x 12', but does that mean it is EXACTLY 11' wide? Or might it be 10'9", or maybe 11'3"? And also, how high? Acoustics is 3D, not 2D. Wight is just as important as width and length. Also, what is the room construction? What is the floor made of?

That said, there are a number of issues with the way you have things set up right now, and fixing those could only help to improve things.

First, get your mains off the desk, up the correct height, and as close to the front wall as you can get them, while still allowing for treatment behind them, and cooling.

Here's why:

First, front wall distance: It's a small room, so you cannot possibly get the speakers far enough away from the walls to push the SBIR artifacts down to frequencies where it doesn't matter, so your only other option is to push them up to a high enough frequency where you can treat them. So leave something like a 4" gap between the speaker and the wall, which is just enough for a 4" panel of OC-703.

Second, off the desk: If the speakers are on the desk, then they are transmitting some vibration into the desk (regardless of the hype put out by the manufacturers of those expensive "isolation pads"...), which might even be causing "early-early" sound artifacts (sound arriving at your ears from secondary sources BEFORE the direct sound from the speakers gets there), but even if it isn't doing that, it is still grossly muddying up the overall sound. Speakers on the desk also imply major reflections from the desk surface to your ears. Bad. Lots of mid-range artifacts going on.

Third, correct height. Speakers should be set up such that the acoustic axis of the speaker is at the same height as your ears, or slightly above. That implies a height of about 1.2m above the floor (47 1/4"). NOTE! That's the height of the ACOUSTIC AXIS! not the height of the box, or the woofer, or the tweeter. Check with the manufacturer to find out where the acoustic axis is for your speakers.

Next, get your NS-10''s standing up straight, the way they should be, instead of lying down. Yeah, I know: "But I see that all the time in pro studios! They have their NS-10's lying down! And if they do it, then it MUST be right!" Wrong. They do it for a specific reason, but not to make their speakers sound great. Most pro studios use their NS-10s to see how the mix will sound on typical domestic speakers in typical situations. So they have their NS-10s on top of the meter bridge, lying on their sides, up close, which is about what you need to make them sound like that. As they say: if your mix sounds good on an NS-10 in the studio, then it will sound good anywhere. Not because NS-10s are such fantastic speakers, but precisely because they are NOT fantastic speakers, and it takes a lot of work to make a mix sound good on NS-10s set up like that. If that's what your plan is with your NS-10's, then by all means leave then like that, but switch places with the mains: put the NS-10's directly on the desk, and the mains on the stands. On the other hand, of you want to use the NS-10's as actual reference monitors, then stand them up vertically.

Next, it looks like your speaker angles are not correct. Hard to say for sure without a detailed geometric sketch, but it seems to me that they are angled too much inwards. It looks like you are following the common but flawed advice about need a perfect equilateral triangle....

In reality the correct angle for the speakers is the one where they are pointed at the right location: if that happens to have them angled at 30°, then great. If not, then great. There is no universal law that says speakers must be angled at 30°. There isn't even a good acoustical reason for that advice! I have designed rooms with angles ranging anyplace from about 25° up to about 40°, and they all work... provided that the angle is correct FOR THE SPECIFIC ROOM!

It works like this: for your room (12' long), your head should be about 4'6" from the front wall, give or take a couple of inches. So set up your chair like that, where your EARS will be 4'6" from the front wall while mixing, then move your desk so that it is comfortable for you to operate everything comfortably like that. Now set up a mic stand at the same height as your ears, and about 12" BEHIND your head. That's the aim point for your speakers. Now set up your main speakers so they are 3'1" from the side walls. When I say that, I mean that the center of the speaker cones, or the acoustic axis, is located 3'1" from the side wall. Set up the speakers on their stands in exactly that position, put 4" of insulation against the front wall right behind the speaker, then push the speaker up against that insulation so the cabinet is just touching it. Adjust the speaker stand so the acoustic axis is about 47-1/4" above the floor. Now angle the speaker so the acoustic axis is pointing exactly at the tip of the mic stand behind your chair. IT does not matter if the angle of the speaker is 20° or 40°, or anything else: that is the correct angle FOR YOUR ROOM, and that's what matters. If your speakers have bass roll-off controls on them (or "room correction" controls), then you should adjust that to -6 dB.

Now you have the correct geometry for the room. Now it is time to install the correct treatment. As John said, that starts with the back wall (the one you didn't show us), since that's the most important wall of all...

- Stuart -
Kooks
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 6:40 am
Location: Calgary, Canada

Re: Optimizing Nearfield Placement / Treatment in Project St

Post by Kooks »

Thanks a lot for the replies! I apologize for my lack of detail, please allow me to rectify this.

Here are the dimensions and construction of the room:
Room Dimensions.jpg
And here are the photos of the back of the room, much of which has been taken up by a murphy bed (more info on those here if you're unfamiliar):
image-10-08-15-01-54.jpeg
image-10-08-15-01-54-1.jpeg
Thanks a ton for your tips Soundman, I followed your instructions as close as I possibly could. The only deviation I can think of is that I'm missing the 4" panels of OC-703 behind the speakers. I simply stacked 2 more 12"x12"x1" pads over the 2" thick pad already hanging off of the wall to give the speakers those 4 inches of separation from the wall. I'm not sure if this has the desired effect... Here's a picture of the new set-up:
image-10-08-15-02-02-1.jpeg
And thanks for the NS-10 tip. Here's another picture demonstrating the only positioning I could think of for them to fit in with this 'new' setup, but perhaps it's entirely impractical...
image-10-08-15-02-02.jpeg
I've also taken room measurements. Here are photos of both the left and right speaker measurements before and after moving them into their new positions (note that the after measurements have been done without the NS-10's on the desk). You might find that I've gotten some... 'interesting' results after the move. I'm using REW with a behringer ecm8000 and following the REW manual and tutorials as close as humanly possible. Perhaps these can be of some use? NOTE: I wasn't able to take these with an SPL meter, I'm acquiring one soon here. I hope that doesn't render these entirely unusable!!!
Speaker L b4 move.jpg
Speaker R b4 move.jpg
Speaker L after move.jpg
Speaker R after move.jpg
Speaker L b4 move waterfall.jpg
Speaker R b4 move waterfall.jpg
Speaker L after move waterfall.jpg
Kooks
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 6:40 am
Location: Calgary, Canada

Re: Optimizing Nearfield Placement / Treatment in Project St

Post by Kooks »

Speaker R after move waterfall.jpg
How does all of this look? Any further tips and suggestions that can help me get the most out of my situation would be greatly appreciated.
Soundman2020
Site Admin
Posts: 11938
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 10:17 am
Location: Santiago, Chile
Contact:

Re: Optimizing Nearfield Placement / Treatment in Project St

Post by Soundman2020 »

Here are the dimensions and construction of the room:
Excellent! Now we get a better idea of what the problems are.

... and the problems are... : Number 1, the closets, bookshelf, and "Murphy bed". The closets are resonant boxes. You have a huge closet just next to your left speaker, and a solid wall just next to your right speaker, so your stereo image is greatly distorted by that: A control room must be symmetric. The "Murphy bed" will have to go somewhere else, in a different room, because the space it is occupying is exactly where your rear-wall acoustic treatment must go.

The same applies to the bookshelf.

Also, the panels on your front walls are not thick enough to be useful: they need to be about 4" thick at least (10cm), and made of something like OC-703.

OK, about your REW graphs: I'd need the actual MDAT file. It's impossible to see anything useful from full spectrum graphs, and especially with a 500ms Z axis on the waterfall plots!

However, I'm very curious about something: Are you SURE you did those tests with NS-10's? That doesn't make much sense, because the frequency response of the NS-10 is like this:
NS10-on-axis-response-graph.jpg
As you can see, rolls off steeply below 100 Hz, and puts out practically no energy at all below 50 Hz, yet your graphs shows a large amount of energy even below 20 Hz! The low end is NOT coming directly from your NS-10's, that's for sure. I suspect that there is something very noisy in that room, or close by, putting out a lot of low-frequency energy.

Anyway, send the MDAT file, then we can analyze it.


- Stuart -
Post Reply