-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
What’s Your Triangle in Stereo Speaker Listening?
- Thread starter benanders
- Start date
Tim Link
Addicted to Fun and Learning
That is an interesting paper. My current setup is not too far off their recommendation, and I am keeping early reflections under control with the directivity of the horns, and I think my big, wide couch they are firing toward helps too.
Robin L
Master Contributor
Obtuse Isosceles. My speakers are each about a meter apart from my listening position. I usually sit leaning in, so more like 24" from the center point of the positions of the two speakers. A squashed triangle. There are tower speakers functioning as near-field monitors. Speakers are turned out about 15 degrees from my "sweet spot".
Sorry! Here is an updated version: https://www.itu.int/rec/recommendation.asp?lang=en&parent=R-REC-BS.1116-3-201502-I
Great documentation (I've used earlier versions for things). The US-ian ASR core doesn't always go for things with "Europe" or "union" associated (despite the plurality of members being European if I remember the surveys correctly) so I sometimes forget this stuff.
Unfortunately my room forces a quite acute angle isosceles (about ±16°). Speakers about 2.4m apart but 4.25m away. (Far from equilateral). However, this is perhaps mitigated, to some extent, because it is part of a multichannel setup that also has front wides at about ±46°.
Just thought it might be worth mentioning that upmixing to front wides can be helpful for giving a wider front soundstage, especially in long, thin, listening rooms.
I do strongly prefer to listen in multichannel (even if it is just upmixed from stereo). It could be argued that this is because my setup is compromised for stereo; but I think the larger factor is that I just generally find listening in multichannel more exciting, immersive and engaging.
Just thought it might be worth mentioning that upmixing to front wides can be helpful for giving a wider front soundstage, especially in long, thin, listening rooms.
I do strongly prefer to listen in multichannel (even if it is just upmixed from stereo). It could be argued that this is because my setup is compromised for stereo; but I think the larger factor is that I just generally find listening in multichannel more exciting, immersive and engaging.
Last edited:
You'll note I said "realistic". I don't generally thing of close-miking as "realistic". Still, there are uses for spot mikes if you have a full-on room sim that allows you to put each mic where you want inside a performance space. Yes, that ability does exist.
DavidMcRoy
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2018
- Messages
- 651
- Likes
- 1,118
For scale, it's a 65" (165cm) LG OLED.
Hmm, noticed I voted equilateral to the poll,but since then I've actually ended up with variable triangle, because I change my listening distance actively! I move closer to speakers for precise involving sound where brain pays full attention to the music and provides precise localization and envelopment, and here bit wider width between speakers works better than equilateral, gives more natural width, equilateral feels too narrow.
More relaxing sound is available if I move a bit backwards further from speakers so that brain loses focus. This is also not equilateral triangle for practical reasons, but bit narrower, and it doesn't matter that much as anything is not precise anyway because brain doesn't pay attention to the sound.
So, equilateral triangle isn't actually that important, it's not useful to get stuck into that but more useful to setup the system so it sounds good (feels natural) listened closer and further. Perhaps in anechoic chamber, or with certain average shaped pinna, or wgat ever ideal conditions, equilateral triangle is best.
More relaxing sound is available if I move a bit backwards further from speakers so that brain loses focus. This is also not equilateral triangle for practical reasons, but bit narrower, and it doesn't matter that much as anything is not precise anyway because brain doesn't pay attention to the sound.
So, equilateral triangle isn't actually that important, it's not useful to get stuck into that but more useful to setup the system so it sounds good (feels natural) listened closer and further. Perhaps in anechoic chamber, or with certain average shaped pinna, or wgat ever ideal conditions, equilateral triangle is best.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2020
- Messages
- 2,241
- Likes
- 3,477
This is absolutely the case. However, it's useful to know that stereo mixing of music content is assumed to be correct when monitoring in an equilateral triangle. Even if you think it doesn't matter, studio builders and mixing engineers need to have a standard to work to.
In practice, image width and depth should be optimized when using an equilateral triangle.
In practice, I mean in a normal livingroom not dedicated to stereo system only, practical positioning and acoustics dictate things to some extent, and here the equilateral triangle loses it's meaning. While sound could be best with equilateral triangle, it necessarily isn't. In this case it is better to deviate if it sounds better within the context one has to deal with.
Best example is where people have to put speakers quite close to each other compared to distance to listening position, many many people have this as per the poll. The sound would be quite unsatisfactory if it was anechoic environment, too narrow at widest. But since regular rooms with typical furnishing are quite reflective the stereo image could be just fine, bad early reflection dominated sound still but it doesn't feel too narrow due to loud early reflections. Because the early reflections dominate the perception listened so far away, I'd argue basewidth between speakers doesn't change sound that much, be it equilateral or bit wider or narrower, it's still the hazy sound that magically extends beyond speakers. Triangle becomes more important as the early reflections suppress, either by positioning or acoustics, so that brain pays attention to the direct sound and suppresses the effect of early reflections from perception. Now narrow base width makes narrow image, wide makes wide, so adjust for preference, or for the standard. On close listening distance on can adjust the system for both direct sound balance and for envelopment, and adjusting toe-in and base width, along with good off-axis response, allows this.
ps. I have cardioid mid and waveguide tweeter speakers, so quite high DI system compared to most typical home speakers, so reduced early reflections. With these the good sound, where early reflections suppress, extend about to 2.2m listening distance (from ear to speaker), which makes quite small listening triangle. I suspect that some livingrooms and some speakers this distance is even shorter, so listening triangle should be very small, so speaker positioning is not practical anymore, sofa too close to the TV. Also, there is a rug between TV and sofa, and this alone makes listening distance too far from sofa so early reflections dominate/affect the perception quite alot. I would either need to bring speakers or sofa middle of the rug to fix this. And from this remark I think rugs are more detrimental for sound than useful, if the rug forces too long listening distance. Rug is said to help with floor early reflection, but as a side effect through listening distance it would maximize effect of early reflections instead, ever thought about that?
If someone wants a rug, make sure it doesn't force to use long listening distance as it makes all early reflections worse Conversely, short listening distance is more important than a rug. Perhaps just take a chair or a foot rest to the close listening distance on the rug, when ever there is need and time for good listen. Adjust your triangle to support this close listening distance, where it has great impact on how wide the sound is (at widest).
Best example is where people have to put speakers quite close to each other compared to distance to listening position, many many people have this as per the poll. The sound would be quite unsatisfactory if it was anechoic environment, too narrow at widest. But since regular rooms with typical furnishing are quite reflective the stereo image could be just fine, bad early reflection dominated sound still but it doesn't feel too narrow due to loud early reflections. Because the early reflections dominate the perception listened so far away, I'd argue basewidth between speakers doesn't change sound that much, be it equilateral or bit wider or narrower, it's still the hazy sound that magically extends beyond speakers. Triangle becomes more important as the early reflections suppress, either by positioning or acoustics, so that brain pays attention to the direct sound and suppresses the effect of early reflections from perception. Now narrow base width makes narrow image, wide makes wide, so adjust for preference, or for the standard. On close listening distance on can adjust the system for both direct sound balance and for envelopment, and adjusting toe-in and base width, along with good off-axis response, allows this.
ps. I have cardioid mid and waveguide tweeter speakers, so quite high DI system compared to most typical home speakers, so reduced early reflections. With these the good sound, where early reflections suppress, extend about to 2.2m listening distance (from ear to speaker), which makes quite small listening triangle. I suspect that some livingrooms and some speakers this distance is even shorter, so listening triangle should be very small, so speaker positioning is not practical anymore, sofa too close to the TV. Also, there is a rug between TV and sofa, and this alone makes listening distance too far from sofa so early reflections dominate/affect the perception quite alot. I would either need to bring speakers or sofa middle of the rug to fix this. And from this remark I think rugs are more detrimental for sound than useful, if the rug forces too long listening distance. Rug is said to help with floor early reflection, but as a side effect through listening distance it would maximize effect of early reflections instead, ever thought about that?
If someone wants a rug, make sure it doesn't force to use long listening distance as it makes all early reflections worse Conversely, short listening distance is more important than a rug. Perhaps just take a chair or a foot rest to the close listening distance on the rug, when ever there is need and time for good listen. Adjust your triangle to support this close listening distance, where it has great impact on how wide the sound is (at widest).
Last edited:
STC
Senior Member
XTC not supposed to give extensive soundstage if it is not there to begin with otherwise it is more of stereo widening effect. Conventional stereo recording cannot have image outside the speakers and given that most recording studio use 60 degree as their standard the soundstage is stuck within the 60 degrees and with phase and effect manipulation it can extend beyond the speaker. With XTC, due to the fact there is no delayed sound of 220 μs for speakers placed at 60 degrees then you may hear the actual location far away from the speakers even though the mastering engineer would not have heard it.
Listening room system and Master Bed Room systems are equilateral; office system is isosceles with shorter legs, that due to room constraints.
Tillman
Tillman
Tim Link
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Yes, and I hear issues with this setup on some recordings. One type of mix that seems to pop up frequently is the 3 position mix. Stuff is panned left, right, or center. Nothing else. On those, having the speakers far apart like I do makes it very obvious. Interestingly, the very next song on the same album may be mixed differently with the entire soundstage staying within the normal 60 degree spread, with sound evenly distributed within. How can that be? Maybe they are using more timing cues and less volume difference. Some track sound almost pefectly mono to me in a normal setup. With my ultra wide set up I can hear that there actually is a slight width to the soundstage, wich makes me wonder if the song was mixed on headphones. To my ears, a lot of music benefits from a wider soundstage.
Can you tell which album and songs you are referring to?
Tim Link
Addicted to Fun and Learning
So there's a way around this! I like the sound of the phantom center with my speakers placed very wide, and this works out well for my room arrangement. The solution I've just implemented is a mixer that mixes the stereo sound with mono sound. I can narrow the soundstage as desired by mixing in less stereo and more mono. This should work with any XTC implementation like a physical barrier (including your own head), or other digital or analog electronic XTC methods.
This could be useful for those piano recordings where the piano is stretched across the entire sound field.
It's not lost on me that there is some humor in the fact that I'm advocating reducing physical crosstalk, and then I'm adding crosstalk back in to keep the soundstage from getting too wide. But there is a potential gain here in that the added crosstalk is not time delayed so doesn't induce comb filtering - although if there are phase issues with the recording that make it not sum to mono well, those could create some problems.
Last edited:
Tim Link
Addicted to Fun and Learning
For a nearly mono sound Julie Fowlis album As My Heart Is first track. For the three distinct pans effect Bob Dylan's Man in the Long Black Coat. Guitars are way out wide, vocals, harmonica, and bass dead center. Same album Ring Them Bells has a sounds coming from side locations not not all the way to the extremes. Piano is about 30 degrees right but some ambient effects are still out wide.
Peterinvan
Senior Member
Small Room, Near Field
Small office with DIY Rockwool panels at reflection points and corners.
KEF LS50W on sand filled stands (with spikes). SVS1000 sub on right wall,
This is my optimized layout for best sound stage and imaging (after much trial and error):
Small office with DIY Rockwool panels at reflection points and corners.
KEF LS50W on sand filled stands (with spikes). SVS1000 sub on right wall,
This is my optimized layout for best sound stage and imaging (after much trial and error):
Last edited:
The Bob Dylan songs are just mixed differently depending on what instruments they contain, and how those instruments should share the stereo field to suit the individual songs.
In the song Man in the Long Black Coat, the typical phantom-centered elements as the vocals and bass are there right in the middle. I'm not completely sure, but the guitar tracks seem to be two different recorded guitar parts that both are hard-panned, but both of them also seem to have a delay effect where the left hard-panned guitar has its delay effect hard-panned to the right, and vice versa for the guitar part hard-panned to the right with its delay effect hard-panned to the left. As the delays in the opposite channels serve as "acoustic answers" to the initial guitar sounds, the result is that the two guitars don't sound as isolated as they would have without the delay effects, and of course, they also supplement each other as they are played very similarly.
For the song Ring Them Bells they just went for another type of mix. Here they didn't choose as wide panning as the song only contains a piano as the main instrument and some kind of supporting synth instrument panned to each side of the mix, but none of them are hard-panned so they both exist in both the left and the right channel, just with different amplitude which pans the piano to the right somewhat close to the center and the synth further away from the center to the left.
Both songs are panned multi-mono mixes, so there are no particular timing cues other than the guitar delay effects in the first song. Many times different songs are just mixed differently depending on what instruments are "driving" the songs the most.
STC
Senior Member
I use m/s plugin for the ambiance and did some experience by not cancelling the mono sound or add stronger centre using the M/S plugin. I think the same effect is included in some XTC DSP where it allows you to adjust the centre image strength.
3 channel stereo is at one time was popular and I think it was Bell which did or advocate this more than half a century ago. My curiosity is should the speakers angle extend beyond 60 or so degrees.
Bit off topic here below.
At one time, when Audio Note introduced their speakers it was setup about more than 120 degrees angle by one ‘audiophile expert’. Great reviews about the speakers and the expert’s skills in bring out the best. I must be the only one to say the sound is watered down although the stereo width was at 120 or so degrees but that doesn’t require special skills. Just record one sound in one channel each and you have the width proportional to the speakers placement angles. Some minimalist recordings like the Waterlily acoustics albums sounded nice but Tracy Chapman really sucked. But since the majority praised the system I knew I have serious taste and hearing problem.
The only reliable source why 60 degrees was chosen as the default position was the explanation offered by the eminent recording engineer Robin Miller where he said the mics were placed at 120 degrees and proper level is attained when the speakers angle are half of that.
Dolby research suggest 44 to 60 for the Atmos and it used to be up to 65 degrees before Atmos. Wilson Chronosonix suggest only about 43 degrees angle and so too Harbeth designers preference despite in the manual the suggestion was 60 degrees.
It is matter of taste and depends what your focus is at the time.