Is there any good reason why you shouldn't use an isosceles monitor
arrangement as opposed to an equilateral one?

How does this differ with nearfields?

lex wrote:
Is there any good reason why you shouldn't use an isosceles monitor
arrangement as opposed to an equilateral one?

Yes. Your imaging will be narrower.

How does this differ with nearfields?

Not at all. Nearfields are speakers just like any others. There is
nothing magic about them.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

lex wrote:
Is there any good reason why you shouldn't use an isosceles monitor
arrangement as opposed to an equilateral one?

Seeing as an equilateral is a type of isosceles triangle, I don't
undestand your question.

But I think you are wondering if you must position yourself a
specific distance from the line that joins between the two speakers.
These things are just guidelines or positions to start from.

Rob R.

In article .com writes:

Is there any good reason why you shouldn't use an isosceles monitor
arrangement as opposed to an equilateral one?

Someone at one time figured that a 60 degree angle would include the
speaker's sweet spot so the equilateral triangle became the
recommendation. The high frequency response of a speaker drops off as
you get off axis, so you don't want your listening position to be too
far off axis.

It's certainly a good idea to have the two speakers at the same
distance from your ears, but any angle that isn't so wide or narrow
that the best sound from your speakers doesn't miss your ears will
work.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Mike Rivers wrote:

It's certainly a good idea to have the two speakers at the same
distance from your ears, but any angle that isn't so wide or narrow
that the best sound from your speakers doesn't miss your ears will
work.

Hmmm, I always thought that the axes of the speakers were to
be aligned with the two edges of the triangle that converge
on you, i.e that they should point directly at you. Wrong?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

So you're saying the stage will appear to be smaller than it actually
is? Or am I misunderstanding imaging?

Scott Dorsey wrote:
lex wrote:
Is there any good reason why you shouldn't use an isosceles monitor
arrangement as opposed to an equilateral one?

Yes. Your imaging will be narrower.

How does this differ with nearfields?

Not at all. Nearfields are speakers just like any others. There is
nothing magic about them.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

I'm only going to be 3 feet away from them, and they will be
equidistant from me and point at my head. I suppose if it sounds good,
it is good, would apply here.

I mean the distance between the monitors is shorter than the distance
from each monitor to my head. So the sides being equal monitor to
person, but shorter monitor to monitor.


Rob Reedijk wrote:
lex wrote:
Is there any good reason why you shouldn't use an isosceles monitor
arrangement as opposed to an equilateral one?

Seeing as an equilateral is a type of isosceles triangle, I don't
undestand your question.

But I think you are wondering if you must position yourself a
specific distance from the line that joins between the two speakers.
These things are just guidelines or positions to start from.

Rob R.

lex wrote:
So you're saying the stage will appear to be smaller than it actually
is? Or am I misunderstanding imaging?

If you're too close, it will be exaggeratedly wide. If you're too far,
it will be exaggeratedly narrow.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Bob Cain wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:

It's certainly a good idea to have the two speakers at the same
distance from your ears, but any angle that isn't so wide or narrow
that the best sound from your speakers doesn't miss your ears will
work.

Hmmm, I always thought that the axes of the speakers were to
be aligned with the two edges of the triangle that converge
on you, i.e that they should point directly at you. Wrong?

Depends on the speakers. If the radiation pattern is very even it
doesn't matter. If the speakers are a little beamy, toeing them out
can give you a little less top end and a little wider sweet spot.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article writes:

Hmmm, I always thought that the axes of the speakers were to
be aligned with the two edges of the triangle that converge
on you, i.e that they should point directly at you. Wrong?

Right, and that can easily be done with any triangle. But the trick is
to have the field of acceptable "sound quality" wide enough so that
you don't have to clamp yourself into place in order to hear
accurately. This is a function of the raidation pattern of the speaker
as well as the angle at which the centerline of the radiation
converges at your ear. And distance, too, of course.

So like most things in acoustics, the recommendation is just a
recommendation that works most of the time with most equipment and
most ears in most rooms. The assumption, though, is that we can always
build the room around the speaker/listening position but that isn't
often the case when setting up a control room in an existing and often
multi-purpose space.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article .com writes:

I'm only going to be 3 feet away from them, and they will be
equidistant from me and point at my head. I suppose if it sounds good,
it is good, would apply here.

Exactly. But if things are tight enough so that you can only get three
feet away from the speakers, you (or the speakers) may be too close to
walls which will introduce other sound but the the direct sound of the
speaker to your ears.

If the speakers are 3 feet from you in the center of a room that's 20
feet on a side it'll work just fine. This is the classic "near field"
case. But if the speakers are 1 foot away from a wall (or worse, 1
foot away from two walls) or you're 1 foot away from a wall, you'll be
hearing more than you paid for, and that's not good.

But as you say, if it sounds good, it's OK. Now all you need to know
is whether it REALLY sounds good. g

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article .com writes:

I mean the distance between the monitors is shorter than the distance
from each monitor to my head. So the sides being equal monitor to
person, but shorter monitor to monitor.

Hmmmmm . . . . well if you're three feet from the speakers, and the
distance between the speakers is less than that, you might not hear
much stereo. That's the "imaging" that Scott was speaking of.

Of course if the high frequency response of the speaker is only
reasonably flat through a very narrow angle (speakers like this are
usually described as "beamy") then you can get decent imaging, but
you'll find that your listening position is very critical. It's not a
lot different than listening on headphones.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Rob Reedijk wrote:
lex wrote:
Is there any good reason why you shouldn't use an isosceles monitor
arrangement as opposed to an equilateral one?

Seeing as an equilateral is a type of isosceles triangle, I don't
undestand your question.


In US schools we're taught that the Equilateral (having 3 equal
sides/angles) is a different type of triangle even though it also
conforms to the definition of an Isoceles (having 2 equal
sides/angles). Clearly the concept of an intersection set never got
applied to American remedial geometry.

But what I often find confusing (or amusing) is that in many
discussions about setting up stereo monitors people recommend having
the distance between the 2 monitors equal to the distance from the
listener *to the monitor plane* ...i.e., the midpoint between the 2
speakers on a virtual line perpendicular to the direction the listener
is facing. This is most definitely NOT an Equilateral triangle (and is
in fact an Isosceles triangle).

So I would counter the OP's question with the inverse: Is there any
good reason why you shouldn't use an equilateral monitor arrangement as
opposed to an isosceles one?

Ok, I think I will just experiment then. If it sounds like crap, I'll
do it another way. Thanks for the input from everyone.


Mike Rivers wrote:
In article .com
writes:

I'm only going to be 3 feet away from them, and they will be
equidistant from me and point at my head. I suppose if it sounds
good,
it is good, would apply here.

Exactly. But if things are tight enough so that you can only get
three
feet away from the speakers, you (or the speakers) may be too close
to
walls which will introduce other sound but the the direct sound of
the
speaker to your ears.

If the speakers are 3 feet from you in the center of a room that's 20
feet on a side it'll work just fine. This is the classic "near field"
case. But if the speakers are 1 foot away from a wall (or worse, 1
foot away from two walls) or you're 1 foot away from a wall, you'll
be
hearing more than you paid for, and that's not good.

But as you say, if it sounds good, it's OK. Now all you need to know
is whether it REALLY sounds good. g

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo