Bob Hodas Acoustic Analysis : Speaker Placement and Acoustic Environment Effects on Nearfield Monitor™ Systems 11/18/15, 20:58

Bob Hodas Acoustic Analysis : Speaker Placement and Acoustic

Environment Effects on Nearfield Monitor™ Systems

Speaker Placement and Acoustic Environment

Effects on Nearfield Monitor™ Systems
by Bob Hodas
Mix Magazine - November, 1994

As an independent recording engineer, I have been using Nearfield™ monitors for the
past fourteen years. The decision to purchase my own nearfields was made in 1980
after a disastrous recording project in Japan. Studio selection was handled by the
recording company and everything was set in stone when I walked off the plane. Three
separate studios were used for tracking, overdubs, and mixing. All three studios
sounded completely different since they had different monitors and acoustic
designers. I brought along a tape that I was familiar with, (these were the days before
CD) and tried to grasp a reference in each room. Well, this turned out to be quite
difficult, especially in the mix room.

All of the staff engineers were quite proud of their rooms and I was very uncomfortable
suggesting that there were acoustical problems. One studio's staff was absolutely
beaming because they had not paid a design fee, even though this was obviously a
room done by a famous designer. They had taken the design drawn up for their
European parent company and used it for their own room. The only problem with this
was that the Japanese room was much smaller and they had simply shrunk the design
dimensions using a ratio (not to mention that they installed different monitors). I didn't
have the heart to tell them that it doesn't work that way. The perfect finale occurred at
the mastering studio whose dimensions were a perfect cube. Standing waves were a
nightmare.

So upon my return I purchased a set of speakers that was to become my reference

standard no matter where I went. At this point I would like to give credit where credit is
due for those of you that don't know your audio Hall of Fame history. Ed Long's
Calibration Systems in Oakland CA holds the trademark for the term Nearfield as well
as other industry sweeping innovations such as Time Align®. Out of respect for Ed,
engineers should know that today Ed's term "nearfield" has become synonymous with

http://www.bobhodas.com/pub1.html Page 1 of 6
Bob Hodas Acoustic Analysis : Speaker Placement and Acoustic Environment Effects on Nearfield Monitor™ Systems 11/18/15, 20:58

close field monitors systems just like Kleenex® is synonymous with tissue paper. (Wait
a minute, wrote that one already)

Within two years, nearfields became a standard in the industry as staff engineer
positions vanished and the independents roamed. Engineers found themselves fooled
by in house monitor systems that were inaccurate or not properly maintained. I must
admit that having a standard helped me to make better records, but I still found that
my speakers could sound different in a variety of studios. This history led me into the
field of room measurement as I had a desire to quantify exactly what I was hearing, all
in the quest of making a better record. I hope, in this article and those to follow, to
share with you the knowledge that has been gathered in the many rooms I have
analyzed and voiced.

I want to make it perfectly clear at this time that I firmly believe in large
room/transducer interface designs. Large soffit mounted monitors can sound fantastic
and at the same time be more fun to work on than small speakers. If properly designed,
they may also be more accurate than untuned console top speakers. I have several
room voicing clients who are very fastidious and proud of their monitoring
environments. They keep their rooms regularly voiced, recone woofers and replace
diaphragms on a regular schedule. Future articles will deal with many aspects of soffit
mounted speakers and their room interactions.

I would like to address one main issue in this article. That is the pervasive belief that if
you use a console top speaker, you are not affected by the control room acoustics and
will get a more accurate frequency response. This line of thinking has also led many
people to believe that home studios can get away without acoustical planning or
treatment since the speakers are in your face. In a word, WRONG. I plan to show in the
charts below that nearfield monitors can be accurate only if care is taken in the
placement of the speakers and room issues are not ignored.

Allow me to take some space to tell you about the measurement system I use. This is
important as the charts you will be seeing in the articles to come need some
explanation. I utilize a Meyer SIM® System II and consider it to be the state of the art in
acoustic test instruments. SIM won the prestigious R&D 100 award placing it in a class
with MIT, Bell Laboratories, and Los Alamos National Laboratory among others. SIM
allows me to gather large amounts of information in real time which aids in diagnosing
problems quickly. In one screen I can display a room response pre and post EQ as well
as the EQ curve applied to the room along with an analysis of the system coherence.
Other screens allow me to look at room and phase response in real time. Room

http://www.bobhodas.com/pub1.html Page 2 of 6
Bob Hodas Acoustic Analysis : Speaker Placement and Acoustic Environment Effects on Nearfield Monitor™ Systems 11/18/15, 20:58

reflections may be identified and time alignment of components are clearly displayed
(±20μsec.). The system gathers information at 1/24th octave resolution (245
frequencies, 8Hz-22kHz) which gives me the ability to look very deep into a room. Test
signals include impulses, tones, noise and even music may be used.

Though many of you may have seen similar charts in articles by Roger Nichols (we
both use SIM), in the articles to come I will be introducing other parameters in addition
to frequency response and phase. One such parameter is Coherence, a 245 point
signal to noise ratio (on a per frequency basis) of the system under analysis. It
compares the test signal source to the signal received at the microphone. This can
show direct vs. reflected sound as well as distortion in the system. The Delay Finder
(you will see graphs in articles to come) displays an impulse response that shows time
alignment and room reflections.

The charts should tell most of the story so I will dispense with longwinded
descriptions. Also, for ease of interpretation in this tiny display size, these charts have
been smoothed to 1/3rd octave. To make specific points in future articles I'll petition for
more space and show you 1/24th octave resolution. The frequency chart is scaled for
6dB per division on the vertical (indicated on left side) and 20-20kHz on the horizontal
(indicated on bottom). The frequency response is the line in the middle of the chart.
The line at the top is the coherence factor and is scaled into the top half of the chart
(indicated on right side). In a good situation, this line would be fairly flat and nestled
into the top quarter of the chart, occasionally dipping down as far as the 0 line. The
lower the line, the worse the coherence and wide dips indicate serious problems.

So now let's start with a look at a typical console top mounted speaker response. I
want to make clear that the charts to follow do not represent isolated experiments in a
single room with a specific brand of monitor, but are typical of many of the rooms
around the country which I have analyzed. Three different popular speakers are
represented in these charts, all of which display fairly flat free field response.

http://www.bobhodas.com/pub1.html Page 3 of 6
Bob Hodas Acoustic Analysis : Speaker Placement and Acoustic Environment Effects on Nearfield Monitor™ Systems 11/18/15, 20:58

Figure 1: Cancellation pattern caused by

monitor sitting horizontally on console bridge

Figure 1 shows the theoretical problem of placing a monitor on its side on top of the
console bridge. Reflected signals off the console surface should combine with the
direct signal creating a comb filter and canceling certain frequencies that correspond
to the path length difference. Some low frequency anomalies may also occur as the
console bridge could act as a baffle for the woofer. So, can we prove this theory? You
bet! Chart #1 shows the response of an average studio nearfield placed to replicate
fig. 1. Please note large holes in the response at about 1150 Hz (-8dB) and 3kHz
(-10dB). Also note that the coherence at these frequencies is pretty bad, indicating
reflections. If we were to look at the delay finder charts (sorry not enough space) we
would see the reflections within the first few milliseconds that are associated with
those holes. Also note that there is a +6dB bump at 150Hz most likely as result of
console baffling. Looks pretty bad doesn't it! But don't despair, let's see if we can
correct the problem.

Figure 2: Proposed solution to fig. 1 reflections.

Speaker positioned vertically on stand a short distance behind console.

Figure 2 shows the theoretical solution of placing the monitor on a stand a short
distance behind the console and standing it up vertically (the way it was designed
incidentally). This should change the reflection angles so that the critical frequencies
are below the listening position. We would also hope to eliminate the console baffle.
Does this solve the problem? (For the answer send $50 to PO Box..... oh what the
heck, I'll give it away for the love of music). Chart #2 shows the same speaker as Chart
#1 positioned vertically, 8" behind the console on a stand. A respectable difference, eh
Watson? The holes have filled in and the coherence is dramatically improved. The
bump at 150Hz is gone and bonus time, the bottom end response (38-60Hz) has even
improved by several dB. This looks like a desirable solution to me.

http://www.bobhodas.com/pub1.html Page 4 of 6
Bob Hodas Acoustic Analysis : Speaker Placement and Acoustic Environment Effects on Nearfield Monitor™ Systems 11/18/15, 20:58

Now it's time to address the low end interaction of nearfields in the control room
environment. Measurements were taken in a different studio from that used above.
Chart #3 represents a soffit mounted main speaker system. Note that the chart scale
only displays 10-200Hz. In this control room, modes cause cancellations of about
-10dB at 50Hz and -8dB at 100Hz. A look at the nearfield response in Chart #4
demonstrates that the room modes are also effecting our supposed reference. The
nearfield is effected by cancellations at 58Hz and 100Hz and in fact has some major
bumps up as well at 82Hz and 135Hz.

I am not suggesting that nearfields will always display the exact same problems as the
soffited speakers. Position in the room can make a big difference. I have solved certain
problems by moving speakers a mere six inches. The important point here is that the
room acoustics do affect the nearfields, especially if the problems are gross. We
cannot expect to avoid a room problem just by putting a speaker up close to our face.

These low end anomalies are usually room dimension problems but sometimes can be
diaphragmatic as well. An example of a diaphragmatic problem would be an
unreinforced wall that vibrates at a specific frequency and cancels it out of the room.
What are the solutions to these problems? There are two ways to go about it. I often
recommend contacting an acoustician once the problem has been identified. You need
an expert to give you cost effective solutions. Solutions may include such things as
bass traps, resonators, diffusers, or even moving walls. Some dimensional problems
and placement loading problems may also be solved cost effectively using a minimum
phase parametric equalizer. You need a minimum phase EQ because the room
problems described here are minimum phase phenomenon and must be corrected as
such. So there are your two solutions, not simple but either is the problem. These
solutions are also not necessarily mutually exclusive. The combination of acoustic
solutions combined with judicious use of a high quality minimum phase EQ can
produce stellar results.

Commercial studios often address their low end problems with acoustics and EQ. Many
still have some problems but the majority of gross problems I have run into have been
in project studios. Because project studios are often in homes, they share certain
dimensional restrictions such as an eight foot ceiling height. Chart #5 demonstrates a
response that represents problems often found in the project studio. Looking at the
upper mid range we see that this room exhibits some mild coherence problems.
Cancellations are present at those frequencies and are the product of a combination of
console, ceiling and wall reflections in the listening position. The large, broad bump in
the low mid and upper bass regions is typical of speakers being positioned too close to

http://www.bobhodas.com/pub1.html Page 5 of 6
Bob Hodas Acoustic Analysis : Speaker Placement and Acoustic Environment Effects on Nearfield Monitor™ Systems 11/18/15, 20:58

a wall or corner (1/4 or 1/8 space loading). Many small rooms suffer from an abundance
of 150-300Hz. The main signature that seems to proliferate in the project studio are
modes that make the low end look like the Alps. In this room the peak is at 58Hz with a
dip at 80Hz. Once again, this kind of response appears to be the norm.

Allow me one more example which for me is a pet peeve. It is the addition of home
stereo subwoofers to near fields with the expectation that all low end problems will be
solved. Chart #6 demonstrates what happens when an improperly placed subwoofer
combines with the floor/ceiling mode to create a gaping hole in the low end response. I
have also seen several subwoofers where the cross over point does not meet the
manufacturers specification. This can cause some significant problems as well. Can
you believe that chart 6 is someones idea of a mastering room? I certainly hope none
of my records get mastered there! Aside from the 70 Hz crater, side wall, ceiling, and
tabletop reflection create severe mid range holes. Coherence in this room is very poor.
The sad part is that this is a professional studio who thought they would get into the
mastering business just because inexpensive digital mastering programs are available.

Pardon my soapbox but don't think you can open a mastering room just because you
can buy cheap digital mastering programs. Especially if you don't pay attention to room
response! I hope that this is not a growing trend. There is a lot to be said for relying on
an experts ears and abilities in a room where many records have been mastered.

Care and attention need to be taken when setting up any listening environment
whether it is an existing professional control room or a new project studio. I hope the
information above will dispell some myths and help you to make better records. I'll be
back soon with some more interesting charts that should be SIMply revealing.

Home - Publications - The Process - Clients - Testimonials - About Bob Hodas

Produced by Bob Hodas

Copyright © 1998 Bob Hodas Acoustic Analysis
All rights reserved

http://www.bobhodas.com/pub1.html Page 6 of 6