Studio Monitors my search for truth!

[tehlord]

Yup, and even if they all did it wouldn't mean I'd want to make my music based on that fact. Personal pride is my biggest driving force.

[TwoToneshuzz]

Hi guys,
I'm just reading your discussion here and I'm really confused.
Don't understand me wrong, this is not my intention to kill the discussion, I just want to understand what is going on here?

First question is, are you going to buy high-end audio equipment which suits your audio requirements according to f.e. sound clarity, nice low end and so on or you are buying reference monitors?

-if you are buying high-end audio monitors, you will hear beautiful sounds (with 1000 nice details) on your desk and awfully sounds in 98% of final destination customers equipment (standard one monitor radios, car audio, mp3 players and so on).

I'm interested in sound the way the different elements of a mix fit together, the spatial relationships of the instruments, the depth front to back, what compression is doing, finding out how much reverb is too much. So it's basically a desire to get a clear understanding of what's happening in the total soundstage. Checking for clicks buzzes, the effects of dithering, bit reduction, sibilance and technical problems can be revealed. This will give me more confidence when I'm tweaking and eqing, choosing sounds and so on and thus improve my working methods. Decent Monitor's aren't a luxury in a Composer/engineers setup, they are a necessity. When I'm taking my sound out to a public, either on the internet or live, I have a least done what I can do to have the best possible starting point.

-if you are going to buy reference monitors, you will have even problems on the beginning to hear them because of their scary sounds but in the end you know - if something sounds nice in refference monitors, sounds nice everywhere.
-what is the most important and problematic, acoustical room treatment - you may get even golden monitors, without room treatment you may forget about any control of frequencies under 300Hz
-are you going to measure the final effect with any acoustical program to verify the effect or just an impression will be the final conclusion?

I'm a Tonemeister so I know the tools needed and the method for checking the rooms and speakers frequency responce.

Setup speakers, test rooms frequency response with a measuremnet microphone by Danish Pro Audio, and a analysis program without any acoustic regulation, make adjustments, retest, repeat until satisfied..

-or... maybe I just missed something in my acoustical study, so would you just kindly give me a small hint to get me back on right track

Best regards,

We all miss knowledge in the acoustical study, it's a young science much to be learned. So that's why it's good to study and not just buy into all of the hype. It's my intention to allow at least one third of my monitor setup budget to be spent on acoustic regulation and testing equiptment rental.

[jkworks]

Hi guys,
I'm just reading your discussion here and I'm really confused.
Don't understand me wrong, this is not my intention to kill the discussion, I just want to understand what is going on here?

First question is, are you going to buy high-end audio equipment which suits your audio requirements according to f.e. sound clarity, nice low end and so on or you are buying reference monitors?

-if you are buying high-end audio monitors, you will hear beautiful sounds (with 1000 nice details) on your desk and awfully sounds in 98% of final destination customers equipment (standard one monitor radios, car audio, mp3 players and so on).
-if you are going to buy reference monitors, you will have even problems on the beginning to hear them because of their scary sounds but in the end you know - if something sounds nice in refference monitors, sounds nice everywhere.
-what is the most important and problematic, acoustical room treatment - you may get even golden monitors, without room treatment you may forget about any control of frequencies under 300Hz
-are you going to measure the final effect with any acoustical program to verify the effect or just an impression will be the final conclusion?

-or... maybe I just missed something in my acoustical study, so would you just kindly give me a small hint to get me back on right track

Best regards,

+1.
1. Get the best room in your home, even if that means moving the masterbedroom
3. Measure with some monitors of a friend. And that means also placing them on different positions in the room and listening to tracks you like.
4. Then decide which monitors to buy and treat you room.

[lfm]

It's all about knowing your equipment and translation on other devices. I always check my mixes on laptop speakers, TV speakers, stereo, earbuds..everything. That said, I enjoy working with my Yamaha HS50m + Beyerdynamic DT 880 Pro combo.

Maybe - all about - is a bit too strong wording.

If you don't have good enough monitors you will not be able to hear the different parts as separate parts - and how the blend, or not.

First thing I noticed with my new monitors were to hear how untight bass and drums were - due to that I could destincly hear bass apart from kick.

But knowing you system helps a lot in getting things in balance. So you could probably get a rough mix on anything. But if you want something that could be taken for a professional recording better monitors serve you better - and the process is so much quicker - rather than finding out that on PC speakers or in the car it sounds crap over and over - you have a reference system that give you the true story from start.

[bbaggins]

Don't forget to include some good speaker stands in your budget. They should be heavy and solid. Many are hollow so you can fill them with sand for additional mass. The last thing you want to do is spend a couple grand on quality speakers and then set them on a desk or, heaven forbid, a bookshelf.

[TwoToneshuzz]

Don't forget to include some good speaker stands in your budget. They should be heavy and solid. Many are hollow so you can fill them with sand for additional mass. The last thing you want to do is spend a couple grand on quality speakers and then set them on a desk or, heaven forbid, a bookshelf.

I think I'll look into stand designs, and if It is feasable to do a diy and fill them with sand myself. I know a welder/blacksmith if it is best to make them out of metal.

I've done a fair bit of woodworking, so I will do the things I kan to keep prices down and customize both acoustic room regulation, table, and stands. I've got tools and know how.

The materiels are plentiful hereabouts too as I live a few blocks away from a recycled materials warehouse..

[bbaggins]

DIY stands are definitely do-able, especially if you have the fabrication skills. Another inexpensive but effective route is concrete plant stands, if you can find some the right height. All you're after is mass. (So the plastic ones won't work so well

[drinkthecoolaid]

Check out the Yamaha HS80s or the Yamaha NS10s if you can find them. They are book shelf style speakers with an ultra flat response.

[Integratron]

I have heard that there are those who can get some amazing results with a simple pair of $40 Altecs.

I have a cheap ($300) pair of Mackies and I really like them. Perhaps not enough snob appeal for some but fairly transparent to my ear. I've heard Tannoy Gold, EVs with the Bob Ezrin horn mods, Magnapans, Quads and Mark Londons' WAMM system in Baltimore, MD so I'm no stranger to hifi!

[SuperNoise]

Hi guys,
Thank you for tips, right now I know how to use my ears to examine monitors. Anyway I'm not convinced fully.

Human ears are really good to find tiny differences between two sounds (or the same sound played with different monitors), but human ears are not able to recognize the best refference themselve. Human have to get one pair of 'my dream' monitors (as refference) and then take another pair to check differences between them. This way works perfectly.

Or... you measure monitors. I'm more convinced for measurements because they shows most important characteristics, they are repetable, it is possible to take concrete conclusions and finally - decisions.
Right now I think, we may measure:
1. Amplitude response in function of frequency (possible flat).
2. Waterfall characteristic (frequency vs amplitude vs time) - this characteristic is really interesting. Normally you will not find this data in manual for monitors with woofers. The point is that time response for monitors with woofer has some problems in low frequencies, the response time may be even 5 times longer than for frequencies > 300Hz. So woofer may cause some problems in low end. Of course, better constructions, less problems. I have HS50m and I can't find waterfall for my monitors in the net (but I'm really curious about that).

Have you any ideas what else may be measured to check monitors?

[lfm]

2. Waterfall characteristic (frequency vs amplitude vs time) - this characteristic is really interesting. Normally you will not find this data in manual for monitors with woofers. The point is that time response for monitors with woofer has some problems in low frequencies, the response time may be even 5 times longer than for frequencies > 300Hz. So woofer may cause some problems in low end. Of course, better constructions, less problems. I have HS50m and I can't find waterfall for my monitors in the net (but I'm really curious about that).

Have you any ideas what else may be measured to check monitors?

Agree fully with that specs should have waterfall for every model. Very revealing what type of response you get.

I asked ADAM about that but they said having none.

Only ones on my list that I found waterfall for was Acoustic Energy AE22. Very close to ns10's with extremly fast recovery when signal is gone.

There is also a list of 40 monitors, but most really expensive ones here:
http://www.soundonsound.com/pdfs/ns10m.pdf

It should be standard spec.

[deastman]

The purpose of good studio monitors is to provide an accurate sense of what your mix sounds like, so you can make critical listening decisions. It doesn't matter if the audience is listening to mp3s on earbuds. That is not a suitable listening environment in the studio. How can you decide how to adjust bass frequencies if you can't even hear them on your earbuds? To be sure, you will want to check the mix on other sound systems to make sure it is translating properly, but that doesn't mean that you should use crappy speakers all the time.

I'm in the same situation as the original poster, looking to trade up from my Mackie HR824s. I've heard good things about the Adams, but still considering Genelec as well.

[Integratron]

Check out the Yamaha HS80s or the Yamaha NS10s if you can find them. They are book shelf style speakers with an ultra flat response.

Right - I forgot about the NS10... We had those in studio B. They don't really sound that good but they are extremely accurate. And they translate well. No one has mentioned that it is critical that we consider what's happening downstream.

DOES the track sound good on earbuds, as an MP3/MP4, in the car, on the cheapo box in the rec room, etc. etc.

[SuperNoise]

Check out the Yamaha HS80s or the Yamaha NS10s if you can find them. They are book shelf style speakers with an ultra flat response.

Right - I forgot about the NS10... We had those in studio B. They don't really sound that good but they are extremely accurate. And they translate well. No one has mentioned that it is critical that we consider what's happening downstream.

DOES the track sound good on earbuds, as an MP3/MP4, in the car, on the cheapo box in the rec room, etc. etc.

Yeah! For me this is the clue for reference monitors. They don't sound wonderful, they sound accurate! Moreover, if you see measurements characteristics for NS10m, they only confirm good quality! What's why I want them, in the future, in my music room.

But I wouldn't install NS10m in my living room where I have HiFi equipment, where I want monitors with smooth, delicate, bright, powerful, emotional, inspiring, spiritual, outstanding sound - you know, all the best fitting my style.

I see sometimes people mix both topics. I have no doubts, with huge listening experience it is possible mix both issues in one, but for many of us it is black magic.

[SuperNoise]

Agree fully with that specs should have waterfall for every model. Very revealing what type of response you get.

I asked ADAM about that but they said having none.

Only ones on my list that I found waterfall for was Acoustic Energy AE22. Very close to ns10's with extremly fast recovery when signal is gone.

There is also a list of 40 monitors, but most really expensive ones here:
http://www.soundonsound.com/pdfs/ns10m.pdf

It should be standard spec.

It looks like the waterfall issue is going to be future challenge for cheap monitor's developers...
Thanks for interesting SOS article!