Thanx for editing your post. But what's your point?omo wrote:Samson Resolve 65a are not to be called monitors. Not that you can't hear difference on them, off course.
PLParEQ and Algorithmix EQs
-
- KVRian
- Topic Starter
- 1442 posts since 30 May, 2005
In the end will be the word.
Check out some of my music at www.fritzmetal.de
Check out some of my music at www.fritzmetal.de
-
- KVRist
- 421 posts since 12 Jun, 2004
Could anybody please write an emulation for some nice eqs like "sontec" or something like this?
Aaaahh mmmm ... mmm .. let's say, till friday. Is that okay?
Aaaahh mmmm ... mmm .. let's say, till friday. Is that okay?
-
- KVRist
- 207 posts since 28 May, 2005
It's not about the word used, although word "monitor" is used for a reason. It's about how accurate they are. My point was that tht's not any accurate monitoring system. OMU asked you about monitors and I commented on your answer. Peace.fritzman wrote:Sorry, I don't get it. I don't care how you call my monitors/speakers, really. What's your point?
-
- KVRAF
- 6478 posts since 16 Dec, 2002
I only just now realised there is omo *and* OMU.
excuse me if I've gotten you mixed up.
excuse me if I've gotten you mixed up.
-
- KVRAF
- 6478 posts since 16 Dec, 2002
Yamaha NS-10 is always referred to as a near field monitor. And they're several multiples shitter than those samsons. Suppose that's up to taste, but they are nowhere near accurate in modern standardsomo wrote:It's not about the word used, although word "monitor" is used for a reason. It's about how accurate they are. My point was that tht's not any accurate monitoring system. OMU asked you about monitors and I commented on your answer. Peace.fritzman wrote:Sorry, I don't get it. I don't care how you call my monitors/speakers, really. What's your point?
-
- KVRAF
- 6519 posts since 13 Mar, 2002 from UK
No they're not. Not by a long way.Kingston wrote:Yamaha NS-10 is always referred to as a near field monitor. And they're several multiples shitter than those samsons.omo wrote:It's not about the word used, although word "monitor" is used for a reason. It's about how accurate they are. My point was that tht's not any accurate monitoring system. OMU asked you about monitors and I commented on your answer. Peace.fritzman wrote:Sorry, I don't get it. I don't care how you call my monitors/speakers, really. What's your point?
Now with improved MIDI jitter!
-
- KVRist
- 207 posts since 28 May, 2005
To clarify a bit futher, fritzman, an example: I can give you 2 clips of two different eqs applied, the sound will be very similar and you'll probably hear difference on any speakers, even 3$ computer ones. Some speakers will make one clip sound better then another and vice-versa. But you won't be able to really find out which one is better in terms of preserving original quality unless you listen in accurate monitoring environment.
And no, NS10 aren't monitoring grade speakers. They're hi-fi "checkthisout" ones.
And no, NS10 aren't monitoring grade speakers. They're hi-fi "checkthisout" ones.
-
- KVRAF
- 6478 posts since 16 Dec, 2002
But then, I wouldn't call my BM6A accurate either. Soft dome tweeters are nice and pleasing at best, but not accurate. Kind of like sugar on top.
The latest genelecs I'd call accurate (better imaging and transients, and dynaudio is really good already), but it's a tradeoff as there's more fatique when those transients attack the ears over extended perioids.
The latest genelecs I'd call accurate (better imaging and transients, and dynaudio is really good already), but it's a tradeoff as there's more fatique when those transients attack the ears over extended perioids.
-
- KVRian
- Topic Starter
- 1442 posts since 30 May, 2005
OK got it.omo wrote:It's not about the word used, although word "monitor" is used for a reason. It's about how accurate they are. My point was that tht's not any accurate monitoring system. OMU asked you about monitors and I commented on your answer. Peace.fritzman wrote:Sorry, I don't get it. I don't care how you call my monitors/speakers, really. What's your point?
One could argue about the accuracy of my "speakers", no problem. I don't want to get into more detail about them here as this would only make sense for people who know these monitors and who know better ones (which I do) to be able to compare beyond prejudice.
Best wishes, FRitz
In the end will be the word.
Check out some of my music at www.fritzmetal.de
Check out some of my music at www.fritzmetal.de
-
- KVRAF
- 6519 posts since 13 Mar, 2002 from UK
Soft dome tweeters can be as accurate as any other kind of dynamic speaker.Kingston wrote:But then, I wouldn't call my BM6A accurate either. Soft dome tweeters are nice and pleasing at best, but not accurate. Kind of like sugar on top.
The latest genelecs I'd call accurate (better imaging and transients, and dynaudio is really good already), but it's a tradeoff as there's more fatique when those transients attack the ears over extended perioids.
I can only think of a few drive units that are as accurate as a ScanSpeak Revelator. None is a dynamic tweeter and all have other problems.
Now with improved MIDI jitter!
-
- KVRist
- 207 posts since 28 May, 2005
Good. Just don't fool YOURSELF. It doesn't really matter to me or anyone if you do, it's you who suffers in that case.fritzman wrote: OK got it.
One could argue about the accuracy of my "speakers", no problem. I don't want to get into more detail about them here as this would only make sense for people who know these monitors and who know better ones (which I do) to be able to compare beyond prejudice.
Best wishes, FRitz
-
- KVRAF
- 6478 posts since 16 Dec, 2002
They can be, these aren't. (we just a/b listened genelec vs dynaudio in my studio yesterday)nuffink wrote:Soft dome tweeters can be as accurate as any other kind of dynamic speaker.
I can only think of a few drive units that are as accurate as a ScanSpeak Revelator. None is a dynamic tweeter and all have other problems.
With revelators We're talking £2000 vs. something more along the lines of £35000 as well.
Right now diamond is where it's really at with the ultra hi-end, the revised b&w nautilus range a good example. I've only heard the previous generation, and well, DAMN they're good! needs quite the amp, too.
-
- KVRian
- Topic Starter
- 1442 posts since 30 May, 2005
Hi Omo,omo wrote:...
But you won't be able to really find out which one is better in terms of preserving original quality unless you listen in accurate monitoring environment.
I'm well aware of the differences between my monitors and their environment and more transient true monitors in an acoustically good treated listening environment. For the stuff I'm doing mostly my monitors are good. I seldom have acoustic stuff going here. For such I would go to a different studio with better monitors and different rooms if I would look for certain room sounds.
I mostly work in the range from electronic to rock stuff. This means that for me it's more important to shape a sound in certain ways than to preserve the original qualities of acoustic signals. Therefore it's enough for me to judge if it sounds "good".
Best wishes, FRitz
In the end will be the word.
Check out some of my music at www.fritzmetal.de
Check out some of my music at www.fritzmetal.de
-
- KVRian
- Topic Starter
- 1442 posts since 30 May, 2005
What are you talking about? In which way do you think I would fool myself? Be more precise, please.omo wrote:Good. Just don't fool YOURSELF. It doesn't really matter to me or anyone if you do, it's you who suffers in that case.fritzman wrote: OK got it.
One could argue about the accuracy of my "speakers", no problem. I don't want to get into more detail about them here as this would only make sense for people who know these monitors and who know better ones (which I do) to be able to compare beyond prejudice.
Best wishes, FRitz
In the end will be the word.
Check out some of my music at www.fritzmetal.de
Check out some of my music at www.fritzmetal.de