I am curious why so few people post questions, suggestions and comment s about speakers. Without a doubt this is one piece of gear that can make or break your stuff. Would I be correct to assume that any old off the rack monitor is good enough for mixing or, is there a perfect monitor that everyone knows about .
It would appear from the web sites in the states that there are only a handful of monitors for sale. I find it hard to believe that this is the best stuff available to people with better than average ears. Most of the stuff I have heard is flabby sounding at best. Can someone help me understand ?
Eric
why are there so few posts on this subject?
Moderator: Aaronw
-
eric
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 1:54 pm
- Location: Ellensburg,Wa
-
giles117
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1476
- Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 2:42 am
- Location: Henderson County
- Contact:
Monitors I guess are subjective to the user.
I Love my Mackie 824's although I know their limitations. Like nuances around 3K and the detail not being as sweet as a more expensive monitor.
People swear by their Events, although I don't prefer them due to the enhanced midrange presence I hear, but once again that is subjective.
You can train your ears to whatever devices you prefer and work from that angle.
To me, the perfect Monitor is the one that gives you what you are looking for. You may hear better sounding monitors, but is it artifically better or does it translate to better mixes. Only your use can determine that outcome.
People love Genelecs although the 1031 seems a little light in the low end for my taste, whereas the 1037 to me sounds fantastic. But it comes with a steep price tag.
So ultimately it is a matter of preferential taste and budget.
My Goal is to grab a pair of Klein and Hummel O300D's
I Love the enhanced detail they provide, of course the ultimate test will be; do my mixes come out better.
Just my 1/2 a penny
Bryan Giles
I Love my Mackie 824's although I know their limitations. Like nuances around 3K and the detail not being as sweet as a more expensive monitor.
People swear by their Events, although I don't prefer them due to the enhanced midrange presence I hear, but once again that is subjective.
You can train your ears to whatever devices you prefer and work from that angle.
To me, the perfect Monitor is the one that gives you what you are looking for. You may hear better sounding monitors, but is it artifically better or does it translate to better mixes. Only your use can determine that outcome.
People love Genelecs although the 1031 seems a little light in the low end for my taste, whereas the 1037 to me sounds fantastic. But it comes with a steep price tag.
So ultimately it is a matter of preferential taste and budget.
My Goal is to grab a pair of Klein and Hummel O300D's
I Love the enhanced detail they provide, of course the ultimate test will be; do my mixes come out better.
Just my 1/2 a penny
Bryan Giles
-
barefoot
- Moderator
- Posts: 554
- Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2003 4:49 am
- Location: Portland Oregon
- Contact:
I always hear this talk about how "subjective" monitors are. Why? I think it's because few people have ever heard truly accurate sound reproduction.
There are clear, objective, measurable performance parameters for monitors.... on-axis frequency response, off-axis frequency response, group delay, impulse response, dynamic compression, harmonic distortion, and intermodulation distortion. All of these, except off-axis frequency response, can be measured for electronic gear as well. And even mediocre electronic gear typically measures HUNDREDS of times better than the very best loudspeakers.
And the interesting thing is, recently published psychoacoustic research indicates that people clearly and consistently prefer the sound of speakers with better (more accurate) objective performance specs - and we're talking untrained listeners in double blind experiments. This completely flies in the face of the commonly held belief that there is a distinct difference between accurate speakers and speakers designed to sound good.
So, if you're listening to a recording through accurate speakers and you don't like what yo hear, blame the recording.... Not the speakers! Knowing this, why would anyone purposely want to monitor their recordings through speakers that color, distort, compress, and essentially MASK their work?
Considering the major importance and major deficiencies of speakers, almost everyone - large studios included - budget far too little money for monitors.
Why are good speakers so expensive? Well, it's just the nature of the beast given our current technology. Speakers are relatively crude electromechanical devices. And electromechanical devices are the very most expensive types of electronic components. Take any piece of electronic gear. Can you guess what consumes most of the cost of producing it? The chassis. Next come things like switches and potentiometers. The real "electronic" guts, which make up 95% of the parts list, are probably less than 1/4 of the total cost. On the other hand, 95% a loudspeaker parts list consists of the most expensive types of components.
Budget appropriately and get the best monitors you can afford. And don't forget your room acoustics!:)
Thomas
There are clear, objective, measurable performance parameters for monitors.... on-axis frequency response, off-axis frequency response, group delay, impulse response, dynamic compression, harmonic distortion, and intermodulation distortion. All of these, except off-axis frequency response, can be measured for electronic gear as well. And even mediocre electronic gear typically measures HUNDREDS of times better than the very best loudspeakers.
And the interesting thing is, recently published psychoacoustic research indicates that people clearly and consistently prefer the sound of speakers with better (more accurate) objective performance specs - and we're talking untrained listeners in double blind experiments. This completely flies in the face of the commonly held belief that there is a distinct difference between accurate speakers and speakers designed to sound good.
So, if you're listening to a recording through accurate speakers and you don't like what yo hear, blame the recording.... Not the speakers! Knowing this, why would anyone purposely want to monitor their recordings through speakers that color, distort, compress, and essentially MASK their work?
Considering the major importance and major deficiencies of speakers, almost everyone - large studios included - budget far too little money for monitors.
Why are good speakers so expensive? Well, it's just the nature of the beast given our current technology. Speakers are relatively crude electromechanical devices. And electromechanical devices are the very most expensive types of electronic components. Take any piece of electronic gear. Can you guess what consumes most of the cost of producing it? The chassis. Next come things like switches and potentiometers. The real "electronic" guts, which make up 95% of the parts list, are probably less than 1/4 of the total cost. On the other hand, 95% a loudspeaker parts list consists of the most expensive types of components.
Budget appropriately and get the best monitors you can afford. And don't forget your room acoustics!:)
Thomas
Thomas Barefoot
Barefoot Sound
Barefoot Sound
-
giles117
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1476
- Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 2:42 am
- Location: Henderson County
- Contact:
Thanks Barefoot as I was dancing around the issue a bit because monitors can be such a heated personal issue with some people.
Personally if my budget allowed, I'd grab a pair of Genelec 1038A or Westlake LC 3w12 for Midfields.
What is coming to my studio soon are those K-H O300D Near fields. Extremely accurate, but not cheap $3000 Dealer cost.
Bryan Giles
Personally if my budget allowed, I'd grab a pair of Genelec 1038A or Westlake LC 3w12 for Midfields.
What is coming to my studio soon are those K-H O300D Near fields. Extremely accurate, but not cheap $3000 Dealer cost.
Bryan Giles
-
eric
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 1:54 pm
- Location: Ellensburg,Wa
One of the things I think I have noticed, and I say think because I don't know, is that the average monitors I have heard don't sound nearly as good as I would expect a " critical speaker" to sound. I was up at the Mackie factory a while back getting a mixer repaired and I listened to some of their monitors (824?). They really didn't sound, in my opinion any better than the events I currently am using. By contrast the Deftechs I have for my home theatre seem to be much tighter and defined that any of the monitors I tried out. And they are bipolars to boot. A few months back I was at one of the larger studios here in Seattle and was lucky enough to sit in on a mixing session( as a casual observer) and thought that their system sounded about as lackluster as my own. So I guess that my real question is what is the purpose of using speakers that really just do an average job of reproduction? Do the mastering guys sit and chuckle when they listen to work done on lesser equipment? What does the guy with megabuck spaekers in his/her listening room hear?
-
giles117
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1476
- Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 2:42 am
- Location: Henderson County
- Contact:
Not sure. Studio Monitors are suppossed to be designed to be ruler flat. The Mackies (824's) sound almost identical to the Genelecs (1031's). Heck they use the same freakin components. and I love the way these jokers sound.
When I hear a better monitor, the imaging is better. basically the difference between a 2 way system and a 3 way system.
Not sure if that translates between lackluster or not.
Most consumer stuff (as far as I can hear and know) is accentuated in the top end and tuned a bit in the lower mids.
Of course this is just from me listening. I tend to favor the Boston Acoustics product for the home system. The high end is silky. But that leads back to my comment about speakers being tailored. it is critical in a studio that a speaker be as neutral as possible.
So to piggyback off of Barefoot, if what you are hearing is lackluster, check your recording and mixing.
One thing I learned in my early days in the studio is to train your ears to HEAR in a studio. Which means in my car I run all my systems flat so I am not hearing it phase altered, etc.
In the studio I set up the system and listen to QUALITY mixes at all times to train my ears and keep them trained.
When you do that, you will hear a LOT differently and all the HI END EQ boost they do in mastering for popular music now will be made sensical to you.
Listen to some higher end stuff (STUDIO Montior wise to see the difference.)
There is a reason Genelecs, Westlakes, Tannoys and such monitors are staples. They will not lie to you by altering the sound.
To repeat, a studio monitors job is to remain as neutral and uncolored as technically possible so you can truly hear what you are hearing.
Bryan Giles
When I hear a better monitor, the imaging is better. basically the difference between a 2 way system and a 3 way system.
Not sure if that translates between lackluster or not.
Most consumer stuff (as far as I can hear and know) is accentuated in the top end and tuned a bit in the lower mids.
Of course this is just from me listening. I tend to favor the Boston Acoustics product for the home system. The high end is silky. But that leads back to my comment about speakers being tailored. it is critical in a studio that a speaker be as neutral as possible.
So to piggyback off of Barefoot, if what you are hearing is lackluster, check your recording and mixing.
One thing I learned in my early days in the studio is to train your ears to HEAR in a studio. Which means in my car I run all my systems flat so I am not hearing it phase altered, etc.
In the studio I set up the system and listen to QUALITY mixes at all times to train my ears and keep them trained.
When you do that, you will hear a LOT differently and all the HI END EQ boost they do in mastering for popular music now will be made sensical to you.
Listen to some higher end stuff (STUDIO Montior wise to see the difference.)
There is a reason Genelecs, Westlakes, Tannoys and such monitors are staples. They will not lie to you by altering the sound.
To repeat, a studio monitors job is to remain as neutral and uncolored as technically possible so you can truly hear what you are hearing.
Bryan Giles