flexible? hmm... It's just that subs are inherently incomplete wherever you place them, so they don’t change much no matter where they are!

REW has a really useful ‘room sim’ feature which allows you to recreate your room virtually, you enter the room’s dimensions and the location of you the mains and subs, as you drag them around you can see the FR change.
Keith

Not really as simulation does not take into account walls composition. Presently, it is not possible to simulate a room FR so that it would be useful. Room modes is the best you can get but even those are far not alone affecting the signal at the listener's point. Practical measurement is essential.

My sub is totally integrated with my mains. I really can not tell where it is in the room. Sounds like it is coming out of my mains. I find position is actually important for this effect.

There's always some tradeoff to be had with every single system out there, even the most expensive ones.

You can enter absorption coefficients,
It is useful and its results corroborated by measurement.
Keith

Uh… circular argument much?

In any case, who is determining your absorption coefficients? Over what frequency range?

Again… could be more dangerous than useful in the hands of a lay person. A studio would be better off hiring an acoustician to treat the room and monitors as a single unit of listening environment because, well, it is.

Hm.

Let’s not help this thread evolve into something off topic. I would suggest that speaker positioning can be its own thread.

As for a target curve… no thanks. My brain and ears (well, EVERYBODY’s) are better at accommodating for aural oddities than an EQ, even with minimal phase shift. Besides, your room is only ever going to be on your target curve - or flat - at (ideally!) your listening position, then in a couple of other places. It won’t be at the couch at the back of the room behind your rack of gear. It won’t be off to your right where the producer sits in just front of your right nearfield.

Get a monitor that challenges your mixing so it translates everywhere. The Genelecs I used to use were ugly to listen to but useful for the same reason - it pushed you to good mixes. My ATCs are less unpleasant to listen to casually but still provide detail to push my kid efforts. End result? Similar, with different processes, and I enjoy the process with my ATCs more than the Genelec 10xx series. The ATCs, with their lack of boosted bass, seem SO easy to place properly; my sub simply extends frequency range and with no shelf turned up, I have a very useful presentation of bass for mixing. I am not aiming for a target curve at that point, just a presentation that helps my mixes translate, flat or not… but to me, ideally as flat as flat can be…

Every material has an absorption coefficient.
Room Sim is a first step and most useful for low bass , obviously actual acoustic measurement to corroborate.
Keith

Right. And one finds this absorption coefficient… where? MSDS sheets? Software guesses it for you?

Say drywall - on Z-channels? What thickness?

And again - circular argument. Of course if you set up your EQ curve for a target, then you measure the actual and you’ve hit your target, that means NOTHING about whether it’s good room or not without more context. Again, that’s why this can be dangerous in the hands of lay people.

An acoustician versed in the ways of studios would be money better spent, even if just for a consult. Sometimes thinking outside the box is just the ticket. But it takes experience to know that, and you admit you have none.

Look out, your inexperience is showing. Again.

https://www.acoustic.ua/st/web_absorption_data_eng.pdf
It’s just an aid that might avoid physically lugging equipment around.
Keith

Interesting. More indiscriminate cutting and pasting.

Can you explain to us what authority this Russian outfit has over such data? My Cyrillic is rusty.

Well stop discussing it then. Target curves ARE to help translation. Most people do not like a flat response. Room design and speaker positioning as well as DSP can be used and are used for this.

What are you on about?
When talking about high end studio monitors that are designed to be ruler flat in an anechoic chamber it's not the monitors that will get you translation. It's your acoustic that does that.

Target curves... this is down to the individual.

I know what sort of response I tend to like and my monitoring is basically doing it now. Without DSP I managed to get 95% of the way there, the DSP has added that final extra stage.

Some people like elevated lows, some like elevated highs, some like the NS10 sound.... it really is entirely up to the individual. Whatever works is correct.

What I would say is, with DSP you can actually broaden your choice of speakers. Yes... a specific speaker with more top-end might be more to your liking, but maybe you can choose something which is better everywhere else in the spectrum and just add the high-end in with EQ if you so wish. The final results might be better (lower distortion, better dispersion throughout the room, less midrange colouration etc). Worth considering.

I'm using MiniDSP with great success I must say. Sounds superb and it's only doing gentle (around 1dB max) nudges in terms of frequency response plus a bit of phase-aligning sub + speakers.

Yes! You know it.
For me to get translation I have a B&K style target curve that I have tuned in over a long time.

Honestly …. yikes.

Monitors are such a blinking straight forward product.

You don’t need to give a darn how the engineers “did their thing”

You’ve only 5 things to worry about.

1. Do my mixes translate perfectly to the outside world. Is what I’m hearing informing me to make the right mix decisions.

As everyone’s aural perception is different then the required programme delivery will be different for different people - that’s why we all often like different monitors.

2. Are the monitors non fatiguing.

3. Can I connect emotionally with the programme presentation (I personally can never get on with DSP monitors - others love them.)

4. Same as 1. DO MY MIXES TRANSLATE!!!!

5. Now - how the heck do I afford said monitors!

The specs, the graphs, the white papers, the endless forum arguments are worthless to a working engineer.

Results trump everything.

If your monitors work for you - they work for you. Period.

Yep.

I, for one, have yet to find the DSP that makes it easier for me than learning the room. Maybe it’s just because I’ve gotten used to that, as I came up before DSP was as economically useful as it is today.

I also acknowledge that you’d have your acoustician EQ your soffit-mounted far fields to work better in the room they’ve been custom installed in, but that’s a whole other kettle of fish.

I just have yet to find the DSP solution that works better than positioning and room treatment. For ME. I have not tried Trinnov, but that’s because I don’t yet feel the ends justify the means - I don’t currently have translation issues. So… my room and monitors work for me.

For the purpose of the title of the thread - 20s with a sub.

I agree. I love that closed design. And with a decent sub they sound epic. Brutally honest but sometimes exceptional with the right material. Even some of the best studios in the world can benefit from a little Trinnov. Except Northward who refuses to use them in his context. He does put a little bump in the lows for some people so they can mix at a lower level. I guess that compensates for the loudness curve. In larger studio spaces I find that the target curve is less useful. But in my mid sized room it works a treat for me.
In my opinion nobody can really learn the complex idiosyncrasies of a room acoustic. You can guess but the long term it's not the same as what you hear is what you get.

People had to learn the house sound before DSP. Horses for courses.

In my opinion, I’d rather hear the system without DSP. I feel like anyone’s brain and ears will be a better computer than that little Raspbery PI or whatever, with no need for digital filters and phase accommodations. Again, haven’t tried Trinnov as I haven’t felt the need to spend the money, but as I understand it things like that and Genelec’s GLM are on a WHOLE other level.

So… while I respect your opinion, I respectfully disagree that no one can learn the complex idiosyncrasies of a room. Perhaps they can’t write a white paper or verbalize how they’re compensating, but at that point, it would be like telling McCartney he doesn’t know what he’s doing musically because he doesn’t read music. Certainly one has to be trained, it ain’t easy, but… I swear everyone has it in them. It’s just that DSP can get you closer faster.

Modern digital filters are really transparent enough not to hear them and the state-of-the-art there is far not Genelec GLM or similar but PC-based tools made by enthusiasts.

As for going without DSP it is not the best idea even just because the phase correction can not be done efficiently otherwise and it is important.

Nope.

If you have correct phase alignment with your well-designed monitors, and you understand positioning, and you understand how to tune/treat your room, you do not absolutely need DSP. Period.

But it is WAY better than it used to be, and if you absolutely have to use it, at least even the lower-end stuff may not be terrible.

Still, I hear a difference, and not for the better. Even on my old JBL LSR4328s, which came with some sort of room correction software… well, I thought the correction was great. At first. It was mainly for low end correction. I ended up turning it off, treating my room better… better and quicker mixes resulted.

So maybe I’m biased, but again - I have not found the DSP-based solution that I care to spend money on. For those who find success using it, congrats, and I hope it does well for you.

As someone just said - if it works for you, it works for you.

In a custom designed Northward room that was built from the ground up for 7 figures yeah, you could probably do without Trinnov. In my apartment bedroom stuffed with GIK panels it's a bit of a different story. Trinnov makes a material difference for the better to my ears, and aside from the calibration the phase / time alignment / bass management / monitor control / DAC / headphone amp is all useful as well. One of the best purchases I've ever made (along with my ATCs).

With all above you will never get flat and zero phase with no excess group delay added by the room and the speaker design. There is no single example of that problem ever solved at least somewhat without digital correction and will never be.
As I said, the commercial room correction functionality coming with loudspeakers is very basic and is far behind the tools available separately.

Amazing that engineers could get anything done before DSP, huh?

Again - it is not absolutely necessary. Period. It can be useful, and it’s gotten much better. But my room works just fine without it, and I’ve been in many rooms where I could work just fine without it. This is not an either or situation - if it works for you, it works.

And I don’t have a 7-figure Northward room. Just GIK and experience. Unfortunately, “experience” doesn’t sound near as sexy as “technology”.

I also don’t use DSP

I find it sounds a bit plastic. / unnatural

Ive only tried ARC and Sonarworks.
Not trinnov. And nearly bought a trinnov on reverb recently

But it seems to flatten say an NS10 to me so that the NS10’s isn’t doing its honky thing. As in to my ears it not only flattens the room but the speaker curve too

I agree , GIKS here lots of them , diffusers , tubes and other panels and they tightened my mains so much

This has been my experience to date.

“Something” gets lost when I’ve tried DSP systems. I have ARC in my home theatre (Anthem receiver), and I will turn it off when listening to vinyl… somehow easier to listen to AND more detailed at the same time, without room EQ or bass management. But for the sis-boom-bah of movie soundtracks that are already digital anyway, it helps with the seamless immersion in that non-treated room so things really fly seamlessly between speakers. I’ve had that stuff in my theatre setup since Kenwood made an Excelon system with a super-primitive touch-screen remote, and none have made me think good things - ARC has been the least bad so far.

If I ever look at anything for the studio, it will be Trinnov, especially if I get into multi-channel. But at this point in time, I do not feel the need outweighs the expense. My system works for me without further aids - just GIK and experience and putting in the hours. If I had trouble with mixes translating perhaps I’d look at it harder.

In the end, there is NO flat speaker. There is NO flat room. There is NO zero compromise solution. If you think your speaker is flat, move up or down or left or right - FR will change depending on dispersion. If you think your room is flat, go stand in a corner and listen. If you think you have your phase aligned - at what frequency or frequencies? The perfect room would be an anechoic sphere, and the perfect monitor would be a single driver system with perfect step response and zero distortion, 20Hz-20kHz, among other aspects; since none of these exist in the practical realm, choose your compromise and learn how to live with it.

I totally agree

Similarly , My mixes are also translating to iPhone ear buds , my car , other speskers and other people’s listening environments , so I’m not pressing buy on a trinnov yet

I realise I have no ‘pro’ experience:-
but if you keep any eq to the minimal phase region of the FR ( REW will show exactly) generally in the low bass then the filter is a perfect inversion, completely transparent, low bass is the most difficult to treat with passive absorption.
Keith

Sounds good Keith

My ATC 150’s have really low distortion so the bass is so clear , right the way down to 25