Why not have both?!

I hardly think people are overlooking timing or tuning in the current era - in fact the criticism is usually that people pay TOO much attention to tuning and timing!

As someone who spent some time talking with George at AIR (vs conjecturing), he did care about the sonics. And with bands, there was care about the band members even showing up.

And the monitors at AIR (Oxford Circus, Montserrat, and Lyndhurst) were all custom built. That was George's determinations -- so you'd be wrong on an examination of a fantastic producer and arranger.

I do understand what you're saying in your post - and for me it's a case of everything is true at the same time.

Do you not find it just depends where you have your laser focused at that moment?

When I'm writing and being creative, I have a pair of 2.1 speakers with the sub turned up a bit too loud, it's vibey and fun and I just create without thinking about anything but the music.

Then I come to arrange the music and even at the arrangement stage a pair of great highly revealing monitors like the ATC SCM 25's (for example) will actually influence the chord voicing I choose as they show the interaction of the harmony so clearly.

OK so now it might become genre specific?

I love Steely Dan, Sting, Gabriel .... yes I'm old :-) and stuff like this matters to me enormously and at the mix stage I want to hear all those annoying resonances and clashing bass notes - I'm doing it for me - it's important to me.

Maybe if I was recording in a different genre the focus would be in a different place, I can see that.

I don't think high end, high resolution, low distortion, super accurate monitors that present huge amounts of programme information are for everyone - I mean once you have all that information coming at you - then you have to do something with it and if that isn't your vibe or thing or motivation then I agree there's no point in spending all that money.

I know it's an over used statement - but it really is a case of horses for courses.

IMD and a three way will be better a two way.

I've always thought this way, but not sure anymore (guess I will have to try some more to say it clearly)

All other things being equal, three way speakers should have better IMD than two way speakers indeed.

But when comparing speakers from different manufacturers, with different transducers, different design choices, that statement becomes questionable. Especially since, like harmonic distortion, IMD is not constant over the entire frequency response. One speaker may be better in the bass, another better in the mids or highs. It will also change with SPL level.

For an obvious example, a smallish inexpensive three way speaker such as the Kali IN-8 will certainly not behave as well, as far as IMD is concerned, compared to the big, expensive two way JBL M2, with its 15in woofer and its compression tweeter.

When comparing speakers, we should be wary of vague generalizations. The devil is in the details.

Well of course not. You need to have the right connections to win this kind of awards, as Billie Eilish and her brother clearly demonstrated to us earlier this year.

But forget about awards. Making a song sound good is the artist's job. "Garbage in - garbage out" principle applies. Even the world's most expensive speaker is not going to unsing the song for you and re-sing it again properly. It simply allows you to hear the mix unhindered by the flaws of mediocre audio systems and thus reduces the time to get to the end result. Time, not sound quality.

Really good point IMO!

Those mixing highly commercial material will be receiving very high quality audio that’s been tracked in a great space through quality gear, overseen by an actual producer (opposed to a beat maker only) and will receive (compared to what I get anyway!) tracks free from major problems with a vibe to the record already happening. It makes sense that when enhancing this quality material less tasty tools are needed to nudge it into a nice record.

I receive a lot of very raw files of stuff that’s been tracked in a bad space, through a cheap mic and interface only. Spotting and fixing problems and somehow moulding together a nice record can be a big challenge on a lot of jobs! Having quality monitors helps with diagnosing and assessing issues and having a few nice outboard pieces helps put some vibe into the material.

Although course no amount of high end gear can replace experience, skill and effort.

a tweeter compression ? Start by use the good word.For the high frequencies The M2 use a horn with a compression. The M2 needs an heavy equalization to give a good result.

https://jblpro.com/innovation-transducers

Tell us about electrostratics or full band transducers..

Translation is not translating well for you......the guy you quoted said “compression tweeter”.......which I clearly understood to represent a “compression driver”, the correct expression of the device. Whether it uses a ‘horn lens’ or ‘waveguide’ are irrelevant.

The word compression has a precise definition.

The word tweeter has a précise definition.

A tweeter can not be a compression.

Learn and inform yourself before wanting to evangelize the audiophile people

I think what Manu is trying to say is that he works in the nearfield, at reasonable and rational levels where the smaller, less expensive Focal will produce adequate results for him when the congestion of low bass response is removed from both the speaker and his nearfield triangle.........and I agree with him.....completely. The entire monitoring process was born from just this type of system......the NS10......still in use after 40 years and worthy of a clone or two.

It’s never a question of just the speaker.....it’s choosing the right speaker for the environment and the process, all of which are dependent upon eachother. Manu has concluded that having thumping 80hz and below content facing at him is a hinderance and not a help......and I AGREE with him.........Bass at these frequencies is omnidirectional and has no timbre to establish location sourcing in a stereo mix. Keep it grounded and mono and outside the triangle......you’ll hear clearer and deeper into the midbass,mids and treble without it but can still effectively balance the low frequencies if you have a capable subwoofer system..........and THIS depends on the environment........whether your working in a professional purpose built well treated studio OR a converted spare bedroom, subwoofers offer a working solution for both......it’s how you solve the problems that count.

As a blanket statement, this simply isn’t true.....and in fact, the inverse is true in that the more radiating sources and wavefront interactions that occur, the MORE IMD present as a system. The potential for the lowest IMD would be the non existent single transducer point source. Now if you’re talking HD, that’s a different story......all drivers have an HD component and some HD has actually been proven to be preferable by psychoacoustic research. But yes, all things being equal, a three way allows the individual drivers to work cleaner within their passband which is determined by size and design of the drivers themselves.

Not sure we’re having a valid discussion or a challenge through translation?

I wanna believe that it’s a translation thing because otherwise, you’re quite simply wrong and being rude and obtuse to defend your position.

BTW......can’t stand audiophiles.....a subjective cesspool of charlatans.

Someone else coming to drain the swamp. Make Audio Great Again!

The only issue I can find with that 45a is that it weighs 80 pounds

Can’t get my head around how to place it in a room and do all those little tweaks for positioning at that weight and size.

Is there a speaker that can compete with the 45a that doesn’t take two people to
move???

The amphion system with a single sub is about $8k and even though the sub weighs a ton, moving the L/R much easier.

Even the 25a is 70 pounds. My back hurts just thinking about it.

You could temporarly put them on carts (any piece of wood solid and reasonable big enough with wheels), and move them around easily.. (I mean on their stands of course)..

I reckon that having 2 young assistants would be better, but..



Cheu

My 370 lbs of speaker+stands for every channel (left, center, right) have no issues tweaking. You set the height once (and there is only one _right_ height for a speaker because the acoustic center has to be level with your ears.) Then the whole speaker stand is on wheels. Turn, twist, or move is no issue for one person. And the speakers haven't left their stands in years (in fact they are strapped to them because I live in earthquake country.) They even get rolled to other studios. (Rolled to a cartage truck with a lift-gate and anchored inside)

Not a big deal. Only takes 2 people once to get it on the stand.

Amazing. Which brand of stands do you use that have wheels?

I have Sound Anchors ADMID-2 stands.
I asked for a wheel option and specified they'd need to be able to support 400 lbs. (There are different grades of wheels so the total weight was important to specify.)

Well, I do recall an interview with George in an audiophile magazine in which he talked very disparagingly about the audiophile obsession with sonics as opposed to listening to the music.

My point is that obsessing about the technical aspects of the recording might have an adverse effect on the music. Things like freshness and spontaneity can be lost in pursuing technical perfection. Listen to the classic recordings of the pre-tape jazz era or pop recordings from the 50s and 60s. Technically imperfect, no doubt, but perhaps capturing the music better than later, more technically advanced stuff?

And I absolutely believe that. He was a down-to-earth guy. But audiophile stupidity (power cables, etc.) is different from mixing/engineering sonics.

When AIR was half bought by Pioneer (initially), then sent some of their reference TAD speakers over. George didn't care for them (or their price tag.) They got passed room to room eventually ending up in storage. (I think one of the mastering guys on the second level tried to use them for awhile.) Those would be audiophile nonsense but at the same time the in-walls in Lyndhurst Hall and Studio 1 had TAD drivers as part of the custom built speakers. Those were engineers' tools to him. And it was important they were accurate. (By that point, George was losing his hearing so he was more concerned that clients -- including his son -- found the speakers accurate.)

This is just the style of working -- afraid to commit. It's like digital photography: you know you can take as many shots as you want (and nearly as rapidly as you want) and edit it later or choose later. While film photography you knew how much film you had and you had limited editing in the darkroom so you'd spend more time lighting correctly and getting the angles right. Really learning to frame the subject.

But there are people today in audio who are embracing "committing" again while keeping technical aspects as perfect as possible.

Which brings us to another issue: what is the primary criterion for a recording/mastering studio in selecting its monitors? Is it a matter of the accuracy of the monitors or is it a primarily commercial decision based on the reputation of the chosen monitors and their likelihood of attracting extra clients? For instance, let's say Sterling Sound (as a hypothetical example) are considering getting new monitors: the choice is between an unknown but very accurate new monitor and a highly prestigious established monitor that is less accurate. Do they opt for the untried one or the establishment one? My guess is the better business decision is to go for the latter.

Another question: do major studios actually pay for their monitors or do they get them for free or actually get paid for using them?

I can answer a bit about this but won't be fully forthcoming because in some cases being too specific feels like giving away "state secrets." My knowledge is about Los Angeles and London studios. Second question first
I know of no studio that gets "paid for using them."
I know of major recording/mix studios that pay the "professional/industry price" for speakers, pay "at cost" for speakers, and those who get them for free.
To be clear, none of the studios would go to a speaker unless they have clients who desired those speakers in the rooms. It isn't "cost" before "quality" or sonics. It's brand partnership after quality has been "solved." The ones that get them for free are practically featured showrooms for the speaker company so they get something out of it. You could possibly guess which studios are in what category.
Since I've mentioned AIR, I can be specific on that (I don't feel any of this is telling tales out of school but my memory might be a little shaky on specifics.) AIR's use of TAD drivers in the Hall and Studio 1 (I believe it was mid and tweeter only -- woofers were definitely not TAD but can't remember who), was a decision way before Pioneer and was by the guy who designed the speakers (and had designed them for other iterations of AIR over the years.) After Pioneer had ownership, they got free drivers as replacements. But they weren't beholden to use Pioneer/TAD. Studio 2 had been Dynaudio. And they were shopping for Studio 3 when I was around. They ended up with ATCs because clients who were using that room kept requesting them. Can't remember if those stuck permanently but they were there for a few years (too lazy to check their website now .) But it came down to what clients wanted (not who owned them.) And they would bring different speakers in all the time (freestanding) for the Hall and Studio 1. I remember B&W and PMC both brought in around the console depending on an engineer's request. I believe in both cases they were hired/rented in. I could not tell you the price they paid for the Dynaudios or ATCs; and after Pioneer sold AIR, I don't know if they still get free drivers (they have/had a branding deal with Pioneer on their "AIR" amplifier/receivers so that may still be there in exchange for drivers/licensing money.)

Now to the first question: mastering studios.
Less familiar here. I personally know only one true major multi-facility mastering studio and every engineer has their own (and mostly different) set of speakers. Kind of between the engineer and the speaker manufacturer how they got those. Most major mastering houses I know are 1 or 2 room only. With a head mastering engineer and an assistant mastering engineer (or "second-level" mastering engineer.) Mastering has traditionally been like a journeyman/apprenticeship process. And most of the mastering engineers I know adopted the same speakers as their previous mentor used (which makes sense because they had to work on those and get to know them first.) But none of the major mastering engineers I know think of their speakers as a means to "attract clients" -- they attract clients based on their own reputation. So they don't give a rat's a$$ about the speaker brand -- only how well they can work on them. An in-demand mastering engineer wants to be able to work quickly.
And most mastering engineers are very, very attached to their speakers and their setup. Well... until they find something "better."

I don't know how Sterling arrived at their decision. It's already unusual to have multiple mastering rooms set up the exact same way (outside of old school places like Sony mastering which dictated the rooms/speakers together.) I'm sure they did listening tests and decided by committee to do such a shift for their facilities. Northward is on Gearslutz so they could possibly answer questions if it doesn't harm the client.
But they wouldn't make a decision based on speaker brandname recognition. They get their work because they are "Sterling Sound" and the names of (and work done by) their mastering engineers. (especially now with more and more, even pre-pandemic, unattended mastering sessions)

As I said these things aren't binary, for me it all depends on the hat you're wearing at any one moment.

You know there's no harm in having high resolution monitors, it's about capability, so some of the time
you might feel they offer more than you need and then when you do need more mid register detail, accurate full bandwidth information and a higher level of spacial resolution etc .... well it's there at that moment you want and need it.

But I can respect for you have a different approach and attitude to the tools that I greatly value.

Thankfully, nobody is forced to buy anything they don't need or see the value in

Sadly, here in 2020 so many major studios I knew of that thrived in the late 70's, 80's and early 90's have closed down!

The large majority of high end monitoring goes into artist based project studios where there are no paying clients to impress.

Here in 2020, the vast majority of people are buying high end monitors based solely on their performance, confirmed by the large number of threads in the high end section of this very forum (and other pro audio forums) on the subject of choosing high end, high resolution monitors.

It looks like ADMID are no longer available with wheels, just spikes or coasters.

Did you buy them from Sound Anchor or add the wheels?

Did you call/speak to them? I have 5 stands in total. Two were supplied with wheels by Sound Anchor. Three I swapped the spikes for wheels myself (I already had the model of wheel that was used from my other two stands -- it's a standard threading and double-caster, hooded wheel. And I wouldn't worry about brakes on the wheels as they are fairly pointless with the weight of the stands+speakers.)

But a friend just got stands for 45A speakers with wheels in December from Sound Anchor. So it seems they are/were still offering them -- you just have to ask directly.