Quantcast
A question to the connaisseurs and experienced engineers about monitors ... - Page 2 - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
A question to the connaisseurs and experienced engineers about monitors ...
Old 21st September 2012 | Show parent
  #31
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audio X ➑️
I would say except for the very best designs from the likes of Eggleston, Wilson, Focal, and Dunlavy etc. (there's others). You are paying a very high price for a speaker that is designed with no compromise in mind. In other words they are not cutting corners or making any trade offs in quality to save you money. The best designs simply have no compromise. ..but that will cost you mucho dinero.
WORD

So the poor mortals have to stick with a couple of monitors

I wish this could change though

Has anyone heard the TRIDENT HG3 ?? is it really more detailed, revealing and precise than the Barefoot ? :O ... I mean .. .SERIOUSLY ? :O ... or again a marketing joke ? :O
Old 22nd September 2012 | Show parent
  #32
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by alecsribet ➑️

Has anyone heard the TRIDENT HG3 ?? is it really more detailed, revealing and precise than the Barefoot ? :O ... I mean .. .SERIOUSLY ? :O ... or again a marketing joke ? :O
as they are not in the same price class, would you expect them to directly compare? Or would that be a bit unfair?
Old 22nd September 2012 | Show parent
  #33
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] ➑️
as they are not in the same price class, would you expect them to directly compare? Or would that be a bit unfair?
Sure they are not in the same price range at all but some are saying that the HG3 are THAAATTT good , even slightly better(more precision, more information) than the barefoot , that's why I want to know if it's a joke ?? or if they are really THATTTT good
Old 22nd September 2012 | Show parent
  #34
Gear Addict
 
🎧 10 years
I suggest you should listen to the HG3's before publicly slagging them. I have not read any claims on this site that they are as good as the barefoots. I love my my HG3's, had them since April.

I get the impression, from the different threads you've started over the last month, that if your ears aren't bleeding you are not mixing properly.
Old 22nd September 2012 | Show parent
  #35
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by cabbo ➑️
I suggest you should listen to the HG3's before publicly slagging them. I have not read any claims on this site that they are as good as the barefoots. I love my my HG3's, had them since April.

I get the impression, from the different threads you've started over the last month, that if your ears aren't bleeding you are not mixing properly.
Go and read the HG3 Thread then talk If you haven't read it , doesn't mean that it doesn't exist... for the sake of intelligent discussion , here is what was written :

"This is all going to be subjected as translation to you, and translation to me and others may be different. What I can tell you is that Brett Chaasen has been using them next to the Barefoots and here is what he said....

Just droppin a line Alan to tell ya i mixed a few tracks on the Barefoots that had been mixed on the tridents a couple of weeks back.
The Trident mixes translated WAY better (so the barefoot's are going back lol) Real game changer for us man!!
You guys really crushed on those!!
All My Best,
Brett"

About the bleeding thing, if hearing the truth from your monitors causes bleeding, so be it, sorry for you ... but I can tell you that not fixing something harsh in the mixing/mastering level, can definitely cause ear bleeding when played very loud on PA systems.

Good luck
Old 22nd September 2012
  #36
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
I hitched a ride to the New York AES show with Harvey and spent a bunch of time hanging out in his booth. My everyday mastering monitors are Duntech Sovereigns. Most of today's monitors come up short for me in a hurry.

I was amazed to find the HG3s holding their own in an arguably horrendous listening environment. If I were looking for monitors, they would be at the top of my list of speakers to check out.
Old 22nd September 2012 | Show parent
  #37
Gear Addict
 
🎧 10 years
alecscribet,

You are correct. I forgot about Brett Chaasen's comments. Whether his posts are hype I don't know. Still think you should check out the HG3's for yourself and I look forward to hearing your thoughts on them.

cabbo
Old 22nd September 2012 | Show parent
  #38
Lives for gear
 
Harvey Gerst's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by alecsribet ➑️
Sure they are not in the same price range at all but some are saying that the HG3 are THAAATTT good , even slightly better(more precision, more information) than the barefoot , that's why I want to know if it's a joke ?? or if they are really THATTTT good
Well, I sure as hell don't know how they stack up to Barefoot MM27's. I love Thomas' design, and I think we shared similar goals (although we approached common problems from different paths).

I also think the design guys at Focal and ATC have their heads on straight.

Now, having said all that, in my opinion, it's NOT a joke; the HG3's are pretty damn good.

The main, everyday "hat" that I wear is as a working studio engineer - just like most of you. I also have an old hat (from the 50's) as a speaker designer.

When I was asked to design the HG3, I looked at the project with my "studio engineer's hat" on first. I thought about all the things that bothered me about nearfield speakers.

Only then, did I put my "speaker designer" hat on to try and eliminate (or reduce) those problems. It took me a year and a half till I thought I got it right.

Did I succeed? Darned if I know. I've been using the prototypes in the studio for months and my mixes are coming out way better, with far fewer "re-do's." My son Alex has a production pair of HG3's at his SSL mixing room and he reports the same thing.

So, is it all "hype?" Yeah, "some" of it is probably hype. We engineers love our newest toys.

But as I tell other engineers, listen to your own CD's and then decide. The engineers who listen to their own stuff on the HG3's hear a lot more stuff than what they thought was on there.

So, the answer to your other question (for some people) is:

Yeah, "they are really THATTTT good."
Old 22nd September 2012 | Show parent
  #39
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harvey Gerst ➑️
Well, I sure as hell don't know how they stack up to Barefoot MM27's. I love Thomas' design, and I think we shared similar goals (although we approached common problems from different paths).

I also think the design guys at Focal and ATC have their heads on straight.

Now, having said all that, in my opinion, it's NOT a joke; the HG3's are pretty damn good.

The main, everyday "hat" that I wear is as a working studio engineer - just like most of you. I also have an old hat (from the 50's) as a speaker designer.

When I was asked to design the HG3, I looked at the project with my "studio engineer's hat" on first. I thought about all the things that bothered me about nearfield speakers.

Only then, did I put my "speaker designer" hat on to try and eliminate (or reduce) those problems. It took me a year and a half till I thought I got it right.

Did I succeed? Darned if I know. I've been using the prototypes in the studio for months and my mixes are coming out way better, with far fewer "re-do's." My son Alex has a production pair of HG3's at his SSL mixing room and he reports the same thing.

So, is it all "hype?" Yeah, "some" of it is probably hype. We engineers love our newest toys.

But as I tell other engineers, listen to your own CD's and then decide. The engineers who listen to their own stuff on the HG3's hear a lot more stuff than what they thought was on there.

So, the answer to your other question (for some people) is:

Yeah, "they are really THATTTT good."
Thanks for your time Harvey yes that makes sense even though I don't respect Focals anymore , I really appreciate your goal of creating a tool for engineers, by an engineer

I have one question though , I have all the time heard about people using super hi definition speakers and realizing they could hear things in certain TRACKS that they couldn't hear before ... which makes me think :

How did those people create those extremely subtle elements in a mix that you don't even hear on ordinary(or less defined) monitors of NOWADAYS(assuming that monitor quality has evolved like many people are saying) ??

What were the tools or types or speakers were they were using at that time that were allowing them to hear those extreme subtleties ??

Does it means that modern speakers have regressed in some way ?
Old 22nd September 2012 | Show parent
  #40
Lives for gear
 
Harvey Gerst's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by alecsribet ➑️
About the bleeding thing, if hearing the truth from your monitors causes bleeding, so be it, sorry for you ... but I can tell you that not fixing something harsh in the mixing/mastering level, can definitely cause ear bleeding when played very loud on PA systems.
That's very true if you're talking about something like the Peavey SP-2 PA speakers, but it ain't the CD's fault.

When you crank up any PA that uses HF horns, you get something called "throat distortion." It's caused by the opening into the horn being so small, it causes pressure buildup on the diaphragm and the response goes to hell.

If the CD has a good amount of mid and high frequencies, those notes get distorted first. It sounds a lot like having an ice pick shoved into your ear.
Old 22nd September 2012 | Show parent
  #41
Lives for gear
 
Harvey Gerst's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by alecsribet ➑️
Thanks for your time Harvey yes that makes sense even though I don't respect Focals anymore , I really appreciate your goal of creating a tool for engineers, by an engineer

I have one question though , I have all the time heard about people using super hi definition speakers and realizing they could hear things in certain TRACKS that they couldn't hear before ... which makes me think :

How did those people create those extremely subtle elements in a mix that you don't even hear on ordinary(or less defined) monitors of NOWADAYS(assuming that monitor quality has evolved like many people are saying) ??

What were the tools or types or speakers were they were using at that time that were allowing them to hear those extreme subtleties ??

Does it means that modern speakers have regressed in some way ?
No, most speakers haven't regressed. But in the old days, we were listening on big, soffit-mounted speakers; there was no such thing as "nearfields." Big Altecs, UREis, JBLs, etc. were the norm.

The reason for the "nearfield explosion" was primarily fueled by low-end/home studios demanding (or searching for) a very small desktop speaker that they could use as their "mains". How many threads do we see here asking which headphones are "best" for doing final mixes, or for mastering?

The times, they are indeed changing.
Old 22nd September 2012
  #42
Lives for gear
 
shortstory's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
This is a strange thread and I'm not sure what the question or point is- so I'm adding my opinion here.

What stands out most to me in these times of music recording is that it doesn't sound natural or real. I think most young engineers manipulate sounds a lot. We have people come in to record at our studio and when they listen back to their tracks, they say 'wow- what did you do?' - and I say 'nothing- it's just good drums (for instance), in a good room, with good mics, thru good pres, with no EQ, no nothing'. And it sounds big & beautiful & natural & real. It sounds like a record. And after using high end EQs & comps minimally and mixing it up it sounds wonderful. It wraps around you.

And whether they listen on the perfectly flat MM35s or the NS10s or the 1030As doesn't matter. It still sounds great- just different.

I think most music is simply mangled these days between emulations, too much manipulation of the sounds (extreme usage of EQ & comp), extreme manipulation of the music (editing to death in a DAW), and inexperienced engineers. And it sounds like a pointy stick instead of a warm blanket.

It's like coffee- or wine- you have to acquire the senses; the taste.

It's not the monitors. They are just a tool. And yes you need good ones (and usually more than one type). But there's no right or wrong. It's what works for you.
Old 22nd September 2012 | Show parent
  #43
Lives for gear
 
Harvey Gerst's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by shortstory ➑️
We have people come in to record at our studio and when they listen back to their tracks, they say 'wow- what did you do?' - and I say 'nothing- it's just good drums (for instance), in a good room, with good mics, thru good pres, with no EQ, no nothing'. And it sounds big & beautiful & natural & real. It sounds like a record. And after using high end EQs & comps minimally and mixing it up it sounds wonderful. It wraps around you.

And whether they listen on the perfectly flat MM35s or the NS10s or the 1030As doesn't matter. It still sounds great- just different.

It's not the monitors. They are just a tool. And yes you need good ones (and usually more than one type). But there's no right or wrong. It's what works for you.
Yes, no, maybe. You're right, but only to an extent. When your speakers lie to you, or don't give you the whole story while you're mixing, you may be in trouble later on.

Your mixes have to translate well. Just because it sounds good on one or two speakers doesn't mean it will sound good on many other speakers.

Cheap nearfields and new "home studios" seem to be the biggest offenders; they just don't always know how to "get it right.". Lack of experience, bad listening environment, poor speakers; it adds up to a flood of bad recordings hitting the shelves.
Old 22nd September 2012 | Show parent
  #44
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harvey Gerst ➑️
That's very true if you're talking about something like the Peavey SP-2 PA speakers, but it ain't the CD's fault.

When you crank up any PA that uses HF horns, you get something called "throat distortion." It's caused by the opening into the horn being so small, it causes pressure buildup on the diaphragm and the response goes to hell.

If the CD has a good amount of mid and high frequencies, those notes get distorted first. It sounds a lot like having an ice pick shoved into your ear.
That might be a reason , but from my clubbing experiences , there are the majority of tracks that sound piercing, some extremely piercing on the PA, while some RARE others sound super smooth , super clean and not piercing even on those super loud volumes...

...when I listened to those smooth tracks on my friend's ATC , it doesn't reveal any harshness.... while the piercing ones, sound definitely piercing...

...but when testing on my Klein and Hummel and Focals ... the PIERCING TRACKS SOUNDED ALRIGHT ...

Which caused me to lose faith in those brands, and makes me think that they are fooling people.


Which brought me here to inform people that there are some speakers that smooth out harsh elements ... excuse me but I will call those, dishonest speakers.

They will make you think that the mixes are great ... when actually they have issues.
Old 22nd September 2012 | Show parent
  #45
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harvey Gerst ➑️
Yes, no, maybe. You're right, but only to an extent. When your speakers lie to you, or don't give you the whole story while you're mixing, you may be in trouble later on.

Your mixes have to translate well. Just because it sounds good on one or two speakers doesn't mean it will sound good on many other speakers.

Cheap nearfields and new "home studios" seem to be the biggest offenders; they just don't always know how to "get it right.". Lack of experience, bad listening environment, poor speakers; it adds up to a flood of bad recordings hitting the shelves.
AMEN HARVEY!!!! :D FOR A WHILE I WAS THINKING THAT I WAS CRAZY :D

Thank you for confirming that you have made those observations as well :D :D




It's very strange though, that in this forum full of professionals, very rare are those who actually seem notice those anomalies and seem to understand the cause of those problems.


By the way Harvey , thank you for educating your customers about the truth about your HG3 speakers, and how you devised an intelligent trick to hear the harsh frequencies
Old 22nd September 2012
  #46
Gear Addict
 
🎧 15 years
I use NS 10's as a reference because no matter how good a mix is if it doesn't sound great in my car (or yours) and through crappy headphones as an MP3 it's a bad mix.

I believe in as many monitors as I can listen to. Seems they all add a different perspective and when it's sounding good on all of them it's magic.
Old 22nd September 2012
  #47
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
It's not uncommon today for people to put more signal processing on each track than we had in an entire control room during the 1960s!

My experience has been that the more signal processing you use, the less well the recording tends to sound elsewhere. Good monitors really let you know when you've used too much. Recording is an interactive process and that means monitors need to inspire the confidence of everybody involved without requiring excessive processing.
Old 22nd September 2012
  #48
Lives for gear
 
shortstory's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson ➑️
Recording is an interactive process and that means monitors need to inspire the confidence of everybody involved without requiring excessive processing.
well said.
Old 22nd September 2012 | Show parent
  #49
Lives for gear
 
Harvey Gerst's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega Arts ➑️
I believe in as many monitors as I can listen to. Seems they all add a different perspective and when it's sounding good on all of them it's magic.
Fair enough, but I'm with Bob on this one: I prefer listening to a monitor system I can absolutely trust.
Old 23rd September 2012 | Show parent
  #50
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harvey Gerst ➑️
Fair enough, but I'm with Bob on this one: I prefer listening to a monitor system I can absolutely trust.
a continuing mantra from me.
Old 23rd September 2012 | Show parent
  #51
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega Arts ➑️
I use NS 10's as a reference because no matter how good a mix is if it doesn't sound great in my car (or yours) and through crappy headphones as an MP3 it's a bad mix.

I believe in as many monitors as I can listen to. Seems they all add a different perspective and when it's sounding good on all of them it's magic.
Amen brother!!! :D I'm glad to find that perfectionist and passionate people still exist :D

It is indeed a real pleasure to make a mix that sounds good on all systems(as you said all the different systems have their own perspectives though), that's a lot of hard work, but finally it's really satisfying and magic
Old 23rd September 2012 | Show parent
  #52
Lives for gear
 
Kingtone's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by alecsribet ➑️
...
Which caused me to lose faith in those brands, and makes me think that they are fooling people.

Which brought me here to inform people that there are some speakers that smooth out harsh elements ... excuse me but I will call those, dishonest speakers.
...
So you're like some sort of Audio Messiah here to save us all from evil "dishonest" speaker manufacturers that have some conspiracy afoot to mislead us?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harvey Gerst ➑️
Fair enough, but I'm with Bob on this one: I prefer listening to a monitor system I can absolutely trust.
Agreed.
I've never understood the folks who have multiple sets of average speakers in their control rooms. I'm not talking about a good set of mains, great near fields and a 'real world' set etc, but a few or more pairs of low budget monitors... Like that somehow the net result of all the crap will be one great synergetic reference system.
The day I got my barefoot MM27s was the day I lost the need to check mixes on everything else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alecsribet ➑️
...
It's very strange though, that in this forum full of professionals...
Here is your biggest mistake in assumption.
There are less and less professionals in here every month as the noise to signal ratio constantly increases.
Harvey and Bob are of course pro and know their stuff, but I'd even wonder if Harvey would be a member on here anymore if it wasn't beneficial for his speaker sales... But I'm glad he does give his insights and appreciate his input on any subject! And definitely no disrespect intended, but this forum is losing a lot of guys like Harvey and Bob.
While I don't agree with everything Bob O says, I do take it all very seriously from a guy who has decades of REAL world experience.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alecsribet ➑️
...
That might be a reason , but from my clubbing experiences , there are the majority of tracks that sound piercing, some extremely piercing on the PA, while some RARE others sound super smooth , super clean and not piercing even on those super loud volumes...
I would posit that a LARGE percentage of the problems you hear in your clubbing experience have less to do with the speakers that are being used in the monitoring stage than it does with the experience and skill level of the folks mixing the tracks.
I know so called 'engineers' who purposely mix tracks to sound like an mp3 because they think that is what music is meant to sound like... And there are some labels I work with that push this notion!

If I ever find that tracks of mine sound harsh on other systems, the ONLY thing I can blame is my laziness, carelessness or stupidity. I definitely can not just blame my tools first.

It is the earz not the gearz that make the MOST difference.
There are a few threads at the moment about harsh sounds and bad mixes, and being gearslutz, we definitely like to focus on the gear... But more often than not, the biggest weakness is experience and expertise.
Old 23rd September 2012 | Show parent
  #53
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingtone ➑️

If I ever find that tracks of mine sound harsh on other systems, the ONLY thing I can blame is my laziness, carelessness or stupidity. I definitely can not just blame my tools first.

It is the earz not the gearz that make the MOST difference.
There are a few threads at the moment about harsh sounds and bad mixes, and being gearslutz, we definitely like to focus on the gear... But more often than not, the biggest weakness is experience and expertise.
The reason of creating this thread in the first place is to connect with people who've got the same problem that I have with regards to the speakers.

I have to say that your ears are very important, but your speakers are extremely important as well.

In the same room, same placement where my friend has his ATC, using his speakers I heard harshness faults, the same faults that were deafening on the loud PA systems, but it was clear and alarming on the ATC.

However when using my speakers (K&H & focal Twins) in the same place , the harshness was not pointed out at all , all was smooth and nice.

I'm not the first person who complains about those brands sounding too good and nice even on rather ****ty mixes. I am talking from only my personal experience.



You can have the best ears , but if your speakers are telling you that everything's all good ... how the hell will you know if something fishy is going on ??

If you wanna believe blindly in what all the hype and marketing strategies of the monitors , fine for you man , good luck and good for you.

I'm writing this for the people, who like me are not very happy about their SUPPOSEDLY accurate and revealing monitoring speakers.


Just ignore my post if you are not affected by those problems
Old 23rd September 2012
  #54
Here for the gear
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
my experience tells me that as often as not (and i'm not saying this is necessarily the case for you Alec) even nominally "pro" users , fail to get the best from their speakers , by way of a combination of less than ideal positioning, both within the roo, and in relation to the listener, and ALSO the positioning of other items, as well as the acoustic design/treatment of the room.

you can ONLY consider the speakers in conjunction with the rest of the environment they are within.....

for example, your much maligned K&H O300's ....

they are really VERY positioning critical..... especially when a reasonable sized console is involved....

I've found that adjustments of a few centimetres, and just a degree or two can make a huge difference in the imaging and subjective speed quality of the decision making process as a result....

your description of everything being smooth and "niiice" when it perhaps ought not to be, is , to me at any rate, indicative that the alignment is less than ideal....

i've found the O300 to be a very capable and reliable monitor , i've used them plenty, and set up a number of rooms with them as the primary reference source....

but , as i said,.... the results are hugely dependent on set up ..... and that set up will be slightly different for every room..

I set up a pair in a room with an Audient 8024 a few years ago, and until we got the positioning "just right" there was something of "smoothing vagueness" about the image... perhaps like viewing through water.... and then when you moved forward, and leaned in over the fader tray, it was like putting your head in to the water and seeing more clearly,

once we'd spent several hours mucking about with tiny adjustments , we finally got to a point where THAT clarity of image was what we heard at the mix position....

(as i recall, i think aiming them at a point about a foot and a bit behind the listeners ear line through their head was once of the key moves)



given that your concern is about HF/Hi-Mid detail, my inference is that you're listening slightly off axis from the tweeter's centre line...


A brief experience with set of focals in the same room ,(but minus the Console) leads me to suspect they may also be very position sensitive....


perhaps your friend with the ATC's has them set up correctly..... in a more ideal environment ??
Old 23rd September 2012 | Show parent
  #55
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonbreath ➑️
my experience tells me that as often as not (and i'm not saying this is necessarily the case for you Alec) even nominally "pro" users , fail to get the best from their speakers , by way of a combination of less than ideal positioning, both within the roo, and in relation to the listener, and ALSO the positioning of other items, as well as the acoustic design/treatment of the room.

you can ONLY consider the speakers in conjunction with the rest of the environment they are within.....

for example, your much maligned K&H O300's ....

they are really VERY positioning critical..... especially when a reasonable sized console is involved....

I've found that adjustments of a few centimetres, and just a degree or two can make a huge difference in the imaging and subjective speed quality of the decision making process as a result....

your description of everything being smooth and "niiice" when it perhaps ought not to be, is , to me at any rate, indicative that the alignment is less than ideal....

i've found the O300 to be a very capable and reliable monitor , i've used them plenty, and set up a number of rooms with them as the primary reference source....

but , as i said,.... the results are hugely dependent on set up ..... and that set up will be slightly different for every room..

I set up a pair in a room with an Audient 8024 a few years ago, and until we got the positioning "just right" there was something of "smoothing vagueness" about the image... perhaps like viewing through water.... and then when you moved forward, and leaned in over the fader tray, it was like putting your head in to the water and seeing more clearly,

once we'd spent several hours mucking about with tiny adjustments , we finally got to a point where THAT clarity of image was what we heard at the mix position....

(as i recall, i think aiming them at a point about a foot and a bit behind the listeners ear line through their head was once of the key moves)



given that your concern is about HF/Hi-Mid detail, my inference is that you're listening slightly off axis from the tweeter's centre line...


A brief experience with set of focals in the same room ,(but minus the Console) leads me to suspect they may also be very position sensitive....


perhaps your friend with the ATC's has them set up correctly..... in a more ideal environment ??
Heya Dragon!!! :D

Thank you for sharing your experience :D and I hear what you are saying

Actually I was wondering if my room was wrong , so I bought the monitors to my buddy's room , and placed the speakers at the place his ATC was, and fiddled with the position ... those Atc 150 things weigh a TON .

The sound was the same , they still were sounding soft and didn't warn me of any anomaly in the harshness department. You know I even placed my ears close to the tweeter to make sure that it was not my room.

I would not realize this problem if I didn't listen to my mixes on PA systems and on other systems. It was clear that there was a problem when perfectly heard the anomalies on my buddy's system.

I am sure that many engineers out there are not aware of this problem and that's why so many records contain harshness and horrible sibilances, when played on home, car and PA systems... and on some headphones.

If I stayed in my mixing room and never listened to my mixes on other systems, I would think that all was perfect in the perfect world and that my speakers are showing me everything ... and lie to myself.

The other problems of those monitors is that ****ty mixes sound good(acceptable) on them, which I don't think is a good thing ... while ****ty mixes sound VERY ****ty on my buddy's system.

I will try what you have suggested about the positioning, and will report my observations. Thanks you :D
Old 23rd September 2012
  #56
Lives for gear
 
antstudio's Avatar
Some may not like this suggestion but if you still have access to your friend's room have you considered applying an EQ curve to your monitors to see if you can find a setting that more closely matches your friend's system and that helps you find those troublesome frequencies? I'm not thinking you'd mix into this or print with it but maybe just use it to check your mixes once in a while. Not an ideal solution and maybe not even possible but I'd be interested of this works for you.
Old 24th September 2012
  #57
Here for the gear
 
🎧 5 years
Sent from my PG86100
Old 24th September 2012
  #58
Here for the gear
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
in the normal sense , i'd be very against using eq to "fix" monitoring issues...... but it could be a worthwhile experiment to do spectral analyses of the ATC and K&H speakers in that room,...... see where the differences are.....

don;t get me wrong, i like ATC.... a lot..... i'm just a bit nonplussed about the K&H seeming inadequate.... i've been fond of them for years.....

that said, I don;t own a set.... I have 3 different sets of monitors i use, ALL closed box systems like the K&H, but different..... NS10, AE22, SP1ML they all do slightly different things..... but the time domain response is always tighter than a very tight thing..... :D
Old 24th September 2012 | Show parent
  #59
Lives for gear
 
Enlightened Hand's Avatar
 
16 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audio X ➑️
I would say except for the very best designs from the likes of Eggleston, Wilson, Focal, and Dunlavy etc. (there's others). You are paying a very high price for a speaker that is designed with no compromise in mind. In other words they are not cutting corners or making any trade offs in quality to save you money. The best designs simply have no compromise. ..but that will cost you mucho dinero.
I would say that it's harder to skin the cat than you think, regardless of the price.

There is currently no playback system on Earth that can reproduce the authentic sound of an actual acoustic space, and any audio performance made in such a space, completely. You need both the sound of the space and the performance, and both accurately, to get authentic fidelity. That's a problem we haven't solved. So, the implication that respected brands are somehow able to provide a "no compromise" solution to the problem of accurately reproducing recorded sound through a playback system, and all one needs is enough money to make it happen, is something I find misleading.

But ultimately, that's besides the point. Monitoring for the purpose of critical listening, as tracking and mixing personnel do, isn't necessarily about complete fidelity. It's about "enough" fidelity, in certain critical areas of consideration. It's approached in that fashion to allow a critical listener the easy opportunity to make mix balance and signal processing decisions, with a reasonable expectation that the decisions they make, and the general way they hear those decisions, will faithfully translate to the widest variety of playback systems. You don't need playback from the gods. But it's very tough to get by with playback that's unpredictable. That's why speaker design elements work together in a move towards controlling certain pernicious variables. In that design objective there are ALWAYS trade offs.

There might be a "no compromise" ideal towards component selection, finalization of design, testing, manufacture and quality control, and indeed, that will usually produce a superior product. But that doesn't mean that any such device produced with that kind of design orientation will solve the fundamental problems with attempting to reproduce a sonic event in the first place. It will only mitigate them, which is a compromise (and that's okay).
Old 24th September 2012
  #60
Here for the gear
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
with reference to those waterfall plots posted earlier in the thread, someone asked where they originated,

i believe they may have been done by Philip Newell , for an article he wrote relating to the benefits of the NS10's time domain response.... essentially what they show is how quickly a speaker stops ringing after the source impulse has stopped. offhand, i think they may have been measured at Southampton University in their anechoic chamber.

I think the later article by Phil Ward in Sound on Sound magazine also referenced back to Phil's work for some of it's measurement data.
πŸ“ Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 56 views: 6960
Avatar for Reptil
Reptil 16th April 2005
replies: 698 views: 247943
Avatar for EffinPoop
EffinPoop 28th May 2021
replies: 3988 views: 1139376
Avatar for Musicman7
Musicman7 8 hours ago
replies: 59 views: 12246
Avatar for Dikkie
Dikkie 13th February 2021
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump