Quantcast
A question to the connaisseurs and experienced engineers about monitors ... - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
A question to the connaisseurs and experienced engineers about monitors ...
Old 21st September 2012
  #1
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 5 years
A question to the connaisseurs and experienced engineers about monitors ...

Hi people I have been really puzzled about the myths of frequency graphs and supposedly flat graphs meaning greater accuracy...with regards to monitor speakers.


According to this THEORY , the perfect monitor would be the one with the flattest frequency response graph.

BUT how come people have pulled out great mixes out of extremely chaotic speakers(with regards to the way bumpy and peaky frequency graph) like the NS-10 or the Auratones or the older less than perfect speakers ??

They didn't have all the super technology we have now to design speakers and measure the frequency distribution with accuracy as we do now, and the frequency graphs were far from being flat... so we agree that the monitors were far from being technically flat.

So while choosing a speaker , should people really bother about the graphs and the specifications ???? is it really as meaningful and reliable as people might think ?? or just a marketing selling line ?

How come speakers that have so common specifications , have such a different sound ??

...and again how were people pulling such amazing mixes from NS-10 which is not a flat speaker system at all ??


Another example is the ATC 150 which is very impressive in its details and accuracy, brutally honest and revealing nature and yet , the spec says [ Frequency Response (+/-6dB) : 25Hz–22kHz ] [Frequency Response (+/-2dB) : 60Hz–12kHz] ... ... which specs can be comparable to the Twins , KH 0300, Opals, etc but how come they can't match the quality and detail of the ATC ... and can't even match the revealing and useful nature of the NS-10 in the low mid, mid,hi-mid sectors?
Old 21st September 2012
  #2
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Seems you have just cottoned onto the relativity of importance of the word 'flat' in the context of monitoring.

Yes, a speaker can be flatter than another. But in the end what you hear is the speaker AND the room. Think of it as one. Because it is. And between them you would likely be disappointed how far from flat they come out in the wash, even when lots of money is spent.

So, this doesn't make a speaker being flat a waste of time. But it puts it in perspective, as in the end you always have to learn your monitoring and what it sounds like in order to make translating mixes on it. And your monitoring here again is speakers AND room together.

On a side note, NS10's work MUCH better than many other speakers in untreated (or little treated, i.e. not on the bass end) rooms, as they don't excite the bass end of a room much. It's all contextual.
Old 21st September 2012 | Show parent
  #3
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 ➡️
Seems you have just cottoned onto the relativity of importance of the word 'flat' in the context of monitoring.

Yes, a speaker can be flatter than another. But in the end what you hear is the speaker AND the room. Think of it as one. Because it is. And between them you would likely be disappointed how far from flat they come out in the wash, even when lots of money is spent.

So, this doesn't make a speaker being flat a waste of time. But it puts it in perspective, as in the end you always have to learn your monitoring and what it sounds like in order to make translating mixes on it. And your monitoring here again is speakers AND room together.

On a side note, NS10's work MUCH better than many other speakers in untreated (or little treated, i.e. not on the bass end) rooms, as they don't excite the bass end of a room much. It's all contextual.
I wouldn't note the room as being a part of the equation as I have tested those speakers in the same room(a friend's mastering room) at the same position ... the only one that I haven't tested in the room was the NS-10, but I have documented myself on it's frequency graph which got huge peaks and dips.
Old 21st September 2012
  #4
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
I think you need to let frequency graphs be what they are and realize there is a LOT more to how a piece of gear sounds, be it a speaker, a mic, etc...anything.

Do some reading up on group delay. This makes a big difference.

And I'm sorry, but the speakers and the room ARE a system, and if you measure the ATC's in the room, i.e. that whole system, you will also find big peaks and trophs.
Old 21st September 2012
  #5
Gear Guru
 
John Willett's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Firstly - Frequency response graphs don't tell you everything - you can have a flat monitor that sounds absolutely horrible.

Secondly - the Auratones and NS-10s are not main monitors. They are "grot" monitors which are used as secondary monitors to give an indication of what a mix will sound like on the average domestic sound system.

These are used in addition to the main monitors - not instead of.
Old 21st September 2012
  #6
Gear Maniac
 
TonyR's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Frequency response graphs don't tell you everything

That's right maybe this can help you to understand more.

This can tell you more about speakers / monitors
Attached Thumbnails
A question to the connaisseurs and experienced engineers about monitors ...-atc.jpg   A question to the connaisseurs and experienced engineers about monitors ...-ns10.jpg  
Old 21st September 2012
  #7
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 5 years
Thank you tony for this information!!

I can see the relation between frequency, and sound pressure level , but what is the MS ?? Meter second or meter per second(velocity?) ?? resonance ?

And actually what does it show ?? the damping capacity ? please explain
Old 21st September 2012
  #8
Gear Maniac
 
TonyR's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
I'm not a monitor expert, but ms stand for millisecond.

It's a watterfall plot or spectral decay.

It shows you the ringing / resonance.
Old 21st September 2012 | Show parent
  #9
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Willett ➡️
Firstly - Frequency response graphs don't tell you everything - you can have a flat monitor that sounds absolutely horrible.

Secondly - the Auratones and NS-10s are not main monitors. They are "grot" monitors which are used as secondary monitors to give an indication of what a mix will sound like on the average domestic sound system.

These are used in addition to the main monitors - not instead of.
Thousands of albums were made using the NS-10M nearfields as the MAIN SOURCE OF MONITORING. Virtually every well-known mixing engineer in history (people such as Andy Wallace, Terry Date, Brendan O’Brien, the Lord-Alge brothers, Charles Dye, Dave Pensado, Ben Grosse, you name it) used them to make some of the most amazing production works ever. In 2007, they were awarded the Technical Grammy® Award.
Old 21st September 2012
  #10
Gear Maniac
 
TonyR's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
What else I can tell about.

1.to the bigger pictures

The left-hand column 1. graph (ATC) ist a unported model, whereas the lower two are ported.

Right-hand column are ported, with resonances well up into the midrange.

But again I'm no experts but for shure there some here which can tell you more about that.
Old 21st September 2012
  #11
Gear Maniac
 
TonyR's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
So the NS-10 seems not so bad maybe good

I think it's always good too have two pairs of monitors, for example if you use the ns10 than maybe second pair for the low end. IMHO

TonyR
Old 21st September 2012 | Show parent
  #12
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by alecsribet ➡️
Thousands of albums were made using the NS-10M nearfields as the MAIN SOURCE OF MONITORING. Virtually every well-known mixing engineer in history (people such as Andy Wallace, Terry Date, Brendan O’Brien, the Lord-Alge brothers, Charles Dye, Dave Pensado, Ben Grosse, you name it) used them to make some of the most amazing production works ever. In 2007, they were awarded the Technical Grammy® Award.
They also use other monitors in conjunction, like John says.

However, from what I have seen (contrary to what he suggests), IF someone uses the NS10's at all, they are far more likely to use them for most of the mixing decisions and reference other monitors now and again for overall shape, bass, etc, as opposed to doing it the other way round. But they still have another pair or two to do what the 10's don't being the point.
Old 21st September 2012
  #13
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Audio specifications are often very incomplete and way over-simplified to look good. Specs don't lie but liars frequently cite incomplete, misleading specs.
Old 21st September 2012
  #14
Lives for gear
 
shortstory's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
[QUOTE=alecsribet;8282150]Hi people I have been really puzzled about the myths of frequency graphs and supposedly flat graphs meaning greater accuracy...with regards to monitor speakers.


According to this THEORY , the perfect monitor would be the one with the flattest frequency response graph.

BUT how come people have pulled out great mixes out of extremely chaotic speakers(with regards to the way bumpy and peaky frequency graph) like the NS-10 or the Auratones or the older less than perfect speakers ??

_______________

Monitoring is a very delicate & subjective issue for all mixers/engineers.

You're correct that different monitors are built with different freq responses. We have 4 monitor choices for very specific reasons. The MM35s are indeed flat across the freq spectrum (we have measured each of the monitor choices as well as the sweet spot as well as the room). The Genelec 1030As that we have give a gentle roll-off on the high freqs & a boost in the lows; this is what I think of as a 'classic' monitor response. it helps us balance the mix correctly in a sense. The NS10s are mid-forward with low-mids emphasized and this is another helpful tool. One thing I do know after 25 years of using NS10s in many rooms is that the amplifier makes a significant difference in their ability to translate properly for what they are; but if you have them set-up properly they are absolutely useful and I can now mix only on them and get perfectly translated mixes outside. A mono auratone is the last we have.

What I feel is most important is listening to music I know very very well (from listening to it for many years on many different systems-) and understanding the listening environment I'm in.

A piece that works great for me is CSNY's 'country girl' or Lyle Lovett's 'she's already made up her mind'. They accurately reveal the whole spectrum and what the mix room is doing to my ears.
Old 21st September 2012 | Show parent
  #15
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson ➡️
Specs don't lie but liars frequently cite incomplete, misleading specs.
lol
Old 21st September 2012 | Show parent
  #16
Barefoot Sound
 
barefoot's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR ➡️
Frequency response graphs don't tell you everything

That's right maybe this can help you to understand more.

This can tell you more about speakers / monitors
Hi Tony,

Can you tell me where you found these charts? They appear to be gated response measurements down to 20Hz. There are only a few places in the world where such data can be reliably measured. I’m not saying they aren’t real. But they do raise my skeptical antennae a bit.

Thanks,
Thomas
Old 21st September 2012
  #17
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by alecsribet ➡️
Hi people
BUT how come people have pulled out great mixes out of extremely chaotic speakers...

How come speakers that have so common specifications , have such a different sound ??
Most mere mortals benefit from having more accurate tools. The original role of the NS10 has been forgotten, but it was not the primary monitor, it was a reference for the traveling engineer/producer working in different rooms... he could not know for sure what the house monitors were telling him, since he wasn't the house guy. So he brought along a 'check' system. Since these were so cheap (my original pair cost me $188) a lot of rooms started to supply them as a courtesy.

There are many reasons why system A and system B with 'identical' specs do not sound the same. A part of the reason has to do with the specs themselves, which are not comprehensive, and would be meaningless to 999.999% of us if they were comprehensive. I often laugh when I see the long 'scientific' posts here, since most everyone is quoting someone who might or might not know, but the quotes are out of context and often meaningless.

Here is something that you can take to the bank. You can't mix what you cannot hear. You can guess and approximate and hope and maybe get lucky. You can perhaps 'learn' to fill in what is missing. But you're guessing.

All components are not equal. Electronics are reactive, and all pieces/parts are not of the same quality across their operating range. (I bought $50 caps to improve the performance of my stepped attenuator. Most people would have used a $0.75 part.) A Crown amplifier, a Bel Canto amplifier and a Cello amplifier of similar specs aren't going to sound ANYTHING alike. But one costs about $500, and one costs about $9,500. Remember the original Sound Blaster audio card, being "CD quality"????

The up and down side of forums like this one.... you can get a lot of valuable information from experienced users, which can help you to make better purchasing decisions. But you also have to know who you are talking to and what their background is... a guy who has been using $50 monitors may think that the $2,000 monitors he just got are unbeatable, while a guy who is used to $80,000 monitors might want to puke listening to the same monitors.

Personally, I think that people get bogged down in minutia. When I was in business, I needed to research, make a decision, get the tools and get the job done. Things seem a lot more casual around here, where people talk about gear but I wonder if they ever buy anything and get any work done.

Finally, speakers are only a small part of the equation of the monitoring system, which includes the room, room treatment, placement of everything, etc etc etc. If your room is designed by an acoustician you have less to worry about. You can tweak by ear or you can use complicated software/hardware to make sure that the setup is as good as it can get.
Old 21st September 2012 | Show parent
  #18
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by barefoot ➡️
Hi Tony,

Can you tell me where you found these charts? They appear to be gated response measurements down to 20Hz. There are only a few places in the world where such data can be reliably measured. I’m not saying they aren’t real. But they do raise my skeptical antennae a bit.

Thanks,
Thomas
Hi Thomas, would you mind helping us a bit with the subject please ? That's your speciality after all :D
Old 21st September 2012 | Show parent
  #19
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] ➡️

Here is something that you can take to the bank. You can't mix what you cannot hear. You can guess and approximate and hope and maybe get lucky. You can perhaps 'learn' to fill in what is missing. But you're guessing.

All components are not equal. Electronics are reactive, and all pieces/parts are not of the same quality across their operating range. (I bought $50 caps to improve the performance of my stepped attenuator. Most people would have used a $0.75 part.) A Crown amplifier, a Bel Canto amplifier and a Cello amplifier of similar specs aren't going to sound ANYTHING alike. But one costs about $500, and one costs about $9,500. Remember the original Sound Blaster audio card, being "CD quality"????

The up and down side of forums like this one.... you can get a lot of valuable information from experienced users, which can help you to make better purchasing decisions. But you also have to know who you are talking to and what their background is... a guy who has been using $50 monitors may think that the $2,000 monitors he just got are unbeatable, while a guy who is used to $80,000 monitors might want to puke listening to the same monitors.
WORD!!!! Very grateful that you have pointed those elements out Bill You cannot mix what you cannot hear ... I will add , you cannot mix what you cannot hear PROPERLY.

Let's assume that the NS10 have been used when mixers move around in different studios , fine , NEVERTHELESS some great mixes have been pulled out of them ... and from what I see in the curves , it doesn't look flat AT ALL.

The point is , seeing that people have made stunning mixes on them long ago ... and hearing that most of today's music sound very harsh and sibilant ... when they are working on ""supposedly"" FLAT AND ACCURATE SPEAKERS... makes me think that something fishy is going on...

NO SIR, it's more than simple digital harshness, for example on the precise speakers that i've used, I could understand where the aggressive sounds were coming from, and I fixed them. ....so YES it might be coming from the digital world ...

....BUT YOU CAN FIX IT .... IF YOU HEAR IT. Talking from experience.



So what's the point of raving about super flat frequencies and all the drama if you can't hear the bloody problematic areas ??

Or what's the point of having speakers that sound so soft that they don't alarm you when something is harsh and wrong.


I also applaud what you said about people using $50 dollar speakers, who think that the $5000 or so speakers are the holy grail of honest listening experience ... I was myself in this case ...

... until my bubble popped
Old 21st September 2012 | Show parent
  #20
Gear Maniac
 
TonyR's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by barefoot ➡️
Hi Tony,

Can you tell me where you found these charts? They appear to be gated response measurements down to 20Hz. There are only a few places in the world where such data can be reliably measured. I’m not saying they aren’t real. But they do raise my skeptical antennae a bit.

Thanks,
Thomas
Hi Thomas,

I don't know where there were made and if they are accurat. I only wanted to show that there are more than Frequency Response.
I took them from a mixing book.

TonyR
Old 21st September 2012 | Show parent
  #21
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by alecsribet ➡️
... and hearing that most of today's music sound very harsh and sibilant ... when they are working on ""supposedly"" FLAT AND ACCURATE SPEAKERS... makes me think that something fishy is going on...
Personal opinion? Engineers. Bob O pointed this out to me quite a while ago, and it was like shining a light on the whole issue of modern music and those who make it. We were raised listening to live instruments in concert halls and clubs etc. Our goal was to capture what we heard as accurately as possible. Now, the actual sound of the instruments is superfluous. Most grow up listening to samples, and MP3s. Their experience leads them to create what they create. In addition, mixes are made out to context, every track is tweaked to sound bigger than God and maximized in level, and then they are all mixed together... opps. And finally (again, my opinion) there is an awful lot of accepting of crappy sounding gear (or at least, lesser sound quality) in order to get it cheap, with more features.

There is probably nobody teaching engineering as I would like to hear it, because that type of production doesn't sell. But when I listen to something like James Taylor's Hourglass CD (Frank Fillipetti) or some of the handful of great recordings of the 1990s, or I go back to some of the classic jazz recordings of the 50s and 60s, the pop music of the 60s and 70s, the rock of the 70s and 80s.... the sonics are so superior that 1. it makes me sad and 2. it makes me happy to have retired.

But the technology of monitors is a bright spot in the whole works. Yeah, you have a lot to consider when buying, but the options are far better than they ever were, across a wider price point. Choosing to use an inferior tool is always a 'gee, see how cool I am...' option, but I'd rather buy a good tool and use it than look cool on the the forums.
Old 21st September 2012
  #22
Gear Guru
 
John Willett's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] ➡️
Personal opinion? Engineers. Bob O pointed this out to me quite a while ago, and it was like shining a light on the whole issue of modern music and those who make it. We were raised listening to live instruments in concert halls and clubs etc. Our goal was to capture what we heard as accurately as possible. Now, the actual sound of the instruments is superfluous. Most grow up listening to samples, and MP3s. Their experience leads them to create what they create. In addition, mixes are made out to context, every track is tweaked to sound bigger than God and maximized in level, and then they are all mixed together... opps. And finally (again, my opinion) there is an awful lot of accepting of crappy sounding gear (or at least, lesser sound quality) in order to get it cheap, with more features.

There is probably nobody teaching engineering as I would like to hear it, because that type of production doesn't sell. But when I listen to something like James Taylor's Hourglass CD (Frank Fillipetti) or some of the handful of great recordings of the 1990s, or I go back to some of the classic jazz recordings of the 50s and 60s, the pop music of the 60s and 70s, the rock of the 70s and 80s.... the sonics are so superior that 1. it makes me sad and 2. it makes me happy to have retired.

But the technology of monitors is a bright spot in the whole works. Yeah, you have a lot to consider when buying, but the options are far better than they ever were, across a wider price point. Choosing to use an inferior tool is always a 'gee, see how cool I am...' option, but I'd rather buy a good tool and use it than look cool on the the forums.
Great post - +1
Old 21st September 2012 | Show parent
  #23
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] ➡️
Personal opinion? Engineers. Bob O pointed this out to me quite a while ago, and it was like shining a light on the whole issue of modern music and those who make it. We were raised listening to live instruments in concert halls and clubs etc. Our goal was to capture what we heard as accurately as possible. Now, the actual sound of the instruments is superfluous. Most grow up listening to samples, and MP3s. Their experience leads them to create what they create. In addition, mixes are made out to context, every track is tweaked to sound bigger than God and maximized in level, and then they are all mixed together... opps. And finally (again, my opinion) there is an awful lot of accepting of crappy sounding gear (or at least, lesser sound quality) in order to get it cheap, with more features.

There is probably nobody teaching engineering as I would like to hear it, because that type of production doesn't sell. But when I listen to something like James Taylor's Hourglass CD (Frank Fillipetti) or some of the handful of great recordings of the 1990s, or I go back to some of the classic jazz recordings of the 50s and 60s, the pop music of the 60s and 70s, the rock of the 70s and 80s.... the sonics are so superior that 1. it makes me sad and 2. it makes me happy to have retired.

But the technology of monitors is a bright spot in the whole works. Yeah, you have a lot to consider when buying, but the options are far better than they ever were, across a wider price point. Choosing to use an inferior tool is always a 'gee, see how cool I am...' option, but I'd rather buy a good tool and use it than look cool on the the forums.
I agree on your point of view, but as you have said yourself , YOU CANNOT MIX WHAT YOU CANNOT HEAR

I have heard beautiful recent mixes that got all the bigger than life characteristics you mentioned, yet sound beautiful , balanced , spacious 3D, detailed but not harsh when played loud (relative to most of the crap out there)

For example : "Variety Lab - I can't help thinking about you"


So they exist :D , they are rare INDEED, but they do exist ... it means that some very small number of people are hearing or are aware of certain things that most of mixing/mastering engineers don't seem to understand nor hear ... or as you say , they got the right mentoring


Buy again I'll point out the anomaly ... why do tracks that were mixed on crappy old peaky systems with crazy bumps and dips in the frequency distribution , sound better than today's mixes , with today's supposedly better level equipment.

It is possible that today's supposedly flat frequency response, precise monitors are not forcing engineers to work hard enough on their mixes ??

Is there a possibility that the SMOOTH nature of most of speakers fool engineers into thinking that their mixes are great while actually they might contain annoying harshness ??


Even Harvey(the designer of TRIDENT HG3) told me that :

"That is a big problem with many speakers. As a designer, I hafta weigh smoothness against ear fatigue. The Yamaha NS-10's are great for hearing problems in the mid range and top end, but you get fatigued after a very short time."

"I chose to solve the problem a different way: I moved the mid and high controls to the front of the cylinder, so you can crank up the mids and highs by up to 2 dB to hear any problems (for a short time), and then return the controls to flat after you've fixed all the problems."



Message to the smooth sounding soft monitor systems , "please educate your customers about the drawbacks of your speakers, just like Harvey did."

The world can become a less harsher place if you think about music before your profits ... ok i'm living in an ideal world
Old 21st September 2012 | Show parent
  #24
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by alecsribet ➡️

It is possible that today's supposedly flat frequency response, precise monitors are not forcing engineers to work hard enough on their mixes ??



You are getting the causalities muddled up. Kind of a monitor speaker cargo cult thing going on. Flatness has little to do with it.
Old 21st September 2012 | Show parent
  #25
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by alecsribet ➡️


Buy again I'll point out the anomaly ... why do tracks that were mixed on crappy old peaky systems with crazy bumps and dips in the frequency distribution , sound better than today's mixes , with today's supposedly better level equipment.

It is possible that today's supposedly flat frequency response, precise monitors are not forcing engineers to work hard enough on their mixes ??
I can't buy into the idea that bad tools force anyone to do better work to overcome the tool. While we're at it, let's stuff cotton in one ear, because Brian Wilson was pretty brilliant. It makes a great talking point but a crummy premise from which to do any actual work.

I will buy into the notion that the engineers of the past knew what they wanted/needed to hear and overcame the crap that they had to work with. But that skips two things: not ALL recordings from the past are great; and that the amount of material released back then was filtered, there are no filters today and any bozo can release any thing at any time. So the chance of hearing a bad recording is increased exponentially.

Side issue: Another interesting way of working today.... we don't know what the final product will sound like, but hey, let's start recording. How doers the guitar fit into the over-all composition? Not sure, but let's run it through 17 different amps and DI just in case, put each one on it's own track and we'll figure it out later. If we use it at all. Big difference from the 1/4/8/16 track world in which I was taught. Getting the whole band spaced correctly around a Shure 55 and watching the Magic Eye for clipping and ending up with a finished tape after a handful of takes that would be a 45 in a couple of days... I don't advocate that way of working, I happen to love what we -can- do with what we have now, but I have to say that I don't like how a lot of people use it and I think that it leads to a lot of dead boring recordings that do not elevate the artists vision nor have any immediacy or intensity, which does the artist a disservice.
Old 21st September 2012 | Show parent
  #26
Barefoot Sound
 
barefoot's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by alecsribet ➡️
Hi Thomas, would you mind helping us a bit with the subject please ? That's your speciality after all :D
As others have said, flat frequency response is only part of the picture. The waterfall plots that TonyR posted above, regardless of their low frequency validity, illustrate that things happen in the time domain that aren’t readily apparent in the frequency domain. Distortion, dynamic linearity (compression) and off-axis behavior also affect how a monitor functions and translates.

Bob mentioned that specs can be misleading, and I certainly agree. I don’t publish a lot of specs for my speakers simply because they would not be very informative given the landscape of other published specs out there. Frankly, I have no clue how some manufacturers arrive at the numbers they do. For example, you’ll see maximum SPL numbers for small 2-way speakers that I personally would feel uncomfortable publishing for the MM27. Forget what anyone thinks about the relative merits of the MM27, common sense dictates the recognition that it can get significantly louder than a small 2-way. Sure, I could massage my data to show virtually whatever specs I want to show. But what’s the point? The numbers would be meaningless.

Suffice it to say, shopping for monitors by looking at specs is akin to groping in the dark.

I would also be wary of the “silver bullet” – that one piece of technology that is supposedly the answer to great sound. My favorite is the magic box design, where some particular cabinet material or shape miraculously fixes all problems. Sure, some innovations can have a significant impact. But a truly great piece of gear requires the refinement of countless little things that, in total, make for a big effect.

Just some random thoughts...

Thomas
Old 21st September 2012 | Show parent
  #27
Lives for gear
 
Tone Laborer's Avatar
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by barefoot ➡️
I would also be wary of the “silver bullet” – that one piece of technology that is supposedly the answer to great sound.
Are you talking about Auratones?
Old 21st September 2012 | Show parent
  #28
Lives for gear
 
Enlightened Hand's Avatar
 
16 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tone Laborer ➡️
Are you talking about Auratones?
Not to speak for Thomas, but it could be anything: Take your pick: The KH120, the new Eggs, the Focal SM9, etc. No one design or particular design feature fixes the entire problem.

There are always trade offs. The best designs balance them well for the purpose of fidelity.
Old 21st September 2012 | Show parent
  #29
Audio X
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enlightened Hand ➡️
There are always trade offs.
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.
Old 21st September 2012 | Show parent
  #30
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enlightened Hand ➡️
Not to speak for Thomas, but it could be anything: Take your pick: The KH120, the new Eggs, the Focal SM9, etc. No one design or particular design feature fixes the entire problem.

There are always trade offs. The best designs balance them well for the purpose of fidelity.
The new eggs?? are you kidding ? the theory behind it is very nice , great job, great marketing... but the KH120 humps them.
📝 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