Thank you, Dave.

Yes, as I mentioned, my room is well-treated, and I also have room correction applied. My interface (RME RayDAT with Prism converters) is solid, and I use a phase-variable sub so the issue isn't with my setup but rather what was discussed earlier: some monitors reveal errors without making them sound obvious or problematic (which can be an issue).

I agree there's probably no such thing as perfect monitors (though I do think some of today’s flagship models come close). Ultimately, it's about finding a pair that meets your specific needs.

That’s why I wanted to hear from others here - what are your experiences, and do you have any recommendations?

Cheers!

I’m currently using Focal Twin6 as my main monitors and I use a pair of Fostex 6301B as my “lofi” reference, which are amazing at identifying issues in the low mids.

I struggled for a long time with mix translation. I wound up investing in a Dirac processor from MiniDSP. It does a much better job over ARC and Sonarworks, as the Dirac processing has impulse response correction, which helped mitigate phase and reverberation issues.

I have also invested in Slate Digital VSX and found them invaluable when checking my mixes.

My mixes all translate well to a variety of playback systems.

Hey, thank for your suggestions.

I'm aware of those Fostexes, many people swear by them.
I must say I got a bit confused with all the variants they come in, not sure which one is the "right one".

Hi, I’m using NS-10m Studios (powered by a Jim Williams modified Adcom amp) for this purpose. I’m probably in the minority in my opinion of their sound, though, as despite their limited response that highlights issues from the low to high mids.. I don’t consider them unpleasant at all.

The variants have to do with inputs and transformers. I use the 6301B, which are older. Do you need a transformer or AES/EBU or Dante?

It’s the same speaker. In fact I bought an older pair for cheap and replaced the drivers.

For other Lo-fi option, I’d also recommend the Avatone CLA-10 (NS-10 rework) and the Auratone.

I worked at studio that had a Sony boombox permanently set to an aux send off the board. That was a mainstay and part of the process.

Thanks guys, Auratones are already on my list, it will be a mandatory purchase, but I'm not sure about the NS10s.
Heard them a number of times and they never felt like something I'd be comfortable working with.

Btw, regarding Auratones; I was going for those new active ones. Any reason to go for the oldskool passives instead?

Cheers

As SO many said what AVSC says about ATC monitors why not visit an ATC dealer with one or more models of them set up in a mastering room, bring your problem material project and try fixing just by listening to the ATCs? You might find that they are the tool you've been looking for all along. No, I'm not an ATC rep; not even in the industry.

Haha...I'm with you on the Harmon Karman car system. I had one for 6 months...it was virtually unlistenable!

Regards active vers passive Auratones, I use a very cheap 100w / channel class D amp with a beefed up PSU ...they sound amazingly good and do exactly what small single cone speakers should. I find they're particularly good at revealing excess reverbs and ambient effects apart from the obvious spotlight on harshness.

With so many of you guys pointing them out, I'll definitely have to check them.

Cheers for your input!

Yeah I'm aware of what they're good at, cheers. I was just wondering if there are any important differences between the passives and actives.
Although some people like them, the majority prefers Auratones over the newer clones (Avantones etc.) in terms of frequency response and overall tonality, so I was wondering if the new active Auratones maybe suffer from similar problems that the oldskool passives maybe don't have.
It'd be nice to hear from someone who's tried them both.

IMO, it is not a "waste of time" to check your mix back and forth on alternative monitors. Of course you would ideally want your pair of Alternative speaker right there and not have to go to another room.

This is my experience exactly. But once the alternative monitors have shown that there is an issue, I just go back to my main monitors and deal with the issue there. Because the main monitors are good enough to handle that, even if they failed to shove it in my face at first. I don't see this a problem in need of a solution. For me anyway, this kind of back and forth is a good 'system'. I put in many hours on my mixes and I would rather have the bulk of that time be enjoyable rather than "unpleasant".

I don't subscribe to the "castor oil" theory of mixing. The idea that the worse a medicine tastes, the better is "for" you. To me, different speakers are like different "windows" into what your mix is doing. No one view is going to tell you everything you need to know.

Well maybe you can get them for cheaper? A lot of people have old power amps already lying around. I know I do. I find the Auratones useful, but I would estimate they are "on" less than 5% of the time that I am mixing. First of all, they will not find all my mixing 'errors' - only the ones in the midrange. And second of all , while I use them to find the problems, I don't feel it is necessary to listen to them continuously to correct those problems.

YMMV.

Sure, I can see your point here. The reason why I'm saying "waste of time" is because sometimes this back and forth routine can indeed take a long time, become annoying and a bit of an issue if you're on a tight deadline and every minute matters.
In order for me to check the mix in the other room, I first have to render it and that also takes time. Then I have to go back, fix errors and render it again to re-check one more time in the other room etc. So, as much as I'm enjoying the process of mixing, this part of the process can be a bit of a drag, so yes, ideally I'd love to have a set of mains that I can reliably do the work on and then, once it's all done, check the final result on other speakers to *confirm* that it's all good (rather than having to go back and forth because my mains are not doing their job right).
But yes, I agree that cross referencing on as many systems as possible is very important and perhaps the only way to really be sure.

Ex Machina Quasars Mk II. You’ll hear everything you need to hear… from 35hz up to 30khz. These are my favorite monitors.

Wow these look great, you say they make issues obvious?
The specs are impressive.

To me ATCs are the winner in this category. They really don't sound all that impressive, but man do they scream at you when something is wrong to the point where you absolutely have to go move the mic, change the mic, change the instrument etc.

I personally have the ATC SCM20s MK2's, but if you can afford the 25s (V1 or V2) then grab those. If you have an insane budget & your room is big enough, the 45s are great candidates as well.

If you work on a lot of electronic music, you may want a sub to pair with those speakers. And no you don't need the $5k ATC sub.

Oops! My bad...I said Auratones but meant Avantones. I've had quite a few Auratones but gave up on them as they blow way too easily. The secret with the Avantones is don't put them on top of your mixer, put them against the back wall of your control room. They are positively amazing there. I'm a big fan of active speakers but see little point with a single cone, therefore no xover.

That to me is a good argument for getting a pair of "checking" speakers to put into your control room. Not necessarily an argument for getting a new pair of 'perfect' Main monitors for your control room. Does such a pair of speakers exist? Really?

If you have your heart set on going out and buying new speakers, don't let me talk you out of it. But IMO you will always benefit from hearing your mix on alternative monitors. And there is no reason not to have them right there. If you did, maybe you wouldn't need "new monitors" at all.

I agree your current system sounds a massive kludge. Especially the rendering part. I have my house 'wired up' and I can instantly send my control room audio to the living room stereo, the kitchen speakers, and a pair of outdoor speakers on the patio. As well as Bluetooth gizmo to send to earbuds, people's smartphones etc.

But I also have my two most critical pairs of alternates right there in the control room, alongside my Genelecs. One press of a button, and I am hearing the Auratones. One more press and I am back to the Genelecs.

I mix on my Auratones to ge the midrange right. If the mix ain't slammin on the Auratones, it ain't a good mix. if it sounds good on Auratones but bad on full-range speakers, then you know the problem is in the low end or high end, not the midrange.

Aside from that I always found the Meyer HD-1's to be so overtly clinical as to make my job unpleasant.

Not only ATC, but all those 3-way monitors sound very artificial and unmusical to me, but I think that's partly because I've spent most of my life with 2-way monitors. Audiophiles who love full-range speakers seem to find both 2-way and 3-way speakers equally terrible, and I think it's pretty reasonable. When you listen to a mono full-range speaker, anyone can realize just how unnatural stereo multi-way speakers sound.

I'm kinda glad that so many of you guys recommend these particular speakers because, when I use Acustica Sienna, the Bagnoli Bros studio running ATCs is my favorite monitoring setup to work with. In a way, I'm already "used" to their sound (I've never actually heard them IRL) but I'm very much looking forward to it.

Hi twkfrq,

I’m familiar with mixes that sound honkey in the 500Hz area. Like you, I use a17’s. Like you, I use an rme interface.

But it wasn’t the gear that messed up my sound. It was the room. More exactly: the desk between me and my monitors. I had major suckouts and peaks around the 400-500Hz area in the first graph I got measuring from my listening spot. Looked like a lie detector’s test from a very nervous liar. Treating the ceiling, front wall, side walls and back walls helped iron out some of the bumpy lows and highs. But the lower mids still looked messy. This changed when I took care of the first reflection points on my desk.

I directed the reflected sound down by tilting the desk surface in front of the left and right speaker (I flush mounted controls there, at an angle). Reflections now hit my chest rather than my ears. More direct signal, less phasey interaction. It straightened out my frequency plot around 400-500. I can show you the before and after graphs.

The low mids are the frequency area where desk reflections make themselves known. It is worth investigating what your room and speaker set up do to your sound before swapping gear. The weakest link in many mixers’ tool kit might be their room. Seeing my first room measurement in REW made me wanna cry. But room treatment can loosen the grip that modes, nodes and comb filtering have on your sound.

You mentioned you cross check your mixes in another room. How are both speaker sets set up comparable? Desk/no desk?

You're right, I do have a treated room, but also a large desk which indeed could be the culprit here (not the case in the other room, no desk there). My room correction software did smooth things out, but the resulting sound exhibited issues I mentioned there.
I will definitely take your advice onboard and dive deeper into tackling that first reflection issue. Maybe that's where the problem is, thank you for the suggestion!

"Can any of you please recommend monitors that reveal issues by sounding unpleasant in that particular area of the spectrum?" thats not how it works. The whole ns10 fad has lead many astray with this idea that if you can make the mix sound good on a such a horrible speaker it will sound good any where. That is the farthest thing from the truth. In that case, just go buy any consumer level audio product, like a sony boombox or jbl bluetooth pill speaker and have a go.

Accuracy is what exposed flaws... Accuracy represents a clear transfer function which is unforgiving and vulnerable. Flawed frequency response hides Flaws. A speaker that has a dipped midrange will hide midrange issues... a Speaker that is rolling off already at 65hz will hide issues in the sub bass... A speaker that has exaggerated highs and lows will hide a dull HF and weak LF. When everything is perfect, all flaws are exposed as best can be to ears that know what to listen for in the first place.

The only caveat I will give that can compliment sound engineering and mastering a loudspeaker that is meant to represent the Average.... If mixing for the average person, then a monitor that has all of those traits will give you a great example of what its going to sound like... This why plugins try to copy this path by emulating different solutions via FR. If mixing for the club, a PA monitor with the traits of the Average PA system will give you an idea what's going on there... The philosophy can be extended to room character since the room and loudspeaker perform as a single system. As a result you have software solutions for headphones that will give the Impulse response taken in clubs and other acoustical spaces, for reference.

When I was looking for a version of the average speaker, I went to Amazon and looked at the most popular purchases, small two ways with a 4-5" woofer mated to a 1" dome tweeter were the most popular product. So have just that, and I have very powerful mastering monitors that emphasize flat voicing, and uncompressed playback.

I definitely agree that mixing is best done across several monitoring systems, one for listening more forensically and another for detaching from the sonics and just listening to the song/piece.

I think you are spot on in identifying this NS-10 mythology as the source of this idea that it is the 'unpleasantness' of the speaker that creates the benefit.

IMO, the "it will sound good anywhere" saying is just an excuse. NS-10s worked for the people who used them because they were familiar. Not because they were unpleasant. They were small enough to bring them with you to an unfamiliar room and stick them right in your face.