Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[AndreasN]

Hello!

barefoot wrote on Wed, 26 April 2006 19:14

But for various reasons, which I can explain if anyone is interested, flush mounted speakers do not translate well.

Please do explain, am very interested!


Have been wondering about that for a while. Sites like the John L Sayers forum seemingly advocate soffit mounting for most any room design. How come this is the common(if it is) suggestion for a mix room if it doesn't translate well?


Cheers,

Andreas

[ammitsboel]

chrisj wrote on Wed, 26 April 2006 04:00

ammitsboel wrote on Tue, 25 April 2006 17:05 Isn't it that mix monitors has better mid range(hopefully) and mastering monitors has better full range balance? No way. Mix monitors should make it obvious if something is WRONG. Particularly in the mids, but NS10 brightness will make it unrewarding to push the highs too much, the flabby woofers will break up if you hit them with unreasonable bass, the spotlighting of the mids will accentuate the balance between band and vocal, etc. A really great speaker will help you find things to like about even really strange mixes, by handling them and giving you a sense of what they are trying to attain. These things won't translate to consumer systems. The great mix monitors will make you do things that (with the help of mastering) WILL translate to consumer systems. In theory, if you mix on great monitors and are VERY DISCIPLINED about what you are trying to attain, the results will also be good. But you have to be shooting for the right thing- you can't just get creative and imagine stuff freely, because you'll get stuff that's amazing but won't translate. Mix monitors should sound awful with that stuff.

From reading your post it sounds like mix monitors has better mids? why did you write no way??

[barefoot]

AndreasN wrote on Wed, 26 April 2006 10:19

Please do explain, am very interested! Have been wondering about that for a while. Sites like the John L Sayers forum seemingly advocate soffit mounting for most any room design. How come this is the common(if it is) suggestion for a mix room if it doesn't translate well?

Until a couple of years ago I used to endorse soffit mounting because it looks better "theoretically".    But I've changed my mind because of the practical matter of translation.

When you have a freestanding speaker in a box there is a difference in the sound radiation between the highs and the lows.   Imagine that each speaker driver (woofer, tweeter, etc) is like a light bulb that radiates equally in all directions.   However, while light waves are very tiny, sound wavelengths are of human proportions.    And the drivers are mounted on the front of a box.   And the box walls are equivalent to an acoustic mirror.   At high frequencies the wavelengths are typically smaller than the size of the box.  So the box "mirror" reflects  the sound.  Half of the sound energy that would have otherwise radiated into the rear hemisphere away from the listener actually gets reflected into the forward hemisphere, raising the response by +6dB.    At lower frequencies the wavelengths are much larger than the box dimensions.  So those sound waves don't even "see" the box.  Rather than being reflected off the box they simply wrap around it and radiate equally in all directions as if the box weren't even there.  

At the listening position this results in a +6dB High Shelf response - not a good thing.   In order to flatten out the response freestanding speakers incorporate a -6dB high shelf filter.   This works very well, but now the total power going into the speaker, and hence the total power going into the room  has a  -6dB high shelf.   Looking at it the opposite way, freestanding speakers have and extra 6dB of bass power.  Flush mounted speakers don't have this "problem".   Since they are mounting in a very large "box" with dimensions as big as the walls, all of the sound at all frequencies is reflected into the forward hemisphere and the on-axis response and power response are both flat.

None of this would matter if we listened in anechoic chambers.   We would only worry about the on-axis response.  But we listen in rooms with walls that reflect the sound energy back to us.  So freestanding speakers reflect 6dB more bass power back to us than soffit mounted speakers.   Given the same on-axis sound pressure level, freestanding speakers have more bass.  But almost no consumer has flush mounted speakers.  Even car speakers are now designed to mimic the power response of freestanding speakers.   So freestanding monitors translate much better.   As anyone who has experience working on soffit mounted mains knows, mixes often wind up sounding very dark on other systems.   You usually have to make the mix sound almost painfully bright in order to get it to translate well.  

There are other details such as the high crossover points typically found in mains, but flush mounting is the primary factor that limits their ease of translation.  

Thomas

[zmix]

barefoot wrote on Wed, 26 April 2006 14:03

...freestanding speakers have and extra 6dB of bass power.  Flush mounted speakers don't have this "problem".

Thomas, This must be a typo. Soffit mounting (2pi environment) adds 6dB to the low end when compared to the same system in a free standing (4pi) environment.

[zmix]

Here is a nice article on Soffit mounted monitoring systems:

http://www.nonoise.co.uk/articles/soffit.htm

[zmix]

Even Geneblech says:

"There are a few things to observe when installing speakers flush to the wall. Most commercially available systems are designed to deliver a flat free field response. When flush mounted, their frequency response will no longer be flat, but will usually have a bass boost of 4...6 dB."

http://www.genelec.cn/support/soffit.php?print=1

[barefoot]

zmix wrote on Wed, 26 April 2006 14:04

barefoot wrote on Wed, 26 April 2006 14:03 ...freestanding speakers have and extra 6dB of bass power.  Flush mounted speakers don't have this "problem". Thomas, This must be a typo. Soffit mounting (2pi environment) adds 6dB to the low end when compared to the same system in a free standing (4pi) environment.

No, it's not a typo.  

Like I said, a freestanding speaker naturally gains an extra 6dB in the high frequencies due to reflection off the cabinet baffle.   A soffit mounted speaker naturally has an extra 6dB across the entire spectrum.    You have to design all speakers with flat on-axis response, regardless of freestanding or soffited.  That's a given, because of the way our brains distinguish between direct (early) and reflected (later) sounds.   So, if you design a soffited speaker with a flat on-axis response, it also has a flat power response.  If you design a freestanding speaker with a flat on-axis response, its power response will have 6dB extra in the low end (or 6dB less in the highs, however you want to look at it).  So, the two cannot be considered the "same system".

If you soffit mount a freestanding speaker it will still have a +6dB low shelf power response, because that's built into the crossover.   But now it will also have a +6dB low shelf on-axis response.  So, yes the same system does gain an extra an 6dB in the on-axis response.  Nonetheless,  freestanding speakers have more low frequency power.    

Thomas

[chrisj]

ammitsboel wrote on Wed, 26 April 2006 13:49

chrisj wrote on Wed, 26 April 2006 04:00 Mix monitors should make it obvious if something is WRONG. Particularly in the mids, but NS10 brightness will make it unrewarding to push the highs too much, the flabby woofers will break up if you hit them with unreasonable bass, the spotlighting of the mids will accentuate the balance between band and vocal, etc. From reading your post it sounds like mix monitors has better mids? why did you write no way??

This thread is heading to the twilight zone...

I wrote no way because 'more highlighted' is not 'better'. Something like NS-10s or Auratones will seriously emphasize the mids in various ways because they lack bass authority and in some cases treble extension- therefore you are hearing the guts of the midrange balance without the distraction of hi-fi sound. The mids are 'spotlit', highlighted, unrealistically.

That's not better, it's just harder to ignore. Functionally it might be better, for some.

As to the bass soffit mounting debate- does this mean if you mount a woofer in the corner you get eighteen db _less_ bass reinforcement? o_O I'm confused and don't think I understand what Thomas is meaning, here.

Could you possibly be meaning midbass bump produced by proximity to a wall- relative to true deep bass where the room is a big pressure zone anyway?

[Patrik T]

ammitsboel wrote on Tue, 25 April 2006 22:05

Isn't it that mix monitors has better mid range(hopefully) and mastering monitors has better full range balance?

Mix monitors and midrange...

I was not satisfied with this area until I got myself the PMC TB2S nearfields. Formerly had been working on Genelecs and suddenly found a new world of workable and noticeable body-frequencies.

First impression was: "uh, boxy boxes". Revised impression was "uh, really workable midrange". Mixes came out a lot better on any system when they came out good on those nearfields. And when they come out "good" they certainly ain't sounding lush or something like that. They just sound balanced, not beautiful or magnificent. Strange little box, and I like it a lot for it's honesty.

I think people can get scared by hearing their actual midrange for the first time and ditch monitors just because of that, when they maybe should embrace the midrange their former monitors have been lacking.

[Ronny]

chrisj wrote on Thu, 27 April 2006 01:26

ammitsboel wrote on Wed, 26 April 2006 13:49 chrisj wrote on Wed, 26 April 2006 04:00 Mix monitors should make it obvious if something is WRONG. Particularly in the mids, but NS10 brightness will make it unrewarding to push the highs too much, the flabby woofers will break up if you hit them with unreasonable bass, the spotlighting of the mids will accentuate the balance between band and vocal, etc. From reading your post it sounds like mix monitors has better mids? why did you write no way?? This thread is heading to the twilight zone... I wrote no way because 'more highlighted' is not 'better'. Something like NS-10s or Auratones will seriously emphasize the mids in various ways because they lack bass authority and in some cases treble extension- therefore you are hearing the guts of the midrange balance without the distraction of hi-fi sound. The mids are 'spotlit', highlighted, unrealistically. That's not better, it's just harder to ignore. Functionally it might be better, for some. As to the bass soffit mounting debate- does this mean if you mount a woofer in the corner you get eighteen db _less_ bass reinforcement? o_O I'm confused and don't think I understand what Thomas is meaning, here. Could you possibly be meaning midbass bump produced by proximity to a wall- relative to true deep bass where the room is a big pressure zone anyway?

No, Thomas is correct. The soffit mounts are flush with the wall, so there is no back wall reflection. Soundwaves emit from the front with no reflection from the back. Different ported designs will produce different low end though, due to the inside of the cabinet or the inside of the back wall if they are mounted to the front of the soffit and not in a box mounted in the wall. The free standing speaker will exhibit more low end the closer that it is to a wall and this is compounded by corners. So if you are up against the wall but not in the corners, your low end will increase at the sweet spot, but if they are in the corners, you have two walls reflecting the back and sides of the speaker, thus increasing low end a couple more dB from the monitors that are on the wall but not in the corners. Now if the room is very large and the monitors are as far away from the wall as they are from the sweet spot, than frequency response will be closer to flat like the soffit mounts, because any reflective walls are farther away than the original soundwaves reaching the sweetspot, inverse square law comes into play with that scenario. IOW, you get the low end increase 1. from monitors being placed in front and close to front wall. 2. even moreso when they are in corners and have two walls to reflect the lows which will mask the highs and mids somewhat as they don't increase in gain as much as the lows that don't get absorbed and come back at near full gain. The soffit mounts eliminate low end build. Monitors in the corners increase low end.

When folks started using NS-10's for ref monitors, I believe the NS-10's were the first that I'd seen people using as nearfields and they started much of this controversy back than, I never could get as good a mix on them, as I could on large soffit mounts. I've come to the conclusion that, guitarists, keyboardists and bassists perform through large speakers, typically 15's and 18's on bass, 18's, 15's and 12's on key's and guitars typically 12". PA cab's for vocals and instruments FOH, are often 15's and 18's or 12's, 15's and 18's,There are a few bass cab's that utilize 8" speakers usually 4 or 8 in a cabinet and a few guitar amps that use 10's, typically 4 10's, but for the most part the speakers sizes that bands perform through are 12, 15 and 18's. The reason that I mix better through large speakers is because they mirror the bands performance speakers. I understood back than as I do now that the reason that many people were using the small nearfields was to reference the material so that they would know how it relates on the typical playback systems that use 4, 6 and 8 inch speakers, however people started using them as their number one mixing speakers after some time. IMHO, it's better "for me" to mix with the large speakers, the mixes always relate when playback is on the smaller speakers, but I hear "and feel" more with the large soffit mounts. I don't want to squeeze the sound down to a small playback sized speaker, until I'm finished mixing what I hear the live band sounding like. No doubt everyone's milage varies on this, but I just never could get used to mixing on nearfields and have always used large studio monitors.

[ammitsboel]

I see bass players that uses 10" more often than 12", 15" and 18"

[maikol]

Hello everybody,

well i think it really depends on one's personal habits.

I have never been able to get some descent translation from a mix i'd have done on big soffits, neither have i with small nearfields...

I've always listened to music (well before to mix some i mean) on passive hi-fi speakers at a few meters distance (say in a more "audiophile" kind of setup), so all my perception and the way i'm used to listen to music comes from that.

Thus, i feel much more comfortable to mix through free standing large enough hi fi speakers , with REAL low end, at say 2-3 meters (6-8 feet) which is much closer from what a mastering guy would do i guess...

Of course small speakers are very useful while mixing, but for me they have to be further than where i usually see them!  


At the fact, isn't it better to have them further, regarding the reflection problems with the desk surface?


I also have bad feelings with active nearfield monitors (at least Gennies or Mackies and the like), which (for me) seem to hide problems in the lows and lowmids. Each time i have mixed on those, i've had bad surprises when listening somewhere in the real world.
For me it's as if the mix sounds OK (compared to a reference well mixed and mastered) too early on those speakers, and you thus don't work enough some crucial things...

But some people do good mixes with them, so i guess it's really "go with what you're comfortable with while mixing , provided you're still comfortable while listening back to that mix anywhere else!"

michael

[zmix]

barefoot wrote on Wed, 26 April 2006 17:45

zmix wrote on Wed, 26 April 2006 14:04 barefoot wrote on Wed, 26 April 2006 14:03 ...freestanding speakers have and extra 6dB of bass power.  Flush mounted speakers don't have this "problem". Thomas, This must be a typo. Soffit mounting (2pi environment) adds 6dB to the low end when compared to the same system in a free standing (4pi) environment. No, it's not a typo.   Like I said, a freestanding speaker naturally gains an extra 6dB in the high frequencies due to reflection off the cabinet baffle.   A soffit mounted speaker naturally has an extra 6dB across the entire spectrum.    You have to design all speakers with flat on-axis response, regardless of freestanding or soffited.  That's a given, because of the way our brains distinguish between direct (early) and reflected (later) sounds.   So, if you design a soffited speaker with a flat on-axis response, it also has a flat power response.  If you design a freestanding speaker with a flat on-axis response, its power response will have 6dB extra in the low end (or 6dB less in the highs, however you want to look at it).  So, the two cannot be considered the "same system". If you soffit mount a freestanding speaker it will still have a +6dB low shelf power response, because that's built into the crossover.   But now it will also have a +6dB low shelf on-axis response.  So, yes the same system does gain an extra an 6dB in the on-axis response.  Nonetheless,  freestanding speakers have more low frequency power.     Thomas

If you mean to say 'baffle step' or 'diffraction filter' you can say so, we're with you. But you plainly stated that "freestanding speakers have and extra 6dB of bass power." It's not exactly accurate. I suggested it was a typo because you might have meant to say that freestanding speakers have an extra 6dB of low end -when they are soffit mounted-

[barefoot]

zmix wrote on Thu, 27 April 2006 19:09

If you mean to say 'baffle step' or 'diffraction filter' you can say so, we're with you. But you plainly stated that "freestanding speakers have and extra 6dB of bass power." It's not exactly accurate. I suggested it was a typo because you might have meant to say that freestanding speakers have an extra 6dB of low end -when they are soffit mounted-

No, the wall can't alter the power response.  If the speaker has a -6dB high self filter (baffle step filter) in the signal path, then it emits relatively more bass power, period.  All the wall does is limit the space into which that bass energy can travel.  The wall alters the direct field response, not the power response.  

Imagine we have a tiny point source with a perfectly flat response suspended 1000ft in the air and a microphone some distance away.   As long as the input signal is flat, we measure a flat acoustic response.   Ok, what happens if we build a gigantic wall and move our point source right up against it?     We still get a flat response, but now it's 6dB louder.  Then what happens if we remove most of the wall and just leave a 1ft square near the source?  Well, the high frequencies are still 6dB louder, but the lows are back down to the original free field level.    How can we measure a flat response again?   Simple, we just put a filter in front of the source and boost the lows by +6dB to compensate for the imbalance.    

Finally, imagine in both cases we built five extra 1 ft walls such that they formed a little room surrounding the source.   Which room will have more bass power going into it, the first case where the input signal was flat, or the second case with the bass boost?  


Thomas

[Patrik T]

maikol wrote on Fri, 28 April 2006 00:07

Of course small speakers are very useful while mixing, but for me they have to be further than where i usually see them!   michael

There are occasions where I move the nearfields from their regular placement which allows me to sit in the sweetspot. I take them away from those positions and place them, closely side by side, some 9-12 feet away so they are playing towards my side and hence - certainly not in stereo. I do this after I have done the initial placement of things in the stereofield and after the mix "surgery" has been done.

Sometimes I find this useful for judging level balance since it's easy to get dissoriented by so much other things in the sweetspot. By this I mean the real main level balance between parts within the mix. It's really working very well for me in order to get out from the "analytic mode" and listen to the big picture.