Print

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

[lagerfeldt]

I've personally used a long range of mix monitors in my studio, including several Genelecs (1031A, 1030A), various Tannoys (Reveal, Ellipse 8 ) , Roland DS90A, Yamaha NS-10, Minipods (cute but useless for mixing), various ADAMs (P11A, S2.5A and S3A).

Without a doubt the ADAM S2.5A is the monitor I've been most satisfied and impressed with for mixing. The only other monitor I liked almost as much is the Klein + Hummel O 300 D.

ADAMs do sound quite different to most other speakers, especially if you're used to Genelecs. Personally, I could never go back to Genelecs after ADAM S2.5A. However, if you've only heard the small ADAMs (P11A, etc.), there's really no comparison to the S2.5A's.

I've done some extended and serious A/B testing and find the ADAMs much more accurate and revealing frequency wise than any of the other monitors mentioned here. I don't find any nasty resonance introducing coloration or such like.

All the problems with the 1031A's or DS90A's are totally gone now, and I'm free from the compressing artifacts from the 1031A's. Again, this is not meant as anything other than my opinion.

While my room is not 100% perfect (but what room is), it is built with great attention to acoustics, using combinations of various absorbing/diffusion techniques. I pay great attention to early reflections and comb filtering, monitor placement (on stands avoiding as much console interference as possible), room symmetry, standing waves, etc.

[Lee Flier]

Nice to hear all your comments John!  I have very similar impressions to yours of course (as you noted in one of your posts).

I mentioned this on Brad's mastering forum and people chose to keep arguing rather than respond , but I do think that our ears are quite literally different and we hear things differently, therefore our experience of different monitors and what we prefer will vary. What we hear isn't our monitors, so much as the relationship between our ears/brain and the monitors.

Another factor that I think is vitally important is to choose monitors that don't cause ear fatigue.  Regardless how great your speakers' specs are, if listening to them wears you out, it will affect what you hear and therefore the flat specs are useless.  And even if that were the only thing I loved about ADAM's they'd be worth the price.  I can listen to them all day long without ear fatigue, and that's saying something.  I'm pretty sensitive to long exposure to high frequencies - that was why I could never understand how anybody mixed on NS10's, after half an hour the high mids started to feel like somebody was driving a spike through my head. This causes the ear's normal defenses to take over and I'd start getting wax buildup in my ears, which pretty much shitcans my ability to hear anything accurately.  My ears don't rebel against ADAM's, I find them comfortable to listen to even though they are very unforgiving in the level of detail they reveal.

I don't expect that everyone would have the same impression I do, and I'm not going to trash anyone else for using Mackie's (which I hate) or Genelecs (which I love listening to but agree with the consensus that they make things sound "too good").  I've heard people do great work on all of the above, including NS10's.  But I do think sharing impressions is valuable.  And I do pay attention to who hears things how, because I usually do find it useful to read the opinions of folks I know hear things similarly to the way I do.

[JDSStudios]

Hi Lee

I was just reading your post and just thinking that several people have said that they wanted to listen to their music library again after listening to this monitors; that got me kind of curious, but I now say exactly the same thing. I do however have another description as to why:

The best analogy I can think of is, as if a whole bunch of compressors got removed from the musical content. Maybe that is the pure spelling of "translation".

This is what I was looking for, for a long time [a few years].

In this particular test, it was as if the Mackies and the Genelecs had an "elastic quality" to the sound- they were much more forgiving, or had less translation.

However in the Adams, a louder snare, or a forgotten softer violin was immediately perceivable. That's what I find so excellent.
I will be saving a lot of time during mixes and mastering, and that means also money, for me, and for the customer.

The result was, if you were trying to listen to a particular sound that was buried in the mix, you might have needed 2 or three passes before you notice it in the Gemies or the Mackies or the YSM 1s,[which I also own], but it was way more obvious in the Adams; and I  don't mean color, I mean precision.


Regards

[JDSStudios]

Also:
1. I am using the front panel filters on flat [no boost or cut].

2. I have a Mackie sub that I sometimes kick in and out with a foot switch to hear what goes there in the sub range [crossed at 120 Hz], or if the customer wants to hear the final mix very loud.

I calibrated the sub as per Bob Katz book, but sometimes I tweak the volume to my taste, or to adjust to the different material.

[David Schober]

Hi John,

You've obviously done a lot of work investigating how the differing speakers sound in your room.  But did I miss this, or have I not seen a report on how they work?  I've found that sometimes the best working vehicle is not the prettiest or best ride.  Depending on you and your room, sometimes a speaker that sounds a little muddy can make you work a little harder for clarity.  Conversely, a speaker that sounds beautiful and wonderful convince me that it sounds better than it really does.  (The Allen Sides monitors in Oceanway A were that way to me.)

Have you done test mixes of the same song and see how the come out in other environments?  For me, while it's good to have some great sounding monitors to impress the clients, a mixer's needs are IMHO, a speaker system that doesn't fatigue and also helps you make mixes that sound as good (or even better) in the outside world.  Ultimately, that's the real test of a monitor system.

I agree with the "find a box you like and use it."  For me the box I like is the one that helps me make a good mix, more than the one that sounds the best.

One last thought, Are you sure the snare ring in the Adams was an artifact of the speaker?  Or is it possible the ring was being covered by the others and only the Adams revealed it?

[zetterstroem]

by the way.....

spent most of today listening to a pair of adam P11...

among other thing i listened to a thethe record (mind bomb) that i've had for 15 years....

the thing that amazed me the most was the opening track..... there's an acoustic hihat on it than i know is eq'ed a bit thin.... i've heard it on all sorts of speakers.... but on the adam's it sounded like an analog beatbox hihat (eg.cr78)!!!!!!!!!

that ribbon is soooooo wrong..... it sounds nowhere near what is put into it....

another problem was that vocals sounded like they were 2-band compressed.... almost like the timing of the hi frequencies was out of time with the mids..... spooky!!!

so all in all an entirely different interpretation of a record that i know and love...

[Lee Flier]

David Schober wrote on Sat, 22 January 2005 15:10

I agree with the "find a box you like and use it."  For me the box I like is the one that helps me make a good mix, more than the one that sounds the best.

I agree, that's my philosophy too (so long as the speaker doesn't induce ear fatigue).  That is exactly what I like about the ADAM's. I don't bother checking my mixes on other sources with ADAM's, until they're done!  And then they sound like I expect them to.  That's about all you can ask of a monitor, I'd say.

[Rader Ranch]

sounds like you should use different monitors then. ADAM's clearly don't work for you.

ZETTERSTROEM wrote on Sat, 22 January 2005 12:31

by the way..... spent most of today listening to a pair of adam P11... among other thing i listened to a thethe record (mind bomb) that i've had for 15 years.... the thing that amazed me the most was the opening track..... there's an acoustic hihat on it than i know is eq'ed a bit thin.... i've heard it on all sorts of speakers.... but on the adam's it sounded like an analog beatbox hihat (eg.cr78)!!!!!!!!! that ribbon is soooooo wrong..... it sounds nowhere near what is put into it.... another problem was that vocals sounded like they were 2-band compressed.... almost like the timing of the hi frequencies was out of time with the mids..... spooky!!! so all in all an entirely different interpretation of a record that i know and love...

[JDSStudios]

David Schober wrote on Sat, 22 January 2005 15:10

Hi John, You've obviously done a lot of work investigating how the differing speakers sound in your room.  But did I miss this, or have I not seen a report on how they work?  I've found that sometimes the best working vehicle is not the prettiest or best ride.  Depending on you and your room, sometimes a speaker that sounds a little muddy can make you work a little harder for clarity. .....

No no no:
If the music is muddy, I want to hear it exactly muddy.
If it sounds good, I want to hear it sounding good.

I believe this idea of fighting in mud to get things to sound better in another system, to be a myth I won't go for.

If you read the beginning of the thread, I mentioned that I am going for translation; it means I want to hear the content as is, not muddier or prettier.

Quote:

... Conversely, a speaker that sounds beautiful and wonderful convince me that it sounds better than it really does. I agree with the "find a box you like and use it."  For me the box I like is the one that helps me make a good mix, more than the one that sounds the best. One last thought, Are you sure the snare ring in the Adams was an artifact of the speaker?  Or is it possible the ring was being covered by the others and only the Adams revealed it?...

We are totally sure it is not an artifact of the speaker... Did you read the part I mention about the sound being there in the Senheiser HD600 headphones? They are one the the best headphones available in the planet.

Trust me, the snare side shot skin ring is there!

[Lee Flier]

Rader Ranch wrote on Sat, 22 January 2005 22:34

sounds like you should use different monitors then. ADAM's clearly don't work for you.

LOL... ya think?  

BTW... awesome job on Steve LeBlanc's record.  Sounds amazing!  So nice and easy on the ears.  You rock.

[JDSStudios]

ZETTERSTROEM wrote on Sat, 22 January 2005 20:31

by the way..... spent most of today listening to a pair of adam P11... among other thing i listened to a thethe record (mind bomb) that i've had for 15 years.... the thing that amazed me the most was the opening track..... there's an acoustic hihat on it than i know is eq'ed a bit thin.... i've heard it on all sorts of speakers.... but on the adam's it sounded like an analog beatbox hihat (eg.cr78)!!!!!!!!! that ribbon is soooooo wrong..... it sounds nowhere near what is put into it.... another problem was that vocals sounded like they were 2-band compressed.... almost like the timing of the hi frequencies was out of time with the mids..... spooky!!! so all in all an entirely different interpretation of a record that i know and love...

First of all you are agreeing with me 100%!

Did you read the thread?
I mentioned how i first heard the Adams, and the "P" series was the first models I came across. I mentioned in the beginning of the thread that they make vocals sound several feet behind or recessed.

You cannot compare the "P" series with the S2.5A!

Even the S3A sounds different!

It is like saying GM sucks because you test drove a Pinto.
and Corvettes are therefore, slow cars.

Please read the beginning of the thread.

These artifacts of the cheaper "P" series are simply  NOT what the S2.5A are all about.

Listen for yourself.

Also, if designed properly, ribbons are amazing tweeters, with little weight compared to regular cones, and frequency response up to 40 KHz [34 KHz @ -3dB].

What is your problem with ribbons? I studied them, and 20 years ago, the only problem was they too were fragile, for the amazing response they had. Technology has surpassed that obstacle, for quite a while now.

If they are high velocity, that is not a bad quality; it only means they must be properly aligned [physically and electronically]
There are no other problems in terms of phase, or distortion, or dispersion.

Just forget about the "P" series.

Also, the price range is not the same; with the price of S2.5As, you can buy three P11s.
Don't bother with this type of comparison.

[JDSStudios]

If anything, the S2.5A put the vocals [and the rest of the mid range] very much to the front, not recessed like the "P" series.

[ammitsboel]

I think the problem is that you can't pare ribbons with dynamic units.

[Bill Mueller]

John,

The Pinto was made by Ford. The Corvette was made by Chevrolet, a GM company.

You wrote, and I quote, "Also, the price range is not the same; with the price of S2.5As, you can buy three P11s.
Don't bother with this type of comparison."

The S2.5A's cost $2300.00 each and the Mackie HR 824 cost $700.00 each. Obviously, you change the rules when it suits you.

It seems to me that it is quite a compliment to the Mackie HR824 to be compared with the Adam S2.5A at all, even as a whipping boy.

Best Regards,

Bill

[JDSStudios]

ammitsboel wrote on Sat, 22 January 2005 23:32

I think the problem is that you can't pare ribbons with dynamic units.

This is incorrect.

As long as it is properly designed, ribbons can perform really well or better.

They are faster, so time alignment has to be considered among everything else.