R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7   Go Down

Author Topic: The present and future of monitoring  (Read 20362 times)

ted nightshade

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1272
Re: The present and future of monitoring
« Reply #30 on: January 13, 2005, 05:25:54 pm »

I find that a really good amp makes at least as much difference as the speakers. I have some very nice Manley amps and modest handbuilt speakers, and I find it works very well.

I wouldn't mind having great speakers too, but they're not a high priority for me. Amps are.
Logged
Ted Nightshade aka Cowan

There's a sex industry too.
Or maybe you prefer home cookin'?

ammitsboel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1300
Re: The present and future of monitoring
« Reply #31 on: January 13, 2005, 06:53:11 pm »

Keef wrote on Thu, 13 January 2005 21:09

Just like mic pre's, eq and compression units, all speaker company's have a color and personality of their own. So you choose the one that sounds best to your ears which is subjective of course. Once you are used to them, you can make a good determination on how they will sound in boom boxes, and high end speakers.  I heard the MAckie's and I preferred the Tannoy's. Why, I just liked the what I heard a little more. There is no right or wrong answer.


This is simply wrong!
You will get nowhere with this subject by washing your hands.

This is where many engineers often make faults, by believing that they can "adjust" to their speakers so they will "know" how it really sounds. I don't believe in "adjusting" to the speakers, I believe in using the monitoring of choice in every way.

I also believe that it's not a good thing to have 2 pairs of monitors, I think that the engineers that uses 2 pairs only use them because none of the pairs satisfies their needs.

And the term "I hear more with this speaker/amp" is what have turned the monitoring world up site down. Choosing speakers by witch one you think "plays more" will get you a speaker that produces artifacts instead of being neutral... this is by some part true with the ADAMS.

Best Regards
Logged
"The male brain is designed for ecstasy" -Dr. Harvey "Gizmo" Rosenberg

jgreenlee

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 50
Re: The present and future of monitoring
« Reply #32 on: January 13, 2005, 08:04:57 pm »

Henrik (and others),

I'm really intrigued by this thread and attitudes on speakers.  So far all I've gotten from this thread though is that most speakers suck and that a great monitoring system costs a bazillion dollars.  The reason most speakers suck is that they don't have adequate frequency or dynamic range and they tend to distort at varried points in the frequency spectrum.

For those of us without the vast experience and exposure of the veterans....Please share with us models that you consider to be great.

And while we're talking about monitors we should probably also discuss rooms.  Should we recess our speakers into walls or leave them free standing?  Levelled out or tilted up/down?

So many questions....

I'm not looking for "Hey James....Use this speaker with this amp and place them like this in your room."  I'm looking for speakers, amps and placement that you guys have found to be "good."  If someone takes what you say and blows their wad on it...Then that's great for them.  I just want to investigate.  But before I can investigate I need some clues.

Just like an art appreciation class....You learn by having the more learned discuss with you what they consider great.

Peace,

James
Logged

Level

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1811
Re: The present and future of monitoring
« Reply #33 on: January 13, 2005, 08:45:00 pm »

Yamaha NS1000M's.

Lowest moving mass of any mid or tweeter ever made, including exotics
Lowest distortion ever measured in a loudspeaker system of 93dB 1W/1M
No longer made Sad
Properly set-up, can be flat within 0.8dB from 20 to 18K

You can follow entire channels completely with them 20dB down, freedom from masking.

Razor sharp imaging.

They can reproduce a marching band snare drum with authentic levels of 122dB without breaking up or sounding forced

Pedal tones of 22hz simply are so powerful, things not anchored down will move around in the room.

Never a burnout with 500 watts/channel and I use them in the 3 to 9 watt range "peak" for the most part.

One example of a fantastic loudspeaker system for monitoring and mastering.

They are VERY dependant on super high quality front end. Nuances in amplifiers are very audible. Must be used with the finest electronics or you will hear issues.

My in room curve below. Simply one of the finest loudspeakers ever made. Do a search for them. Hard to believe how great they reproduce the signal. Uncanny to say the least.
Logged
http://balancedmastering.com

"Listen and Learn"
---Since 1975---

ammitsboel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1300
Re: The present and future of monitoring
« Reply #34 on: January 13, 2005, 09:07:22 pm »

Every Audio Note(expensive and inexpensive) speaker will show you the true beauty of your music, or also if their isn't any left in your production.
Pair them with good class A amplification from 8-100W and you have a very good system.

Unlike Level i will not go on and brag about unimportant factors that on the bottom line doesn't mean anything.

Best Regards


Logged
"The male brain is designed for ecstasy" -Dr. Harvey "Gizmo" Rosenberg

runamuck

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 27
Re: The present and future of monitoring
« Reply #35 on: January 13, 2005, 09:15:38 pm »

Some thing confuses me about monitors and it may simply be that I have not spent enough money.

I have been using Mackie 824s for about a year now. I realize that people much more experienced than me have many, many complaints about these and I also know that people with solid skill in mixing can find them at least usable.

I'll mix a piece on them, burn it to disc, check the mix on my home stereo, go back to the mix to make adjustments, check it on the stereo again and jeeze, I can hear adjustments in EQ and compression much more easily on my stereo system then I can on the Mackies.

OK, my room is not acoustically treated much at all and I'm aware that lacking treatment will make it very difficult to get a mix to translate well.

But wouldn't that apply to my stereo speakers/amp as well? They're in the same room. BTW: the speakers are not audiophile quality and are about about 20 years old.

So is there something about reference monitors that require acoustic treatment in order to provide accuracy that is not required of stereo speakers?

I sure would appreciate help in understanding this.

Jim

Logged

Level

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1811
Re: The present and future of monitoring
« Reply #36 on: January 13, 2005, 09:18:00 pm »

The music is MOST important. If it takes some advanced techniques to display it, so much the better. No loudspeaker has been able to touch the realim of the NS1000's that I have tested. Most sound colored and boxy compared to them. They dissapear completely, here.

To describe, as a live performance coming out of the air. Not out of an area but the whole room simply is alive with sound you feel you can reach out and touch and no fatique what so ever.
Logged
http://balancedmastering.com

"Listen and Learn"
---Since 1975---

Level

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1811
Re: The present and future of monitoring
« Reply #37 on: January 13, 2005, 09:22:57 pm »

Quote:

So is there something about reference moniors that require acoustic treatment in order to provide accuracy that is not required of stereo speakers?




If you operate speakers in a free field (no room, outdoors if you will) you will hear what the speakers are doing and not the room being a huge part of the equation. Treatments simply allow you to take as much of the room out of the equation as possible by absorbing before reflecting.
Logged
http://balancedmastering.com

"Listen and Learn"
---Since 1975---

dcollins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2815
Re: The present and future of monitoring
« Reply #38 on: January 14, 2005, 12:21:25 am »

Level wrote on Thu, 13 January 2005 17:45

Yamaha NS1000M's.

Lowest moving mass of any mid or tweeter ever made, including exotics
Lowest distortion ever measured in a loudspeaker system of 93dB 1W/1M
No longer made Sad
Properly set-up, can be flat within 0.8dB from 20 to 18K



Where does your information, especially as regards the measured distortion, come from?

Why do you run the tweeters on the inside at your studio?

http://www.recording.org/e-mag/article_20.html

DC

Level

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1811
Re: The present and future of monitoring
« Reply #39 on: January 14, 2005, 01:03:38 am »

Hi DC. That room is long abandoned. The set-up of the loudspeakers is the same layout. Much nicer room though.

I have had many indepth conversations with Akira Nakamura about the voicing of these speakers and design implementation. The original design was to provide a calibration instrument for evaluation of the Yamaha concert grand pianos through recordings and to archive the "sound" of each and every model and unit of them. The original concept began in 1969 and was fully realized in the spring of 73.Yamaha felt they had a hit on their hands and marketed the speakers first in 74 and then to the US in late 75. I got mine in mid 76. Conversations on tweeters in and out and testing, both sides and upright, the original crossovers were voiced for them being on their side and tweeters on the inside provide for minimal air motion interaction of the center image with steep wavefronts from the woofers, hence, you are not listening to tweeters "through" the woofer wave action in this configuration. I agree, they are most accurate in this configuration. It was good to have communication with the folks that actually were behind the design and implementation of them. The system here is doing what it should and after close to 29 years of ownership with these speakers, they have not been bested and I have had my share of speakers here to test. Once I really thought the yamahas got beat. It was only after some really critical classical mastering where layering depth of certain instuments did I revert back to them and I simply love them as my main tools. Others simply fall short. I am not in the market for anything else.

No, I do not have a current picture of this facility and that picture was right after my divorce in a temporary setting that now has been improved upon 10 fold, at least. I see RO decided to bring that picture back on line and I submitted more up to date ones before I left RO. I wish that picture was taken down. It was to show the room I aquired immediately after my divorce and times were damned hard. I had to make do with cheap tables instead of nice furniture. I hope you don't hold it against me actually. Some really good work came out of that room though. Good work. It got me here. (again)


Distortion testing was in the 0.1% range at full input from 500 to 15K as tested by HH labs in 78. This level was deemed the THD+IM of the test instruments being used. I guess you have heard them before, I just hope with them set-up correctly, if not, with a grainy amp, they can be truly horrible.
Any more questions?
Logged
http://balancedmastering.com

"Listen and Learn"
---Since 1975---

dcollins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2815
Re: The present and future of monitoring
« Reply #40 on: January 14, 2005, 03:14:25 am »

Level wrote on Thu, 13 January 2005 22:03


Distortion testing was in the 0.1% range at full input from 500 to 15K as tested by HH labs in 78. This level was deemed the THD+IM of the test instruments being used.



Perhaps the first time in history that the instrument residual was a limitation for speaker testing?

Hint: I doubt it's 0.1% anything.

Forget at "full input."

DC

Level

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1811
Re: The present and future of monitoring
« Reply #41 on: January 14, 2005, 03:50:42 am »

Full input was at 60 watts RMS The tested distortion was found in the microphones. The drivers were below what the microphones were creating.

DC, quit fighting it, some products simply are "better" than you believe.

Quotes...

In truth, the NS1000Ms are one of the most transparent 'speakers ever made, with dazzlingly fast transients, superb sound staging and great clarity and detail.

Beryllium

Using this expensive metal, Yamaha came up with treble and midrange drivers that produced extremely low levels of distortion, excellent dispersion and phase coherence. In fact, mated together by a complex crossover network, they behaved much as an electrostatic panel but with more extended highs and better power handling. Matched with a fast, light, rigid paper-coned 300mm bass unit, the combination was dynamite.

   http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/hfw/oldeworldehtml/yamahans1000m .html


Beryllium metal has the best stiffness / weight of any materials. This is a fact !
Unfortunately , Beryllium is a very difficult metal to work with.
Yamaha had to vaporise and deposit the beryllium onto a mould in a vacuum !
The legendary NS-1000M really are "no compromise , no expense spared" loudspeakers !


http://www.affordablevalvecompany.com/ns1000.htm


http://www.frankrusso.net/article_2004_01_30.html


Ken went to great trouble to make it get the best from my NS1000M loudspeakers (which are super-fast), so he made the player super fast, too! But it's also tonally warm and sweet too, with a tremendous tonal palette (which the Yams love - and me, for that matter).

http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/hfw/email1.html

So...you have used them set-up properly? Not.

If you have, you would not be posting what you posted, at all.
Logged
http://balancedmastering.com

"Listen and Learn"
---Since 1975---

ted nightshade

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1272
Re: The present and future of monitoring
« Reply #42 on: January 14, 2005, 12:00:48 pm »

So, what kind of work gets done on these magnificent, spendy speakers? Are you folks doing mastering, mixing, tracking?

Seems like monitoring gets short shrift during tracking a lot of times.
Logged
Ted Nightshade aka Cowan

There's a sex industry too.
Or maybe you prefer home cookin'?

seriousfun

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 329
Re: The present and future of monitoring
« Reply #43 on: January 14, 2005, 01:55:42 pm »

Level wrote on Thu, 13 January 2005 17:45

Yamaha NS1000M's.

...


I agree 100%!

I used to own a pair  Sad

Yamaha made, for a short time, a bookshelf speaker called NS-1 that was as good or better, but it was an 8" 2-way.
Logged
doug osborne | my day job

seriousfun

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 329
Re: The present and future of monitoring
« Reply #44 on: January 14, 2005, 02:13:13 pm »

To reply to a lot of thoughts here:

The room is the most important factor, or at least should be the first component addressed. The perfect instrument or speaker in a lousy room will sound lousy.

A perfect speaker would play the complete dynamic and frequency pallett of all known sounds, with absolute phase delivery. Since this is unlikely to be built, we have to IMHO, start with achievable minimums on a reasonable production system: frequency response from 20-20k Hz, headroom of 20 dB above our target average, reasonably flat frequency and phase response, reasonably flat off-axis response. Amps, crossovers, drivers, cabinets, etc, are simply a part of the monitor system, all critical.

A proper monitor system is not a matter of taste, that is what gets us in trouble, and produces an inconsistent product. Even though we can train our ear/brain mechanism to think through monitor system deficiencies, wouldn't our jobs be easier and our product more consistent if monitor systems met reasonable standards and were consistent from room to room?

Yes, to the OP, current monitoring practice is limiting the quality of our music delivery systems. A pair of 1031s (as good as they are), to choose a new whipping boy, does not reflect original acoustic events, mixed multi-mono sounds, or typical home speakers well.

As is proper, most Mastering Engineers address this reasonably for their facilities. The subject is vital for the survival of professional recording studios - each has to provide a proper reference monitor system for tracking and mixing so the studio can be an alternative to the garage/living room/office. Only with this vital component addressed reasonably can the very concept of the professional recording studio survive.
Logged
doug osborne | my day job
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7   Go Up