ammitsboel wrote on Mon, 10 January 2005 19:24 |
I believe that what has happened to monitors/speakers from the 50'ties and up to now is closely linked to what has happened to audio electronics. In the 50'ties electronic designers where limited to rather expensive components witch resulted in simple designs that simply sounded better than today where it seems like the only parameter build after is convenience resulting in very complex designs that has attained so much sound of its own that it is ot the detriment of the original sound. Even firms that consider them selves to be High End are limited to commercial production methods of vital parts in their units... and even some firms put themselves in limited situations by choosing predesigned integrated components that again are the victims of severely limited production methods. So as i see it, we have only gone in the direction of convenience and ease of use where we should have improved upon the designs and components of the 50'ties. The monitoring situation has evolved in the same direction resulting in monitors that are not capable of reproducing the beauty of musical detail. Studio engineers have to realize that people at home with a good hifi system have greater detail and musical joy that can't be matched by even some of the best studio monitors around. Best Regards |
Quote: |
in my mind there are cheap studio monitors, midfi monitors, and high end monitoring options. the cheap ones are newer tannoy, event, mackie designs and things below those the midfi range is from truth at $1300 up to a variety of most powered monitors that get discussed ... adam, emes, dynaudio, etc. at the $5000 to $10,000 mark the high end is a matched amp/speaker combo like barefoot, or a speaker with a great amp of your choosing ... but we're talking $10,000 and up to be really certain of what's being monitored seems to me that for most nearfield apps the trick is to find the best midfi set up for that person/room. while for mastering or audiophile listening $10,000 and up is the ticket in. |
Quote: |
I believe that what has happened to monitors/speakers from the 50'ties and up to now is closely linked to what has happened to audio electronics. In the 50'ties electronic designers where limited to rather expensive components witch resulted in simple designs that simply sounded better than today where it seems like the only parameter build after is convenience resulting in very complex designs that has attained so much sound of its own that it is ot the detriment of the original sound. Even firms that consider them selves to be High End are limited to commercial production methods of vital parts in their units... and even some firms put themselves in limited situations by choosing predesigned integrated components that again are the victims of severely limited production methods. So as i see it, we have only gone in the direction of convenience and ease of use where we should have improved upon the designs and components of the 50'ties. The monitoring situation has evolved in the same direction resulting in monitors that are not capable of reproducing the beauty of musical detail. Studio engineers have to realize that people at home with a good hifi system have greater detail and musical joy that can't be matched by even some of the best studio monitors around. |
seriousfun wrote on Mon, 10 January 2005 14:43 |
Don't you think it's funny that the film and video industry has trade organizations that specify requirements for (video and projection) monitoring, and every facility pretty much adheres to them? Yet, for the better part of a century, the music industry has let engineers work at every stage of the process with their choice of monitors, most of which lack some obvious range of frequencies, dynamics. Should we license audio facilities, requiring that their monitor systems at least have the frequency and dynamic response of their acquisition and deliver systems? Will natural selection lead the surviving recording studios to this conclusion? |
ZETTERSTROEM wrote on Sun, 09 January 2005 18:32 |
.............. and i don't think that it's a coincidence either that (most) records today are sounding poorer and poorer... what to do? are we fighting a losing battle? has peolpe stopped caring? am i losing my mind? opinions opinions ..... i need opinions! |
Quote: |
With keeping to a good protocol of forum balance and flow, Daniel, why don't you PM me about the Strauss loudspeakers please. Bill Roberts Precision Mastering. |
Rader Ranch wrote on Mon, 10 January 2005 15:48 | ||
i've tried to critically listen to CD's to get used to Dolby certified dub stages....trust me, that's the last thing you want.
...scott rader |
Quote: |
i don't agree entirely.... of course really high end stuff is expensive but you can really get great sounding speakers for less. |
Daniel_Dettwiler wrote on Wed, 12 January 2005 00:35 |
I think that if you are looking for a extreemly acourate mid- / farfield monitoring system, that can reproduce a linear frequency response from about 15 hz to 25 khz or greater and deliver all dynamics to reproduce acuratly even the dynamic of a big orchestra without any distortion in the highfrequency domain and that has a superior impulsresponse, also in the bassdomain, then I believe my prices I wrote for highend systems are correct. |
Quote: |
Well, this i believe is where people fall of the track most of the time when they are auditioning monitors. ...how do you determine these facts? I know that some of them can be measured but is all the methods of measurement ok for audio(program material)? And do people just believe that the rest of the speaker will take care of itself as long as these parameters is ok? What I've learned is that if you are in doubt don't trust the data! Best Regards |
Daniel_Dettwiler wrote on Wed, 12 January 2005 22:41 |
Not sure if I understand entirely what you mean (my english is limited) I am not at all looking to any technical details. I have seen speakers with near identical frequency response, that soundet totally different. I think that with my expirience and hearing system I am absolutely capable to judge any monitor. The deph of field information is extremly important to me, and most speakers can not deliver this information consistent over the whole frequency response correctly. Mostly the deeper the frequencies, the more colapses the depth of field and image. Also over the freq. respons where the crossover takes part, the image collapses often. Also I look how good a Singer it self become manifested in the phantom middle. Do I hear it as there was a 3rd speaker in the middle, of is it smeared, and not to be located as one point... Most tweeters distore very hight frequencies just a little. I am very allergic to this. Are those qulities still there when I listen loud, and are they all still there when I am listen very soft is also important to me. |
Quote: |
You have some good points there, but still i think that they are too specific. At some point we are all "allergic" to some specific things, but i believe that it's not a good thing to reject a speaker on a too specific ground, because what if this speaker has more quality on the other parameters than the speaker without this specific "fault". I think that in general people listen approx. the same way, but what i think is the reason why so many engineers choose "bad monitors" lies in their disability to listen to a speaker in a wholeness instead of comparing specific and basically unimportant parameters. What makes music is not so much how the Lows, Mids or Highs sound, what makes music is how it all plays together. And it scares me every day that there are recording and mixing engineers that relies on speakers that are unable of reproducing the beauty of the music people with good systems hear... so how do the engineers then make truly good and musical mixes if they can't hear it? |
ammitsboel wrote on Wed, 12 January 2005 23:10 |
I think that in general people listen approx. the same way, but what i think is the reason why so many engineers choose "bad monitors" lies in their disability to listen to a speaker in a wholeness instead of comparing specific and basically unimportant parameters. |
Level wrote on Thu, 13 January 2005 01:48 |
... Someone needs to get over themselves...I am a nice guy and I am humble. I do feel certain people need to be horse whipped to wake up and smell the fresh cut grass. You folks should really get a'hold of this post, if you don't, you are more of the problem than any solution. I do mean it. ... |
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. |
Quote: |
So is there something about reference moniors that require acoustic treatment in order to provide accuracy that is not required of stereo speakers? |
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 Properly set-up, can be flat within 0.8dB from 20 to 18K |
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. |
Level wrote on Thu, 13 January 2005 17:45 |
Yamaha NS1000M's. ... |
seriousfun wrote on Fri, 14 January 2005 11:13 |
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. |
Level wrote on Fri, 14 January 2005 00:50 |
DC, quit fighting it, some products simply are "better" than you believe. |
Quote: |
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. |
Quote: |
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). |
Level wrote on Thu, 13 January 2005 22:03 |
[snip]....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. |
Level wrote on Fri, 14 January 2005 00:50 |
[snip]... 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. |
Quote: |
Suffice it to say that a speaker can indeed be optimized to work best with some particular horizontal orientation, but this explaination is totally off base and shows a complete lack of understanding about the way loudspeakers work |
Level wrote on Sat, 15 January 2005 12:15 |
So, you are telling me that when you talk into a fan, your voice does not sound "flutterly" from the interaction and it is mearly an illusion? |
Level wrote on Thu, 13 January 2005 17:45 |
Lowest moving mass of any mid or tweeter ever made, including exotics. |
Level wrote on Thu, 13 January 2005 17:45 |
Lowest distortion ever measured in a loudspeaker system of 93dB 1W/1M. |
dcollins wrote on Fri, 14 January 2005 19:13 | ||
I've owned a pair. They always sounded bright to me.. I know, I didn't have the right amp, Shakti stone, etc. But a dynamic speaker making less than 0.1% THD? I really doubt it... Extraordinary claims, and all that.... |
Level wrote on Sat, 15 January 2005 12:32 |
...and woofers do the same thing... |
bblackwood wrote on Sat, 15 January 2005 14:48 | ||
So you're suggesting that low freqs can actually attenuate hi freqs? |
dayvel wrote on Sat, 15 January 2005 14:24 |
Plausible but wrong. You can find a passage like this in any high school physics text (or just Google "wave interference"). |
Level wrote on Sat, 15 January 2005 10:15 |
Second, I feel you need to do some ripple tank experiments. Eglin AFB has a test facility for this and is avalable. If you choose to use it sometime, let me know, I will show you how to set it all up properly. |
Level wrote on Sat, 15 January 2005 10:15 |
So, you are telling me that when you talk into a fan, your voice does not sound "flutterly" from the interaction and it is mearly an illusion? You are saying it is fine for delicate high frequencies to propagate through the steep wavefronts coming off of a woofer at near field instead of having a more direct path with the woofer farther away instead of directly in the interference pattern. Just do some ripple tank experiments. |
Level wrote on Sat, 15 January 2005 10:15 |
I am not goig to accept humiliating rehtorical posts designed to make me look bad when in fact, clearly, you need to spend some time in an ADVANCED research lab and look and measure and hear what I am speaking of. Now, Say what you want. I am done with this thread and witch hunt. Just remember folks, I have spent hundreds of hours in the lab (more than 6 labs actually) and this is just another case of something being out of reach for some people. |
Level wrote on Sat, 15 January 2005 13:15 |
You are saying it is fine for delicate high frequencies to propagate through the steep wavefronts coming off of a woofer at near field instead of having a more direct path with the woofer farther away instead of directly in the interference pattern. |
DivideByZero wrote on Tue, 14 February 2006 20:17 |
Does anyone else have Yamaha NS1000s? |
DivideByZero wrote on Wed, 15 February 2006 01:16 |
heh Adams.. I want to like them, but they are furry |
compasspnt wrote on Wed, 15 February 2006 00:12 |
Did it not become "one of the longest-selling hi-fi speakers, ever?" |
Bob Olhsson wrote on Tue, 14 February 2006 18:59 |
You know the irony is that recording quality has arguably declined as monitors have improved. Back in the '60s everybody KNEW their 604s weren't particularly accurate so many of the best engineers simply avoided doing anything that was stupid even if it sounded ok on the 604s. I suspect most people trust monitors WAY too much today. |
compasspnt wrote on Wed, 15 February 2006 00:12 | ||
Someone should. |
Bob Olhsson wrote on Sat, 18 February 2006 17:52 |
Let me offer a little historical perspective. In the 1960s monitors were chosen for their ability to reveal musical issues so that another take (and live mix) could be done immediately while the musicians were still set up out in the studio. If a monitor didn't lead to rude surprises at home when people listened to their seven-and-a-halfs after the session, translation was considered acceptable. Most of these monitor systems consisted of one large loudspeaker system per recording track. As the overdub/assembly production approach took over with the introduction of 8 and 16 track recording, mixing became more of a challenge because performers were listening to headphones rather than to a live band and rude surprises at home became lots more common. This led to the use of alternate "reference" monitors. Typically this was a four-inch radio speaker and/or a 6x9 inch car radio speaker along with a pair of whatever happened to be the best selling consumer stereo bookshelf speakers. By the mid '70s most studios had taken on the challenge of adapting large monitors to the need for fewer surprises. This involved everything from the use of equalization to radical approaches to control room design. In many cases the cure turned out to be far worse than the disease so mixers came to rely on their "reference monitors" more than anybody would have dreamed ten years earlier. This was especially true since most had also begun working as free-lancers in a wide variety of studios. Today we have learned a lot about how to build rooms and mains that translate well however the practice of mixing mostly with reference monitors and then fixing any problems they introduce in mastering lingers on. Hopefully people will begin to learn that this isn't the only way to work. |
andy_simpson wrote on Sun, 19 February 2006 19:06 |
Can anyone imagine mixing on a single ns10? Andy |
compasspnt wrote on Tue, 21 February 2006 16:43 |
Welcome to the Forums Peter! Quite a first post there! I think you have many insightful things to say about this. 'Whatever Works' for any one person should be what they use, regardless of cost. Results will speak for themselves. While I prefer a bit "more" speaker than an NS-10 (actually, my faves for years were the NS-044's) these days, I do believe that, given a few minutes to get used to them, I (or anyone competent) could do a perfectly fine mix on almost anything. It just comes down to balance. Best regards. Keep posting. |
andy_simpson wrote on Sun, 19 February 2006 18:06 |
.... And it brings the point home that in those mono days a single speaker was (presumably) capable of representing the musical output of a whole band, even a whole orchestra. Which is a feat that few modern speakers are capable of managing, let alone any kind of nearfields. |
max cooper wrote on Thu, 09 March 2006 21:09 |
I'll admit that I'm one of those weirdos who listens to single driver speakers at home and wonders if we lost something when everything went two-way +. |
compasspnt wrote on Thu, 09 March 2006 20:48 | ||
What speakers, Max? I have been thinking a lot about this. T |