R/E/P Community

R/E/P => R/E/P Archives => Reason In Audio => Topic started by: zetterstroem on January 09, 2005, 06:32:58 PM

Title: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: zetterstroem on January 09, 2005, 06:32:58 PM
hey all

although this and other forums have been filled with monitor threads i still fell the subject needs to be discussed.

for some 20-something years i spend a lot of time listening to speakers of all sorts shapes and sizes.... i've had and heard everything from electrostatics and magnestats to small dynamic nearfields....

of course i did my share of mixing on ns10's and gene's.... and even did some live engineering for a while...

but i must say that i think the current trend in speakers/monitors leaves me very worried!

i think most of the monitors released by the big companys today have very little to do with transparent neutral monitoring..... speakers that are so heavily coloured that even the smartest engineer will not have a clue what is going on in his mix/master.

not to name anyone as this will start a flamewar.... people are of course very sensitive about their investments.

it's not even because people don't wanna pay for their monitors.... it's not uncommon to see some guy talking about $6000-10000 monitors that severely coloured or even distorted!

i can understand thay maybe it's nice to have some inspirational colouring while you compose/program..... but for tracking/mixing/mastering it is essential to have good speakers (and room).

i am convinced that most people do not even just sit down and listen to cd's and enjoy their speakers and get to know them and get to know neutral sound. and how many people know how instruments really sound? it's a bit like religion.... people say they believe in god.... but they don't go to church or pray! (at least in denmark where i live).

that combined with the fact that i (as a mastering engineer) recieve alot of mixes that need ALOT of fixing leads me to think (or know actually) that the relationship between bad monitoring and bad mixes is no coincidence......

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!
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: Level on January 09, 2005, 07:04:10 PM
Perhaps the past, present and future. I edited this paragraph in for relevancy. The past is just as important as the future. We cherish many works of old and some of them are still within the "state of the art". Listen to some classical vinyl of the late 50's and it is simply STILL outstanding in clarity and reproduction translation. The 60's provided us with hits a many that still sound great. Our work today must fit the mould of high fidelity reproduction and the frequency balance that was established long ago still remains..balanced. It those days, recordings were done with utter care by lab coat technicians. People put a lot of heart into what they did for future generations to enjoy in its full splendor. Also I will add in this edit, it is not simply that a loudspeaker system must sound great. The loudspeaker system must be DYNAMICALLY accurate as well and to hear accuracy in loudspeakers is to realize the mids are definitely tilted up a shade because of fletcher-munson and this goes along with my argument of: when we mix and master, we should crank the volume for at least a short period to make certain we are not mixing undue pain into our work on critically accurate systems. Remember, we have to translate to inexpensive "box" type systems as well.

OK, original text from 2 hrs ago...

I have been in the same boat but really really early on. I posted some history in Brads forum (in short form) of how I evolved from musician first, to speaker nut and then to recording engineering and mastering. From 69-75, I was very unhappy with consumer loudspeakers in the early 70's to the point of creating my own designs. My first real studio experience was in 75 when everyone and their brother had 4310/4311 control monitors as mixing devices and mastering was simply the transfer from tape to disc (vinyl) with small changes to accommodate the lacquer. Mastering had evolved into many different things now but the purpose of it is to convert from the professional format to the consumer format(s) for proper translation with a wide variety of systems.

This said, going back to 75, my favorite LP's simply sounded very "right" on the JBL's and especially the L200's and L300's which were large scale studio monitors, not control room monitors. Most recordings sounded *"right". If they did not, it was oftentimes the recordings and engineering themselves were the problem. A standard was used and this standard was consistancy.

Skipping ahead to the 80's and digital involvement, studios shied away from the JBL's simply because they were on the harsh side with the CD's (all the while the major problems were the first generation converters and lack of experience in transfer) and began using other various types. NS10's have the ability to reproduce the simple snare drum properly and this by no means is an easy feat for a loudspeaker. I find many modern monitors to be very bass heavy, especially around 50hz (hence the thin mixes) causing engineers to back off on the bottom to balance to the loudspeakers. This and that their seems that through the 90's, their were no fewer than one hundred companies producing what is called "a studio monitor" and no telling how the mix will translate and this began the dawn of "mastering engineer" trying to get things back to a form of translation or back to "level".

SO there you have it. The paradigm has changed and truly accurate monitors (with flat phase and amplitude response) were traded in for those which "sound better" on cruddy material. This is the wrong way to go.

Going back to 75, it is still the material here that needs the hard work and mastering helps..but it should not the industries "band aid". As their will be many more monitors built and different levels of competence in recording, balancing and paying attention, the need for "mastering" grows ever stronger. A good set of full range low distortion cones should sound really good with music. This is not the ultimate criteria but one that is a "standard" to be kept in mind.

We haven't even talked about people who are using "cans" to mix with.

Engineers, really good ones can learn to use whatever monitors they get used to. It is the skill of that engineer how well the translation works and hopefully an incompetent mastering engineer *won't* mess it all up, or the other way around where it is messed up and the mastering engineer has to try to "fix it"..but the latter is the case many times these days..and it is mainly due to monitors, rooms and levels of competence.

*One recording in particular was H. Lewis and the News or the "back to the future 1" soundtrack album
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: Daniel_Dettwiler on January 09, 2005, 09:49:00 PM
Yes I agree, it is imortant to speak about speakers. I do not understand that many people are not that critical about it. IMO The speakersystem togeher with the acoustics of the Mixing Room is the absolut most important factor in any studio. A speaker has to be as acourate as possible, meaning that it should convert the electrical signal coming from the amp as good as possible in to sound waves.

Now the problem imo is, that in such discussions most people do not know many loudspeakers (not the good ones at least). But if we speak about Mixing Desks, soon people come with their desks, with coast about $100,000 till $700'000. Nobody says why would they not mix on a mackie. A Monitor with great quality also has a high price, one can not believe that with $5000 one gets a acourate speaker.

IMO we are a lot more in the "future" then many would think. I have been looking for acourate speakers for years, and found amazing ones, speakers made by little compagnies that are not even well known in their countries. I found two compagies which their speakers easely have blown away the top models from the well known compagnies. (That where the Dynaudio C4 and a big PMC Speaker to make it concret). One Speaker that I should mention is the Strauss SEMF-1 (Strauss Elektroakustik). It is even more expensive than a complete C4 System, but well worth it. For my studio it was a great investment and very well worth it. BTW, the monitor has been developped for the Sony Music Studio Japan. The Engineers there have compared about every Mastering Monitor that they could get, and choosed this Strauss Speaker to be equipped in all their mastering suites (40 Speakers in total:-). He makes great nearfields aswell that are of course cheaper, probalby about $12,000 or so for a stereo system.  

To sum, I believe, no I know that their are excelent sound wave converters (speakers). But most people are not aware of the good ones, but just buy goods in bulk. As if we would all work with Beringer Mics, just not knowing that there are also brauners, DPA's Neumanns... Smile. Finally I also believe that studios needs to invest far more in their monitoring (with acoustics) and imo far less in the console that anyway just ruins the acoustics...

My two cents
Daniel Dettwiler
www.ideeundklang.com
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: ammitsboel on January 10, 2005, 01:24:02 PM
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

Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: maxdimario on January 10, 2005, 01:48:15 PM
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





I totally agree with you 100%. I was saying the exact same thing to a friend a week ago. the old stuff was simpler, superior in quality of components and made with music reproduction in mind by scientifically-minded engineers who actually cared about musical quality.
Miniaturization problems and cost concerns were almost non-existent.

The main thing modern systems have more of, compared to the first-generation technology, is the SPL to do a woofer-body-massage
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: Roland Storch on January 10, 2005, 04:15:13 PM
Great thread!

A lot of mastering engineers and studios with a certain level use so called consumer high end loudspeakers instead or the so called professional studio monitors. Why?

Very often the only professional thing about the pro monitors are typical pro features like balanced XLR inputs. In another thread somebody describes the compromised input stages of active studio monitors.

Like already written above:
"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."

Exactly!
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: lucey on January 10, 2005, 05:11:33 PM
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.  
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: Daniel_Dettwiler on January 10, 2005, 05:30:22 PM
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.


I agree with what you are saying, but the price but the coast of a monitoring system where one can be really certain of what's been monitored is imo a whole bunch higher even than $10,000. To me highend options start around $20,000 and go easely till $80,000

daniel dettwiler
www.ideeundklang.com
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: seriousfun on January 10, 2005, 05:43:59 PM
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?
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: Daniel_Dettwiler on January 10, 2005, 06:01:36 PM
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.



So true! The developper of the System I mentioned in my later respnse (the Strauss Speaker) says exactly the same thing. A great speaker system does not have to be complicated, nor does it need to have 4 drivers with 4 amps for each driver... in contrary, if the sound is coming over 4 drivers, you will have 3 frequency crossovers, and that to me is very clear that can not sound good.

daniel dettwiler
www.ideeundklang.com
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: Rader Ranch on January 10, 2005, 06:48:02 PM
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.

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?




...scott rader
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: Level on January 10, 2005, 07:15:08 PM
With keeping to a good protocol of forum balance and flow, Daniel, why don't you PM me about the Strauss loudspeakers please.
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: eightyeightkeys on January 10, 2005, 07:23:50 PM
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!


I'm not sure that its necessarily the monitors but it really could be a big, big chunk of it. If you can hear very clearly and accurately how much you could be ruining a mix or master...well then...

When I got the B&W Matrix 802's Series 3's and started listening I was a bit confused/startled at first. How could all of these CD's sound this bad ? Rude, harsh, way too much top end and, of course overly compressed. I actually told the person I bought them from that I wasn't sure about these monitors and that I need more time.

But, as I listened more and more, and tracked and mixed on them, I realized how beautifully accurate these monitors are. Even tiny EQ and level changes are evident, leading to, (guess what ?).....less need for EQ and compression and certainly less limiting.

Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: Level on January 10, 2005, 07:31:46 PM
There you go D&D...and equipment needs time with your ear/brain to settle in. After you use them for a while, those nasty CD's will actually show you some new insight. Myself and many of my peers consider the word "break-in" "the time it takes to reassociate with the new equipment from different sources to learn its "state...of the art".

Quotes in bold my myself. (Submitted to a Glossary for review).

The more accruate the loudspeakers and room association, the more '0.3dB' you can hear, and at all ranges. Your next gift will be STEREO subs, not one, flat to 15hz. Then you will hear all the interaction when properly balanced.
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: Daniel_Dettwiler on January 11, 2005, 03:25:32 AM
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.



Bill

I will PM you information later this day..

Daniel
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: ted nightshade on January 11, 2005, 11:56:09 AM
I agree that monitoring is a big, big issue! Critical!

But- I am inclined to believe that a lot of stuff sounds awful today just because of all the processing. Every process and every processor degrades the sound, no matter the quality.

A lot of processing is done for geeky engineer reasons that do not serve the music. Most of it is unnecessary.

Mastering engineers are EQing stuff that's already been EQ'd to try to get it back to where it might have been if it had just been tracked flat and well.

In my experience, really well tracked unprocessed stuff translates extremely well, and processing is very, very tricky to get to translate.
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: seriousfun on January 11, 2005, 05:52:15 PM
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.

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?




...scott rader



Scott, I guess I wasn't clear...

I was talking about video monitoring, not audio monitors in video facilities.

But I wasn't really talking about the video monitors themselves, but the industry standards, the accepted practice, that was agreed to by and tremendously benefits the film/video industry.

Using NS-10s for serious work, for example, would be equivalent for a broadcast engineer judging the picture that was going to the transmitter using a consumer TV that didn't do blue very well - he knew it was there but just couldn't see it, he could see how the blue was appearing by the way the reds were modulated...doesn't that, objectively, sound a little silly?

My point is that goal number one should be that all monitoring should be done on a monitor system which matches the range of acquisition and delivery. Meaning, since our microphones/recording systems can record from 20 Hz to 20k Hz, and our delivery systems (CD) can get them to consumer playback systems, the first and foremost goal should be to have a monitor system (speaker system) that plays accurately from 20 Hz to 20k Hz.
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: zetterstroem on January 11, 2005, 07:22:03 PM
"But- I am inclined to believe that a lot of stuff sounds awful today just because of all the processing. Every process and every processor degrades the sound, no matter the quality."

yeah..... and if you can't hear what you're doing you make the wrong choices!!

"I agree with what you are saying, but the price but the coast of a monitoring system where one can be really certain of what's been monitored is imo a whole bunch higher even than $10,000. To me highend options start around $20,000 and go easely till $80,000"

i don't agree entirely.... of course really high end stuff is expensive but you can really get great sounding speakers for less.

the problem is that prices is exponentially proportional (whoa.. big words) with quality! i think the good stuff is avialble for $2000 (excl. amps) if you know where to look (and maybe give a hand yourself) then you can optimize from there with better crossover components/wires and such (tweaking is essntial).

but to get us back on track....

the object of this topic/post was to question the current trend in speakers... integrated amps Sad /aludomes'n'ribbons  Mad /passive radiators Embarassed and so on.

what should we do.... can we do anything?
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: Daniel_Dettwiler on January 11, 2005, 07:35:44 PM
Quote:

i don't agree entirely.... of course really high end stuff is expensive but you can really get great sounding speakers for less.



Of course. I should have specified more presicely, 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.  

But certainly for a nearfield system the price is a lot more down, and if you don't need a high maximum spl then certainly one can find great speaker for less money.

Daniel Dettwiler
www.ideeundklang.com
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: zetterstroem on January 11, 2005, 07:43:06 PM
dd

i agree...
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: ammitsboel on January 11, 2005, 07:59:21 PM
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.


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
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: Daniel_Dettwiler on January 12, 2005, 05:41:59 PM
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


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.

Daniel Dettwiler
www.ideeundklang.com
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: ammitsboel on January 12, 2005, 06:10:58 PM
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.


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?  

Best Regards

Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: Daniel_Dettwiler on January 12, 2005, 07:07:27 PM
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?


I totally agree with you entirely. Basically all that is important to me is, as you say it, how it all plays together, how it can reproduce the beatuy of music.  Will I hear a group of musicans, feel that they had pleasure while playing, or do I just hear some blurred tones trying to be something...

However if I find a speaker, that I totaly forget that I am sitting between two speakers and where I would not think, that the sound is coming from only the two speakers  when I close my eyes, then mostly that speaker is superior in all the things I wrote in my last post. Or in other words, if I can not close my eyes and enjoy to a music performance, mostly several of the points mentioned are not good in that speaker.

Daniel
www.ideeundklang.com
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: Roland Storch on January 13, 2005, 04:26:35 AM
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.




I think the reason why many engineers choose "bad monitors" are:
1. They never heard a real good ones.
2. Some believe bad monitors are good for mixing and think, if I can make a mix sound good on a bad monitor it will sound better on better speakers (a often heard argumentation from NS-10 users).
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: Roland Storch on January 13, 2005, 04:45:19 AM
Back to the first question, the presence and the future of monitoring.

A lot here agree that there are many consumer loudspeakers having a better performance than so called pro monitors at similar price level.

What is the reason for this?
Is it that the manufacturer of pro monitors have the wrong approach (like looking too much for so called pro features like filters, wave guides, ...)
Or is it really that we pro audio guys do not demand good sounding monitors and prefer good looking measurments?

Intersting is: Manufacturer with really good pro monitors are often successful in the high end consumer market as well (PMC, B&W, Quad, Dunlavy, Harbeth).

(this also is true for electronic components: Daniel Weiss - Medea, EAR, Balanced Audio Technology, EMM Labs-Meitner, Audio Research, dCS, ....)
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: Level on January 13, 2005, 04:48:02 AM
I still have a major problem with folks "thinking" the NS10 is a "bad speaker" They simply are not professional audio engineers and probabaly the cause of the "problems" we have of late.

It has a "shit load" of good going for it in many ways.

Too much misinformation out there actually.

1. It is dynamically accurate from 70hz to 16K from 50dB to 100dB

2. It is not as ragged in response as people make it out to be.

(real curve is in attachment)

3. If you hate the speaker, your mix is screwed up and you need to get busy and work to make it right.

I have had enough of the NS10 bashing. All you are doing is exposing you need NOT to be in this business.

If it is that bad, then the total art as we know is skewed so far as to no one at all is close and this is pure bullshit to think that.

Mixes got worse when folks abandoned them. Bass thin and pain, bring on more, I can use a huge curve and get you back someway or somehow...my Clients feel I am doing it right..and no, I don't use them but I did in mixing for 11 years and NEVER had a complaint.

Someone needs to get over themselves. NS10's are damn good tools and are not nasty, the mixes that sounded nasty on them were nasty..big time. If you cannot get them sounding good, perhaps you are totally in the wrong field and I dare say, responsible for some of the bullshit we have to put up with as art.

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.

I can't sit here and tell you any different. Learn!

Enough of the lies and foolishness.

If it sounds bad on NS10's...brother, it is bad, "period".

Get over yourself and learn. Please, for the arts sake.
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: Roland Storch on January 13, 2005, 05:38:51 AM
Did i push the wrong buttom?

Sorry, i should not have mentioned the NS-10. They are really good tools - and i was able to do good mixes with them in different studios.

Sorry, I don?t want to change this thread in another NS-10 battle.

The question may be changed a little regarding the future of monitoring.
Are the manufacturers able to offer new monitors which are good tools and show you a nasty sound if the mix is nasty but also all the beauty of the music if the mix is great?  Imagine a big classical orchestra performing great in a great hall.
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: seriousfun on January 13, 2005, 02:11:50 PM
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.

...


Well, This grumpy messsage sounds like you got up on the wrong side of the bed today, and this contradicts your experience and contribution to the industry.

Any reasonable person has to admit that there is a 50/50 split in this industry over NS-10s, and that this discussion sometimes cuts across logic, science, and asthetics. This issue is also in no way off-topic to the original poster's question.

*****************

Chasing the moving target of lowest-common-denominator consumer playback (audio/video/whatever) can be a losing game unless it is restricted to the QC stage, and even then the industry should have some common practice. This is where Auratones, NS-10s, boomboxes, car stereos, etc., are useful and essential, but IMO are not acceptable for production.

I agree that a speaker system for mastering purposes or critical exhibition probably has to cost a lot of money (this is obviously a relative term). A production system that from the realities of economics probably won't cost US$20k still can play reasonably flat from 20-20k Hz with 85 dB SPL + 20 dB of headroom, yet (again to agree with the OP) most music production is done with speakers that are either like NS-10s but not NS-10s, like Augsbergers but not Augsbergers, like 4311s but not...yet they still don't fill the basic need.

In an industry that is in a perpetual transition stage, we are in a particularly wild transision stage. We can acquire and deliver sounds with much more accuracy (and less fighting with noise and distortion) than ever before, yet we have to deliver the same stuff for both lower-fidelity playback than ever before in our lifetimes (bad webstreaming), higher-fidelity (SA-CD, etc.) and have it be effective for every listener. Speakers have to be respected, and I agree that they have been ignored/misusterstood/poorly-chosen.

I don't know that, for critical audio production work, we can choose a speaker for its beauty, but I know we must choose it to agree with our version of the truth.

Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: Glenn Bucci on January 13, 2005, 04:09:37 PM
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.
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: ted nightshade 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.
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: ammitsboel 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
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: jgreenlee 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
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: Level 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.
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: ammitsboel 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


Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: runamuck 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

Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: Level 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.
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: Level 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.
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: dcollins 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

Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: Level 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?
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: dcollins 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
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: Level 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.
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: ted nightshade 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.
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: seriousfun 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.
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: seriousfun 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.
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: ted nightshade on January 14, 2005, 03:11:41 PM
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.


Maybe. It could be that having real live 'n' kickin' music on these recordings matters a lot more than what the monitoring is like. And as far as I can tell, professional recording studios, by and large, are terribly insular, uninspiring little techie dungeons where an artist has to make some kind of tremendous transcendant leap to perform in a natural, communicative way, like they would with an audience, or in an inspiring, comfortable space.

All the overdubbing and assembly and processing makes Jack quite a dull boy. There have been exceptions that transcended this tedious, geeky process, but they had to transcend the process to achieve it.

All this professional recording studio stuff gets so narcissistically self-referential- tweaking knobs to impress the other knob tweakers. It reminds me of a professor giving a lecture to impress the other professors without giving much thought to whether or not he communicates to the students.

I think it's quite true that to do sound manipulations is very hazardous unless you can hear very clearly and unmistakably what you're doing. But I really don't think very many of the manipulations that are so cleverly done help get the music across. A kind of cult of processing has us all twiddling feverishly, and to what avail?

I agree that monitoring is crucial, and that the room is most critical, but there are other real liabilities to the whole professional recording studio paradigm that monitoring can not address.

Although, if and when I try to record anything in a pro studio again, I will definitely be placing a real premium on being able to hear exactly what the hell is going on!
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: dcollins on January 14, 2005, 10:13:04 PM
Level wrote on Fri, 14 January 2005 00:50



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



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....

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.



I don't think the topic here is personal opinions of the sound, but instead your rather unbelievable claims of the distortion and magnitude response...


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).



I love audiophile prose.  It's so, well, prosaic........

DC
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: chrisj on January 14, 2005, 10:33:33 PM
Nice sharp enclosure edges...
You'll note that some mastering speakers (like B&W) go to a great deal of effort to deal with enclosure effects. I covet your beryllium drivers more than I can say (I'd stick one on the end of my spherical expansion horns and get rid of the rather undistinguished titanium tweeter compression-driver) but am not really impressed with your Yamahas. Love to hear those drivers, though. For that matter I'd love to hear the new diamond tweeters that are out- hard to imagine how you'd get fancier with materials than THAT!

Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: chrisj on January 14, 2005, 10:41:30 PM
...besides, increasing rigidity isn't always the answer in driver technology. Very likely there are still resonances and colorations in the beryllium drivers- they're just moved upwards in frequency. I'm inclined to believe Dave Collins on that- expect that if it's driver issues, the aura of brightness would still be present even with the drivers turned down.
I'd like to try paper domes or inverted cones as my compression drivers- on the grounds that the horn loading gets me more output level than I frankly need, and I can trade it off very happily for some alternate approaches to tonality. I'll just have to buy a bunch of drivers sometime and get malicious with scissors and obscure materials Wink
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: barefoot on January 15, 2005, 12:28:54 PM
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.

Uhhh, yeah.   Utter nonsense.  

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 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.


Technically the NS1000M used beryllium/aluminum domes -  vapor deposited (or sputtered?) beryllium on an aluminum substrate.  

And you might think they sound similar to electrostatics, but to say they "behave" like them is really stretching it.   Electrostatic speakers have vastly different dispersion and impedance characteristics than dynamic speakers.  

Thomas
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: Level on January 15, 2005, 01:15:18 PM
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


Here we go again (double sigh)

First of all, if you read, you will find those were not my quotes. The links are provided about the electrostatic comparisons.

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.

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.

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.
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: bblackwood on January 15, 2005, 01:23:28 PM
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?

That's the fan blades making the flutter, not other sound waves...
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: Level on January 15, 2005, 01:32:09 PM
...and woofers do the same thing...speak in front of a woofer with it reproducing 30Hz at amplitude. Have someone speak from the opposite side of the woofer and then on your side. Which one sounds more "clear"?
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: barefoot on January 15, 2005, 02:45:38 PM
Level wrote on Thu, 13 January 2005 17:45


Lowest moving mass of any mid or tweeter ever made, including exotics.


Apparently you are unaware of some of the high end products using pure beryllium domes and cones.  Some of these are made of hot rolled beryllium foil which has an even higher stiffness to mass ratio than more porous vapor deposited beryllium.   This along with many other advancements in materials and manufacturing processes make the Yamahas far from the "lowest moving mass of any mid or tweeter ever made."  It's a bit naive to think the technology hasn't advanced in 30 years.  

Level wrote on Thu, 13 January 2005 17:45


Lowest distortion ever measured in a loudspeaker system of 93dB 1W/1M.


Come on, you honestly believe this?  

What do you think scientists and engineers have been doing for the past 30 years?  

dcollins wrote on Fri, 14 January 2005 19:13

Level wrote on Fri, 14 January 2005 00:50



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



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....


Dave,

0.1% THD isn't impossible for a dynamic, but it's at the absolute cutting edge of current technology and very expensive to achieve.  Far beyond a great dome material, you need an extremely advanced motor design.   Beryllium is no panacea (and the Yamahas are only beryllium plated).   So, I would be astonished if ANY speaker circa 1975 came anywhere close to that mark.   I'd have to see the data with my own eyes.

Thomas
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: bblackwood on January 15, 2005, 02:48:51 PM
Level wrote on Sat, 15 January 2005 12:32

...and woofers do the same thing...

So you're suggesting that low freqs can actually attenuate hi freqs?
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: Level on January 15, 2005, 02:55:00 PM
Amongst other things.....
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: jgreenlee on January 15, 2005, 04:04:34 PM
bblackwood wrote on Sat, 15 January 2005 14:48

Level wrote on Sat, 15 January 2005 12:32

...and woofers do the same thing...

So you're suggesting that low freqs can actually attenuate hi freqs?



I'd say not so much attenuate but more like modulate them.  Seems plausible to me.

Peace,

James
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: dayvel on January 15, 2005, 05:24:46 PM
Plausible but wrong. You can find a passage like this in any high school physics text (or just Google "wave interference").

"Interestingly, the meeting of two waves along a medium does not alter the individual waves or even deviate them from their path. This only becomes an astounding behavior when it is compared to what happens when two billiard balls meet or two football players meet. Billiard balls might crash and bounce off each other and football players might crash and come to a stop. Yet waves meet, produce a net resulting shape of the medium, and then continue on doing what they were doing before the interference."
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: Level on January 15, 2005, 05:44:17 PM
    http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Ul trasonics/Physics/WaveInterference.htm

    http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Ul trasonics/Physics/modepropagation.htm

    http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Ul trasonics/Physics/refractionsnells.htm

    http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Ul trasonics/Physics/modeconversion.htm

    http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Ul trasonics/EquipmentTrans/beamspread.htm

    http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Ul trasonics/CalibrationMeth/thompsongray.htm


http://plasma4.sr.unh.edu/ng/snbnc_w_landau_ppcf00.pdf


http://www.marinetalk.com/articles_HTML/121504T.html


http://alfven.princeton.edu/projects/wave.htm

    http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/staffpages/csherwood/sedx_equat ions/RunWCCalcs.html

http://otrc.tamu.edu/pages/A42100.html

http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~pau/thesis.pdf

From tenths of HZ to GHZ, the therory is the same. Especially if you SIT in the interference pattern..which putting the tweeters on the inside with THAT PARTICULAR SPEAKER SYSTEM minimizes AT THE DISTANCE I SIT, IN THIS ROOM, the areas of destuctive interference.

OK, I have nothing futher to add so if you are speaking about me or to me, you will get dead air. I use methods which work for me in my space with my equipment for my needs.

SO, to you folks with all the book-learning, I am imagining all of it and I get absolutly no benefit from testing, listening or experience. I may be a dope in all of your eyes and you can laugh all you want but when the rubber meets the road, I get the job done. My clients are repeat customers and a few new ones when they are exposed to how I use my tools.
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: bblackwood on January 15, 2005, 06:03:07 PM
Bill, did you read those links? They support what Dave Latchaw said above - the waves don't change...

And Bill, these forums exist to discuss and learn - this isn't a 'witch hunt', so if you are going to offer your perspective (and maybe learn something, too), then understand some peopele may not agree with you. If you cannot deal with this then feel free to move along, as these are healthy discussions where everyone should learn something...
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: dcollins on January 15, 2005, 06:19:24 PM
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").





Guys with the book learnin' call it "linear superposition" but no one listened......

DC
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: dcollins on January 15, 2005, 06:26:56 PM
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.


"I much prefer the sharpest criticism of a single intelligent man to the thoughtless approval of the masses."
--Johann Kepler
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: barefoot on January 15, 2005, 08:01:12 PM
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.


As Dave mentioned, under normal circumstances acoustic waves superimpose linearly in air.  Low frequency waves do not modulate the frequency or amplitude of higher frequencies, or vise verse, unless you get up into extremely high SPLs where the air compression and expansion become nonlinear (>180dB I think).  

The fluttering of a fan is a completely different phenomenon.  This occurs because the fan blades reflect sound and the spaces between them let the sound pass.   As the blades spin the amplitude is modulated.   Also, to a small degree the frequency is modulated because the cant of the blades creates a slight Doppler effect on the reflected waves.   A loudspeaker can have a similar effect, but it is extremely small.  And instead of it being a reflector/space like a fan, a loudspeaker is simply a moving reflector.   The amplitude of the reflection follows the 1/r^2 rule, so as the cone moves forward the reflections become slightly louder and as the cone moves backwards the reflections become slightly quieter.  The woofer is essentially very slightly modulating the acoustic loading of the front baffle.  Of course, we're only talking about a couple of centimeters at most, so the effect is extremely small.   Furthermore, loudspeaker drivers become rather directional at high frequencies, so there is very little short wavelength energy traveling laterally towards the woofer which might subsequently have its amplitude modulated by such a small spatial loading effect.   This phenomenon is buried way down in the noise compared to the myriad of other ailments loudspeakers suffer from.  

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.


For the record, I was not attacking you at all.   You made some technical misstatements and I called you on them.   If you've worked in the scientific community as you say, this shouldn't come as any shock.   And while I don't like to get into pissing contests, after ten years of working in industrial research and development, as well as 4 years doing graduate research in physics, I've spent many thousands of hours "in the lab".   So I don't find the technical arguments you've given here "out of reach".  I simply find them wrong.  

Thomas
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: chrisj on January 15, 2005, 08:39:43 PM
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.


Um, wavefronts coming off a woofer aren't steep. If they were, they would be midrange and/or treble Smile Wavefronts coming off a woofer are pretty dull.

I've been working with my usual horrible science experiments, particularly when I was trying to fix the mess I made of the early CAPE entries I was assigned, and one of the things I was doing was fooling with nonlinearities applied to a 'subs' low frequency sidechain. The algorithm did produce delicate high frequencies that were unfortunately ugly distortion. There was no getting away from them as the powerful wavefronts coming off the woofer section (on a LFE sidechain, to boot) did nothing to mask them at all.

I'm going to assume you're not canting in the speakers sharply... which means what you are hearing is extreme time misalignment. The drivers are already not time-aligned (correct me if the crossovers include delays...) and putting them on their sides, with little toe-in and tweeters to the center, exaggerates this even more, certainly more than if they were vertically aligned.

Putting the tweets physically in front of the lower-frequency drivers is certainly going to make the high frequencies sit in front of the body of the sound instead of being buried in it. If you can work with that, more power to you. I'd rather have as close to a single-element driver as I can get, specifically to avoid any of that, and I want the treble to be part of the body of the sound.

I do mastering over speakers I've built AND designed myself, and live or die by that, quite publically. Usually it's been a trainwreck, since most people use very expensive speakers to master on, not science experiments. Lately I've got it under control, which isn't bad considering it's just me doing it and I don't have a budget for outlandish parts or anything. I'm just reminding you that you're not the only person to stub your toe on your own inexpertise.

I'd bet money that what you're shooting for here is an artifact of time misalignment. You're free to make that choice, but it might be a little individual- other people could be handicapped by it, and it's certainly going to play merry hell with your crossover points if ever you need to do really surgical,  tightly focused EQ at those crossover points.

Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: jimmyjazz on January 17, 2005, 12:02:56 PM
Uhhh . . . Bill?  I'll admit I only checked maybe a third of those links, but none of them supported your thesis.  They simply pointed out what others here have been saying all along:  except at extraordinarily high listening levels, where the acoustics becomes nonlinear in nature due to the variation in the speed of sound with pressure/temperature and thus the waveforms "shock up", there is no "distortion" that occurs due to the interaction of two linear sound waves.  Yes, there is local interference, both constructive and destructive, but the waveforms themselves . . . the "signals", if you will . . . pass through each other undisturbed.

And before you start in on "book learning" and "laboratory experience", I did my graduate work in acoustics at The University Of Texas.  Interestingly enough, that level of education is wholly excessive when it comes to this argument.  Your ripple tank experiments should tell you everything you need to know about the subject, but you are apparently misunderstanding what those experiments demonstrate.

jim andrews
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: organica on February 13, 2006, 05:56:36 PM
Not to get off topic here but I'm wondering if anyone could possibly site examples of some good recordings that  have been mixed using NS10's ?
I'm trying to get to know mine better.......
thx ,

a Confused
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: David Ballenger on February 14, 2006, 03:35:39 AM
Actually, I'm not thinking of any specific examples.  My understanding is at times they've been used on recordings from Bruce Sprinsteen to the Rolling Stones, etc.   If you look through any Mix magazine of the last decade at the pictures of some of the best recording studios, you could see a pair of NS10's on the meter bridge of many mixing consoles.   Love, hated, & feared.  
Laughing


That might not be helpful but here's something that interesting.  This is an interview of the designer of the Yamaha NS10M, NS10M Studio, NS1000M, MSP10 STUDIO.
Akira Nakamura.


Interviewer: What were the first projects you
were involved in at Yamaha?

Nakamura: It was speakers right from the very
beginning, but the first ones I worked on were for
musical instruments  Yamaha Electone organs, to
be specific. We couldn't get the sound we wanted
from speakers purchased from other
manufacturers, so we started developing and
manufacturing our own.

Hi-fi speakers weren't an issue back then?

Not in the beginning. I joined the company and
started working on musical instrument speakers in
around 1965, but serious development of hi-fi
speakers wasn't started until about 1970.

What audio speakers did you work on prior
to the NS10M?

Most of them, but perhaps the most notable was
the Yamaha NS1000M. I think we released it in
around 1974. The NS1000M became one of the
longest-selling hi-fi speakers, ever. As I remember,
the NS10M was released several years later,
in about 1978.

Was the NS10M an instant success?

In the home-use market, yes. It wasn't until several
years later that studios began adopting the NS10M
for near field monitoring. This was because it was
originally developed for the home market, and was
only sold through outlets targeted at the home
market. But once the studio people caught on,
we had to expand our retail routes to include the
pro-audio market.

Why did the NS10M become the industry
standard for audio production?

At the time, most studios were using small single-unit
cube-shaped speakers for near-field monitoring ?
actually they were probably used mostly to hear how
projects might sound on a boom-box or car stereo.
But the engineers were looking for a compact monitor
with a bit more power and a wider frequency range, as
well as something that more accurately represented the
home audio sound of the time. The NS10M was
perfect. It also had the midrange definition that the
engineers needed for rock and pop production, and
eventually became the engineers primary tool for
sound creation and mixing, rather than simply a means
to hear the results on a less-than-perfect system. It
wasn't long before you could walk into just about any
major studio and find a pair of NS10Ms sitting on the
console meter bridge. This was an advantage for the
engineers, because they were familiar with the NS10M
sound and could expect the same quality in just about
any studio, anywhere in the world.

So Yamaha didn't start out to deliberately
create a studio monitor speaker?

Not really. We were only interested in achieving the
cleanest, most natural reproduction possible.
As it turned out, what we were trying to achieve was
precisely what the audio production professionals
were looking for.

The white NS10M woofer cone was quite
distinctive, is there a story behind the color?

We were in the process of trying out different pulps
and papers for use in speaker cones, but nothing gave
us the sound we wanted. Looking for the cleanest,
most impurity-free cone paper we could find, we
eventually came across a type of especially pure pulp
that a photographic-materials manufacturer was
using. That was our answer.

The NS10M STUDIO was introduced in 1987.
What was the story behind that development?

In addition to optimizing the design for horizontal
placement, there was the 'tissue paper issue'. There
was a period in which the pro-audio magazines and
papers were full of articles about how engineers were
placing layers of tissue paper in front of the NS10M
tweeters to give them the balance they needed. There
were even arguments as to how many layers of tissue
paper gave the best response, how far it should be
placed in front of the tweeter, and so on. So we sat
down with the speakers and a supply of tissue paper
and began an extensive series of tests. The overall
balance of the NS10M-plus-tissue idea was fine but, as
you would expect, some of the high-frequency
definition was lost. We figured out a way to deliver the
required balance without losing detail, and that
became the NS10M STUDIO.

After selling more than 200,000 units, NS10M
STUDIO was discontinued in 2001, causing
great shock to the engineers and the industry.
Why was it discontinued?

The white cones. Due to a number of unavoidable
reasons it has become impossible to continue
manufacturing those cones. Without those cones there
can be no NS10M. Fortunately, we were able to
produce enough maintenance units to keep current
users supplied for several years. Also, it was about the
time that the NS10M STUDIO was being widely
adopted that we began work on the MSP series
speakers with the goal of providing powered
convenience with superior frequency response and an
extended low end. Now that the MSP10 STUDIO has
been perfected, theres really no better choice.

__________________


He goes on to explain about the design and manufacturing thought behind the Yamaha MSP10 Studio.

Here's the original interview.  
http://www.rumski.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12806

Interesting that they were discontinued because they could no longer manufacturer the cones.

Quote:

The white NS10M woofer cone was quite
distinctive, is there a story behind the color?

"We were in the process of trying out different pulps
and papers for use in speaker cones, but nothing gave
us the sound we wanted. Looking for the cleanest,
most impurity-free cone paper we could find, we
eventually came across a type of especially pure pulp
that a photographic-materials manufacturer was
using. That was our answer."

And,

"The white cones. Due to a number of unavoidable
reasons it has become impossible to continue
manufacturing those cones. Without those cones there
can be no NS10M."

Others have written about that their is a bump in the midrange I believe at the crossover point (1100 Hz????) that gives the NS10's a quality that can fatigue the ear.  (I should know this since I use a pair.  Somebody correct please.)  Which would mean that you've got to mix the sound with that in mind.   Also not having an extended low (falls off non linearly after 100 hz???).  Experienced Engineers speak of watching the excursion of the speaker cone to tell what is happening with the low end.  Some use subwoofer's.  Also learning the monitors.

-----------------------

No fear, no envy, no meanness - "Bob Dylan quoting"   I might add 'no regrets'.
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: Bob Olhsson on February 14, 2006, 07:59:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: Tidewater on February 14, 2006, 08:17:43 PM
Does anyone else have Yamaha NS1000s?


M
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: compasspnt on February 15, 2006, 01:12:00 AM
DivideByZero wrote on Tue, 14 February 2006 20:17


Does anyone else have Yamaha NS1000s?



Someone should.

Did it not become "one of the longest-selling hi-fi speakers, ever?"
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: Tidewater on February 15, 2006, 01:16:14 AM
I guess so, if not kind of spendy for most, off the shelf.

I have a pair here, and honestly, with anything pushing them, they are much better than uhh.. I don't want to dis anyone's monitors.

heh Adams.. I want to like them, but they are furry, and after using NS10s as a standard for so long, I'd even claim the lowend is a bit funky... I am trying to be nice.

edito: Actually, they put all the monitors in the $0-$10k range in the... uhh.. classifieds.



M
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: Fibes on February 15, 2006, 03:06:40 PM
DivideByZero wrote on Wed, 15 February 2006 01:16

heh Adams.. I want to like them, but they are furry


I'm sure you'd like them if they had BBQ sauce on them.

Actually the S3as are kinda a lot like NS-10s with more lows and a different top. The mids are about the same. I swear if I had the NS-10s plugged in you would be able to hear the similarities.
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: Tidewater on February 15, 2006, 04:28:26 PM
Oh yeah.

The air is very nice, I am just unsure of them below 5k. They are alot like the 10s, but I am more accustomed to the 'pach' Q of the lowend on the yammies, expected after so much time with them in my ears. The Adams definately have lots, that the 10s don't.

The 1000s have spoiled me, although a little too big to drive around with. They aren't in the same class... so, apples/grapefruit. They negate the need for a secondary monitoring scheme though.. you get what you got with them.



M
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: Bob Olhsson on February 16, 2006, 12:40:57 AM
compasspnt wrote on Wed, 15 February 2006 00:12

Did it not become "one of the longest-selling hi-fi speakers, ever?"
That was the NS-4 which actually made a much better monitor than the NS-10.
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: Tidewater on February 16, 2006, 01:20:16 AM
Immmmmmmmprobable!

Smile


M
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: David Ballenger on February 16, 2006, 08:37:42 AM
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.


I know in my case that I believe this to be some good advice.  

My concept here as a musician/writer is to do my own shot at mix and mastering here in my project studio to the point that I'm confident I've got something worth taking it to the higher level.  

My idea is that when I have something that passes all the tests in my mind of a good song, performance, arrangement and basic tracking that I will take the basic tracks to an experienced professional facility to have it mixed objectively and the same for mastering.  I want that kind of objectivity.  Tools and experience.  I don't truthfully trust myself.  Also the feedback to tell me how my tracking is working.
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: David Ballenger on February 16, 2006, 08:51:28 AM
compasspnt wrote on Wed, 15 February 2006 00:12

DivideByZero wrote on Tue, 14 February 2006 20:17


Does anyone else have Yamaha NS1000s?



Someone should.




I know I want a pair of those.  Looks like the perfect size.   Smile

I hope the prices don't start going up before I can buy a pair.

I hope you can find replacement parts.
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: Tidewater on February 16, 2006, 01:42:18 PM
Spares are next to non-existant. The mid drivers are half the price of a set.

You may be able to fatigue them (?) but they love gobs of power, and take transients like a flak jacket.


M
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: David Ballenger on February 16, 2006, 08:31:19 PM
Thanks Miles, you guy's rock.
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: Andy Simpson on February 17, 2006, 08:58:09 PM
I have said this elsewhere and it does seem obvious, but how can a person expect to monitor the recording of a 120+ dB drumkit without a 120+dB monitor system?

Give me big horns.

I don't claim to have great monitors, but I can get by with my SRM450 mackies.
These can do >125dB (each), and can reproduce a drumkit very usefully.

They can also handle the dynamic range of an entire orchestra, which means that the tymps, brass and general dynamics of the orchestra can hit as hard and real as they do in life.

They give me a very serious thirst for dynamics, whereas most speakers I've heard make me reach for the limiters.....

These are not great speakers, but I can just about manage with them. They have serious headroom and I simply cannot go back to little tweeter speakers.
Yesterday I was finishing the master processing of some orchestral recordings I'd done recently. The recordings had >60dB dynamic range - from solo cello to full orchestra ff.

At -60dB I required the realistic listening level of a single cello at pp AND I needed the extra 60+dB on top of that. That is a very very serious requirement.

And these speakers took me very close to representing an entire orchestra (and space), from a single cello to the whole explosive crescendo.

My ears tell me that these horn speakers handle the time-domain (impulse response) much much better than most inefficient direct radiators.

I suspect that in the last 30+ years we have sacrificed the time-domain for the frequency domain (yes, I know that they are two faces of the same coin, but in measurement and interpretation they differ massively).

Andy
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: Bob Olhsson on February 18, 2006, 12:52:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: maxim on February 18, 2006, 07:33:51 PM
great insight, bob

what about the idea of monitoring through the final sources, ie car speakers, ipod, boombox, hi-fi etc?

it is helpful, if only, for 'referencing'
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: Tidewater on February 18, 2006, 08:04:39 PM
Tens-n-Tones! (Aura that is)


M
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: Andy Simpson on February 19, 2006, 07:06:54 PM
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.


That is an interesting perspective, Bob.
'musical details' - not 'frequency content'.....

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.

Can anyone imagine mixing on a single ns10?

Or for a more direct question to the panel:
if you had to pick a single speaker to represent the entire mix, what would it be?

I would be looking at one of those enourmous 'full-range' folded horns - one of those 10ft mothers.

Andy
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: Tidewater on February 20, 2006, 12:24:32 AM
andy_simpson wrote on Sun, 19 February 2006 19:06



Can anyone imagine mixing on a single ns10?

Andy



Exactly, but yes! Not the answer you were expecting.

You set the outs to mono, get all your sounds, get all your tails tucked in, and get the balance, then go stereo, and pan til it's pretty. Works GREAT!


M
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: Fibes on February 20, 2006, 10:01:30 AM
I mixed a demo for TimeBomb records on a single NS-10. The backup monitors were out for repair and we blew the right side when the drummer decided to unplug a mic when he was done tracking. The vocalist was leaving in the morning to go to LA so...

It sounded great 'cause I didn't do anything after that point.

Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: peter martin on February 21, 2006, 03:58:32 PM
Been reading the forums for a few years now, never setup and account. So here we go, my first post...

I completely agree with Brad's 'slap' on page 3 of this post.

Very long rant here, but I've got to say it....

Why do people think money = good music/sonics?

I've worked on all sorts of near fields, and even the big Pioneer TAD systems with beautiful JBL horns for a while too. I loved those  more than any other sound reproduction device ever. Making music on them on the other hand, was very difficult to me.

After extensive use on various Genelecs, and my Dynaudio M1s I've settled on a used pair of sh*t NS5s, and a Sunfire sub.
My Dynaudio and Genelecs have been collecting dust now for about 6 months. After I switched to the NSh*t, my mixes are far more musical, and translate to ANY enviorment to TV, club, hi-fi, and car play.

People that tell me they spend $80000 on a pair of monitors have to0 much money and not enough music in their brain. Granted an accurate reproduction system is necessary for certain applications like mastering, but mixing and what not???

Let me also bring another case in point to these naysayers of the cheap speaker mentality. Remember its just music brothers, I think people get too carried away on what they 'think' they need these days, and that's the problem. I've heard amazing blues recordings done by a couple of guys drinking whiskey in a shack with one mic.

Another point, my best friend Derek Howell is very well known and a very well respected in the electronic music dance scene. He's traveled the world over, garnished massive respect from producers like Junkie XL, to Juno Reactor guy... His stuff sounds hands down simply amazing musical and sonically. He has been featured on a a ton of quality dance music compilations that have total sold well over 100,000 units. What does he monitor on?? Not JBLs, not Genelecs, and he doesn't have some twit in a lab coat making his stuff sound good...

Creative labs speakers, with the crap sub. Yes a $100 pair of speakers, his stuff sounds far more musical and dynamic than most rock music I hear these days. Like I said, the sales speak for themselves in his case....

Whatever works as Ross would say, and do what you gotta do with what your limited with. You can make million dollar mixes with a $1000 computer and $100 worth of speakers... Its been proved time and time again in the industry I'm so accustomed to.

Keep worrying about your monitors, we'll keep making music. Its just more fun that way. I've given up on the magik gear, speaker, plugin way of thinking...

Sorry if I come off as a bit brash, but as Brad said sometimes you just gotta slap some people. I just find it so ludicrous people go to such extensive lengths. Why not spend $40,000 grand on speakers and give the rest away to charity. I can be totally wrong here, and bash away if you think I'm unprofessional and off base. I don't really want to step on toes or administer any disrespect to people that have been working at it for more years than I've been alive. I'm just trying to say my peace in all of this.

Love and respect to everyone.

Glad to finally be apart of the raps.
Peter Martin
Dither Records

Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: compasspnt on February 21, 2006, 04:43:49 PM

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.

Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: Ronny on February 21, 2006, 05:57:51 PM
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.





I agree as well. Although not my faves, there were many hit records mixed on NS10's, so obviously a major factor is the ear and how an engineer relates his system to the real world. I'm continually being amazed at what some of these home recordists are doing on the little all in one multi-trackers. No doubt some good stuff on $1000 computers and cheapo monitors as well. Yes a lot of crap too, but it only takes one great mix to prove that it can be done. The sonic quality versus cost ratio has narrowed quite a bit these past two decades.
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: max cooper on March 09, 2006, 09:09:14 PM
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.




Ahh...  and notice that it says "single speaker" and not single enclosure.  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 +.

Hey, great thread, guys.  Warts 'n all.

Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: compasspnt on March 09, 2006, 09:48:35 PM
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 +.




What speakers, Max?  I have been thinking a lot about this.

T
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: howlback on March 10, 2006, 04:57:22 AM
It makes perfect sense to me that NS10s work very well for mixing : they are "well matched" to the size of most mixing rooms that I have seen.  Their limited LF response is in fact a benefit.

The biggest problem with close fields is that the lower the extension of the speaker, the farther away from the wall it must be - or bass management becomes a must. Most people don't set-up their close field monitors properly (which is fine - if it works).  

Personally I have noticed several people 'dis-ing Genelec when their speakers were not set-up properly, resulting in a bright sound that they complain about (not to imply that this is the case with anybody here).  I have also noticed that there are a few other manufacturers who actually capatalize on the stupidity of their clients by making non-linear speakers which sound "better" than more linear speakers when not properly configured in a room.  Do they make better mixes?  I dunno.

Whenever people complain about speakers, the first thing I think about is the room and the configuration.

Anyway, talented people seem to be able to mix on almost anything!
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: max cooper on March 11, 2006, 02:24:28 PM
compasspnt wrote on Thu, 09 March 2006 20:48

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 +.




What speakers, Max?  I have been thinking a lot about this.

T



I started with Cain & Cain's which use a Fostex driver and then I moved up to a Lowther driver speaker.  The enclosures are made by a  company called Rethm.

They're pretty addictive.
Title: Re: The present and future of monitoring
Post by: Andy Simpson on March 12, 2006, 08:01:04 PM
NS10's for orchestral recording?
Choir?
It's how all about how the mix translates?

......oh please.....

I got hold of a copy of Rumours (fleetwood mac) again last week and ran it up on my horn'd mackies....fucking hell.....that is a GREAT sounding record! (One of the best I've ever heard) The louder you run it, the better it sounds!

Tell me that was mixed (or tracked) on NS10s (or any kind of nearfields) and I'll eat my hat.....Wink

Andy

PS, if anyone can fill me in on the signal path and recording history of that album, please PM me!....thanks.