The truth about monitoring

[Tom Williams]

Never feel threatened in ANY of my forums, Tom. Ever.

Sorry -- I was attempting to be silly. I felt no actual threat nor insult.

I assume you're hoping to use the TX-8 speakers for a live setup rather than a studio? ... Forgive me if I don't understand your stated application very well.

I originally bought them as stage monitors before I transitioned to a wireless IEM system. Like many amateur home recording rigs, this setup was mostly cobbled together from stuff I already possessed, e.g., Behringer XR18 (serendipitously a very good choice, IMO) and the little Alto speakers. The things I purchased explicitly for the recording included a new (refurb) desktop computer, 43" TV to use as a monitor, the Mini-K47 mic (which I would never have heard about but for this wonderful forum) and lastly -- to my shame, now that I've read your initial rant -- a set of digital drums so I can record drum parts in real time.

 

Back to the threat thing, I reiterate my apology -- your passionate rant did what it was supposed to do, impress on me that that monitoring should take priority and not just be an afterthought.

[Mike Rivers]

One of the few canned presentations I stuck through at Believe in Music Week was a description by studio consultant Carl Tatz of his "Phantom Focus" control room design. He explained his technique for placing monitors, considering the room dimensions and frequencies and locations of major nulls. He has some tools on his web site that, while not the full Phantom Focus treatment, will get you the best places to put your monitors. His principle is that with the monitors (and your head) in the right position, the monitors will "disappear" (his term) and you'll be hearing the full sound field, not the speakers themselves. The video of the talk is Here (Phantom Focus talk)

 

Check out the Monitor Positioning Tools at Carl's web site.

[Dr Mike Metlay]

An AMT tweeter doesn't sound like a soft dome tweeter or a beryllium diaphragm tweeter, and it uses its own technology: an accordionlike-but-not-creased strip of mylar that works much like a human larynx. There are ribbon tweeters that are actually ribbon transducers that work in basically the reverse "direction" of a ribbon mic (like a loudspeaker is a dynamic mic in reverse), so you shouldn't call an AMT a "folded ribbon" because it's neither. But AMT is a trademark and I don't want to Xerox or Kleenex the term. So I was wondering if there was a good general term that wasn't a trademark.

 

Agreed on both counts. I think it's fair to describe the element of an AMT by its physical description to someone who's genuinely interested in how it works. Is there really such a tweeter that's built like a ribbon mic? I don't think I've ever seen one, or maybe I have and didn't see it as any different than Oskar Heil's design. By the way, is AMT a trademark or ESS, or of Heil, or someone else? Interesting that it's Air Motion Transformer rather than transducer. "Transformer" has a totally different connotation.

You can usually get away with "folded ribbon", I suppose, but it's enough of a misnomer to make me itch. I had thought that AMT was in fact a trademark of ESS, but apparently they patented the tech but never trademarked the term. Huh.

 

The "true ribbon tweeters" I was referring to are designs such as the RAAL audiophile ribbon tweeters and the Aurum Cantus line. These companies mainly build ultra-high-end audiophile products (RAAL makes ribbon headphones that cost many thousands of dollars), but there are builders like Fountek that sell ribbon tweeters to DIY folks for fairly little money. I had thought at least one pro audio company made monitors that use these, but my brief research didn't turn any up.

 

What I find funny is that at least one audiophile blog out there describes these tweeters accurately while only showing pictures of AMTs. Sigh.

[Dr Mike Metlay]

Never feel threatened in ANY of my forums, Tom. Ever.

Sorry -- I was attempting to be silly. I felt no actual threat nor insult.

I assume you're hoping to use the TX-8 speakers for a live setup rather than a studio? ... Forgive me if I don't understand your stated application very well.

I originally bought them as stage monitors before I transitioned to a wireless IEM system. Like many amateur home recording rigs, this setup was mostly cobbled together from stuff I already possessed, e.g., Behringer XR18 (serendipitously a very good choice, IMO) and the little Alto speakers. The things I purchased explicitly for the recording included a new (refurb) desktop computer, 43" TV to use as a monitor, the Mini-K47 mic (which I would never have heard about but for this wonderful forum) and lastly -- to my shame, now that I've read your initial rant -- a set of digital drums so I can record drum parts in real time.

 

Back to the threat thing, I reiterate my apology -- your passionate rant did what it was supposed to do, impress on me that that monitoring should take priority and not just be an afterthought.

Well, if I made that clear, Tom, then I have no need for any sort of apology from you, because I will know that at least one person WAS helped by my rant. I rarely swear like that, but this is something I feel very strongly about (and in other news, water is wet), and I think I used up my supply of F-bombs left over from 2020 and dipped into my 2021 supply as well to put that paragraph together.

 

Don't be ashamed of those drums! Better those than a drum machine, if you can play! But now, if you would like some help choosing monitors, I can help you do that within your budget if you wish.

[Mike Rivers]

 

The "true ribbon tweeters" I was referring to are designs such as the RAAL audiophile ribbon tweeters and the Aurum Cantus line. These companies mainly build ultra-high-end audiophile products (RAAL makes ribbon headphones that cost many thousands of dollars), but there are builders like Fountek that sell ribbon tweeters to DIY folks for fairly little money. I had thought at least one pro audio company made monitors that use these, but my brief research didn't turn any up.

 

What I find funny is that at least one audiophile blog out there describes these tweeters accurately while only showing pictures of AMTs. Sigh.

 

Maybe you can remember a person and company for me. I think his first name is Ken, their chief engineer at the time, and the company where he was when I met him was one of those who made relatively inexpensive monitors that got a lot of good reviews, both in press and by forum users. They were passive speakers and they made a companion power amplifier. The marketing guy's name was John Johnson, and one of the first in out biz to use a fulfillment company to make the boxes for their speakers. Jensen bought them out after a couple of years and they faded into obscurity. One of their consultants (who swore he used their speakers) was Jack Vad, at the time the recording engineer for the San Francisco Symphony. They were just over the Martinez bridge in Benitia.

 

Anyway, last time I saw Ken was at a NAMM show, where he was working on a design for a "folded ribbon" full range speaker that was about the same size as a bandoneon and went down to the woofer range. They were set up in one of those balcony rooms overlooking the convention center show floor. That was half a dozen or so shows ago, and I think about Ken now and then and wonder what he's doing. Maybe designing a VR system for tying fishing flies.

[Dr Mike Metlay]

 

The "true ribbon tweeters" I was referring to are designs such as the RAAL audiophile ribbon tweeters and the Aurum Cantus line. These companies mainly build ultra-high-end audiophile products (RAAL makes ribbon headphones that cost many thousands of dollars), but there are builders like Fountek that sell ribbon tweeters to DIY folks for fairly little money. I had thought at least one pro audio company made monitors that use these, but my brief research didn't turn any up.

 

What I find funny is that at least one audiophile blog out there describes these tweeters accurately while only showing pictures of AMTs. Sigh.

 

Maybe you can remember a person and company for me [...] last time I saw Ken was at a NAMM show, where he was working on a design for a "folded ribbon" full range speaker that was about the same size as a bandoneon and went down to the woofer range. They were set up in one of those balcony rooms overlooking the convention center show floor. That was half a dozen or so shows ago, and I think about Ken now and then and wonder what he's doing. Maybe designing a VR system for tying fishing flies.

No clue at all, Mike. I think I would have remembered something like that! The only full range ribbon speakers I know of are the audiophile planar speakers, which some folks swear by. The closest thing to those in pro audio is the ART RM5, which is a conventional design that's in a very shallow chassis for tight spaces. Surprisingly good-sounding speakers, but not folded ribbons.

 

I assume you did a Google search? I did a quick one and came up with nothing. Sorry, but no clue....

[Mike Rivers]

 

The only full range ribbon speakers I know of are the audiophile planar speakers, which some folks swear by. The closest thing to those in pro audio is the ART RM5, which is a conventional design that's in a very shallow chassis for tight spaces. Surprisingly good-sounding speakers, but not folded ribbons.

 

I assume you did a Google search? I did a quick one and came up with nothing. Sorry, but no clue....

 

Oh, yeah, searched until I couldn't think of anything else to search for. Did the inexpensive speaker + power amp from the Bay Area company ring any bells? It must have been reviewed in Recording, though I don't expect you to remember everything that went in the mag. I'm just interested in what Ken the engineer is doing now. Maybe some day his last name will pop into my head. That happens a lot lately - days, or weeks after I'm trying to think of a person, or a product name, it'll come to me.

 

I have a shoe box around here somewhere with saved NAMM show directories. Maybe if I looked through them, something would tweak my feeble brain.

[Mike Rivers]

Eureka!

 

The guy I was looking for is Ken Kantor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Kantor

 

The speaker company where I first met him is (and still is) NHT: http://www.nhthifi.com/ with some history at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHT_Loudspeakers

 

The company where he was working on a design for a full range accordion-pleated speaker is Tymphany: https://www.tymphany.com/

They still make speakers, but any information or history about the unconventional speaker seems to have disappeared, probably everywhere but my mention of my NAMM show report of whatever year that was where he was demonstrating it. Maybe I can even find a copy and see what I wrote.

[KuruPrionz]

Ah, so I know of him from ZT amplifiers. They are tiny lunch box sized guitar amps that get really loud. The one my bandmate had sounded like crap to be honest but it was an early model. They've introduced some new things, I'd give one a try. Maybe he now understands that guitar amps sound better when they are not high fidelity. Strings and pickups are merciless, the amp must show mercy.

 

Now that we've got that all out in the open, what about midrange speakers and 3 way systems? The ones I've compared in hi-fi - vintage British-made Warfdales, Danish and American JBLs - sound clearer and more natural to me than 2 way systems. The mids are where the vocal sits, super important. Cross the woofer over too high and it seems some clarity is lost, cross the tweeters down too low and there are resonances that sound unnatural to me.

 

Or am I just insane?

 

When Sweetwater had their annual Christmas "Make a $5,000 list and win it" contest, the first thing I did was surf studio monitors. I chose the Dynaudio LYD 48 speakers. I didn't win but I still want them. At the same time, I wonder if anybody makes studio monitors with coaxial mid/tweeter. Of the drivers, the woofers would be the ones that are maybe not as sensitive to source imaging since low frequencies are not perceived as directional as mids and highs.

 

This is not something I have much experience with or even much research. We have many fine brains here, whatchyall think about that stuff?

[Mike Rivers]

Ah, so I know of him from ZT amplifiers. They are tiny lunch box sized guitar amps that get really loud.

 

Good to know that Ken's still getting around in the industry. Could ZT stand for Zero Tone?

 

Now that we've got that all out in the open, what about midrange speakers and 3 way systems? The ones I've compared in hi-fi - vintage British-made Warfdales, Danish and American JBLs - sound clearer and more natural to me than 2 way systems. The mids are where the vocal sits, super important.

 

There are those who believe that two-way speakers are the most elegant and scientifically correct design. They think more than two speakers get in the way of real transparency and mess up the polar pattern, and they sell 2-speaker audiophile systems for thousands of dollars. And there are, obviously, many speaker designers who feel that having more speakers to share the work makes for a better sounding system.

 

When it comes to monitors, though, there are arguments for less-than-accurate speakers, that make it easier to hear things that would sound bad on the mostly less-than-accurate speakers owned by less insane music loving consumers. They often talk of making it easier to get vocals to "sit in the mix" (I'm not sure what "sit in" means) or make clear distinctions between bass (the instrument) and kick drum. While most offer usable response above 15 kHz, it hardly makes any difference. Bob Katz was doing some listening and working experiments several years back with restricting the high end of frequency response. His interest wasn't about monitor speakers, he was interested in the effect of the bandwidth of the filters on the way into and out of A/D and D/A converters, mostly, I think, trying to convince himself that the benefit of 96 kHz sample rate was that you could use gentle-sloped filters rather than brick walls, to keep "illegal" frequences out of the converters without adding significant phase shift. You could probably apply similar logic, though with different implementation, to speakers.

[KuruPrionz]

Ah, so I know of him from ZT amplifiers. They are tiny lunch box sized guitar amps that get really loud.

 

Good to know that Ken's still getting around in the industry. Could ZT stand for Zero Tone?

 

Now that we've got that all out in the open, what about midrange speakers and 3 way systems? The ones I've compared in hi-fi - vintage British-made Warfdales, Danish and American JBLs - sound clearer and more natural to me than 2 way systems. The mids are where the vocal sits, super important.

 

There are those who believe that two-way speakers are the most elegant and scientifically correct design. They think more than two speakers get in the way of real transparency and mess up the polar pattern, and they sell 2-speaker audiophile systems for thousands of dollars. And there are, obviously, many speaker designers who feel that having more speakers to share the work makes for a better sounding system.

 

When it comes to monitors, though, there are arguments for less-than-accurate speakers, that make it easier to hear things that would sound bad on the mostly less-than-accurate speakers owned by less insane music loving consumers. They often talk of making it easier to get vocals to "sit in the mix" (I'm not sure what "sit in" means) or make clear distinctions between bass (the instrument) and kick drum. While most offer usable response above 15 kHz, it hardly makes any difference. Bob Katz was doing some listening and working experiments several years back with restricting the high end of frequency response. His interest wasn't about monitor speakers, he was interested in the effect of the bandwidth of the filters on the way into and out of A/D and D/A converters, mostly, I think, trying to convince himself that the benefit of 96 kHz sample rate was that you could use gentle-sloped filters rather than brick walls, to keep "illegal" frequences out of the converters without adding significant phase shift. You could probably apply similar logic, though with different implementation, to speakers.

 

I realize it would be difficult to establish standards for testing speakers as they are actually used. That said, it's "interesting" to compare speakers that show very smooth graphs from 20hz to 20khz (and are therefore technically considered to be nearly "flat") side by side playing actual music - like we really do when we listen to speakers.

 

According the the specs we are usually given, they should all sound very similar, no? They do not and yes, the room you listen in is a factor. But if the room does not change, the position of the speakers does not change and the playback system and music being played does not change - why does the sound of the speakers change?

 

Could it be that driving the woofer with bass and kick drum, vocals, etc... somehow changes our perception of 1000 to 2000 hz coming out of the same driver in some manner that is not tested or documented?

That's what my ears tell me.

 

Speakers have an inherent "round trip" circuit - a source provides audio as electricity flowing into the speaker, the cone moves and that creates electricity that wants to push back. It takes more energy to pump out low frequencies but high frequencies require less energy to be created.

 

I am not by any means even kinda smart about electronics. I'm fumbling around for terms I don't understand correctly anyway. I do know what I am hearing.

A separate midrange cone will not produce frequencies in the 1000-2000 hz range from a piston that is moving in and out at 40 hz.

 

What are the specs? We don't known but I suspect it is inconvenient information.

[Dr Mike Metlay]

Eureka!

 

The guy I was looking for is Ken Kantor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Kantor

 

The speaker company where I first met him is (and still is) NHT: http://www.nhthifi.com/ with some history at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHT_Loudspeakers

 

The company where he was working on a design for a full range accordion-pleated speaker is Tymphany: https://www.tymphany.com/

They still make speakers, but any information or history about the unconventional speaker seems to have disappeared, probably everywhere but my mention of my NAMM show report of whatever year that was where he was demonstrating it. Maybe I can even find a copy and see what I wrote.

Good God. NHT. A name from the distant past. I don't know if we ever reviewed any of their stuff, and I didn't know Ken. As for Tymphany, a tiny flicker of recognition but no more. I wonder if anyone there has any info they could share?

[Mike Rivers]

I realize it would be difficult to establish standards for testing speakers as they are actually used. That said, it's "interesting" to compare speakers that show very smooth graphs from 20hz to 20khz (and are therefore technically considered to be nearly "flat") side by side playing actual music - like we really do when we listen to speakers.

 

It's practically impossible to characterize a speaker other than in circumstances where it wouldn't be used, like in an anechoic chamber. You know quite well about the directivity pattern of microphones and how to take advantage of the lobes and nulls (or choose a mic that doesn't have them), and speakers are the same way except that there isn't a good way to make an omnidirectional speaker, and a speaker with lobes will sound different in different rooms, and from different listening positions because of the way the sound goes out unevenly in different directions, and bounces back at you in different directions and amplitudes depending on the room, where the speaker is located in the room, and where you're listening.

 

Oh, and those smooth frequency response graphs - they may be based on engineering (or marketing) specifications, but they're smoothed to the point of being pretty much useless other than at the ends of the range and maybe a peak or dip in the middle if one is shown at all.

 

According the the specs we are usually given, they should all sound very similar, no? They do not and yes, the room you listen in is a factor. But if the room does not change, the position of the speakers does not change and the playback system and music being played does not change - why does the sound of the speakers change?

 

It's because of those pesky reflections. Frequency response is easy. Measure it on axis in an anechoic room (outdoors works, too) and you'll have a pretty good representation of what the hardware is doing. There will be some on-axis energy lost to radiation off axis, and this can vary with frequency due to diffraction around the edges of the cabinet, indirect radiation from the drivers, and interaction between drivers that aren't coincident but are radiating the same frequency. But what you'll see on a spec sheet is the frequency response on axis, and that's all. When that off-axis sound hits a wall and bounces back into your ears, that's going to change the sound of the speaker.

 

Off-axis radiation, like the directional sensitivity of a microphone, is frequency dependent. At 20 Hz, the speaker may be pretty near omnidirectional, but if there's a honkin' big lobe at 400 Hz, in a real room, that's going to get back to your ears and even if you're listening on axis, it reflect off something and will, if you're standing in just the wrong place, combine with the on-axis sound you're hearing and there goes your nice flat on-axis frequency response. Even great speakers can sound bad if they're in a bad place. Like a good directional microphone, a good speaker has even off-axis frequency response so that reflections will have even frequency response.

 

Could it be that driving the woofer with bass and kick drum, vocals, etc... somehow changes our perception of 1000 to 2000 hz coming out of the same driver in some manner that is not tested or documented?

That's what my ears tell me.

 

That's what intermodulation distortion is. The 1-2 kHz range is frequency modulated by the 50-100 Hz of the bass since both frequencies are trying to move the cone at the same time. This produces other frequencies that aren't what's going into the speaker, and you'll hear those frequencies in addition to what you put into the speaker. That's why we have crossover networks - to route the low frequencies and high frequencies to their respective drivers, and keep them out of the drivers that will cause distortion when trying to reproduce frequencies that they shouldn't be reproducing. Of course a single-speaker system will be subject to intermodulation, but that's what we like (or dislike) about guitar amplifier speakers.

 

What are the specs? We don't known but I suspect it is inconvenient information.

 

Right. If they told you everything about a speaker, and you took that information and combined it with what you know about your room and listening position, either you'd prove to yourself that it wouldn't work out, or prove that it would - in that particular situation.

[Dr Mike Metlay]

Now that we've got that all out in the open, what about midrange speakers and 3 way systems? The ones I've compared in hi-fi - vintage British-made Warfdales, Danish and American JBLs - sound clearer and more natural to me than 2 way systems. The mids are where the vocal sits, super important. Cross the woofer over too high and it seems some clarity is lost, cross the tweeters down too low and there are resonances that sound unnatural to me.

 

Or am I just insane?

Of course you are. Don't change the subject.

 

When Sweetwater had their annual Christmas "Make a $5,000 list and win it" contest, the first thing I did was surf studio monitors. I chose the Dynaudio LYD 48 speakers. I didn't win but I still want them. At the same time, I wonder if anybody makes studio monitors with coaxial mid/tweeter. Of the drivers, the woofers would be the ones that are maybe not as sensitive to source imaging since low frequencies are not perceived as directional as mids and highs.

 

This is not something I have much experience with or even much research. We have many fine brains here, whatchyall think about that stuff?

Well, I was not a fan of the LYD 48 when I heard it. A midrange driver is not a magical cureall -- arguably a 2-way system with one crossover has less potential for inaccuracy than a 3-way system with two crossovers. Getting a crossover to sound right is not easy, and the more you have in one box, the more you'd better know about what you're doing designwise. I would much, much rather have a well-made 2-way than a crummy 3-way, and a lot of the you-can-get-a-3-way-for-cheap-isn't-that-great? 3-ways are pretty crummy.

 

One case in point is a speaker that M-Audio sells, called the M3-8. As you wondered out loud about, Kuru, the M3-8 has a coaxial tweeter and mid above a separate woofer. A great idea on paper... in practice, a freaking nightmare. Because of the bizarre interaction between the coaxial drivers and the woofer, at normal listening distances the M3-8's sweet spot is literally about 18" wide. If you even turn your head, the entire stereo image collapses.

 

The fact that you can find them for $250 a pair on eBay should tell you something. I am actually amazed they're still being made.

[Dr Mike Metlay]

Thanks, Mike, you just saved me a lot of typing, and said it better than I would have.

[KuruPrionz]

Thanks, Mike, you just saved me a lot of typing, and said it better than I would have.

 

But wait, there's more! Of course, I wrote a brilliant dissertation and when I attempted to post it, MPN had conveniently logged me out - it's gone in the air. The quote below is from a post i made much earlier in this thread that goes unanswered. I added a bit in parenthesis. I also removed much of the original post since it rambles on.

 

I'll be the first to admit that I've learned many things quickly by saying something wrong and bad. :- D Often, my attempts at sensible conversation do not move quickly or much at all.

 

There are lots of options when purchasing monitors and an endless set of variables leading to making a choice. One spec I don't seem to see on the spec sheets (yes, I look at those!) is for Intermodulation Distortion.

I haven't done a deep dive on measuring transient response but I don't recall ever seeing it listed on a spec sheet and it does vary. I can hear it even if nobody wants to reveal it.

 

An 8" 2 way speaker like the Mackie HR824 with a crossover at 2 Khz is almost certain to have a measurable level of IMD and may also tend to be "slow" in terms of transients in the higher frequencies.

 

The MR5 (obviously) does not offer nearly the same level of low frequency information. The MR5 does have a more open, "lively" sound in the mids and upper mids. (smaller woofer, crossover is 4 Khz. It probably generates IMD too but doesn't sound indistinct in the mids/high mids like the 824)

 

(I'll be the first to admit the thoughts on the MR5 are based entirely on non-scientific listening tests done on the spur of the moment. I didn't have a preconceived notion as to what I would hear, I would have bet money on the 824s to be honest but that's not what I heard and the difference was not small.)

 

OK, not only am I going to move my studio to another room, I am going to fix the sound in that room properly - eventually.

[Nathanael_I]

The best spec sheets in the business are the Genelec sheets for their "One" series of monitors. They have all the data properly plotted and presented. It doesn't tell you what they do in your room, but it does tell you what you get for your $$. Highly appreciated.

 

Sound on Sound had a feature article on how to read monitor spec sheets within the last year or so. It's probably easy to find and is a great shortcut to understanding spec sheets.

 

The best response curve for monitors in one's room is also very well established through the work that JBL, Floyd Toole and others did a decade ago. These papers are all available on the JBL technical sites. This was real academic research with peer review, large data sets, and tooling that few outside of JBL would have access to. They have since completed the work for headphone response. This is some of the best psycho-acoustic work on perception that has been done. Highly recommended.

[Nathanael_I]

Also check out the work happening at audiosciencereview.com. They are doing full testing of LOTS of popular studio monitors. If you want the kind of data Genelec publishes but other manufactures won't.... this is your site. Some very expensive speakers don't really perform all that well, and some inexpensive ones do surprisingly well. Much of the final sound quality can absolutely be predicted by the measurements, and this is a great service to the world to have this data available in a consistent manner.

[KuruPrionz]

Thanks Nathanael!

 

I've got homework to do, no question of it. I'm good at searching the internet, when I find these places I'll post the links here.

 

There is NO place nearby with retail high end studio grade audio in stock. There used to be a high end consumer audio store but that is a different planet entirely.

 

I know somebody with $10k pair of "hi fi" speakers. They do sound good but I'm not sure I'd trust them and the room has no treatment at all either.

 

I do have a couple of friends who have nice studios, I've heard some decent studio monitors there. At some point I am going to buy a pair so I want as much information going in as I can get.

I only want to do it once.

[Mike Rivers]

Also check out the work happening at audiosciencereview.com.

 

Thanks for that. I looked at a couple of their speaker reviews and they seem to be measuring the right stuff. Did you check out that measuring gizmo that they're using?

[Nathanael_I]

Yeah, that's very serious, manufacturing grade test equipment. It's one of the reasons that I recommended the site. They are testing in about as objective a way as possible. It is at least repeatable, and self-consistent. The results he reports may be flawed in some way compared to a full anechoic characterization, but they will be consistently so. It also appears that the objective reference is not that far off. His tests of the Genelec 8351a's look identical to what Genelec published, so I have high confidence in the overall direction of his work. It is a wonderful service to have so many monitors characterized in a way that the manufacturers mostly don't want to show.

[Marzzz]

OK, it has only been a year, but I have a related question:

 

I just play for fun; haven't gigged in years and years, and don't really have any inclination to record/mix/publish/etc. my music. My wife (a well-known business journalist) has been working from home for literally decades, so I tend to have to play thru headphones. Years ago while dB was working for ADAM Audio, I purchased directly through him a pair of ADAM S2A's and a Sub8. Didn't get to use them that much because I had to be quiet while she was on deadline. While redoing my "studio" (half of my home office) including painting, the ADAMs sat out in our hallway for "a few" months. One of the subcontractors expressed interest in them, and she sold them (hey! You weren't using them!). I have finally built up enough guilt points on her scorecard to get myself a new set of monitor speakers, because I am tired of playing thru headphones. So...

 

The room is roughly 15' x 13', with 10' ceilings. The speakers will have to be placed near the 15' wall, about 6' apart, and I will be sitting about 4-5' away. There is a fair amount of furniture in the room. I ill be playing mostly "electronic" music, ambient, etc. though I also have a guitar amp (actually a Kemper with a powered Kemper cabinet). I have read all of the above, but don't feel I need to spend beaucoup bucks because I just want to hear myself, not mix with pristine accuracy. I am thinking along the lines of the JBL LSR 305, Yamaha HS7, or KRK G4. Any other suggestions? Am I nuts? thx all!

[KuruPrionz]

OK, it has only been a year, but I have a related question:

 

I just play for fun; haven't gigged in years and years, and don't really have any inclination to record/mix/publish/etc. my music. My wife (a well-known business journalist) has been working from home for literally decades, so I tend to have to play thru headphones. Years ago while dB was working for ADAM Audio, I purchased directly through him a pair of ADAM S2A's and a Sub8. Didn't get to use them that much because I had to be quiet while she was on deadline. While redoing my "studio" (half of my home office) including painting, the ADAMs sat out in our hallway for "a few" months. One of the subcontractors expressed interest in them, and she sold them (hey! You weren't using them!). I have finally built up enough guilt points on her scorecard to get myself a new set of monitor speakers, because I am tired of playing thru headphones. So...

 

The room is roughly 15' x 13', with 10' ceilings. The speakers will have to be placed near the 15' wall, about 6' apart, and I will be sitting about 4-5' away. There is a fair amount of furniture in the room. I ill be playing mostly "electronic" music, ambient, etc. though I also have a guitar amp (actually a Kemper with a powered Kemper cabinet). I have read all of the above, but don't feel I need to spend beaucoup bucks because I just want to hear myself, not mix with pristine accuracy. I am thinking along the lines of the JBL LSR 305, Yamaha HS7, or KRK G4. Any other suggestions? Am I nuts? thx all!

 

 

Time and again, I've seen that ideally the monitors and your listening position (based on the location of your ears) should be an equilateral triangle. If you could get your speakers a little closer together that should do it.

They should be facing inward at the angle you would have for the triangle. You want them set so that the space between the tweeter and woofer is evenly divided at ear level. That's all ideal, they will still work but they sound their best for mixing in correct position.

 

The best spot would be about 4 feet out from the 13' wall and in the center. We can't always get the best spot. I have a room with 5 walls, one of the at a 45 degree angle to the rest. There is a window at the end of the room and closets at the other end. It's not ideal, I make do.

 

Of the three you mention I'd choose the JBL speakers and then the Yamahas. You probably can't go wrong with any of them and there isn't much logic behind my reasoning other than JBL has been at this speaker game the longest by far and everything I've heard from them sounds really good. I used to have a set of 5" 2 ways, my brother has them now and they still sound great.

 

FWIW, I'm still using my Mackie HR824 speakers, have owned them for about 12-14 years now. Recently in Craig Anderton's forum he mentioned how effective the Primeacoustic Recoil Stabilizers were at improving the sound of his monitors by isolating them from what they were sitting on and preventing any front to back movement that could be generated by the woofers (causing phase cancellation of low frequencies).

I built something similar for a little under half the cost and my Mackies do sound crisper and more accurate.

They would be well worth the purchase price if you can swing it, your speakers will sound better.

[Marzzz]

@Kuru-

 

I have some Auralex MoPADs to help with the monitor isolation, and some adjustable stands. I can make some adjustments, and I will be able to get close to the center of the 15' wall. I am trying not to go too big on the monitors (hence the 5"), and if I really need more bass I could always get another sub. Unfortunately I can't get the monitors much farther from the wall, ain't no room. I have heard good things about the JBLs, perhaps the only detrimental thing was some audible hiss when the monitors are idle. In this case I am going to go with my local Guitar Center, because there may be some back-and-forth.

 

btw- I am pretty impressed; I have been here going on 22 years, and you have been here, what, two? Yet you have almost twice as many posts. The questioned begged is how do you find time to do anything else? :laugh:

[KuruPrionz]

@Kuru-

 

I have some Auralex MoPADs to help with the monitor isolation, and some adjustable stands. I can make some adjustments, and I will be able to get close to the center of the 15' wall. I am trying not to go too big on the monitors (hence the 5"), and if I really need more bass I could always get another sub. Unfortunately I can't get the monitors much farther from the wall, ain't no room. I have heard good things about the JBLs, perhaps the only detrimental thing was some audible hiss when the monitors are idle. In this case I am going to go with my local Guitar Center, because there may be some back-and-forth.

 

btw- I am pretty impressed; I have been here going on 22 years, and you have been here, what, two? Yet you have almost twice as many posts. The questioned begged is how do you find time to do anything else? :laugh:

 

I've been running up the view count of some of my posts too. I've also met great people and made new friends. My microphone thread on Dr Mike's forum (where we are right now) is close to 50,000 views.

I have to wonder who's looking but I think it's pretty awesome.

 

I'm part time at all sorts of stuff at the moment and things are going pretty well overall. I stay busy but I've learned a great deal poking around in these forums and discussing stuffs. Most MPN'ers are very generous with their time and knowledge, it is truly a great resource.

 

Today I worked on coordinating parts for a recording I'm working on - two 12 string guitars, one tuned down a whole step and the other tuned to E and capo'ed at the third fret. Song is in G so I play it in A on the D guitar and in E on the capo'ed guitar.

The sound is bigger than I want in too many places so I still need to work on the arrangement. When it goes into some parts it sounds gorgeous so I'm happy with the premise.

 

I LOVE recording, I get to dictate who plays what when because it's me. So many bands under appreciate the power of space and silence, it drives me nuts.

Plus I went for a sanity walk in the hood, it's beautiful here.

[Dave Bryce]

The room is roughly 15' x 13', with 10' ceilings. The speakers will have to be placed near the 15' wall, about 6' apart, and I will be sitting about 4-5' away. There is a fair amount of furniture in the room. I ill be playing mostly "electronic" music, ambient, etc. though I also have a guitar amp (actually a Kemper with a powered Kemper cabinet). I have read all of the above, but don't feel I need to spend beaucoup bucks because I just want to hear myself, not mix with pristine accuracy. I am thinking along the lines of the JBL LSR 305, Yamaha HS7, or KRK G4. Any other suggestions? Am I nuts? thx all!

Brother M -

 

Try Kali Audio's stuff. It's much better than it should be. Their !N-5 and IN-8 have concentric drivers for the highs and mids. They're quite good, especially when you take the price into account.

 

Same guy who designed the JBL LSR 305 made the Kalis (Charles Sprinkle).

 

dB

[Marzzz]

Brother dB, thanks for chiming in!

 

After doing more research I have decided to move up a level or two, so I am now comparing the Kali IN-5 with the Focal Alpha Evo 50. My guess is that I can't go to wrong with either, and they are still in a reasonable price range. I do think a 5" design will work well for my space requirements.

[KuruPrionz]

Brother dB, thanks for chiming in!

 

After doing more research I have decided to move up a level or two, so I am now comparing the Kali IN-5 with the Focal Alpha Evo 50. My guess is that I can't go to wrong with either, and they are still in a reasonable price range. I do think a 5" design will work well for my space requirements.

 

 

Whatever you choose, please come back and let us know what you think of it.

[Marzzz]

Will do, I have a pair of monitors on the way, will report back once I have had a chance to try them out. Just don't expect any expert opinions regarding "transparency" or other subtle subjective terms....

[KuruPrionz]

Will do, I have a pair of monitors on the way, will report back once I have had a chance to try them out. Just don't expect any expert opinions regarding "transparency" or other subtle subjective terms....

 

Thanks!

 

I may use them fancy words here and there but most of it is nonsense. It's a fact that a single pair of speakers will sound different in different places in the same room or in different rooms.

The charts may show a smoothed frequency graph, pretty meaningless in context. The charts almost never show intermodulation distortion - where the woofer that is moving at 40hz is also the mid range and moving at 2 Khz.

That stuff can get weird and the combinations playing actual music are virtually infinite so I understand why they don't to it.

 

So yeah, do you like them and do they sound good to you? That's what I like to know and I take it as being an opinion. Like it is my opinion that I'm starting to get a better sound out of my Mackie monitors since I've tried different positions in different rooms and have done a better job of isolating them from the desktop shelf they are sitting on.

 

I have been in some nice studios and listened to playback. Speakers are one thing I have zero nostalgia for, the newest technology allows precision manufacturing and there has been tremendous progress on speaker design over the decades. That said, a friend of mine swears by his Marantz home stereo speakers from the 70's and his mixes do sound good on just about everything so they are translating well.

 

Just a bunch of stuff about stuff is what!