Learn more type less...
Learn more type less...
Learn more type less....
This is a very wise mantra to follow on forums.
Who says studio monitors are "cold and analytical"?
Who says studio monitors are "cold and analytical"? Does that mean audiophile speakers are warm/colored and distorted? If Studio Monitors main goal is low distortion, does that mean low distortion is not something audiophiles want? They want what, high distortion? "Pretty" sounding distortion? Or find pretty sounding speakers that make bad recordings sound really good? What is the point of searching out good recordings then? They won't sound as intended on a highly colored distorted speaker!
122 responses Add your response
@kenjit , It would be a good idea to learn more, and type less. If you believe what you just wrong, then you need to learn a lot more. I apologize for breaking my rule of replying to one of your posts. I will not do it again. |
Just throw your speakers away and use headphones if you think that
|
@kenjit don't let a lack of industry knowledge stop you. Studio monitors in the past were all over the place. That is changing. They are moving to DSP corrected frequency response, optimal crossover via DSP, and low distortion. Where they vary is in their bass extension, which ideally is addressed with subwoofers, and dispersion, which ideally is addressed with room acoustics. Distortion characteristics of speakers are much different and gets much more distinct as the volume increases. With a listening setup where the speakers are toed-in so that they point directly at the listener, and the room is somewhat damped to control reflections, corrected studio monitors sounds surprisingly similar with the caveat you use proper subwoofer integration to fill in the bass and you don't have large room response deviations. Where the differences are amplified are obvious non-corrected speakers, where the toe-in is reduced exposing more off-axis frequency deviation, and first reflection control and room response which is a combination of environment and speaker dispersion. Direct at the listener with reduced reflections is the best indication of the recording. As you stray from that you are using the speaker dispersion and room response to create a very indeterminate transfer function that often is pleasant, but would be hard to label as accurate. Must always walk back to 2 channel both throws away large amount of information during recording and is often simulated. Whatever comes out the other end and reaches your ears is both a representation, and interpretation, and manufactured illusion. None of that implies that we cannot set goal within our reproduction equipment to "perfect" aspects of reproduction that maximizes the communication of information within the recording. "Perfect" frequency response improved beginning to end tonal accuracy, or timbre. Perfect frequency response also improves the ability to locate sounds. Perfect frequency response and unit matching also significantly improves instrument positioning. "Perfect" off axis response, defined as smooth frequency response off axis, smoothly rolling off w.r.t. angle (horizontal and vertical), no off axis resonances, etc. allows the ability to create a room response that is also smooth without anomalies, this also plays into tonal accuracy and timbre. I should not have to write the importance of low distortion as a requirement for accurate reproduction.
|
@kenjit Totally understand what you are saying and I agree but I never said the Genelecs didn't sound right. My Genelecs are much more accurate than my Paradigm 9hs and JL subs but the Genelecs don't sound better. These are two different questions and it make me wonder what the right way to mix sound is. Movies are more normalized but within them are many pieces of music, effects, dialog, folly, narration etc. and I don't want my movie to sound like every one else's. Speakers that you use all the time are references, when you hear an actor like Anthony Hopkins on your set of speakers you know how he should sound so your brain pins that sound signature to its walls and thus no matter what system your usually listen to it becomes your reference. Many great songs have been produced with really bad monitors. As audiophiles we must strive to push manufacture not to make more wonderful sounding equipment but more accurate equipment and hopefully the extra flavoring we now put all over our music will be replace with accurate music and sounds in the future. Probably the weakest link in the cain is the way the original acoustics work with the original recording microphones.
|
I hear you @lonemountain, I have done design, project management, product management, and marketing engineering. If the customer has an open mind, you can educate them, and they will find their own way there. If they don't even faced with a demonstration, they will still talk themselves out of change. When they are the decision maker, sometimes it is best to just leave them to the competitors and spend time elsewhere. |
If studio speakers were references they would all sound the same but they dont. They are all tuned differently just like with regular speakers. It is just a marketing term. Genelec is a heavily measurement oriented company. The problem is measurements alone dont tell you everything. Thats why you need golden eared masters to come along and listen to the damn thing and tune it by ear. You have admitted yourself that the genelecs dont sound right. Neither your paradigm or genelec are correct. So stop deceiving yourself and continue searching for PERFECT sound. It is a lifelong journey dont be so naive. |
It's nice of you to think so, but to be correct I am NOT an acoustic engineer. I am really the behind the scenes product manager and also the one who talks to customers and visits studios (a "technical sales" function). However, I have a strong belief that selling by convincing isn't really possible, people figure that out. The only way to "sell" in pro or consumer is to educate and let smart people figure out their own answers. My mission is to reduce the typical misinformation to the engineering department (factories operating on incorrect assumptions) and from the engineering department (buyers misunderstanding product values). Brad |
@thespeakerdude Only 1 sub, it is also made by Genelec it was designed to go with their new speakers. This sub is also not like my audiophile subs it doesn't shake the house (I have a big house 12k square feet) it has a much different personality it simply extends the sound downward it isn't it's own wow. The sub is in the corner so it gives enough to produce an effect but nothing like my audiophile subs. This is the quandary and the reason why I put both systems in one room. I can playback the mix on my audiophile system simply to compare my mix to my own reference of movies and music I've listened to on my audiophile system. I think it's the best thing to do to cover myself using such a new system and also me being in a different part of the business for so long (recording not mixing), I need all the help I can get. |
@thespeakerdude I did do some room acoustic programs with both systems, I moved my Lyngdorf 60.2 to be used with the pro system so I could use "Room Perfect", I had to use a program called DADman to allow me to monitor Atmos through the Lyngdorf with the room adjustments and also monitor cleanly through ProTools DigiLink directly with no room correction. It didn’t really make a big difference I have a good room high ceilings and no parallel walls, (that is key). The pro system keeps surprising me all the time when I listen to music especially. The audiophile system has much more expensive speakers and amps and sounds much warmer way way more bass and a much larger sweet spot. The audiophile system has 16 amps the pro system uses all active speakers the dynamics and transients of the pro system are off the charts but then again I don’t listen very loud ever, that’s why I got out of live sound 35 years ago and got into movie sound. I have about 12k watts of power on my audiophile system and only ⅓ of that on the pro system but they are active speakers and very efficient, I think the sub is only 800W where the audiophile subs are each about 2000W or so 3000W peak. I much prefer the audiophile system but now having both system in the same room It makes it very hard to mix because there are 2 very different sounds. I don’t want to mix thinking about my audiophile speakers I have to put on a different had as they say. |
I would like to hear your opinion in a year or two once you are more acclimated to your studio system. I find it harder and harder to go back to less "accurate" systems. There could even be generational aspects at work. Younger people don’t find film as "romantic" as us old farts do. They find it unnatural.
Have you taken a room response on both systems and tried adjusting the studio system to match the audiophile system? I play around with curves depending on the music and mood. It sounds like tour studio system and audiophile system should have similar reflections or did I interpret wrong? |
@kenjit Does make some good points and so does @fair and of course @lonemountain is a real acoustic engineer, great conversation.
The professional system has disturbing pinpoint imaging the speakers are point source and internally powered I’m still not used to the transients and the imaging it is another world. The audiophile system is like a steak with lots of wonderful spices on it, there is no one on this forum of experienced listeners who would rather listen to the same music or movie on the professional system rather than the audiophile system that’s because it sounds more magical and entertaining. The professional system is exactly how I wanted it to sound great with very well recorded music and shows the warts with music and movie that aren’t done as well this is exactly what a studio system should show. The Genelec speakers are very sophisticated for the ultimate reason to show you exactly what you have, audiophile system are designed to sound good.
Professional studios need accurate sound not good sound, what is accurate? I’ve said this in other notes but accurate sound is when you talk with Anthony Hopkins, Tom Cruse, and Jack Nicholson on the set then record their voices while acting and have the producers smile because their voices sound the same in dailies.
|
@lonemountain , the answer to your question of who, is "most audiophiles", as most audiophiles are ruled by beliefs, not fundamental understanding. |
About Studio Monitorsthese are not your home Audio Units. Ever since Altec Lansing introduced the Duplex 604 in 1944, mix engineers have relied on studio monitors to provide them with the accurate details needed to make critical mixing decisions. Studio monitors come in a variety of configurations with many different options. There are active studio monitors with built-in amplifiers and passive studio monitors that use external amplifiers, nearfield studio monitors with small low-frequency drivers and large studio monitors with multiple drivers for mid and low frequencies, and some studio monitors even include onboard DSP for acoustic management. Each style and configuration of studio monitor has its advantages.
|
”…. kenjit1,619 posts There is no such thing as a studio monitor. All speakers are just wooden boxes. The question is how the damn thing has been tuned. Studio monitors are tuned FLAT. Audiophile speakers have a downward tilt. End of story. As a result of this, so called studio monitors sound harsh.….
The JBL L100 Century are the consumer version of the legendary JBL 4310 studio monitors. In the late 60s JBL already had a great reputation for making very accurate, full size monitors for studios. Growing demand for more compact control room monitor, forced JBL to start working on the 4310 model. The requirements were: high power handling, high acoustic output without distortion and smooth frequency response thought entire audio spectrum – all of that from a 45l enclosure. Two years after the work begun, JBL Professional Division introduced the 4310 studio monitors. These speakers quickly became first choice for many well known studios, including Capitol, Deutsche Grammophon, EMI, London/Decca, RCA, etc. In fact, these monitors became so popular, that many musicians and engineers started purchasing these for home use. This in turn, encouraged JBL to produce the consumer version of these monitors – JBL L100. JBL claimed for these to be acoustically identical to the studio equivalents, but finished in more provocative style, appropriate for home environment. And this provocative style is one of the most characteristic features of the JBL L100 speakers – the open cell foam grilles with truncated pyramids. I dare to say that these are one of the most iconic speak grills ever made.
|
| Post removed |
That is not a symphony concert, it's scoring session. You can tell from the Decca Tree mic arrangement up high behind the conductor. There were several major scoring engineers who used to use B+W for monitoring in the past. They two best known are now on ATC. I suspect this is an older picture of an Alan Meyerson (Hans Zimmer's guy) scoring session LA.
Brad |
| Post removed |
@mofojo some things are best starved of oxygen especially those that behave like they already are. |
Flat speakers dont sound good to most folks with normal hearing. If your ears already have a dip in response in the mids then flat might sound better to you. The NS10s arent flat. Nowhere near it. I've seen many other studio monitors that are not flat either. Studio monitors are for people that enjoy reading specs and measurements. For most audiophiles we care more about how it sounds so buying a studio monitor would be a mistake. I'd say make flat speakers illegal and make custom tuning the law! |
@simonmoon , in this thread, "studio monitor" is being used as a catch all for speakers used in studio monitoring rooms, mixing rooms, mastering rooms, review rooms, etc. Recording studio monitors tend to be smaller out of necessity. Mixing, mastering depends on who is doing it. Some work in small spaces, some work in large spaces. Review rooms, may be mastering rooms, or may be separate and more in line with a home setup. The distance to the listener is a non starter as home listening positions vary from 6 - 15 feet, so 2.5:1, probably wider than most "studio monitors" on average, but if anything, "studio monitors", at least today, have good integration at most distances. Rarely see anyone switching between monitors except in final mastering and review where they are testing out the mix to determine how it may sound to a variety of end users. More of that in the past when studio speakers were all over the map. It is today, 2023 now, so we need to talk about 2023. In 2023, most "studio monitors" are active, with crossovers designed to fix as many issues as practical at the price point, with somewhat flat or very flat response, excellent dispersion characteristics, and low distortion. As this an audiophile site, we would be discussing the mid to upper end of the "studio monitor" space, which will typically mean very flat response on axis, well controlled off axis ie good dispersion and low distortion when the speaker is used within its limits. These are characteristics of all good speakers "studio" or home. They may not have the bass extension, they may not place as loud, and they won't come in your particular shade of sound, but they do what they do very well. |
I can’t even begin to address this insanity, so I won’t. Peace out. |
The contention that since studio monitors are used in a studio, they must be super accurate is not correct. Engineers use them as tools, and each individual engineer has specific things they want to hear. In fact, they will often switch between monitors, since some say, have a forward sounding midrange, and that is what they are trying to get ’right’ on the recording. The other thing about studio monitors, is that they tend to be designed so they sum frequencies fairly close to the speaker, since they are usually hung on a wall or on the back of the mixing console, which are not the ideal listening position. While home speakers are usually designed to sum their frequencies at a normal listening position. Imaging and soundstage is hardly ever taken into consideration on studio monitors.
|
@m-db -- Much appreciated, and the same to the both of you. |
It’s a shame people cannot see music in the different realms they are created and envisioned in. Pop music is completely different from something like Lenny Kravitz or Tom Petty or John Williams or James Newton Howard. If audiophiles throw everyone into the same basket that’s sad and not at all what the artists have in mind. Imagine looking at modern art and saying a Picasso is the same as Dali -they are “paintings”. brad |
| Post removed |
Most commercial pop records have levels that are clipping and the artists dont care. All they want is the loudest mix so that it stands out. Quantity over quality. These pop recordings are enjoyed by millions of people on their ear buds or phones or laptops. Sound quality does not enter the equation. As long as it sells its considered a success. Most artists and musicians are not audiophiles. Ive said this before. They do not belong in our world nor do they understand it. Studio monitors are tuned in a certain way to focus in on certain areas of the mix. The NS10 is tuned to the mids. ATC are also similar in that respect. That is why every monitor sounds different. An audiophile speaker is designed for pleasure only. If mix engineers wanted to use audiophile speakers they would. But they dont want a good sounding speaker they want a bad sounding one. Hence the emergence of the studio monitor market. If ATC were that good they would be the only choice. But there are dozens of monitors on the market and every engineer uses multiple monitors because each monitor is tuned to different parts of the spectrum. Theres plenty of complaints about ATC online you just need to do your research. |
Ghdprentice i don’t think you have the purpose of studio monitors right at all, no matter your friends have inferred by sales to their clients. A studio record is a sonic painting, from the mind of the artist working side by side with a skilled set of engineers (tracking and mix engineers may be the same or may be different) who can make the artist’s sonic painting happen. What artist wants playback to be anything other than sonically extraordinary? Brad Directionality?
|
It would be a marvel if it was a 1 inch dome and could go down to 400hz. Unfortunately it cant so its wrong. And because its wrong, you need to add another damn tweeter to it to extend its response. Its just an inferior solution passed off as a marvel. |
Studio monitors have a different purpose than “audiophile” speakers. Audio monitors present sound with the venue up fron (and are highly directional as pointed out above)… so very critical mixing choices can be made. The criteria is very different. Audiophiles are into the best possible playback focusing on musicality, natural sound etc. These are very different requirements. I have a couple friends in the industry and installs Boulder and Mark Levenson in folks that want high end recording studios and stuff like Audio Research into audiophile’s homes as they want musical and natural sound. |
@lonemountain wrote:
Good post. In a nutshell audiophilia has turned all the typical limitations of in particular loudspeakers into a reference and something to desire; what’s more realistic in size of scale of the sonic image is overblown or unfit for a domestic environment, what approaches real dynamics is deemed exaggerated, what’s full-range at full tilt to emulate a reference isn’t necessary and even ridiculed, etc. People have to feel good about their usually self-imposed (i.e.: not monetary) limitations, also by pointing their fingers at that which eschews their schooled understanding, while reveling at the paradigms or even dogmas established in the hi-fi milieu. High Fidelity, compared to what? In the now inverted universe of sound reproduction the live acoustic (or amplified) reference falls short of what’s dictated by its all-is-equally-good interpretation in many a home from a speaker package mostly way too small. Oh, vanity.. As for monitors, they come in many shapes and "expressions" reflecting (at best) their intended usage, while also being at the behest of the designer and his/her skills. Some monitors to my ears simply become too much of a pill to swallow with extended listening (usually less so), and it mayn’t be due to them being bad speakers per se but rather that what they were designed to do doesn’t sit well with the intention of enjoying music. I’ve often found that many a monitor’s sound isn’t due to what’s left untarnished, but instead what’s specifically bred or honed in on as a sonic signature that complements their function as an (magnifying) instrument or sorts to the mixer. In other words: what may be perceived as cleaner to some may simply be a sonic design choice that makes it appear as such. Obviously sound reproduction can become too much of a euphemism, so to speak, also per above paragraph. It’s a balancing act I find hitting that "middle ground" of insight vs. the less technical approach to music as opposed to scrutiny even. Some lean more in one direction, others differently. ATC speakers to me strike a fairly good balance while still being ruthlessly honest - not always to the liking of some audiophiles. I find they "get way with it" musically because of their tonality, coherency, fine dynamics and rather unflappable nature, even at extended SPL’s. And that 3" super midrange dome driver is just an engineering marvel, if you ask me. |
I find this thread funny, people say "class D" as though anything Class D sounds like everthing else Class D. Years back we tried building a CLass D amp at my shop, I wanted a low cost decent studio (no fan) amp. We started with off the shelf hypex modules and jsut used it as described and it was awful So then we realized the power supply was the problem, you needed the upgrade power supply-yes-much better! Still not as good as the Class A/B amps I had around, so we built an even larger power supply- better yet again! Then we realized the front end was not adequate (analog portion before the amp itself) so we modified that to be close to something one would see with a decent audiophile or pro amp (the ATC P1 and P2 are my benchmarks). Another step better. By the time we were done, I spent as much on the Class D as one could expect to spend on a good Class AB amp. It finally sounded good, competitive, but didnt save anyone money. It was suprising to me at how much sonic difference each step made. It gave me deep respect for the designers who can build a class D inexpensively and make it sound good. Class D was not the miracle I was hoping for. I ended up wondering, why bother? Brad |
Silly would be responding in any serious manner to anything @kenjit writes, but many of you do. Personally, I don't find what seanheis1 said to be any less ridiculous. People feel a need to write a comment, even lacking experience with the topic. |
@kenjit You miss my point about mix translation. It has nothing to do with the quality of various systems. That's irrelevant. It's my job as a mixer to make a mix that sounds like a well balanced professional mix on ALL systems... not just mine. It's not easy. As for the ATC SCM50's... I found the mids dry & boring, and the tweeter a bit wispy and sibilant for me. The ADAM's AMT tweeter is clear, effortless, and non-fatiguing over long periods. @soix I read that S3H review, and very much agree with the writer. As in his conclusion, the ADAMs often do "leave my jaw on the floor" with their clarity and heart-stopping dynamics. For those that poo-poo DSP, I A/B'd the ADAMs with Focal Trio's for well over an hour at Vintage King using my own music collection. They left me alone and I could switch and tweak all I wanted. The Focals are all analog (and very good), but I liked the ADAMs better in every respect (except looks... the Focals are gorgeous). Plus, the ADAMs have 8 band fully parametric EQ that I use for some room correction. |
