The most accurate monitors for house and techno music

[Strobian]

Originally Posted by barefoot

As for electronic artists using the MM27, I know of several customers who make a living in this genre but are far from being rich or famous. I think they consider it an investment in the tools of their trade. They're highly talented working musicians. Whether they're considered "average" is, I guess, a matter of perspective.

Yeah but I think most people are going to stop at a Proac, Genelec, Adam, Klein Hummel that is less money and get great results. I'm not in anyway saying these Barefoot speakers aren't the bomb, but when you are adding up conversion, compressors, and all that goes into it, I think there are some very nice monitors for a few k less than this. I have a pretty nice set up, and I'm not sure I could swing 7k for monitors at this point, although I am looking. Would I want a pair from you, sure send one over

[gundam]

For what it's worth, most engineers, studio designers, monitor designers, etc. do not ascribe to this sort of thing for monitoring. This might be great for live venues where the reverberant sound field predominates. And it's cool that you got good results. But it's definitely not recommended for most studio situations.

Actually, I know a VERY well known studio designer who uses SMAART LIVE to figure out the acustic situation of a space for recording studios and what not. LIVE is just a tool to meausre things so it' s not made specifically for live music venues. Sorry but that's nonsense. Although, I can tell you that some other studio designers prefer to use other software running on proprietary hardware for measurements.

Just wanted to clear things up.

As for the speakers, I would go with a 2.1 system but I would use the nearfields to mix most of the time and turn on the sub only from time to time to check the low end.

Good luck thumbsup

[barefoot]

Originally Posted by gundam

Actually, I know a VERY well known studio designer who uses SMAART LIVE to figure out the acustic situation of a space for recording studios and what not. LIVE is just a tool to meausre things so it' s not made specifically for live music venues. Sorry but that's nonsense...

The biggest issues in most studio control rooms are early reflections and room modes. These issues create very narrow band response anomalies that cannot be remedied by something like a 1/3 octave graphic EQ - not that most people would want to pass their monitor signal through such a thing anyway. I guess one could use a high coefficient FIR filter. But again, this plays havoc on the signal. And maybe some people are ok with that. But the fact is, even this won't work. Why? Because not only are the acoustic issues in a room very narrow band, they are also highly spatially dependent. Move the listening position by a few centimeters and the situation is completely different. Maybe one day we'll all wear position sensors on our heads so that heavy duty signal processing can adjust to our every move. But such technology isn't available quite yet.

The tools you mentioned tend to work in live situations because those are typically much larger venues. Room modes, if any, are often below audible frequencies. Early reflections, if any, are usually minor because the speakers are most often horn loaded and highly directional. So the reverberant sound field predominates. And the anomalies created are far smoother and far less localized than they are in normal sized rooms. So they do lend themselves to EQ.

Another point that is often overlooked is our ear's ability to distinguish between first arrival sound and delayed sound greater than about 20 ms. The sound of the room and the sound of the speakers aren't simply lumped together. If you EQ the monitor signal in order to fix the room's ambient sound field, the ear will then perceive the direct sound from the speakers as being altered, consequently, your mix will be off. The monitors need to be flat, there's just no getting around it. Want to make the situation better? You have to address the room.

We can agree to disagree. But unless you can come up with some compelling technical arguments why EQ would be effective in most control room situations, I personally don't think you have much of a case.

[gundam]

Barefoot - I suggest that you read my post carefully. I have never mentioned anything about EQ, time alignment, or venues but you have stated something incorrect, that is, SMAART LIVE not being used for studio applications--studio design being one. Actually, you can do satisfactory measuring with LIVE, not just figuring out delays.

[barefoot]

Originally Posted by gundam

Barefoot - I suggest that you read my post carefully. I have never mentioned anything about EQ, time alignment, or venues but you have stated something incorrect, that is, SMAART LIVE not being used for studio applications--studio design being one. Actually, you can do satisfactory measuring with LIVE, not just figuring out delays.

I think we both misunderstood one another.

I originally responded to theoryinmotion's post where he suggested tuning studio monitors using "delay and corrective EQ" with aid of FFT analysis. It seems you took this as a criticism of using SMAART LIVE. I was actually saying that I disagreed with that entire approach of trying to tune monitors/room with EQ. Then, I mistakenly took your reply as advocating corrective EQ, when you were actually just defending SMAART Live as a useful studio measurement tool. Sorry about that!

[gundam]

It's all good

[1945MF]

I will go to KRK V8 or VXT
Focal Solo 6
Dynaudio
Yamaha HS80

Cheers,

DJ R

[Robobaby]

I make dance music and I use a pair of Dynaudio BM5as. They sound like ass in my current room but I don't think it really matters anymore because I'm sort of used to them now anyway.

With a reference track and ear bud headphones I have a source that I can refer back to that eliminates the influence of my room and between them and the BM5as I seem to be getting closer to what I want.

I noticed that I started to do the same thing on my housemate's Alesis M1s when one of my BM5as was being replaced about a year ago. Given more time with them I reckon I could comfortably use them day to day as I feel I could with any set of monitors unless they are severely flawed in some way.

[Eric J]

I make dance music and I just upgraded from HR824 to Focal Twin 6 and the difference is unbelievable. The HR824's were hyped in the low end and the mids were scooped and muddy. Frankly I don't see how anyone who has had a chance to A/B the two would even consider the HR824's.

The Focals are balanced, detailed and they translate extremely well. The tonal balance of my tracks is SO much better then it ever could have been on the Mackies. Definitely my best purchase in a long time. DO youself a favor and spend the money on great monitors, it is worth the savings in hassle because you dont have to constantly worry about how your mixes are going to translate on other systems.

[digital 1010]

No one ever mentions them here but i use quested s series monitors,upgraded from mackie hr624s. Mixes translaate far far better. When i first tried them i A/B'd the 2 sets and it was then you can notice how hyped the bottom is in mackies.

Ben

[space2012]

Almost anything
with a very good eq.

Horn and wave guide sound diferent than direct tweeters
and metal vs. Softdome too,
amplifiers also sound verry diferent
and crossovers too,
but almost anything with a verry good eq, works.

[Reptil]

you mean you spice up the sound using an eq in your monitor chain?
can't say that is a smart thing to do, if you want accurate monitoring.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by Bitfiend

Anyone supplimenting their monitor system with subs?

Yep, I am...best decision I ever made... I was able to make sure my low-end was clean and finally hear all the frequency clashes that I had down there. Plus, with a sub, you can feel your bass...which is nice.

[Robobaby]

Originally Posted by Reptil

you mean you spice up the sound using an eq in your monitor chain?
can't say that is a smart thing to do, if you want accurate monitoring.

Accurate? In relation to what? Its not like you
can compare what you hear to what it would sound like live in your bedroom.

Sometimes I just despair. People make killer tunes on NS10s all the time and lets be really clear about this - if theres one thing NS10s are, its not accurate let alone even remotely good.

[Karloff70]

Originally Posted by Robobaby

I make dance music and I use a pair of Dynaudio BM5as. They sound like ass in my current room but I don't think it really matters anymore because I'm sort of used to them now anyway.

With a reference track and ear bud headphones I have a source that I can refer back to that eliminates the influence of my room and between them and the BM5as I seem to be getting closer to what I want.

I noticed that I started to do the same thing on my housemate's Alesis M1s when one of my BM5as was being replaced about a year ago. Given more time with them I reckon I could comfortably use them day to day as I feel I could with any set of monitors unless they are severely flawed in some way.

Sorry, but I struggle to think of anything with the word 'monitors' on it that's more flawed than the Alesis 'monitor' 1's........

[Robobaby]

They really aren't that bad. I certainly found them usuable and it hard to believe you don't think they are. NS10s are far worse and I got used to them after a while. The key point is that whatever you monitor with, you just need to give it time to get your ears used to how they sound and where they are deficient.

[Karloff70]

If you think that NS-10's are far worse, you might not be listening for the right info.....although they are far from perfect there's a reason thousands of great sounding records are mixed on them. The Alesis are a sluggish mudfest extraordinaire. And they won't get any faster the more I listen to them.

[space2012]

Originally Posted by Reptil

you mean you spice up the sound using an eq in your monitor chain?
can't say that is a smart thing to do, if you want accurate monitoring.

accurate 101:::
#1. a verry good amp, loudspeaker, cable, should reproduce exactly any signal.
#2. the most common signal in nature its pink noise,

white noise looks flat, in any oscilloscope meter.
take free MDA plugins, and make a white noise with the Tone Generator plugin, thats far better than Nuendo/Cubase Tone Generator

download the izotope ozone demo, and use the scope in the EQ window.
set to 8000 ftt, no overlaping & 10 seconds

analize the white noise... it will look near flat +/-<1dB

pink noise its same white noise with a low pass filter, to emulate the noises in nature like the waterfalls,

if you want "accurate monitoring,"
a niagara water fall recording should sound exactly like if you were in the niagara watterfalls. you should feel it in your chest! all arround you, every detail
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR8v8dEDD0g


to test how accurate is your monitoring, you should:
create pink noise, and take a 10 sec. snapshot in ozone,

then:
pink noise--->DA--->amp--->loudspeakers
and
use a verry nice condencer microphone to Hear/record the pink noise comming from your loudspeakers,

recomended: audix cx-112
or any other rode, audio-technica at4033, MXL v67, etc...
earthworks, etc...
almost any condenser mic, has near flat freq. response. +/-3dB

make shure the mic does not have the hi.pass filter turned on,
some mics need to be openned and push a button inside, like ADK project Gx1, to bypass the hi-pass filter.

then:
take a 10 sec. snap shot of the pink noise comming from the mic with ozone,
make shure loudspeakers gains are high but not 100%, anything from 50% to 80% gain in the loudspeakers, and 50% gain in the mic pre.
pink noise out meter should be near -6dB to -12dB digital
and mic pink noise input meter should be also as same -6dB to -12dB
and...
make different snapshots ABCDEF with diferent mic placements.
usually 1 meter away mic facing one loudspeaker works OK. but both sounding.

then use the matching linear phase EQ in ozone,
set the original pink noise to: destination
the mic pink noise as: source.
and 0% smooth 100% wet.

a verry good amp, loudspeaker & mic, should reproduce exactly any signal at any level.
as you can see with your mic. it does not.
becouse many factors, like your room accoustics.

Originally Posted by Robobaby

People make killer tunes on NS10s all the time and lets be really clear about this - if theres one thing NS10s are, its not accurate let alone even remotely good.

true, the ear & brain are amazing machines.
for example: ns-10 in jam-el-mar home studio
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfhVbHj4mPs

[Robobaby]

Originally Posted by Karloff70

If you think that NS-10's are far worse, you might not be listening for the right info.....although they are far from perfect there's a reason thousands of great sounding records are mixed on them. The Alesis are a sluggish mudfest extraordinaire. And they won't get any faster the more I listen to them.

Listening for the right info. Thats the key isn't it? Have you considered that you aren't listening for the right info on M1s?

NS10s have thousands of great recordings associated with them because they are in thousands of studios. M1s are not.

[Karloff70]

Originally Posted by Robobaby

Listening for the right info. Thats the key isn't it? Have you considered that you aren't listening for the right info on M1s?

NS10s have thousands of great recordings associated with them because they are in thousands of studios. M1s are not.

Why do you think that is?

[kde1ta]

earphones and har-bal

[Reptil]

Originally Posted by Robobaby

Accurate? In relation to what? Its not like you
can compare what you hear to what it would sound like live in your bedroom.

Sometimes I just despair. People make killer tunes on NS10s all the time and lets be really clear about this - if theres one thing NS10s are, its not accurate let alone even remotely good.

With accurate I mean, do they translate? the speakers could not be giving a 1:1 accurate picture in the bedroom as in relation to a big live PA setup, but the thing you don't want is the monitor speakers lying to you, painting a nice picture where on the master bus, there is none.

Originally Posted by space2012

accurate 101:::
#1. a verry good amp, loudspeaker, cable, should reproduce exactly any signal.
#2. the most common signal in nature its pink noise,

white noise looks flat, in any oscilloscope meter.
take free MDA plugins, and make a white noise with the Tone Generator plugin, thats far better than Nuendo/Cubase Tone Generator

download the izotope ozone demo, and use the scope in the EQ window.
set to 8000 ftt, no overlaping & 10 seconds

analize the white noise... it will look near flat +/-<1dB

pink noise its same white noise with a low pass filter, to emulate the noises in nature like the waterfalls,

if you want "accurate monitoring,"
a niagara water fall recording should sound exactly like if you were in the niagara watterfalls. you should feel it in your chest! all arround you, every detail
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR8v8dEDD0g


to test how accurate is your monitoring, you should:
create pink noise, and take a 10 sec. snapshot in ozone,

then:
pink noise--->DA--->amp--->loudspeakers
and
use a verry nice condencer microphone to Hear/record the pink noise comming from your loudspeakers,

recomended: audix cx-112
or any other rode, audio-technica at4033, MXL v67, etc...
earthworks, etc...
almost any condenser mic, has near flat freq. response. +/-3dB

make shure the mic does not have the hi.pass filter turned on,
some mics need to be openned and push a button inside, like ADK project Gx1, to bypass the hi-pass filter.

then:
take a 10 sec. snap shot of the pink noise comming from the mic with ozone,
make shure loudspeakers gains are high but not 100%, anything from 50% to 80% gain in the loudspeakers, and 50% gain in the mic pre.
pink noise out meter should be near -6dB to -12dB digital
and mic pink noise input meter should be also as same -6dB to -12dB
and...
make different snapshots ABCDEF with diferent mic placements.
usually 1 meter away mic facing one loudspeaker works OK. but both sounding.

then use the matching linear phase EQ in ozone,
set the original pink noise to: destination
the mic pink noise as: source.
and 0% smooth 100% wet.

a verry good amp, loudspeaker & mic, should reproduce exactly any signal at any level.
as you can see with your mic. it does not.
becouse many factors, like your room accoustics.



true, the ear & brain are amazing machines.
for example: ns-10 in jam-el-mar home studio
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfhVbHj4mPs

thanks for the extensive answer.
reading your initial post it seemed a case for just eq-ing till it sounds good. which is not so.

a verry good amp, loudspeaker & mic, should reproduce exactly any signal at any level.
as you can see with your mic. it does not.
becouse many factors, like your room accoustics.

this I can't agree with.
the mics you mentioned aren't made for accurate.
try a nice Gefell measuring capsule instead.
and coned speakers have inertia, and at best approximate the source.
if you want total accuracy, you could go for a big electrostatic system
total point source, no phase smearing, no inertia to speak of, no resonance.
but it's expensive, and needs to be big, to reproduce low end
but monitoring is indeed a comprimise, important IMO is to know your speakers.
our ears are more tuned to the "flawed" system we use, than to "boring sounding" 1:1 reproduction.

and, all ears are different. I would not work with NS-10 or tannoy BPM 6.5
why? since I wouldn't hear what goes on in the low end, and would try to compensate during monitoring.
these trance guys use kicks that are around 80-100 Hz, too high for my personal taste.

thumbsup

[space2012]

Originally Posted by Reptil

With accurate I mean, do they translate? the speakers could not be giving a 1:1 accurate picture in the bedroom as in relation to a big live PA setup, but the thing you don't want is the monitor speakers lying to you, painting a nice picture where on the master bus, there is none.

thanks for the extensive answer.
reading your initial post it seemed a case for just eq-ing till it sounds good. which is not so.

this I can't agree with.
the mics you mentioned aren't made for accurate.
try a nice Gefell measuring capsule instead.
and coned speakers have inertia, and at best approximate the source.
if you want total accuracy, you could go for a big electrostatic system
total point source, no phase smearing, no inertia to speak of, no resonance.
but it's expensive, and needs to be big, to reproduce low end
but monitoring is indeed a comprimise, important IMO is to know your speakers.
our ears are more tuned to the "flawed" system we use, than to "boring sounding" 1:1 reproduction.

and, all ears are different. I would not work with NS-10 or tannoy BPM 6.5
why? since I wouldn't hear what goes on in the low end, and would try to compensate during monitoring.
these trance guys use kicks that are around 80-100 Hz, too high for my personal taste.

electro statics are impressive at first, but... when you move, feels that they are more like 100 of small speakers joint in a big wood rectangle.
feels like the sound moves when you move, and does not have a fixed point of origin.
a bit confusing for the brain.

don't want is the monitor speakers lying to you
but they do, and its far more complicated than the loudspeakers,
wordclock, dacs, amplifiers, cables, etc...
jitter for example.

what do you mean boring sounding 1:1 reproduction.
a loudspeaker that its near 1:1, sounds incredible real,

just eq-ing till it sounds good. which is not so.

microphone eq calibration does not measure ear wax build up & hearing loss,
just eq-ing till it sounds good >50 songs, it does.

mics you mentioned aren't made for accurate
accurate sound its more than freq. response
or any other spec.
for example: EMU 1820m has almost flawless specs.
measured with http://audio.righrmark.org or AudioPrecition system , it measures in the level of Lynx Aurora 8 and Lavry Gold,
but does not sound good.
unless you change the wordclock, and still has muddy mids & colored sound.
the sound must be amplified and reduced to chip levels, and that affects a lot.

same happens with mics, and amplifiers, and analog circuit design,
every condenser mic sounds totally diferent, but all specs are similar.
common sense:
if they sound not accurate recording a guitar, will sound accurate doing a calibration ?

earthworks swear are the most "accurate" but sound like crap tested A/B vs. cx-112.
accurate = the most real sound, and they arent.
download all the .mp3 and take a listen. studio auditions.com jamroom sessions. "remove the space between studio auditions, name is banned here"
http://www.studio auditions.com/jamr...sions_home.php

also people say that omni mics are better for room eq,
but the fact is, is not room eq, its loudspeaker eq,
and your ears are not omni.

all ears are different.
Fletcher–Munson curves - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
you mean ear wax build up, and hearing loss is diferent...

[Reptil]

Originally Posted by space2012

electro statics are impressive at first, but... when you move, feels that they are more like 100 of small speakers joint in a big wood rectangle.
feels like the sound moves when you move, and does not have a fixed point of origin.
a bit confusing for the brain.

That was not my impression at all. The panel (one point source) sounded the same in all directions. off axis response is very good, also they are better performers in a bad room. They are not so good in handling large loads of low freq energy, and to make them really good requires a lot of money.
It vibrates with the frequency response of the source. And is therefore very accurate. A big one is near perfection.
Why? Because there are no phase artefacts that mess up the sound like in conventional monitors. These phase artefacts are because the tweeter and woofer interfere, the resonance of the cabinet, tweeter is faster than woofer etc. Someone like Thomas Barefoot put a lot of thinking in working with these characters of tweeters, woofers etc., and tuned the speaker so the sound reproduction is as flawless as possible over a wide range. That is why these sound very good, for a small cabinet, with normal (quality) components. ATC uses components that are really stiff, and react very fast, so there is hardly any inertia, and phase problems that go with it. The Geithan uses a pseudo dual concentric system, so the drivers are positioned as a point source. Those fullrange monitors cost serious money, just like a big electrostatic. Note that this is about fullrange, needed for house and techno.
I was lucky to own and use a pair of Finals for a few years, but had to sell, because of money issues.
(please note this once great company. has been bought from the orignal owner/designer (a friend of mine), and I have no affiliation with them anymore. The designs are still the same, and they are still good.)

But this is not my point. the point is that compensating monitor response with eq is not good IMO better is to change the room, so it behaves more neutral. EQ means phase shift of some frequencies, which is (as you also pointed out) not changing as a room changes frequency response. BUT please note I am NOT telling you what to do!

Originally Posted by space2012

don't want is the monitor speakers lying to you
but they do, and its far more complicated than the loudspeakers,
wordclock, dacs, amplifiers, cables, etc...
jitter for example.

yes but the problem is always bigger in the loudspeakers. because of a transfer from electric signal, to soundwaves.

Originally Posted by space2012

what do you mean boring sounding 1:1 reproduction.
a loudspeaker that its near 1:1, sounds incredible real,

The electrostatics mentioned above are almost 1:1 accurate.
And they sound very boring if someone is used to normal loudspeakers. Clinical.

Originally Posted by space2012

just eq-ing till it sounds good. which is not so.

microphone eq calibration does not measure ear wax build up & hearing loss,
just eq-ing till it sounds good >50 songs, it does.

I believe you. That is what I meant saying

which is not so.

sorry for the confusion.
Why do I believe you? Because you found a way, with much thinking and measuring AND listening, that works for YOU. And that, IMHO is the most important thing.

Originally Posted by space2012

mics you mentioned aren't made for accurate
accurate sound its more than freq. response
or any other spec.
for example: EMU 1820m has almost flawless specs.
measured with http://audio.righrmark.org or AudioPrecition system , it measures in the level of Lynx Aurora 8 and Lavry Gold,
but does not sound good.
unless you change the wordclock, and still has muddy mids & colored sound.
the sound must be amplified and reduced to chip levels, and that affects a lot.

agree. with the converters it's often the clock and also the analogue part of the converters.

Originally Posted by space2012

same happens with mics, and amplifiers, and analog circuit design,
every condenser mic sounds totally diferent, but all specs are similar.
common sense:
if they sound not accurate recording a guitar, will sound accurate doing a calibration ?
earthworks swear are the most "accurate" but sound like crap tested A/B vs. cx-112.
accurate = the most real sound, and they arent.
download all the .mp3 and take a listen. studio auditions.com jamroom sessions. "remove the space between studio auditions, name is banned here"
http://www.***************.com/jamroomsessions_home.php

also people say that omni mics are better for room eq,
but the fact is, is not room eq, its loudspeaker eq,
and your ears are not omni.

The point I try to make is that a small diaphragm measurement microphone (for example earthworks & gefell capsule) has a very flat frequency response, but will sound boring compared to for example a ribbon mic which does not have a flat frequency response.
My idea is then: Use the measurement microphone for measurement, and the ribbon for acoustic guitar.
Of course there are people who I respect, like Jim Williams that use very neutral microphones, alsmost like measurement microphones.

Originally Posted by space2012

all ears are different.
Fletcher–Munson curves - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
you mean ear wax build up, and hearing loss is diferent...

No I mean really all ears are different. The brain that is in direct connection with the little neuron hairs in the inner ear is different, the hairs themselves are different. etc. when you have an experience in life, in the brain there is a new hardware connection that can be used again, if the same experience occurs. Imagine listening to a lot of music for a long time. Your brain becomes wired for audio, and can use the signals of the ears better. In a different way. Some people are just deaf, or tone deaf or both. LOL

That difference is what makes it fun IMHO.
It's fun to compare, it's fun to look at real world solutions from other people. Also count that ALL rooms are practically different!!
So your solution might be very valuable FOR YOU, since you learned yourself to use eq to adjust the situation in your favour. That is what I think about it.
I chose another route, adjust the room till it sounds neutral but warm (use wood use asymmetric furniture, traps) and then put in monitorspeakers that are really clinical, precise. (ATC right now) with a really precise stereo sub system, with an active crossover&amps and position these in the best way. It's a setup that also allows for mastering. I'm sure many mastering guys will laugh reading about the little SCM7s but it works for me.

I also love to work with a pair of old K&H o98. These are like the o300 but then warmer, more soft. They allow very accurate in the lower mids. I am building 2 sets of monitors for my own use, just for fun.
Someday I'll get the ATC SCM110a or a pair of barefoot MM27 or perhaps the big Geithan. thumbsup

Anyway there is always room for improvement, but where I sit and work right now I can hear a lot. I know because if I check somewhere else it sounds like I wanted it to sound. My brain became uses to listening to this setup.
I'm sure you do the same.

Greetz from Holland

[Reptil]

found this:
http://www.audiosignal.co.uk/Resourc...isation_A4.pdf

[DJKCNYC]

I would suggest using a 15" ulds velodyne sub, or something sealed & tight. w/ satellites-something like the tannoy tme aligned tweeter mounted inside the woofer. seas makes a nice loki system. I would run the satellites full range, driven by monoblocks w/ a good dampening factor & lots of headroom. I own a variety of monitors & amps. the hafler p7000 is a great amp. aragon 4004 & 8008 are great amps, too. also what works well is open baffle tweeters & mids. you could check madisound.com & put together your own system. last I checked, they still had some audax mids that had a very high sensitivity & power handling, I've used these in both sealed & open baffle enclosures w/ great results. you could get a set & just mount them on a plate w/ an open baffle w/ your tweeters. however if you go baffleless, I suggest a sealed stereo 12" drivers crossed over very high. or put them in a sealed box & mount the tweeter about 2" behind the mid for time-alignement. of course you will have to experiment w/ placing. I would stay away from the active dynaudios & only consider the passive. the genelecs are way over priced, not to mention use harsh sounding vifa drivers. bose-are you joking? yamaha ns10-no way. keep in mind your bass will only be as deep as the size of the room. I hope this helps.
unfortunately the quality of dance music sucks. I usually dont use eq when listening to classical, jazz etc on vinyl. for dance I like to listen to through my allen & heath tube mixer which softens the harsh digital & lousy mastering along with neve 8816, which gives it much more space w/ the m/s setting.