Klein & Hummel o300 DISSAPOINTED

[Andy_bt]

Originally Posted by John Willett

Yes and No

An accurate monitor is one that reproduces sound neutrally and how it is.

It's there to tell you what is going on - it's *not* there to sound "good".

If your recording is bad or bland, a good monitor should tell you this.

A good monitor should have the adjustments to match it to your room and some manufacturers provide this service.

Yes - you may decide to choose a monitor that is *not* accurate - specifically to accent some characteristic or another, so you can make certain adjustments. This sort of monitor is not an accurate reference monitor, though it will have validity in certain circumstances.

Although your monitor choice is down to you, obviously, I do agree with Plush about the measurement and design characteristics of a reference monitor - though my own choice is ME Geithain

The problem I see is whatever the monitor it always ends up being a compromise. Manufacturers have to make choices about frequency range, frequency response, time coherence, dispersion, costs... they can't get it all, so while the concept is quite clear, in practice neutral remains a bit of a subjective thing IMO (unfortunately).
A.

[Fleaman]

Originally Posted by DarkSky Media

Well established measurement methodologies aside, listening techniques are sufficient to make substantial progress towards benchmarking both microphones and loudspeakers against standards of neutrality. FYI this is in line with principles that have underpinned audio engineering for about a century. Your efforts to 'educate' the world otherwise notwithstanding.

I understand what you're saying, and it's certainly a valid point. But there is a problem. The problem is that you can't listen to a recorded source w/o a speaker of some sort, and you can't record a source w/o a microphone of some sort. Both of these devices color the sound.

Now, if you benchmark a mic and monitor as a pairing, I could see how neutrality can evaluated in a less flawed fashion. Let's look at a possible test>

Record various styles of musicians, singers, bands from, say, a 10ft distance with various stereo mic pairs, binaural mic heads, etc., with straight-line-with-gain gear. Then listen back on various monitors to chose the most neutral monitor/mic pairing. There are of course many issues with this test:
> It will still sound nothing like what we would hear standing in the mic position spot 10ft from the source.
> Listening back in the control room adds a different room to the source, so you would possibly have to monitor in a anechoic chamber?
> Certain mics will possibly be more neutral than others depending on the source. Say a punk band vs a violin. No one mic will do it all.
> Sound memory: We have terrible sound memory. The closest to an A/B test would be to have the source play live in a room next to a anechoic chamber, then run from your 10ft mic spot to the anechoic chamber to hear the difference?
> Our control rooms are not anechoic chambers by a long shot. Yet monitors are measured in anechoic chambers.

Again, I understand your points, but to dismiss all the other factors that color the sound seems a bit short sighted.

And I also can't help that notice all the posts arguing the neutrality of 0300's are of course from 0300 owners. So of course there's an inherent bias here.

[Fleaman]

Originally Posted by Andy_bt

The problem I see is whatever the monitor it always ends up being a compromise. Manufacturers have to make choices about frequency range, frequency response, time coherence, dispersion, costs... they can't get it all, so while the concept is quite clear, in practice neutral remains a bit of a subjective thing IMO (unfortunately).
A.

Exactly. In practice monitor design choices are ALL about tradeoffs. Ported or sealed? Tradeoffs with each design. 2 way or 3 way? Same thing. The lists is almost infinite.

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by Fleaman

And I also can't help that notice all the posts arguing the neutrality of 0300's are of course from 0300 owners. So of course there's an inherent bias here.

I don't own any O300 and find them pretty neutral.

Though my monitors are the ME Geithain, the Neumann/K+H are still on my short list of the best 5.

[Fleaman]

I think the idea of 'neutrality' is a subjective compromise. For instance, the end product will be played on endless various consumer systems that vary wildly. That being said, I do think there is a rough middle ground as far as voicing goes (voicing of the speakers, not actual voices).

As an example, I have a pair of home mid-fi (hi-fi to average consumers!) Paradigm Studio 60v3 speakers. It's one of many systems I'll evaluate mix translations on. One of the reasons I like these speakers is that they're not too esoteric/expensive, and I find that they are voiced in the middle ground compared to most other hi-fi speakers. So in my mind, they represent the largest possible range of what a consumer might have in their own home.

I've chosen my main pair of studio monitors the same way, voiced around the middle range compared to most other popular studio monitors, which I've found to be different compared to consumer mid-fi/hi-fi speakers. On average, I've found that studio monitors tend to be more mid-forward than the average consumer hi-fi monitor.

So therein lies the problem IMO. We must, or at least 'I' must, consider the consumer playback system and already there's a issue with the LARGE variances of those systems (much larger than studio monitors).
I try to produce a mix that I think will play back across the largest range of consumer systems, while also translating exceptionally well on the best of systems (home or studio). This is about as close as I think we can come to the idea of 'neutrality' in a studio monitor, which I still think is a subjective opinion. If it wasn't, there would be a consensuses agreement on what monitor is the most 'neutral' and by far we are not even on the same planet regarding that. Do a GS search for 'neutral monitor' for proof.

So, I'm in the camp that monitor neutrality is a subjective opinion. Ironically, others that claim it's not a subjective opinion are still giving their opinion!!

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by Fleaman

I've chosen my main pair of studio monitors the same way, voiced around the middle range

Actually, a good test of accuracy and neutrality is to listen to speech and how realistic it sounds.

This shows up colouration very well - especially if it's a voice you know well.

[Fleaman]

Originally Posted by John Willett

Actually, a good test of accuracy and neutrality is to listen to speech and how realistic it sounds.

This shows up colouration very well - especially if it's a voice you know well.

It would seem like a incomplete test for music monitors, given the limited freq range of speech.

My avantone's are great for speech, single driver, no crossover, but of course I wouldn't rely on them for /tracking/mixing/mastering music. They are also a great example of a 'compromise' design. They excel in the mid-range, at the expense of lows/high detail.

[Arksun]

The better quality monitor you get, the more neutral/transparent/honest/(insert whatever appropriate description) it gets.

So how do you put that sense of neutral into words?. Well I'd sum it up from my own experiences which is, the better the monitor I step up to, the less I feel like I'm hearing the speaker.

For example, before I got proper monitors I was using (don't laugh) a pair of little mission hi-fi speakers plugged into a Denon amplifier. Now a producer friend of mine had a pair of M-Audio BX8A (MK1) monitors, and at the time I thought they sounded pretty good!, more detail more power etc.

Then I made the jump from the Missions to a pair of Dynaudio BM6A MK1, which I loved. Big step up in audio quality, more dynamic more detail especially in the top end.

But here's the important bit, the thing I noticed after getting used to those Dynaudios listening to lots of different mixes on them was, when I went back to see my friend with the M-Audios, what immediately struck me was how everything played through those all had this same sound, this same colouration regardless of the mix played. Where I was hearing more differences in tone, dynamic etc on my Dynaudios, now those M-Audios sounded constricted and coloured and... well... less 'neutral' if you like.

Then when I finally made another big jump up from the Dyns to a pair of PSI the same thing happened again. Now to my ears, the Dynaudios sound just as coloured and quite flattering, adding its own flavour to the music, instead of me hearing just the mix, and THAT to me is how you define what makes a neutral monitor. That's often one of the most striking things about moving up to a better monitor, not just much how they sound themselves, but when you then go back to hearing monitors you used to think where great and transparent, actually realising they weren't soo neutral as you first thought, because your brain has now become accustomed to hearing far more variations in different mixes.

That to me is the best sign of a better (or more neutral if you like) monitor, towards the holy grail of the 100% perfect signal reproduction speaker, if such a thing could ever even exist...

[gigi]

What PSI do you have?

[Arksun]

Originally Posted by gigi

What PSI do you have?

PSI Audio A21-M

[epp]

What's so difficult to grasp about the concept of a neutral speaker?

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by Fleaman

It would seem like a incomplete test for music monitors, given the limited freq range of speech.

I didn't say that was the *only* test

But it *is* a good test for accuracy.

I have heard monitors that sound pretty good with music that just make speech sound unnatural.

What you want is a good monitor for music that is also great for speech - as the speech frequencies are where the ear is most attuned.

[deft_bonz]

Interesting to see how tastes differ.

For me Genelecs are the Hifi ones, and K&H shines all the way thru. Never had the feeling that percussions sound too harsh, it's more the other way around. Still have to be careful NOT to make them too loud.

K&H are very flat and the bass response is super dry = very accurate. Where Genelec (at least the middle range) can not compete.

But as I said above: Matter of taste

[Andy_bt]

Completely OT
Hey Deft, how are your neighbours doing?
A.

[deft_bonz]

Originally Posted by Andy_bt

Completely OT
Hey Deft, how are your neighbours doing?
A.

They try to play, I think they believe it's music

Even if the exercise for the next couple billion years, they will never hit the 1 all together *haleluya*

[Plush]

Please look in the GS classifieds. I have an extra pair of 0300D that I'm selling.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

[DarkSky Media]

Originally Posted by Fleaman

I understand what you're saying, and it's certainly a valid point. But there is a problem. The problem is that you can't listen to a recorded source w/o a speaker of some sort, and you can't record a source w/o a microphone of some sort. Both of these devices color the sound.

Now, if you benchmark a mic and monitor as a pairing, I could see how neutrality can evaluated in a less flawed fashion. Let's look at a possible test>

Record various styles of musicians, singers, bands from, say, a 10ft distance with various stereo mic pairs, binaural mic heads, etc., with straight-line-with-gain gear. Then listen back on various monitors to chose the most neutral monitor/mic pairing. There are of course many issues with this test:
> It will still sound nothing like what we would hear standing in the mic position spot 10ft from the source.
> Listening back in the control room adds a different room to the source, so you would possibly have to monitor in a anechoic chamber?
> Certain mics will possibly be more neutral than others depending on the source. Say a punk band vs a violin. No one mic will do it all.
> Sound memory: We have terrible sound memory. The closest to an A/B test would be to have the source play live in a room next to a anechoic chamber, then run from your 10ft mic spot to the anechoic chamber to hear the difference?
> Our control rooms are not anechoic chambers by a long shot. Yet monitors are measured in anechoic chambers.

Again, I understand your points, but to dismiss all the other factors that color the sound seems a bit short sighted.

Thanks for your expanded comments.

You've successfully identified several of the challenges that present when looking for neutrality in speakers. And I would agree insofar as perfect neutrality is a theoretical goal that in practice is difficult if not impossible to achieve - and therefore it's something that, at best, we may aspire to. But challenges are there to be overcome, and it happens that quite a lot of progress has been made in the course of six decades or so toward the approach of that goal. We are much closer than we have been in prior decades, and K+H are among the closest (along with, at most, a handful of others IMO).

In any case, the existence of challenges doesn't mean that the concept of neutrality is not valid and well understood, that it is subjective in nature, or that there are not monitor systems that do a demonstrably better job than most of approaching it.

So while we may agree about much of the data, I don't draw the same inferences or reach the same conclusions as you do, and I'm afraid I'm still not persuaded.

Originally Posted by Fleaman

And I also can't help that notice all the posts arguing the neutrality of 0300's are of course from 0300 owners. So of course there's an inherent bias here.

Two problems with that. One is, as another poster has already noted, not all those commenting favourably in this thread are K+H owners, so the data for your observation is somewhat flawed. But I'll readily acknowledge that I do own K+H monitors.

But regardless, you're again drawing entirely the wrong inference from the data. I am not putting the view that the O300s are neutral because I own them - the chain of causality is exactly the opposite. In fact I own them because I became impressed by their neutrality (and ability to expose detail and translate a mix) several years prior to owning them - and that influenced my purchase decision. IOW, rather than arguing their neutrality because I own them, I own them because I found them to be neutral (among other things).

In fact I used them (and other monitors) extensively elsewhere prior to considering acquiring a set. And the things I said about them before the decision to purchase them were no different. Moreover nothing I've encountered since installing them here has lessened my opinion of their usefulness as a mix tool.

I can't speak for other K+H owners. But then, if you'll forgive me saying so, neither can you.

[Fleaman]

Originally Posted by DarkSky Media

In fact I used them (and other monitors) extensively elsewhere prior to considering acquiring a set. And the things I said about them before the decision to purchase them were no different. Moreover nothing I've encountered since installing them here has lessened my opinion of their usefulness as a mix tool.

I can't speak for other K+H owners. But then, if you'll forgive me saying so, neither can you.

Again, valid points. But I of course never made the point they can't be a useful mix tool. Of course that can be said about MANY monitors.

I'll add what I also think is a valid point> I'm not sure if you're clearly disagreeing with me on the point of neutrality being 'subjective in nature'? A search on GS regarding 'neutral monitors' will of course being up varying opinions and which brands/models are most 'neutral', and those threads of course will have many posters agree/disagreeing about said mentioned models. This 0300 thread is yet another example, with posters disagreeing about the neutrality of the 0300. How can that not be (at least somewhat) subjective?

As for me speaking for 0300 owners? Correct, I don't own 0300's. But much like the reasoning you posted above, it's due to them not rocking my boat when I shot them out against MM27's & Focal Twins in the same treated control room, hence, the reason I don't own them.
I don't think they're bad monitors by a long shot, and for sure they were better than MANY of the monitors I've either owned or used in the past. Of course I could work with them, but for me there were things about them that I knew I wouldn't be happy in the long run, and would eventually (probably sooner than later) sell them to upgrade to something else. This has basically been my course of action over 20 years of monitor upgrades, and I was just trying to avoid that as much as I could this time around.

To give some context to this, the MM27's and Twins didn't rock my boat either , and further, you could probably find just as many (or more posts) of MM27 and Twins owners promoting the 'neutrality' of their monitors, while those two are voiced quite different from the 0300's, so again, the subjectivity of my argument arises again...

[aTelecine-Lex]

Originally Posted by Fleaman

I think the idea of 'neutrality' is a subjective compromise. For instance, the end product will be played on endless various consumer systems that vary wildly. That being said, I do think there is a rough middle ground as far as voicing goes (voicing of the speakers, not actual voices).

As an example, I have a pair of home mid-fi (hi-fi to average consumers!) Paradigm Studio 60v3 speakers. It's one of many systems I'll evaluate mix translations on. One of the reasons I like these speakers is that they're not too esoteric/expensive, and I find that they are voiced in the middle ground compared to most other hi-fi speakers. So in my mind, they represent the largest possible range of what a consumer might have in their own home.

I've chosen my main pair of studio monitors the same way, voiced around the middle range compared to most other popular studio monitors, which I've found to be different compared to consumer mid-fi/hi-fi speakers. On average, I've found that studio monitors tend to be more mid-forward than the average consumer hi-fi monitor.

So therein lies the problem IMO. We must, or at least 'I' must, consider the consumer playback system and already there's a issue with the LARGE variances of those systems (much larger than studio monitors).
I try to produce a mix that I think will play back across the largest range of consumer systems

Very valid point to this discussion. It seems that often as people whom are very sensitive to the sound of our monitors we tend to lose a little perspective in this area at times. IMO

And indeed all, (well pretty much all) "monitors" I have heard absolutely tend to be much more "mid-forward" then consumer brand speakers.

Adding to that, not only are consumer speakers voiced away from being mid-forward (or at least seemingly the opposite of proper monitors) - But many consumers themselves (I've observed) "EQ" "Bass & "Treble" controls to extremes. (Which of course leads to an overall decrease in the Mid-Range)

It's quite easy to drive yourself absolutely mad trying to guess or even feel comfortable with the endless variations the end user may hear the product on.

It's a good idea to have a set of "mid-highend" consumer speakers as a reference - I also do with a set of Infinity (IL-10's I think - a 61/2 inch bookshelf 2 way)

But, I would add, it's a good idea to bounce down to a WAVE file and run it through iTunes w/ various preset EQ settings - "Sound Enhancer" engaged and the dreaded "Sound Check" feature engaged. And of course, with "ear-buds" and laptop "speakers"

Sadly perhaps, but many, if not the majority, will listen through iTunes with some form of sound massacring "enhancement" engaged so it can be an illuminating. Though it's often a bit of a disappointing experience, it's sadly realistic.

Sorry for straying a bit from the topic

Alexa

[DarkSky Media]

Originally Posted by Fleaman

Again, valid points. But I of course never made the point they can't be a useful mix tool. Of course that can be said about MANY monitors.

I'll add what I also think is a valid point> I'm not sure if you're clearly disagreeing with me on the point of neutrality being 'subjective in nature'? A search on GS regarding 'neutral monitors' will of course being up varying opinions and which brands/models are most 'neutral', and those threads of course will have many posters agree/disagreeing about said mentioned models. This 0300 thread is yet another example, with posters disagreeing about the neutrality of the 0300. How can that not be (at least somewhat) subjective?

As for me speaking for 0300 owners? Correct, I don't own 0300's. But much like the reasoning you posted above, it's due to them not rocking my boat when I shot them out against MM27's & Focal Twins in the same treated control room, hence, the reason I don't own them.
I don't think they're bad monitors by a long shot, and for sure they were better than MANY of the monitors I've either owned or used in the past. Of course I could work with them, but for me there were things about them that I knew I wouldn't be happy in the long run, and would eventually (probably sooner than later) sell them to upgrade to something else. This has basically been my course of action over 20 years of monitor upgrades, and I was just trying to avoid that as much as I could this time around.

To give some context to this, the MM27's and Twins didn't rock my boat either , and further, you could probably find just as many (or more posts) of MM27 and Twins owners promoting the 'neutrality' of their monitors, while those two are voiced quite different from the 0300's, so again, the subjectivity of my argument arises again...

First, let me say that I was not attempting to suggest that your opinion is somehow less valid if you don't own the monitors in question (I realize that what I said could be interpreted that way - sorry I wasn't more clear). Rather, I was trying to say that in imputing motives for the owners commenting here you were overreaching - wrong in my case and possibly others.

That aside, the question of subjectivity is an interesting one and it comes up frequently. I may be flamed for saying this, but I don't give it too much credence. No doubt people hear differently up to a point, but most if not all of that can be explained by the fact that they listen differently, or more to the point, a) listen for different things, and b) don't listen for the things that they might.

I say this (in part) from long experience working with interns and others who will be sure they hear something or don't hear something - until someone troubles to explain what to listen for and how to listen for it and after some work which amounts to ear training, they find they hear differently and can hear things they previously could not. And oftentimes it's a process that requires 'unlearning' some old listening habits. In fact all of us continue to train our ears in various ways - both to ignore some things and to 'focus in' on others. I'm willing to bet that all other things being equal (room treatment etc) we can hear more similarly than the subjectivity arguments suggest - provided we are listening for the same things (have a common point of reference) and if we have troubled to develop our critical listening skills to a similar degree.

IMO the only truly legitimate test of neutrality is comparison to the source. And it requires skill and persistence. Many people, even some engineers, declare a system to be neutral - or not - by comparing its reproductions to some arbitrary reference point in their mind or their experience. Or to another equally flawed (or more flawed) system. If we all have different reference points, then of course it will appear that what is perceived as neutral is subjective. But in my experience, with a common reference point and people with trained ears, there is quite a lot of agreement - more agreement than disagreement.

As for preferences, yes, sure. People have a certain mind-set about how things 'should' sound and they want monitors that jive with that. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem if they then arbitrarily declare that their particular personal/subjective preference in monitors is automatically the one that is most neutral. Especially if they are not arriving at that declaration after comparing the reproduction to the source. In my experience, relatively few monitors will be declared to be neutral after such a comparison, and there is a surprising (perhaps) level of agreement (among trained listeners who make such comparisons) about the contenders that remain.

So, liking the quirks of a particular monitor - and even preferring the results one gets when working with it - is more a measure of how one has (unconsciously or otherwise) trained one's ears to compensate for the extent of (or lack of, in many cases) neutrality and/or the character exhibited by particular monitors. And less a measure of whether hearing is subjective or of whether relative neutrality in monitors is possible. For some genres (esp electronic music and/or heavily processed sources) near-neutrality may be less important than the level of detail exposed. So be it. K+H offers both.

[Plush]

A great post right above.

May I correct an impression I left with a poster above?

I did not say that KH monitors were neutral because the German govt had poured money in to them as a poster misread.

What I said was that they are neutral because KH company could study the millions of dollars of research that the German govt had put in to speaker design. They collaborated with them to deliver the neutral monitor the broadcasters wanted. (Classical music)

So I reject all the subjective arguments because I recognize that trained listeners will come up with mostly the same impressions when listening. (The good listen room is assumed)

Here's the think:
These monitors have already been qualified in the laboratory and in listening panels. The customer is likely to have a good impression of the speakers if they don't need impress the client rap music levels.

[alecsribet]

Mister. I feel you . I myself am having a really hard time with focal twins and the Klein and Hummel speakers you are talking about.

They show many things in a mix YES ... BUT many distortions, harshness and sibilances remain hidden ... UNTIL you hear them on loud PA systems or in car systems ... where the harshness can TAKE YOUR HEAD OFF.

The other thing is ... all tracks sound ok on them ... the good ones sound good and the shitty ones sound ok.

WHAT I WANT IS A SPEAKER THAT SLAPS ME IN THE FACE WHEN THE SOUND IS SHITTY.... and make things shine when a mix is really good.

For that high price those speakers should have those qualities!!

By the way I hear many million(or hundred thousand thousand) dollar budget(superstar) songs suffering from this big problem ... e.g Goo Goo Dolls, Lionel Ritchie, etc etc ...

It means that the speakers that they use in the multimillion dollar studios ... also hide those mistakes!!!

The problem with this harshness is even worse than over-compressed sound in the sense that you don't hear it ... but it hurts your ears and you don't want to list to the track again.

[deft_bonz]

Originally Posted by alecsribet

Mister. I feel you . I myself am having a really hard time with focal twins and the Klein and Hummel speakers you are talking about.

They show many things in a mix YES ... BUT many distortions, harshness and sibilances remain hidden ... UNTIL you hear them on loud PA systems or in car systems ... where the harshness can TAKE YOUR HEAD OFF.

The other thing is ... all tracks sound ok on them ... the good ones sound good and the shitty ones sound ok.

WHAT I WANT IS A SPEAKER THAT SLAPS ME IN THE FACE WHEN THE SOUND IS SHITTY.... and make things shine when a mix is really good.

For that high price those speakers should have those qualities!!

By the way I hear many million(or hundred thousand thousand) dollar budget(superstar) songs suffering from this big problem ... e.g Goo Goo Dolls, Lionel Ritchie, etc etc ...

It means that the speakers that they use in the multimillion dollar studios ... also hide those mistakes!!!

The problem with this harshness is even worse than over-compressed sound in the sense that you don't hear it ... but it hurts your ears and you don't want to list to the track again.

Complaining, but not telling what speakers you like resp. is slapping the shit in your face, is a bit...

What speakers are you working with? Maybe I can evolve too and get better speakers

[MisterA]

hm, i am interested in buying those. i know them good but not too well. so again to my dealer . i am also very interested in the ks digital. they sound very good but i never tested them in my studio. when i got my hands on those i will post my impressions.

[msflsim]

Originally Posted by alecsribet

Mister. I feel you . I myself am having a really hard time with focal twins and the Klein and Hummel speakers you are talking about.

They show many things in a mix YES ... BUT many distortions, harshness and sibilances remain hidden ... UNTIL you hear them on loud PA systems or in car systems ... where the harshness can TAKE YOUR HEAD OFF.

The other thing is ... all tracks sound ok on them ... the good ones sound good and the shitty ones sound ok.

WHAT I WANT IS A SPEAKER THAT SLAPS ME IN THE FACE WHEN THE SOUND IS SHITTY.... and make things shine when a mix is really good.

For that high price those speakers should have those qualities!!

By the way I hear many million(or hundred thousand thousand) dollar budget(superstar) songs suffering from this big problem ... e.g Goo Goo Dolls, Lionel Ritchie, etc etc ...

It means that the speakers that they use in the multimillion dollar studios ... also hide those mistakes!!!

The problem with this harshness is even worse than over-compressed sound in the sense that you don't hear it ... but it hurts your ears and you don't want to list to the track again.

Well to start with big pa systems tend to push the highs and bass in a very uncomfortable way. The "problem" with kh o300 is that they are flat. I had to spend some time getting used to this coming from maudio bx8a which had a really coloured sound.

If you are having problems with focals AND o300 (very different speakers imho) maybe there is something not right in your room setup?

How do you position the kh? (near a wall, away, on speaker in corner etc.) Also did you eq them on the back according to the manual?

One thing i do know they do not do is jump at you, they just show everything how its sounding as a finished product. Thats why i think they are very popular with mastering studios.

Another thing, the quality of recording/mixes of some of today's albums is really disappointing. I was listening to 2012 Marcus Miller Renneisance album and some of the tracks are clipping! Which is a shame since the album is great.
All of that is down to the recording/mixing and mastering engineers. But if you can hear those flaws on your monitors than great, means they are working the way they should.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

[Dragonbreath]

i really like the O300 , although i don't own any.... i've used them many times, in many rooms, and on location....

they do have a very slight "nicey niceness" about them, but nothing like say a set of Dynaudios tends to have (IMO, YMMV) but they are still very detailed and revealing.... the level issue is common to all small sealed boxes, and for that reason, the sub can be a useful investment.... although i'm actually not so keen on the KH sub.....

i'd be very happy working on them, and they remain on my gear lust hit list , despite already having a fair selection of monitors to hand,....



we have , in our studio , NS10's, Mackie 824s, AE22's with 2 AE subs, and a set of SP-Acoustics SP1MLs (see this month's sound on sound for a review.... ) , we've previously also had assorted other things

my studio partner and I , have slightly different tastes and opinions...

Me

like the NS10's, for time domain, but hate listening on them.... can be good for speech and drum edits though...

Hate the Mackies, no redeeming qualities..... be quite happy if someone stole them frankly
...

like the AE22's , although they have their flaws, but they do rock and roll so very very well.... but like all small sealed box designs, level is an issue, unless you use the subs.... and we do..... 2 of them.... and i like the sub as well... still a good time domain, although getting them set up "just right" took ages... .. :D

LOVE the SP1's to bits.... utterly transparent, total detail, huge dynamic range, tight time domain, and bugger all distortion.... as far as i'm concerned, they amount to aural sex.... use them every chance i get.....



Him.
like's NS10s for familiarity, but worries about the low end....

he liked the mackies....... until i educated him and put in the AE22+Subs system.....

Loves the AE22+2Subs.... prefers them to the SP1 even.... for rock and roll stuff at least.... but still returns to the SP1 for jazz and acoustic music and voice over work...

not AS keen on the SP1, he thinks they might be a bit too "nice" i suspect because he's not used to ultra low distortion speakers... where you simply don't realise how loud they are, until you try and speak to someone after working for a while.... and realise you can't even hear your own voice, never mind theirs.... whereas i've been there many times with big ATC's and the like,.... (and i keep an eye on an SPL meter to stop myself falling in to that trap. )


the other issue with things at the high performance end like the SP1, is that they are detailed to a degree that most people frankly never experience..... and it takes a bit of time learning to focus your own perception on the element you want to pay attention to.... you're listening to a complete high definition image, rather than having a speaker which pushes or focuses on certain things , but leaves others a bit less sharply illustrated...

a bit like watching HD tv on a good quality really big hi res screen for the first few times.... there's suddenly so much detail in the image that your eyes go a bit crazy for a while, till you learn to focus and relax in to a more detailed peripheral perception.

[alecsribet]

Originally Posted by deft_bonz

Complaining, but not telling what speakers you like resp. is slapping the shit in your face, is a bit...

What speakers are you working with? Maybe I can evolve too and get better speakers

I have actually posted a thread on this topic , you know as I have said again those speakers are very detailed ... but after months with working with them I started to realize that there were things they were hiding...which show their ugly faces on big PA systems and other consumer speakers.

Momentary/not momentary harsh, sometimes sibilant hard incisive sounds... which is a very big reason why people don't/can't listen to a track many times, even though the music might be amazing.


The only speaker I have come across that reveal those problems clearly are the NS-10 and the ATC 150(which costs a fortune).

I am actually looking for a cheaper alternative that can show me those flaws... because I saw how critical they are for the success of a song.



Maybe you won't believe me, that's fine but what i'm telling you that I wish that they showed me those flaws in a more aggressive manner so that I could take action immediately ... just like I hear on the ATC 150 of my friend.



I also had a conversation with Harvey ... the speaker designer for TRIDENT .. and he told me that effectively , many speakers don't show those flaws clearly because the designers favour LONG HOURS OF LISTENING... I just don't think that a monitor speaker should pat you on the back when there are flaws in a track ...specially at those price ranges.

That's my opinion If you like speakers that pat you on the back , good for you and all the best

[Fleaman]

Originally Posted by alecsribet

I also had a conversation with Harvey ... the speaker designer for TRIDENT .. and he told me that effectively , many speakers don't show those flaws clearly because the designers favour LONG HOURS OF LISTENING... I just don't think that a monitor speaker should pat you on the back when there are flaws in a track ...specially at those price ranges.

That's my opinion If you like speakers that pat you on the back , good for you and all the best

Look, Harvey has a very good point. There are always tradeoffs. One man's 'harsh' is another man's 'detailed'.

I think you're trying to have it all w/o any of the tradeoffs. What you should probably do is what most of us do, have a 2 or more pairs of different monitors that complement each other. i.e., switch to NS10s briefly to check the 'flaws/harshness/sibilance', etc., then back to some smoother monitors for longer periods of work, etc., etc.

For some (many) this is really the only option(s).

[GMR]

You beat me to it, i was just about to say the same thing, you need 2 or 3 different speakers to compare mixes. I like my K@H but they are not the all end of speakers, when i mix, i have to listen on cheap boombox or computer speaker to see what is going on once in a while and i go to my car too, it reveals things that i don't hear right away with the monitors,espescially on the low end which is why you need a sub ! and getting to know your monitors is very important too, learning how they tranlate the bass the highs the mids. when you need to learn them too much, maybe they aren't the right monitors for you !

[Arksun]

Originally Posted by alecsribet

They show many things in a mix YES ... BUT many distortions, harshness and sibilances remain hidden ... UNTIL you hear them on loud PA systems or in car systems ... where the harshness can TAKE YOUR HEAD OFF.


WHAT I WANT IS A SPEAKER THAT SLAPS ME IN THE FACE WHEN THE SOUND IS SHITTY.... and make things shine when a mix is really good.


By the way I hear many million(or hundred thousand thousand) dollar budget(superstar) songs suffering from this big problem ... e.g Goo Goo Dolls, Lionel Ritchie, etc etc ...

If you're hearing issues with professionally well mastered tracks too, then I think you answered your own question there. Did you ever consider the reason why even huge budget big mainstream artist releases also sound bad on a particular speaker system and acoustic space was because... that particular speaker system and acoustic space was inherently bad?.

Point I'm making is, you wan't a mix that translates well to most systems yes, but it is absolutely impossible to make a mix that translates well to ALL systems and the acoustic spaces they sit in. You find the best middle ground, but you cannot accomodate every eventuality cause that would require an individual mix for each setup!

Lets say you're listening to a mix in a tiny square room that sounds super boomy at 120hz, you can create a mix that compensates for that, but then it sounds really thin in that area on most other systems. You could have mixed the track on the most perfect speakers on the planet, but nothing is going to get around the fact that that square room you listened in, any mix will sound shitty in that area.

No speaker can ever scream at you problems which are specific issues to certain setups and acoustic spaces out there, sometimes those distortions you hear are just down to the poor quality of the car speakers or whatever, their own inherent ITD and THD issues. No, all you can do is find a good middle ground. I think the O300D are fairy good for their price point, they just can't go very loud before the woofer limiter kicks in.