If you had to improve something in your monitor system what would it be ??

[AllBread]

If I could improve one thing it would be my freakin' ears!

[ejbragg]

Originally Posted by Bill@WelcomeHome

errr... probably by the mastering engineer, using 1 set.

If you're that good, my hat's off to you! You are much more adept and confident than me!

[u b k]

Originally Posted by Bill@WelcomeHome

errr... probably by the mastering engineer, using 1 set.

Now you're just trollin', which is my cue to move along.




Gregory Scott - ubk

[DirkB]

1. The best speakers you can afford to start with - I prefer 3 way systems, so I bought Adam S4x-V's after testing a shortlist of speakers for a couple of weeks in my current room
2. The room around the speakers - that's why I hired the best acoustician I could get and instead of buying a new baby SSL, put the money into the build out of my new CR and LR.

Greetings,
Dirk

[alecsribet]

Originally Posted by ajbianco

i do agree with you for sure. i can walk into the shop and drop 10k on speakers and this problem re speakers is solved instantly. but you can't go to the shop and upgrade your hearing and it costs a lot more than 10k worth of time to train your ears.

U can do great mixes on a pair of 1500 dollar 8 inch monitors if you have a trained ear. but if you don't have developed ears a 10k speaker isn't going to help you! your ears are far more of a factor than the speakers. i don't believe its a 50/50 between the two

That's very right my friend ..partly

It might sound crazy though because I started to realize how much information I was missing in my system, when I went to listen to my friend's mastering system ... this experience made me look for those things on my monitors ...some I found , some not really.

The point is you can make a great mix on a $1500 dollar monitor, but how long will it take(considering that u'll have to test on other speakers as well to know if everything is right) ?? how confident will you be ??

There is a slut that said a very interesting thing :"you cannot mix what you cannot hear" ... so if there is some crap that your cheap monitors are not revealing, how the hell will you know what's going on ? :D

It's better if you don't have any weak link, cause it will be frustrating and a waste of energy. Good DAC, good cables, good placement, good treated room, brutally honest monitors with plenty of definition and of course great engineer (ears) :D

[javahut]

Well... not really high end, but related to this discussion. I can say that I previously had Event ASP8s and really liked them. But when the Opals came out, with all the positive reviews, how great the low end extension was reported to be on 'em, with a very detailed mid-range and high end (some people comparing them to 3-ways), I couldn't stand not trying 'em out. So once I had them... yes, they were everything I expected and more. After a few months, though, the high end went out on one of 'em.

So I contacted Event here in the USA. They were very responsive to the probelm... exceptional even. I explained I was in the middle of a project and needed 'em back quick. So I overnighted the monitor to Washington. They called me and told what the problem was the same day they received it. They didn't have the part in stock. So they sent a new monitor out to me (or possibly rebuilt, but in as new condition) the very same day they recieved my monitor... shipping it 2 day at no charge to me. Great service!

Any way... while I was without the Opals, I set the ASP8s back up to work with in the meantime. I hadn't listened to 'em since the Opals were set up. Wow! What a difference. I could tell immediately there was no way I could mix anything until the Opals were back in service. There was so much information missing from the ASP8s, it was unbelievable. I could not hear what I had gotten used to hearing and being able to mix on the Opals. There was no midrange at all to hear, and the low end was big, but no detail to it, and not nearly as much depth to it... nor to anything else coming from the ASP8s. They were pleasing to listen to overall, and I could do some editing and recording on them. But it was immediately noticeable that mixing at the same level of detail as mixing with the Opals was out of the question.

So, I know this is not THE high end of monitoring. But it does indicate that though you need great ears, and, I think more importantly, great knowledge of what frequencies and sounds make the mix have the impact you want it to... clearly... in this situation... there's no way I, personally (nor do I think anyone else), could mix as well, detailed, and quickly on the ASP8 as on the Opal. In this case, the monitor made all the difference in the world. Regardless of how well you perceive and engineer frequencies, balances, dynamics, and levels, or how good the room is acoustically, the information just wasn't available to act on with the ASP8.

So I agree, it takes a great monitor, good/great ears, and maybe more importantly than great ears... is the knowledge to make/mold/create mixes into sounds you want to hear. The combination of good to great ears AND great knowledge is what makes "golden ears" for a mixing or mastering engineer... and the best monitors you can lay your ears on. If you can't hear it... you can't mix it.

[Rev. Eslam]

Originally Posted by DirkB

1. The best speakers you can afford to start with - I prefer 3 way systems, so I bought Adam S4x-V's after testing a shortlist of speakers for a couple of weeks in my current room
2. The room around the speakers - that's why I hired the best acoustician I could get and instead of buying a new baby SSL, put the money into the build out of my new CR and LR.
Dirk

Why spend so much cash on the studio lavatory?

("CR" is the most common name for the toilet here in Philippines. It is the acronym of "comfort room". Are not Pinoys quaint?).

[u b k]

At some point I came to understand that, for me, what made my life easiest in terms of mixing fast and relatively effortlessly wasn't a flat or uncolored frequency response, it was deadly accurate phase and transient response.

And most of that comes from the room. Not all of it... but most of it.


Gregory Scott - ubk

[Bill@WelcomeHome]

Originally Posted by u b k

At some point I came to understand that, for me, what made my life easiest in terms of mixing fast and relatively effortlessly wasn't a flat or uncolored frequency response, it was deadly accurate phase and transient response.

And most of that comes from the room. Not all of it... but most of it.


Gregory Scott - ubk

I believe that this is why we need to talk about the monitoring 'system', which is what I try to do. It is not just a matter of buying the right cabinets and tossing them in a room.

[alecsribet]

Originally Posted by u b k

At some point I came to understand that, for me, what made my life easiest in terms of mixing fast and relatively effortlessly wasn't a flat or uncolored frequency response, it was deadly accurate phase and transient response.

And most of that comes from the room. Not all of it... but most of it.


Gregory Scott - ubk

Excuse me Gregory but how can accurate transient response come from your room, if your speakers aren't precise enough and are not physically producing those fast and precise transients to start with ?

Phase problems can come from the room indeed but if your speaker design is less than stunning, it will have cross over phase issues,, there can be phasing between your speaker drivers themselves(2-way or 3-way or more) and if your speaker drivers are big there might be phasing between the opposite sides of the driver itself.

So come on how can all that come from the room if your speakers itself got some issues ?

Don't you think that coloring is a problem as well ? Coloring from a speaker cabinet can make something sound less harsh than it really is ...and it might translate in a nasty way to the world

But I have to admit that I have a little doubt with regards the frequency response though, as people have done amazing mixes on less that flat frequency response speakers, so I believe you on this one.

But it makes me wonder , why do people rave about flat frequency responses, when great mixes have been done on very peaky and messy frequency response speakers(auratones, Ns-10, and other old monitors for instance)

Please don't take this reply as an assault, I am really wanting to discuss and understand things and shine a light on those very doubtful things that are going on, and it can only happen with intelligent, open minded and experienced people .

[sailor]

Originally Posted by alecsribet

....how can accurate transient response come from your room, if your speakers aren't precise enough and are not physically producing those fast and precise transients to start with ?

Phase problems can come from the room indeed but if your speaker design is less than stunning, it will have cross over phase issues,, there can be phasing between your speaker drivers themselves(2-way or 3-way or more) and if your speaker drivers are big there might be phasing between the opposite sides of the driver itself.

So come on how can all that come from the room if your speakers itself got some issues ?

Don't you think that coloring is a problem as well ? Coloring from a speaker cabinet can make something sound less harsh than it really is ...and it might translate in a nasty way to the world

But I have to admit that I have a little doubt with regards the frequency response though, as people have done amazing mixes on less that flat frequency response speakers, so I believe you on this one.

But it makes me wonder , why do people rave about flat frequency responses, when great mixes have been done on very peaky and messy frequency response speakers(auratones, Ns-10, and other old monitors for instance)

Please don't take this reply as an assault, I am really wanting to discuss and understand things and shine a light on those very doubtful things that are going on, and it can only happen with intelligent, open minded and experienced people .

I think the point is that while one speaker may have more accurate transient, phase, or frequency response than another, the effect of the room's acoustics will have an enormous effect on what actually reaches the ears. A good room will not magically yield better transient response than a given speaker can output in the first place, but a sub-par room can cloud transients arriving at the listening position no matter what speaker is used. Same with phase, frequency response, etc.

The traits (or anomalies) of a given speaker design are, for the most part, a known factor when the unit is built. The size/shape/treatment of the room the speaker is placed in (and the placement of the speaker itself) is the far more variable part of the equation. Yes, many great classic mixes were monitored, at least in part, on "peaky and messy frequency response speakers" when they were created....but I'd guess the majority of those mixes were done in "real" control rooms whose acoustics the engineer could trust. If you know that a particular peak or dip quirk is from that speaker because you've heard it from that speaker in other good rooms, you can factor that into your decisions. But if you move your head a foot to one side and everything changes, that points to an anomaly in the room, not the speaker...and swapping out speakers will not solve the problem.

[Bill@WelcomeHome]

Originally Posted by alecsribet

... me wonder , why do people rave about flat frequency responses, when great mixes have been done on very peaky and messy frequency response speakers(auratones, Ns-10,... .

You keep returning tot his theme, as if there was something magic about working with crappy tools and somehow ending up with a good result. If you are a good craftsman, you get the work done with the tools you have, whatever they might be, because it is your job to get the work done. At the same time, it is a very poor businessman who hobbles his craftsmen by providing them with poor tools, and one has to wonder what these same talented craftsmen might have been capable of had they been given better tools that make the job easier and quicker.

Beyond that, you throw out all the 'great mixes', but what are the numbers? How many BILLIONS of really really horrible mixes have been committed on NS-10s? I can tell you that in our mastering room any of the engineers could tell a mix made on the NS-10s by home-gamers and basement dwellers because the signature sound of that cabinet in particular jumps out at you on something like our Dunlavys as these people, trying to mix what they cannot hear, tried to overcome the deficiencies of their NS-10s. We rejected as unusable more mixes from NS-10s mixed by 'regular' people on that particular cabinet. We knew because we asked.

[alecsribet]

Originally Posted by Bill@WelcomeHome

You keep returning tot his theme, as if there was something magic about working with crappy tools and somehow ending up with a good result. If you are a good craftsman, you get the work done with the tools you have, whatever they might be, because it is your job to get the work done. At the same time, it is a very poor businessman who hobbles his craftsmen by providing them with poor tools, and one has to wonder what these same talented craftsmen might have been capable of had they been given better tools that make the job easier and quicker.

Beyond that, you throw out all the 'great mixes', but what are the numbers? How many BILLIONS of really really horrible mixes have been committed on NS-10s? I can tell you that in our mastering room any of the engineers could tell a mix made on the NS-10s by home-gamers and basement dwellers because the signature sound of that cabinet in particular jumps out at you on something like our Dunlavys as these people, trying to mix what they cannot hear, tried to overcome the deficiencies of their NS-10s. We rejected as unusable more mixes from NS-10s mixed by 'regular' people on that particular cabinet. We knew because we asked.

If you didn't get the point that I wanted to solve, and the comparisons i'd like to make, even after i've explained it more that 10 times, please don't bother and please do Ignore what I say.

I heard your point and I have to thank you for your time.

You have shared your experience I have to thank you for that, but it would be great to hear other people's opinions and experiences as well.

It's meant to be a constructive sharing of ideas to make the industry evolve, if you think that the NS10 are the crappiest tools ever, fine, we got your point.

The point I think is about professional people in the hi-end sector of the business .. we are not talking about average mixing engineers, as average mixing engineers will sound average on any system anyways.

[Rev. Eslam]

Sorry but I agree with Bill completely.

[rakkaus]

from my experience i know that a room with bad acoustics can render a 100k system useless. soo i would say that the room (shape/construction factors, the monitor placement, engineer spot, acoustic treatment and objects inside the room) represents something like 85% of the sound quality. but everything counts, there's no thing that can be overlooked in a system.

[Bob Ross]

Originally Posted by Bill@WelcomeHome

my room.

Post #2 nailed it, shoulda been the /thread.

[Rev. Eslam]

Originally Posted by rakkaus

from my experience i know that a room with bad acoustics can render a 100k system useless. soo i would say that the room (shape/construction factors, the monitor placement, engineer spot, acoustic treatment and objects inside the room) represents something like 85% of the sound quality. but everything counts, there's no thing that can be overlooked in a system.

I would say much closer to 40-50% of the final sound quality (within reason - that presumes that one isn't comparing speakers stuck squarely in the corners of a room as opposed to the ideal placement).

[Fleaman]

Of course the room matters less with NS10ms 3ft from your ears vs a larger monitor 6ft away.

[denlig]

Originally Posted by illnus

Couldn't be happier otherwise; we've got one of the best rooms in town

Hell look like you got one of the best rooms in the world. Room look big time. I likey!!!!!!!

[ejbragg]

Some great arguments / opinions here. From my experience, the room seems to make a bigger difference than most (new-to-the-business) people think. Early on, I focused on increasing the quality of my gear - and I could certainly hear the difference. When my work improved to the the point that my results weren't getting much better, except randomly, I decided to do more research and really focus on room acoustics. I studied it on & off for about 3 years and finally put all my attention into my first "correctly shaped", acoustically treated room. It took about a year for me to catch on to the fact that my sense of hearing was really going through a lot of changes. Things I never noticed at first began to really pop out at me.

In summary, I might suggest that early on, the monitors may be the most important for the deceloping ear. As we improve, I think the room becomes more and more important. Obviously, the monitors may have to be replaced again, if they're not so great and you room is well done. On the other hand, you'd spend a lot of time re-learning new monitors. But alas! so it goes with a well-built room. Both are very important, for sure. My personal opinion is that the room seems to take proirity, the more hours of mixing under one's belt. Probably not always the case. Everyone's different.