A question to the connaisseurs and experienced engineers about monitors ...

[Rothchild]

Originally Posted by barefoot

Hi Tony,

Can you tell me where you found these charts? They appear to be gated response measurements down to 20Hz. There are only a few places in the world where such data can be reliably measured. I’m not saying they aren’t real. But they do raise my skeptical antennae a bit.

Thanks,
Thomas

As someone else pointed out I think they come from this research paper via SOS:

http://www.soundonsound.com/pdfs/ns10m.pdf

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by nzl62

Our hearing is far from flat. In fact dips as much as 20dB are regarded as normal...

That's the least of the problem!

Our ears compress everything above 500 Hz. but not below. What we hear is radically different at different SPL levels and in the presence of different amounts of ambient noise. A good monitor doesn't change response at different levels. Many fail this most basic linearity test, especially those employing passive radiators. One reason I suspect NS 10s worked out so well is the fact that they are sealed and not ported or otherwise tricked out in the low end.

I question the idea of "learning" a speaker outside the context of comparing to full range high quality monitors. People who never learned to use NS-10s comparing to serious "mains" often make massive mistakes by trying to correct for the low frequency deficiency of these speakers. Speakers having flattering dips in their response can't be "learned" at all.

[Audio X]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

A good monitor doesn't change response at different levels. Many fail this most basic linearity test

Qfe. With all things considered, I've found this to be true as well.

Originally Posted by alecsribet

how come people have pulled out great mixes out of extremely chaotic speakers(with regards to the way bumpy and peaky frequency graph) like the NS-10 or the Auratones or the older less than perfect speakers ??

They didn't have all the super technology we have now to design speakers and measure the frequency distribution with accuracy as we do now, and the frequency graphs were far from being flat... so we agree that the monitors were far from being technically flat.

So while choosing a speaker , should people really bother about the graphs and the specifications ???? is it really as meaningful and reliable as people might think ??

Maybe as a rough guide but without putting so much weight into it. ears


Speakers are highly personal. Our ability to decipher whats going and preferences are based on our own personal experiences with critical listening.

One size does not fit all.

The initiated can get by with using a less than stellar speaker, da and amp and make the best of it, but for the long haul, imo/e no compromise should be made when searching for and obtaining a trusted monitoring chain no matter the cost if you use it to make your living.

[Bob Olhsson]

Virtually every advance in speaker measurement since the 1940s happened during the 1970s and most driver design advances happened during the early 1980s. I don't think much has improved at all since the mid 1980s.

[barefoot]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Virtually every advance in speaker measurement since the 1940s happened during the 1970s and most driver design advances happened during the early 1980s. I don't think much has improved at all since the mid 1980s.

All respect Bob, but this just isn't true. There have been significant advances in loudspeaker design and characterization over the past 25 odd years. Superficially, a modern driver looks quite similar to one of Kellogg’s back in 1925. It has a cone, basket, spider, motor and a coil. But things have certainly evolved. And the evolution didn't stop back in the mid 1980’s. Speakers in 2012 are as different from those in 1987 as speakers in 1987 were different from those in 1962. For example, computer aided design and measurement tools like LEAP, SpeaD and Klippel have made big impacts on driver linearity, excursion, power handling, etc . Materials and adhesives have also improved. Of course, it’s an evolutionary process. And the foundations of what is being done today were laid in the previous decades. But that’s just how technology works.

[ChrisDaniels]

Originally Posted by Audio X

Speakers are highly personal. Our ability to decipher whats going and preferences are based on our own personal experiences with critical listening.

One size does not fit all.

The initiated can get by with using a less than stellar speaker, da and amp and make the best of it, but for the long haul, imo/e no compromise should be made when searching for and obtaining a trusted monitoring chain no matter the cost if you use it to make your living.

From my experience when you reach a certain level of quality in terms of monitor speakers and the room acoustics, it all becomes easy to adapt to.

I have worked in different studios in the UK, I carry along my reference tracks and when the monitors are really good and the rooms are good , it's all easy peasy to adapt.

There are certain famous brands though that have this tendency of sounding too HI-FI for my taste. Speakers that would be very adequate for your home cinema surrounds but NOT TO USE AS PRECISION ENGINEERING TOOLS.

On those it's very difficult to adapt, and instead of showing you what your sound source is , they add their own color, frequency dips, softening, smearing and other modifications to the sound.
You will notice that with great speakers, the contrast between bad mixes is drastic, while through the lesser speakers , the contrast isn't great.

The NS10 and the Barefoot have this uncanny ability to kick me in the nuts whenever something is harsh or pokey in my mids, but the Barefoot excel in the definition of the mids, they contain much more information than the NS10, so it's possible to be way more precise and confident.


Those people who are always saying that speakers are a personal choice, they are wrong

As long as you are using high quality monitors/room/reference tracks and you know what you are doing, you can craft amazing mixes.

A professional driver will always be able to perform great tricks and lap times with just any quality sports car after, after a very short amount of learning.

[ChrisDaniels]

Originally Posted by barefoot

All respect Bob, but this just isn't true. There have been significant advances in loudspeaker design and characterization over the past 25 odd years. Superficially, a modern driver looks quite similar to one of Kellogg’s back in 1925. It has a cone, basket, spider, motor and a coil. But things have certainly evolved. And the evolution didn't stop back in the mid 1980’s. Speakers in 2012 are as different from those in 1987 as speakers in 1987 were different from those in 1962. For example, computer aided design and measurement tools like LEAP, SpeaD and Klippel have made big impacts on driver linearity, excursion, power handling, etc . Materials and adhesives have also improved. Of course, it’s an evolutionary process. And the foundations of what is being done today were laid in the previous decades. But that’s just how technology works.

Thanks again for creating such a wonderful clinical speaker. It is such a pleasure to work on the Barefoots

You really should teach a thing or two to the Focals, Adams, KRKs etc etc hi-fi sounding speaker manufacturers

[Audio X]

Originally Posted by ChrisDaniels

From my experience when you reach a certain level of quality in terms of monitor speakers and the room acoustics, it all becomes easy to adapt to.

I have worked in different studios in the UK, I carry along my reference tracks and when the monitors are really good and the rooms are good , it's all easy peasy to adapt.

That probably has something to do with the "personal experiences" as I've mentioned. You've been at it a while?

Originally Posted by ChrisDaniels

There are certain famous brands though that have this tendency of sounding too HI-FI for my taste. Speakers that would be very adequate for your home cinema surrounds but NOT TO USE AS PRECISION ENGINEERING TOOLS.

On those it's very difficult to adapt, and instead of showing you what your sound source is , they add their own color, frequency dips, softening, smearing and other modifications to the sound.

Sounds like a personal observation.

Originally Posted by ChrisDaniels

You will notice that with great speakers, the contrast between bad mixes is drastic, while through the lesser speakers , the contrast isn't great.

Right ...so start with the better speakers and have it trickle down or start with the worst and expect it to trickle up?

Originally Posted by ChrisDaniels

The NS10 and the Barefoot have this uncanny ability to kick me in the nuts whenever something is harsh or pokey in my mids, but the Barefoot excel in the definition of the mids, they contain much more information than the NS10, so it's possible to be way more precise and confident.

Originally Posted by ChrisDaniels

Those people who are always saying that speakers are a personal choice, they are wrong.

Seems that you're stating your own personal choice above by saying that you like and trust the Barefoots ..and some what the ns 10's. Not sure what you're disagreeing with me about?....
That's your personal choice. congrats.

Originally Posted by ChrisDaniels

As long as you are using high quality monitors/room/reference tracks and you know what you are doing, you can craft amazing mixes.

Yep.

Also,..I think this is where the experience and initiated part comes in...again ...

Originally Posted by ChrisDaniels

A professional driver will always be able to perform great tricks and lap times with just any quality sports car after, after a very short amount of learning.

Tricks and fast lap times are all good, but racing is a competition about winning and "any quality sports car" will not win a race against an F1 with Fernando Alonso driving, but this has little to do with speakers unless you're comparing an experienced driver having a leg up on a novice. Same car .. who would win?

[barefoot]

Originally Posted by Rothchild

As someone else pointed out I think they come from this research paper via SOS:

http://www.soundonsound.com/pdfs/ns10m.pdf

I'll check it out. Thanks!

[Syncamorea]

The flush versus free-standing is an interesting comparison. Great midrange response on the flush mount. I'd like to see this for a range of monitors to see how the low frequency boost varies.