Highest resolution and most clinical , zero forgiveness monitor speakers out there.

[Louis_Diaz]

Originally Posted by Frank_Case

Lipinskis, if you want the best.

+1 I use Lipinskis as well and they changed my life.


The speakers you don't want in your control room, from my experience, or I should say bad experience : Krk, Focals Twins and Below(good resolution but too forgiving to be considered as a precision revealing tool), Tannoy Reveal, Mackies, but I think the leader of the crappy monitor speakers is Behringer.

On the other hand Event Opals, ATC and PSI do a pretty decent job for the price and category.

Cheapest bang for the buck for beginners I would say Neumann KH 120... Ample amounts of information and detail for the price.

[Jeff Hayat]

I have a feeling that I may get railed for this, but I am going for it anyway.

The Auratone 5C Super Sound Cubes. No, you wouldn't want only those, and they sure wouldn't be the main monitors you mix on (in most cases), but if you want something that's brutally honest, and unforgiving to check your mixes on - that's it.

Cheers.

[Doc No]

"most clinical , zero forgiveness monitor speakers out there."


Neumann KH 120

[Plush]

QUAD electrostatic loudspeakers DEFINE the OP's quest.

[John Willett]

I use the ME Geithain RL906 (reviewed in the latest - November - issue of Sound On Sound).

Clean and accurate - I use them for critical monitoring, but am also happy to use them for pleasure. They show up recording faults but don't over magnify them which makes them good for both.

All Geithain's sound basically the same from the small 906 all the way up to the large 901 - the larger units just having a greater bass extension.

[Andy_bt]

Originally Posted by Jeff Hayat

but if you want something that's brutally honest, and unforgiving to check your mixes on - that's it.

Cheers.

For brutal honesty I'd rather pick the Rocks mk2
A.

[Louis_Diaz]

Originally Posted by John Willett

Clean and accurate - I use them for critical monitoring, but am also happy to use them for pleasure. They show up recording faults but don't over magnify them which makes them good for both.

When you hear this type of description, please do not think, JUST RUN

These are the types of speakers that you REALLY DON'T WANT. Makes me think of the some famous french speaker manufacturer!! Speakers are good for music enjoyment and maybe for your surround home cinema speakers, BUT NOT FOR CRITICAL LISTENING AND TROUBLESHOOTING.

For your studio, if you are some very serious engineer and want to craft great mixes that don't end up piercing or scratchy, you want speakers that spank you in the face when things are wrong in the mix.

[Audio X]

Originally Posted by Frank_Case

Lipinskis, if you want the best.

Most people I know of who work with the L707's also incorporate a sub or two.

For any speaker that needs a sub and doesn't fully cover the bottom octave, I would not consider as being "the best" loud speaker. "The best" doesn't exist anyway. 2c

Something like the Dunlavy V or VI will be 20Hz to 20K +/-1.5 dB
Very honest speakers. There are many top manufacturers like Lipinkski that copy from John Dunlavy's designs. YMMV EIEIO USC VS OSU BBQ ETC
Who makes the best pizza?

[radiocity]

audio.2.1.a
Smart Audio II.1a is a good solution to your third question!
While not being clinical, it has lots of resolution, detail, accuracy etc... and a zero smeared mid range.... punchy dry bass... and highs that are a little bit too forward... excellent overall value!!!

[Louis_Diaz]

Originally Posted by Audio X

Most people I know of who work with the L707's also incorporate a sub or two.

For any speaker that needs a sub and doesn't fully cover the bottom octave, I would not consider as being "the best" loud speaker. "The best" doesn't exist anyway. 2c

Something like the Dunlavy V or VI will be 20Hz to 20K +/-1.5 dB
Very honest speakers. There are many top manufacturers like Lipinkski that copy from John Dunlavy's designs. YMMV EIEIO USC VS OSU BBQ ETC
Who makes the best pizza?

The Lipinskis on our studio goes down to 40 Hz easily, we don't use any energy below 40Hz anyway for what we do, so it does the job perfectly.

But yes a colleague of mine uses Dunlavys and they are quite spectacular, but with regards to the mids and highs accuracy and revealing nature, the Lipinskis do as well as the dunlavys, when I listen on his system I don't find anything unusual.... crappy harshness and piercing frequencies and resonances jump out on both of them.

Pleasing monitors = home cinema and your girlfriend's room maybe.

Brutally honest speakers = for serious engineering professionals who are not afraid to work hard to get great results.

[Louis_Diaz]

Originally Posted by radiocity

audio.2.1.a
Smart Audio II.1a is a good solution to your third question!
While not being clinical, it has lots of resolution, detail, accuracy etc... and a zero smeared mid range.... punchy dry bass... and highs that are a little bit too forward... excellent overall value!!!

The tweeter looks a bit like the Barefoot speakers , they do look good , but edgy corners , flat baffle surface, bass reflex ... I really doubt that it is some precision tool

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by Louis_Diaz

When you hear this type of description, please do not think, JUST RUN

These are the types of speakers that you REALLY DON'T WANT. Makes me think of the some famous french speaker manufacturer!! Speakers are good for music enjoyment and maybe for your surround home cinema speakers, BUT NOT FOR CRITICAL LISTENING AND TROUBLESHOOTING.

For your studio, if you are some very serious engineer and want to craft great mixes that don't end up piercing or scratchy, you want speakers that spank you in the face when things are wrong in the mix.

Not really true,

Quad electrostatics are good for both critical monitoring and for home listening. Many studios use B&W loudspeakers for the same reason.

A superb monitor can do both - as long as you like uncoloured music in the home.

[audio ergo sum]

Originally Posted by Doc No

"most clinical , zero forgiveness monitor speakers out there."


Neumann KH 120

don't think so. Something strange about the bass response. Probably heavily EQed, phase distortion...

Great small speaker, great value for the money, but "most clinical , zero forgiveness monitor speakers out there." definitely not. Far from it.

[audio ergo sum]

Originally Posted by Louis_Diaz

...
For your studio, if you are some very serious engineer and want to craft great mixes that don't end up piercing or scratchy, you want speakers that spank you in the face when things are wrong in the mix.

No. You want speakers that play what is there. period.

[Timesaver800W]

Originally Posted by Fred.Kevorkian

Yes we all know the room treatment, DAC, cabling, good ears , yada yada, are important, but WE ARE IN THE HI-END room here and we all know you got all of those elements sorted out, let's just share our "SPEAKER EXPERIENCE."

The yada yada bit is the most important bit man.

[AlexK]

Originally Posted by John Willett

Not really true,

Quad electrostatics are good for both critical monitoring and for home listening. Many studios use B&W loudspeakers for the same reason.

A superb monitor can do both - as long as you like uncoloured music in the home.

+1. I listen and monitor on ATCs - wonderfully musical and involving when the source material is for home listening, but incredibly honest and brutal when the source material not good.

In my experience, speakers which do anything other than than represent the recording in the most honest and truthful actually end up doing a disservice to the very best recordings and music.

Originally Posted by audio ergo sum

No. You want speakers that play what is there. period.

There is no such thing - there is always a compromise. Every manufacturer has different compromises and different family sounds as a result. Lipinski, Dunlavy, ATC, Gethain etc are all equally the best solutions out there IMO, they just choose to make different compromises during their design processes.

One thing they all share in common is no-compromise on the manufacturing/engineering front.

For real, unforgiving, 'not-going-to-dress-it-up' speakers, my best experiences are with those brands above, although I've only heard Dunlavys very briefly. B&O BeoLab 5 is a superb example too, although difficult to integrate into a studio in some ways because of it's super-wide dispersion. Some of the top B&W 800 series are stunning too although I'm not such a fan personally. They are very good though.

On a budget, there are always compromises - I like the Adam AXs if you've got very little money to spend, and the Neumanns if you've got a little more, but they're still both quite coloured in some respects.

ATC make a compact monitor called the SCM7 which is superb - as is the SCM10 and SCM12 (have used all three and been very impressed). SCM7s can be picked up for ~£300 second hand, combined with a decent used or DIY amp (~£300 for a basic 180w/ch Hypex build) will give you absolutely staggeringly good monitoring for £600. Whoops, did I just let a secret out there?

Monitors to avoid? To be honest, I don't tend to trust most companies who can't make a consistent sounding range of speakers. Mackie, Genelec, Yamaha, KRK (what's going on there?!).

Tannoy and Dynaudio both seem to have a degree of consistency from what I've heard, but unfortunately I think it's disastrously wrong and misleading. Can't stand them!

I'm on the fence with regards to Focal. I know the Twins and the CMS range - there's resolution and transparency, but in a sort of 'nice' way - I've done mixes on Twins, listened to it on my ATCs and wondered what on earth I was thinking! I'm sure they work for some people though.

Just my 2c.

[audio ergo sum]

Originally Posted by AlexK

...

There is no such thing - there is always a compromise. ...

Of course, that's a given, that the ideal is never achieved 100% in reality. My comment was on what one WANTS, not what one can possibly get.

[GYang]

Latest PMC might be easily what you need.

[Plush]

I purchased a big azz PMC system this summer. Waited 30 years to have this stunning sound.

Everything I want in a monitor.

Have to open your purse for them though.

[cinealta]

Originally Posted by Plush

I purchased a big azz PMC system this summer.

MB2S?

[Timesaver800W]

Originally Posted by John Willett

All Geithain's sound basically the same from the small 906 all the way up to the large 901 - the larger units just having a greater bass extension.

What would you say about the MO-2's? I've heard these a long time ago, I thought they sounded good, but maybe a little bit different than the rest of the Geithain line up?

[kosmokrator]

I'd also suggest any PMC from the IB2 on upwards (IB2, MB2, BB5)

They are wonderful. Super-accurate too. Expensive, yes.

I'd happily trade my B&W802D for a mint pair of IB2s. And they are very nice in their own regard.

[cinealta]

Originally Posted by kosmokrator

I'd also suggest any PMC from the IB2 on upwards (IB2, MB2, BB5)....

So you wouldn't recommend the TB2S or DB1S varietals?

[Plush]

Originally Posted by cinealta

MB2S?

IB1-S baby. With Bryston amplifier

Phenomenal

[kosmokrator]

Originally Posted by cinealta

So you wouldn't recommend the TB2S or DB1S varietals?

I don't know them, so I can't say anything about them, can I?
The OP question was for the highest resolution monitor. That would be the MB2-XBD from my personal experience.

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by Plush

IB1-S baby. With Bryston amplifier

Phenomenal

whoahahhhooooooo!! NICE!!! Lovely combo (which bryston?)

[Arksun]

Originally Posted by cinealta

So you wouldn't recommend the TB2S or DB1S varietals?

I wouldn't recommend the DB1S, too laid back sound with compression issues at higher volumes.

[René Klebs]

Nobody mentioned the Klein & Hummel O300 yet??!!! Too clinical and neutral are the commen statements about this great pair of speakers! I like them very lot.

[René Klebs]

Originally Posted by Ian_Dowling

They are not what you described, when you try better speakers you understand that they have some issues and have this very SOFT mid sound.

Ok I must admit that I never tried "more expensive" speakers in direct comparison to the O300. But I can say I never read or heard any complaints about a soft mid sound out of the O300. Some may complain the limited output but this was never an issue to me.