Mastering Monitor Dilemma

[mosrite]

I really appreciate any advice any of you mastering gurus can offer as I feel a bit out of my element with some of this.

I recently purchased a pair of PMC DB1S (actives) that I am very happy with. I previously was working with a pair of old ATC SCM10’s. I personally prefer the DB1’s (even though they are basically cheaper speakers) and don’t think I am losing anything in terms of detail etc (at least against the ATC 10’s).

I have also recently wanted to setup a room for mastering. This is something I wish to do so that I can master my own material and, over time, so I can get proficient enough to offer a service to others. I’m sure that you all agree that I therefore need a decent monitoring setup (given that the room and all other ingredients are up to scratch).

My questions are as follows;

1.Is it feasible to use speakers of the PMC DB1sa standard in conjunction with a quality sub or two to successfully master material? Will they realistically give me enough scope into what’s going on sonically?

2.Am I right in assuming that there are a number of advantages to using a satellite/sub setup over a stereo pair of larger speakers? Namely that imaging is more precise and the use of a sub essentially creates the equivalent of a 3-way speaker anyway? (tweeter, mid and bass drivers).

3.Is there any issue in using smaller satellites like the DB1’s in a non-nearfield setup (i.e. 9ft)?

4.Is there a big advantage in using PMCs matching sub or am I right in assuming that any quality sub should have a flat enough response to be able to integrate with the DB1’s?

5.The reason I am considering not getting PMC’s matching sub is that it is just too damn expensive (around £1200 in the UK). My thinking is that for the same price I could buy 2 decent subs for a stereo sub setup (i.e. 2x Genelec 7050a or Dynaudio BM9). Has anyone had any experience with any of these subs and does anyone think that my view is flawed?

6.Will the feed-through facility of a sub negatively affect the signal going to the sats +or, with a quality unit, will it be neutral enough for that to be an irrelevant worry?

So I guess what I am trying to get at with these questions is whether or not I should just sell or trade the DB1s and start again from scratch or if they are good / appropriate enough to build on with a sub or two in order to be used in a mastering scenario?

Thanks a lot guys, really appreciate any input you can give

[mosrite]

Come on guys. This is my first post on the mastering forum, help us out a little please. Who knows I might be able to help you at some point in the Remote section? I know it's a long post but I think there are some valid technical questions in it.

There was something else too; in one of Bob Katz posts he talks about being reluctant to use the high pass of a sub to feed his satellites. The PMC sub doesn't have this feed-through facility and instead you must send a split signal to both sub and satellites. Is there an advantage in doing this? Does this method eliminate the risk of a latency between sub and satellite?

[DSD_Mastering]

Hi,

1. Yes, it IS feasable to use just about any speakers that you are comfortable with and know their traits. You don't have to stick to so called "Mastering Quality" speakers that someone endorses. I know several major ME's that use the Monitor/Sub configuration.

2. There are several advantages and disadvantages using the Monitor/Sub setup. Generally a sub can go lower than a properly set-up full range system. Once you get up into the speakers >$10k, the reverse is true.
The hardest part of the Monitor/Sub configuration is being able to set up the sub to cohesively blend into the Monitor system without any artifacts, dips or whatever. Generally you can do this with speakers from the same manufacturer.

3. Only your ears can tell....

4. See above... yes, it is generally considered easier to integrate speakers from the same manufacturer since they are supposedly voiced the same

5. Generally you can get better results using 2 or 4 subs in the room.

6. You can use the feed through facility, or hooking both up directly and using the subs low-pass filter.

7. All this being said, your ROOM will play a bigger part in speaker set-up and selection. I'd pay more attention to your room acoustics first, then play around with speaker selection, set-up and placement. You'll be way ahead of the curve.

Regards,
Bruce

[Cellotron]

Originally Posted by mosrite

1.Is it feasible to use speakers of the PMC DB1sa standard in conjunction with a quality sub or two to successfully master material? Will they realistically give me enough scope into what’s going on sonically?

I'm not familiar with these PMC's but pretty much anything can be "feasible" if the frequency response is full range, accurate, detailed, non-fatiguing over long sessions, and you are intimately familiar with how a wide range of material sounds on them.

Having said that - I've yet to hear any active system out there sound as good for mastering purposes as great passive monitors with higher end power amps - and I've yet to hear any smaller satellite type near or mid field monitors sound as good for mastering purpoises as larger floor standing monitors. As always YMMV.

2.Am I right in assuming that there are a number of advantages to using a satellite/sub setup over a stereo pair of larger speakers?

The only advantage is if you are in a small room they might integrate better with it. Personally I would never choose to use a satellite/sub setup over what I use now (B&W N802's).

Namely that imaging is more precise

The best imaging I've ever heard was on systems using larger floor standing monitors in decent sized rooms.

and the use of a sub essentially creates the equivalent of a 3-way speaker anyway? (tweeter, mid and bass drivers).

Not necessarilly - really it depends on how well the driver sizes and crossovers and enclosures and amp integrate together as to whether they even come close to being an "equivalent."

Personally I've always noticed bumps and holes in low end responses in pretty much every sub/satellite system I've heard - although in good ones these holes and bumps will be minimized.

3.Is there any issue in using smaller satellites like the DB1’s in a non-nearfield setup (i.e. 9ft)?

Sometime near field monitors responses and images are weaker when listened in to at these distances. You'll have to determine whether this is a factor with your particular monitors in your particular room for yourself.

4.Is there a big advantage in using PMCs matching sub or am I right in assuming that any quality sub should have a flat enough response to be able to integrate with the DB1’s?

In general subs designed to to integrate with a specific set of satellites will exhibit less holes and bumps in the low end response.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[mosrite]

Thanks guys that's all great stuff.

What I get from this is that the PMCs will probably be fine for now although I realise a sub will be essential (as the DB1s only extend to around 50hz).

Therefore as I will have to go for a sub/sat setup I would like a bit more info on the pros and cons of the 'feed through via the sub' versus the 'split signal to sub and sats'. Anyone offer any detailed advice on that particular point?

I know that Bob Katz uses different makes of sat and sub, is there any trick in reducing the sonic differences between manufacturers in that scenario? Also, while the PMC sub is designed to match the sats it does use different amplification so surely it's sonic character must be different anyway?

[jayfrigo]

Originally Posted by mosrite

I know that Bob Katz uses different makes of sat and sub, is there any trick in reducing the sonic differences between manufacturers in that scenario? Also, while the PMC sub is designed to match the sats it does use different amplification so surely it's sonic character must be different anyway?

I use a REL sub with Quested monitors. It integrates very well with a variety of speakers, and is extremely musical and seamless in my setup. Velodyne is another manufacturer that makes a good sub, and one that is often used with a variety of speaker brands. Some subs tend to be good at integrating, other aren't; and some some match well with certain speakers, and not with others. Unfortunately, there may need to be some trial and error when looking for an alternate sub. I wouldn't worry too much about a different amplification character when it comes to sub bass. Using amplification different from the satellites will not be the determining facor in whether you get successful integration.

[tsvisser]

REL subs are some of the best out there. most subwoofer manufacturers cater to cinema applications, which have a different set of criteria than subs that are expected to play back music material accurately. the REL integrates well with a mini monitor, so much so that you can get the same balance that one would find on a purposefully engineered full range speaker.

[mosrite]

I use a REL sub with Quested monitors. It integrates very well with a variety of speakers, and is extremely musical and seamless in my setup. Velodyne is another manufacturer that makes a good sub, and one that is often used with a variety of speaker brands. Some subs tend to be good at integrating, other aren't; and some some match well with certain speakers, and not with others. Unfortunately, there may need to be some trial and error when looking for an alternate sub. I wouldn't worry too much about a different amplification character when it comes to sub bass. Using amplification different from the satellites will not be the determining facor in whether you get successful integration.

Hi Jay, I found your advice during my ATC and PMC dilemma very useful. Thanks for that and this too.

REL subs are some of the best out there. most subwoofer manufacturers cater to cinema applications, which have a different set of criteria than subs that are expected to play back music material accurately. the REL integrates well with a mini monitor, so much so that you can get the same balance that one would find on a purposefully engineered full range speaker.

That is indeed a glowing endorsement.

The REL does look like an interesting option but am I right in assuming that they are passive designs only? Also, and I could be wrong about this, but they look VERY expensive. My max budget really would be about 1200 GBP (approx $2500).

The PMC sub comes in at that price point and is powered by Bryston and looks pretty tasty. The only thing that puts me off is the fact that I could only afford to run one of them initially and that I would somehow need to split the signal from my attenuator to feed both the sats and sub.

Does anyone have any opinions about the mentioned Dynaudio or Genelec subs? In your opinion would 2 of these be preferable than the single PMC?

Thanks guys.

[ImJohn]

Hi,

Did you notice Squeegybug's posts in the PMC threads? He uses passive PMC TB2+ monitors with HSU STF-1 subwoofers. They are REALLY inexpensive ($249!). http://www.hsuresearch.com/

I recently got a pair of PMC DB1+ and I'm really loving them. At first I wasn't going to worry about the lack of low end because I have Dynaudio BM15A's also but . . . . I'm thinking I need to filter out the really low frequencies that the DB1+ recieve. I was listening to a favorite CD (Montreal symphony doing Holtz The Planets) and there was this beautiful low sustained bass with some flutes or something and the bass was modulating the flutes! (that's not supposed to happen )

I've been interested in the passive PMC subwoofer but, like you, I'm choking in the price . . .$1800!

[mosrite]

Did you notice Squeegybug's posts in the PMC threads? He uses passive PMC TB2+ monitors with HSU STF-1 subwoofers. They are REALLY inexpensive ($249!). http://www.hsuresearch.com/

I would love for those subs to be comparable to the PMC or REL or others mentioned here but I am a little sceptical at that price point!

Unless anyone can persuade me otherwise I think I might be edging towards going for the single PMC sub instead of a stereo pair of cheaper ones. My thinking is that it will be a keeper and could be used even if I choose to change or upgrade my sats at a later date. Also, it should in theory integrate better with the PMC sats. Damn expensive though...

[mosrite]

John,

Slightly OT but Im interested to know how you feel your DB1s compare to your BM15a's sonically? Apart from the low end difference do you find more detail in the PMCs? I have only heard the BM6a's and compared to the DB1's felt they lacked a little detail or something.

[MattGray]

Be sure to check out the Velodyne DD series range of subs as well. They aren't cheap but after hearing one set up properly in my room there was no way it was going back to the shop. I got the DD12 & I may spring for a 2nd but I'm waiting to see if a new room pans out in which case I am re-assessing my entire monitoring. In my existing room with low ceilings, the nearfields with a sub combo works best. In a bigger room with higher ceilings I am looking into midfield or farfield options such as B&W 802D's, Dynaudio C1's, Duntech DSM-15 & also their bigger Sovereigns. I have to consider the possibility of doing some surround work too which is making the decision even more difficult.

Matt

[squeegybug]

Originally Posted by mosrite

I would love for those subs to be comparable to the PMC or REL or others mentioned here but I am a little sceptical at that price point!

Unless anyone can persuade me otherwise I think I might be edging towards going for the single PMC sub instead of a stereo pair of cheaper ones. My thinking is that it will be a keeper and could be used even if I choose to change or upgrade my sats at a later date. Also, it should in theory integrate better with the PMC sats. Damn expensive though...

I know I've ran this into the ground, so no big revelations. I think if you can afford the PMC subwoofers that would be an excellent choice, given the company's unique approach to bass handling in all their speakers. Perhaps buying one now and adding another later might be an option.

As for Hsu quality -- Hsu vs. REL vs. Velodyne is a long running discussion in the hi-fi world. I tend to trust my ears as well as some select expert subwoofer specialists who have measured and compared Hsu products for many years against most of the higher cost (and more marketed) competitors. Lots of those published measurements and subjective reviews are available through the company website. And they do offer a wide range of products with higher prices and performance, I just got the least expensive STF-1 because they worked fine for my needs.

I know I would rather have two of any sub, just for the more even response and easier (to me) mixing options over using a single. Despite common marketing statements that bass frequencies (below some magic point) are not directional, I find that is not always the case, at least in my rooms and systems.

So if using subs with a smaller speaker like the DB1, I'd expect the necessary higher bass crossover to be even more reason to need two subs.

I think one reason the cost of the PMC powered subwoofers is relatively high is because they are apparently still using the Bryston amps. Great products for sure, but I believe some reasonable substitutes are available at less cost. So -- can you consider getting passive PMC subs, and adding your own amplifiers?

Steve

[mosrite]

Despite common marketing statements that bass frequencies (below some magic point) are not directional, I find that is not always the case, at least in my rooms and systems.

I believe that the directionality in some subs comes from distortion that creates audible higher Hz. The best subs apparently do not exhibit this.

So if using subs with a smaller speaker like the DB1, I'd expect the necessary higher bass crossover to be even more reason to need two subs.

Sorry Steve but could you elaborate slightly on this one?

Cheers,

[squeegybug]

Just that the smaller DB1 probably starts to fall off around 50-60 Hz? (I haven't measured them). So the sub has to pick up a little more upper bass to avoid a "hole" in the transition.

Not that it is really a problem for the Hsu or PMC speakers, or the PMC sub, I would expect they can all match pretty well that high. But bass into the 50-60 Hz region becomes a little easier to locate IMO, so a stereo pair is likely to keep the image better. At least that is pretty much what I find even when running a single sub at 45 Hz or so.

re the distortion causing harmonics -- I don't have data on that, just that the 24 dB/octave crossover seems to filter anything like pretty well in the STF-1, if it is occurring I can't hear it.

Steve

[mosrite]

I use a REL sub with Quested monitors. It integrates very well with a variety of speakers, and is extremely musical and seamless in my setup.

Jay, could you tell me what REL sub that you use? Does it have a 'feed through' facility? Also, would any REL sub be of a good enough quality to use?

[Brad Blackwood]

I use a pair of Velodyne DD12 subs here (with B&W N802s) and am very happy with them. Granted, they are crossed over at 36Hz so they only have to reproduce about one octave, but they integrate seamlessly with the N802s and the overall system response is incredible.

[max cooper]

Originally Posted by mosrite

The REL does look like an interesting option but am I right in assuming that they are passive designs only? Also, and I could be wrong about this, but they look VERY expensive. My max budget really would be about 1200 GBP (approx $2500).

I'm almost certain you can get into REL for that. I would definitely check them out.

[jayfrigo]

Originally Posted by mosrite

Jay, could you tell me what REL sub that you use? Does it have a 'feed through' facility? Also, would any REL sub be of a good enough quality to use?

Get the "S" series for music: Storm, Stadium, Stentor etc. A pair of Storms serves very well, even though they aren't huge. I also filter very low, just to support the lowest frequencies that my mid-sized monitors aren't able to produce. Notice I say filter, and not cross. There are a few subs that choose to filter the sub output, but not actually cross what is going to the full range speakers. This makes sense especially when you are using essentially a full range speaker, and just want to support the very bottom. I won't get into all the pros vs. cons (a thread unto itself), but in some situations (like mine) it provides excellent integration and very clean bass. It appeals to the minimalist in me since I don't want my speakers going through additional filtering, especially cheap crossovers built into a sub. I actually source the sub sugnal from the output of the amp - not that it takes any power form there, but it sees the exact same signal being fed to the full range speakers. You can't just do this with any sub; it must have the high power input. REL also can b e fed by line level or consumer level input as well, if you don't want to feed it in this way, or wish to use a traditional crossover. More info on this approach can be found at their site.

[tsvisser]

Originally Posted by jayfrigo

Get the "S" series for music: Storm, Stadium, Stentor etc. A pair of Storms serves very well, even though they aren't huge. I also filter very low, just to support the lowest frequencies that my mid-sized monitors aren't able to produce. Notice I say filter, and not cross. There are a few subs that choose to filter the sub output, but not actually cross what is going to the full range speakers. This makes sense especially when you are using essentially a full range speaker, and just want to support the very bottom. I won't get into all the pros vs. cons (a thread unto itself), but in some situations (like mine) it provides excellent integration and very clean bass. It appeals to the minimalist in me since I don't want my speakers going through additional filtering, especially cheap crossovers built into a sub. I actually source the sub sugnal from the output of the amp - not that it takes any power form there, but it sees the exact same signal being fed to the full range speakers. You can't just do this with any sub; it must have the high power input. REL also can b e fed by line level or consumer level input as well, if you don't want to feed it in this way, or wish to use a traditional crossover. More info on this approach can be found at their site.

we apparently have the same opion here... the Storm III (i think they have new models now) was my favorite setup as a pair. the sub individually did not have the authority of the larger stentor and studio models, but the flexibility in placement with 2 subs to eliminate nodes and ability to "lock in" with ther respective monitors was amazing. bass is omnidirectional, but i think that there must be something that we can not specifically hear with our ears that benefits stereo sub setups when listening to the final result.

[mosrite]

Get the "S" series for music: Storm, Stadium, Stentor etc. A pair of Storms serves very well, even though they aren't huge. I also filter very low, just to support the lowest frequencies that my mid-sized monitors aren't able to produce. Notice I say filter, and not cross. There are a few subs that choose to filter the sub output, but not actually cross what is going to the full range speakers. This makes sense especially when you are using essentially a full range speaker, and just want to support the very bottom. I won't get into all the pros vs. cons (a thread unto itself), but in some situations (like mine) it provides excellent integration and very clean bass. It appeals to the minimalist in me since I don't want my speakers going through additional filtering, especially cheap crossovers built into a sub. I actually source the sub sugnal from the output of the amp - not that it takes any power form there, but it sees the exact same signal being fed to the full range speakers. You can't just do this with any sub; it must have the high power input. REL also can b e fed by line level or consumer level input as well, if you don't want to feed it in this way, or wish to use a traditional crossover. More info on this approach can be found at their site.

That is a huge help thankyou Jay (and the other contributors).

I have been looking at the REL subs and reckon that they are in fact in my price range. In fact there are a few 2nd hand options here too.

I have found a Q200e on ebay that I might bid on. I presume this is more a home cinema sub though? In your opinion would this be a mistake or, being REL, will it still exhibit important factors like flat response and low distortion?

I found a Storm too but it is a passive design and I might stick to active for convenience (my monitors are also Active). Having said that if the Storm with an amp would be a more appropriate purchase then I might be swung the passive sub route...

What you are saying regards not using the subs crossovers makes sense as I suppose passing through anything like that will degrade the signal somewhat. So if I wanted to go the route you refer to would I simply split the singal going from my attenuator to both sub and sats at the same time and just use the Subs cut off Hz to tweak until it seems to integrate with the sats okay? (BTW, the sats are good down to about 50hz).

I presume that if the Sub is active then the high power input that you refer to is irrelevent anyway.

Really appreciate all the help here, the sub world is a new and strange world to me!

[jayfrigo]

[QUOTE=mosrite;1197507]
I have found a Q200e on ebay that I might bid on. I presume this is more a home cinema sub though? In your opinion would this be a mistake or, being REL, will it still exhibit important factors like flat response and low distortion?[quote]

The Q is still a good sub, but it is indeed a home theater/multi-duty sub. The S series is the real deal for music.

I found a Storm too but it is a passive design and I might stick to active for convenience (my monitors are also Active). Having said that if the Storm with an amp would be a more appropriate purchase then I might be swung the passive sub route...

I've never seen a passive REL. There are two versions now, one with microprocessor control, and one without. Still, they both are active, i.e. have amplification.

What you are saying regards not using the subs crossovers makes sense as I suppose passing through anything like that will degrade the signal somewhat. So if I wanted to go the route you refer to would I simply split the singal going from my attenuator to both sub and sats at the same time and just use the Subs cut off Hz to tweak until it seems to integrate with the sats okay? (BTW, the sats are good down to about 50hz).

I presume that if the Sub is active then the high power input that you refer to is irrelevent anyway.

To be clear, the high power input does not draw any power for the sub from the main speakers amp(s); only the audio signal. The sub itself still has internal amplification. If you were to do the traditional crossover method, the high power input is not needed, but if you choose to do the filter method that REL suggests as preferable in most cases, then you use the high power input. It comes with the proper cable with a speakon connector.

Download some docs or manuals from the REL site. They will give you some ideas.

[mosrite]

Jay,

Apologies for being a bit dim on this but I am having some confusion about the integration methods.

If we stick to 'active' sats and subs for now (and ignore bass management and amps) then it might help my understanding.

So, sending a stereo signal from the DAW to the sub that subsequently filters and sends on a signal above a certain Hz (i.e. 60) to the sats makes sense to me.

But what you are saying (and what also makes sense) is the idea that the sub might degrade the signal in that instance.

So what is the alternative exactly? Are you splitting the signal and sending to both sats and subs at the same time (and then just setting the cutoff Hz on the sub)? If so, is it this approach that requires the 'hi power' input that you mention on the REL's?.

There are a few subs that choose to filter the sub output, but not actually cross what is going to the full range speakers.

But this suggests to me that you are taking a filtered signal from the sub to send onto the sats, is that the filtered method that you refer to?

What I find confusing about that is that I cannot actually see an output on the REL subs that I have seen, just inputs...

Unfortunately I cannot find much info on the REL site. Technical downloads would have been good!

[mosrite]

This is from the REL site;

For hi-fi use, the signal for the REL is taken at high level via the main speaker terminals on the main amplifier.

This could be were the confusion has occurred. I presume that this is referring to a passive speaker system whereby a signal from the amp is sent to the REL. With an active system this is not possible right?

I feel I have dig myself into a hole of confusion with this

[mosrite]

Okay I think I figured it out!

I cant do what you are doing Jay because I am running an active set of sats. I can see the advantage in the high level input though as you are getting the sound character that the sats would be getting as Its all coming from the same amp.

I suppose I would just send a split signal from my volume control to the normal line level RCA stereo inputs and adjust from there? I would hope that this would still be preferable to using a 'feed through' on some other sub?

[jayfrigo]

Originally Posted by mosrite

Okay I think I figured it out!

I cant do what you are doing Jay because I am running an active set of sats. I can see the advantage in the high level input though as you are getting the sound character that the sats would be getting as Its all coming from the same amp.

I suppose I would just send a split signal from my volume control to the normal line level RCA stereo inputs and adjust from there? I would hope that this would still be preferable to using a 'feed through' on some other sub?

Yup, I think you have the REL method figured out now. Again, they aren't the only sub to do it this way, but one of relatively few. Luckily you can also send a +4 balanced or -10 unbalanced signal to it if you don't want to or can't take a feed off the amp for the mains. In your case, you would have to split it off as you suggest if you want to stick with the filter/not cross method (unfiltered full range still going to the sats), or use an external crossover if you wanted to approach it the other way.

[mosrite]

Thanks again Jay.

There is one little thing that still puzzles me if using the filtered/not cross method (I started a seperate thread on this but realise it probably makes more sense to have it here);

The DB1's useable LF response is down to 50hz. I presume after 50hz they begin to fall off to nothing. They don't just stop dead. So how do you compensate for that sloping when trying to integrate a sub?

Cheers,

[tsvisser]

Originally Posted by mosrite

Thanks again Jay.

There is one little thing that still puzzles me if using the filtered/not cross method (I started a seperate thread on this but realise it probably makes more sense to have it here);

The DB1's useable LF response is down to 50hz. I presume after 50hz they begin to fall off to nothing. They don't just stop dead. So how do you compensate for that sloping when trying to integrate a sub?

Cheers,

you actually use this to your advantage... the SPL levels of bass output from your monitors will actually significantly drop off much higher than 50Hz. you figure out the realistic (flat) frequency response of the monitors... maybe 60Hz - maybe 65Hz, and then bring the sub's crossover to approach that point. bring it up too much and you will get reinforcement from the sub and monitors, creating a hump / peak... not enough and you have a dip / hole in the bass. i find that more often than not, setting up substandard speakers (which really are all speakers, since no speaker is close to being perfect), if you really do chase the goal of getting perfect flat frequency response, you are going to sacrifice something else. i prefer tight controlled bass and can't tolerate boom, and in the pursuit of that goal, i often find that i have to ease up on the bass crossover point a bit and do end up with a dip / hole somewhere in the 60Hz to 75Hz range. this is just my preference, to not live with loose bass. if you really want to get advanced, calculate the nodes of your room based upon dimensions and start testing to nodes and woofer placement to lock in the best sound. you'll find it is a puzzle that has (at least) 5 dimensions (x, y, crossover, gain, phase)... a very difficult puzzle to solve.

[jayfrigo]

Even with the best planning, in the end there will be some trial and error. Using a sound level meter, measurememt mic, and an analyser is a great help to get you close, but the final tweak will be with your ears.

[mosrite]

Thanks guys you have been a really big help.

I have found a Q200e on Ebay that I might bid on. A review I read suggested that they thought it favoured music over films as it doesn't have that overblown sound.

Although something in the St series might be better, if I get a good price on this then I think I should be happy.