Why Is Nearfield Monitoring Not Recommended for Mastering?

[lucey]

Originally Posted by Harvey Gerst

I don't think most people hafta learn how a Duntech translates.

I'd say there is a learning curve for every speaker that is not the best one for you. The one that fits like a glove is pretty much known right off or gets known very easily.

I had to think on IV or Vs (or large PMCs, ATCs, K+H, ADAM, Genelec, B+Ws, etc, etc.) But not the speakers I use now.

[Harvey Gerst]

Originally Posted by lucey

I'd say there is a learning curve for every speaker that is not the best one for you. The one that fits like a glove is pretty much known right off.

I had to think on IV or Vs. But not the speakers I use now.

And those you use ain't exactly cheap, are they?

[lucey]

Originally Posted by Harvey Gerst

And those you use ain't exactly cheap, are they?

$5000, not cheap, but not as much as many.

[benlilly]

Mastering is the last chance to correct any problems and give a mix it's final sweetening so has quite a level of responsibility attached to it.

In order to make this job easy and minimise the chance of mistakes then we feel the loudspeakers should have:
1. High dynamic range (110dB minimum) with low power compression (large voice coil diameters)
2. Very low colouration
3. Extended low frequency repsonse. Typically -6dB in the 30Hz region or better.

The above specifications simply can't be met by nearfield loudspeakers. 3 or 4-way systems (preferably active) using 12" or larger bass drivers are required.

They are listened to at a distance because:
1. Some mains are not phase coherent in the near field due to driver spacings/multiple mid/hf drivers (our mains are phase coherent at 3 feet/1m)
2. The greater listening distance and larger stereo field makes placement of sounds withing the stereo field easier
3. The large listeing rooms required for an accurate low frequency response suit listening at a distance - if you have a 30' x 18' room why squeeze yourself and speakers into one end?
4. A huge pairs of mains 4 feet away wouldn't feel very nice - would be slightly overbearing


Ben

[lucey]

I'm with you in general yet there are a few subjective design preferences presented as facts there Ben. I won't go line by line as I agree with you in principle, but salt is in hand as to the details.

[Audiop]

Ok, so I do the line by line thing! :-)

Originally Posted by benlilly

In order to make this job easy and minimise the chance of mistakes then we feel the loudspeakers should have:
1. High dynamic range (110dB minimum) with low power compression (large voice coil diameters)
2. Very low colouration
3. Extended low frequency repsonse. Typically -6dB in the 30Hz region or better.

The above specifications simply can't be met by nearfield loudspeakers. 3 or 4-way systems (preferably active) using 12" or larger bass drivers are required.

A large voice coil is just one small piece of a puzzle. A smaller coil can be better from a thermal compression POW if the coil is long, if it's surrounded by lots of metal and if the design is very sensitive.

I agree with min 110dB SPL, low coloration and decent extension but you don't need 12"'ers or four ways for that. Sure it depends on what range we are talking about but one speaker that would make you surprised and reconsider your beliefs is the Guru QM60.

Also several smaller woofers are typically better than one big. Four 8" or 10" is something I'd chose over two 12" anyday. The benefits are increased system sensitivity, lowered thermal compression from more voice coils, better interaction with the room since the woofers can be spread out which means less pronounced room resonances.

They are listened to at a distance because:
1. Some mains are not phase coherent in the near field due to driver spacings/multiple mid/hf drivers (our mains are phase coherent at 3 feet/1m)

I don't know your definition of phase coherent (seems to be as many as people in biz) but sure, a speaker should be listened at from the intended distance for the reason of integration of the drivers output. Even so, few speakers are without relatively serious mid-band phase distortion. The QM60 mentioned has a perfect pulse reproduction as have Dunlavy's and some Quad ESL's I believe.


/Peter

[Mastering Palace]

Dave Kutch here,

I thought I would shed some light on the debate I've read in this thread.

This will not be a Focal ad. Speakers are very relative to ones tastes and ears. There are a few really good near field speakers out there. Focal's are just the ones that work for me. I love the people at the company, the support they offer and their product.

1. I did master Alicia's "As I Am" LP in her live room, as well as her new LP "The Element of Freedom". It was NOT done in one of her Control Rooms as they would not fit all of my gear and were a little too shallow for my needs.
FYI - It was Alicia's and Ann Mincielli's idea for me to set up my mastering room at her studio.

2. The live room was NOT under construction while I was working there. It was completely done and is an excellent sounding room done by John Storyk. Though sometimes drums would be set up behind as they cut final tracks for some songs.

3. I did not hire anyone to adjust the acoustics nor do speaker placement.
I set up the room myself and used 2 very large Gobos to reduce the reflections of my near fields off of the side walls. You can see one of the gobos in the ad behind me. It has a tapestry over it.

4. The ad is 100% honest. I mastered "As I Am" and the new LP on Focal solo 6's. I did have my large speakers with me in the room but large speakers in a large live non-symetrical room are not fun to work on.

However due to the freedoms we had being at her private studio I had the added ability to double check my work in both of her control rooms and a selection of cars to listen in, in the driveway. The studio is meticulously maintained so everything works and sounds excellent.

5. I've considered myself very lucky to have had the opportunity to work so closely with such a distinguished artist while doing something completely out of the ordinary.
It's been one of those out of the box record making experiences you dreamed about being a part of when you first started out as an intern.

I hope this clarifies what went on out there.

Best,

Dave Kutch

[feck]

Originally Posted by Mastering Palace

Dave Kutch here,

I thought I would shed some light on the debate I've read in this thread.

This will not be a Focal ad. Speakers are very relative to ones tastes and ears. There are a few really good near field speakers out there. Focal's are just the ones that work for me. I love the people at the company, the support they offer and their product.

1. I did master Alicia's "As I Am" LP in her live room, as well as her new LP "The Element of Freedom". It was NOT done in one of her Control Rooms as they would not fit all of my gear and were a little too shallow for my needs.
FYI - It was Alicia's and Ann Mincielli's idea for me to set up my mastering room at her studio.

2. The live room was NOT under construction while I was working there. It was completely done and is an excellent sounding room done by John Storyk. Though sometimes drums would be set up behind as they cut final tracks for some songs.

3. I did not hire anyone to adjust the acoustics nor do speaker placement.
I set up the room myself and used 2 very large Gobos to reduce the reflections of my near fields off of the side walls. You can see one of the gobos in the ad behind me. It has a tapestry over it.

4. The ad is 100% honest. I mastered "As I Am" and the new LP on Focal solo 6's. I did have my large speakers with me in the room but large speakers in a large live non-symetrical room are not fun to work on.

However due to the freedoms we had being at her private studio I had the added ability to double check my work in both of her control rooms and a selection of cars to listen in, in the driveway. The studio is meticulously maintained so everything works and sounds excellent.

5. I've considered myself very lucky to have had the opportunity to work so closely with such a distinguished artist while doing something completely out of the ordinary.
It's been one of those out of the box record making experiences you dreamed about being a part of when you first started out as an intern.

I hope this clarifies what went on out there.

Best,

Dave Kutch

Hey Dave. Thanks for chiming in here. You mastered some tracks for Nadia Ali that I produced/mixed. Great work!

[Franco]

Thanks for clarifying and giving more details on mastering the album, it sounds great. I'm glad to know that about stories like this where it's possible to master good sounding albums in a less than "traditional" mastering studio. Now if you would have said that you also used a great pair of headphones to help you while mastering it, you would have made my year!

[Mastering Palace]

Originally Posted by feck

Hey Dave. Thanks for chiming in here. You mastered some tracks for Nadia Ali that I produced/mixed. Great work!

Thank You!
That's a good sounding album, you made my job easier.
I love Nadia, she's really good people and so easy to work with.

D

[Mastering Palace]

Originally Posted by Franco

Thanks for clarifying and giving more details on mastering the album, it sounds great. I'm glad to know that about stories like this where it's possible to master good sounding albums in a less than "traditional" mastering studio. Now if you would have said that you also used a great pair of headphones to help you while mastering it, you would have made my year!

I personally can't EQ on a pair of headphones. They tend to make everything sound good.
I did however use a pair of Sennheiser 600 HD's to listen to the entire lp when we getting close to the end of the project just to hear it on something different. I was mostly checking to make sure there were not any drastic differences in bass, volume and energy from song to song.
No particular reason why I used the Sennheiser's. They were recommended to me and the sounded good.

D

[wado1942]

This reminds me of when I was shopping for some HiFi speakers. I wound up building my own surround sound system (even made my own Dolby Surround decoder). Getting back to speakers, I unfortunately needed to get smaller speakers for the surround than for the mains because they'd have to be mounted on the wall. The wife didn't like the idea of speaker stands in the middle of the floor, go figure. She made me take the acoustic foam off the ceiling too so it's already a comprimised system. So I wound up with two pairs of full range speakers from the same manufacturer. Both sets of speakers had almost the same frequency response (the smaller ones were like 1dB lower at 50Hz) and they were both about the same price, used the same tweeters & very similar woofers. The smaller ones sounded EXCELLENT for their size but the larger speakers for the front channels... WOW what a difference!

The size of the cabinet greatly influences efficiency, linearity, distortion, even impedence of the speakers, even in cases of using identical drivers. Larger cabinets have more room for air to move in them and naturally sound less restricted. There's tricks to help improve the sound of small cabinets, but there's a reason even mediocre mid-fields often sound better than near-fields. That said, I firmly believe that near-fields have a place in both the mix and mastering studios. They just shouldn't be the main reference.

[duvalle]

Originally Posted by Mastering Palace

I hope this clarifies what went on out there.

Best,
Dave Kutch

thx for sharing!

[jeff_free69]

Anyone contemplating this should keep in mind the intended recommended postioning setup of a speaker. Hi end mastering / audiophile speakers are usually designed to be positioned in free space ( ie on stands (if thery're not towers) and at least 2-3 feet from any wall. The crossover should be voiced for this, and would be significantly different than if it were designed for a desk / bookshelf application.

In free space there is less reinforcement below a certain frequency, based on factors like the width of the cabinet. So for instance, a tweeter will require less output to remain balanced with the mids etc (this is known as baffle step compensation).

The point is just that if a speaker was designed for a desk / bookshelf positioning, it would probably be a mistake to throw them onto a stand and call it a good mastering setup. ( ie they could become thin / bright)

if you do leave them on the desk, take a look down and think about what kind of reflection you are getting off a metal mixer or whatever might be there. Whatever it is, it can't be helping you're EQ decisions.

[aleatoric]

Originally Posted by duvalle

thx for sharing!

+2!

I hope you stick around the forums Dave!

[Riccardo]

Originally Posted by Mastering Palace

Dave Kutch here,

Welcome to GS!

[benlilly]

Originally Posted by Audiop

Ok, so I do the line by line thing! :-)
A large voice coil is just one small piece of a puzzle. A smaller coil can be better from a thermal compression POW if the coil is long, if it's surrounded by lots of metal and if the design is very sensitive.

I agree with min 110dB SPL, low coloration and decent extension but you don't need 12"'ers or four ways for that. Sure it depends on what range we are talking about but one speaker that would make you surprised and reconsider your beliefs is the Guru QM60.

Also several smaller woofers are typically better than one big. Four 8" or 10" is something I'd chose over two 12" anyday. The benefits are increased system sensitivity, lowered thermal compression from more voice coils, better interaction with the room since the woofers can be spread out which means less pronounced room resonances.

I don't know your definition of phase coherent (seems to be as many as people in biz) but sure, a speaker should be listened at from the intended distance for the reason of integration of the drivers output. Even so, few speakers are without relatively serious mid-band phase distortion. The QM60 mentioned has a perfect pulse reproduction as have Dunlavy's and some Quad ESL's I believe.
/Peter

The rate of heating/cooling of the voice coil is down to the surface area. Yes a long coil has greater surface area but, it will have less steel surrounding it. It will also not be as linear as a short coil in a long gap (force and inductance vs displacement).
I agree that high sensitivity is a good thing but, in a small system it can only be achieved at the expense of bass extension and added colouration that a light weight cone assembly will result in. The area under the frequency response of a loudspeaker can't really be changed for a given diameter driver. If you push the effeciency up in the pass band, the bass extension HAS to be compromised.
Multiple bass drivers will increase power handling. They will give a more even room excitation if they are well spaced but if they are not crossed over to the next frequency band at a point low enough to considder them as a single source, how do you get good phase coherence?
By using an active deisign you can adjust relative phase at the crossover points to achieve a true minimum phase response. This is very important in three-way designs as the difference in phase between the bass driver and the mid driver is pretty poor. In a passive system, there is no way to vary the phase independent of the frequency response of the filter. You have to get lucky or, physically locate the drivers on a different plane which, can create problems with diffraction.

[benlilly]

Originally Posted by SafeandSound

Here here.... that is why I have never understood the gear in front of speakers arrangement, are you making it look good or sound accurate? I have cleared my monitors to monitoring position so the is no obstruction, I could not have it anyway even with the slight
inconvenience of having to turn my head to be fully in sweet spot.

A good move. The majority of mid range frequency anomalies I have measured in control rooms and mastering rooms have been down to early reflections off the console or desk.

[rufus13]

Originally Posted by Franco

<snip>

Most people don't even have the tweeters on their nearfields at ear level, or pointed down towards them if the console is a little on the tall side; much less having them 2-3 times farther away from the back wall than their ears.

Or keeping the drivers in a vertical alignment (NS-10's laying over means that they are ill, or a photographer decided that he can see the studio through the glass better with them over for the cover of MIX).
Or getting little speakers off of the meterbridge (desk reflection sucks).
etc.

I know that there are deaf composers, blind photographers, numb sex workers, elephants that paint, monkeys with typewriters, etc, but isn't it great to give yourself every unfair advantage to make a good result quickly, especially when it's at no additional cost?

Cheers.