The Orphan Child - Are Monitors not considered "Gear"?

[barefoot]

I recently became aware of this forum because I noticed a bunch of hits coming from this direction in my web stats (thanks again Rep). This is a great site ...and huge! I'm amazed that I hadn't come across it earlier!

Anyhow, as you can tell from signature, I'm clearly very interested in studio monitors. However, despite the tens of thousands of posts here, there are surprisingly few threads concerning monitors. I also notice that many studios will give long lists of their gear, but they don't even mention their monitoring systems.

So, do most people really not care about monitors?

I mean, is everyone just satisfied with the state of loudspeaker technology (which happens to be light years behind everything else, btw)? Can one really make and informed choice between, say an Apogee or a Crane Song ADC, using a typical set of monitors having 1%..... 5%.... 10% harmonic distortion?

Go ahead, I can take the truth. If the answer is "Yes, most people don't care", I won't be too disheartened.

Thomas

[Saucyjack]

Thomas,
I'll only speak for myself here.

I care and am looking at upgrading my current monitor situation(Mackie Hr824).
The problem I'm having is that the next step up seems to be in the $2500-7000 range.This is a big chunk o change for alot of us Home/Project studio crowd.I know it's good investment and great monitoring is critical,etc,etc,but it's hard to swing.Especially when you consider that you can get some great Mics,Pres,converters,whatever for that coin.
It would be a lot easy to pony up like 2 grand.I understand about quality and design and realize that business is for profit but nonetheless there is always more stuff to buy and it seems like Monitors just keep getting pushed to the back burner.

Another consideration is most of us don't necessarily have ideal Acoustic situations and again it takes cash to fix....so it seems at times like you are chasing your tail.

My 2 cents.

[Thermionic]

I think one of the reasons monitoring isn't discussed as much as other gear is that it's so individual to one's taste, and as such getting into monitoring debate is a bit like arguing over your favourite beer.

My personal belief is that you will get better results mixing on a wackie console in a good monitoring environment than a Neve in a poor control room. However well engineered a car is, it can only exact the performance it's designed to achieve if it has decent tyres, the same analogy can be said of a studio with regards to monitoring. I regularly visit studios where grillions have been spent on hardware, yet the listening environment is terrible - these kind of studios think nothing of spending say £5,000 on a modular synth, yet begrudge spending more than £500 on a set of monitors, and as for treating the room...

Monitoring debates are something I tend to steer clear of as they can get pretty heated and simply aren't worth the bother, but I would agree that certain producers have a rather strange attitude towards monitoring-a local studio use Dynaudio (not my personal faves btw) and power them off a Peavey amp, how screwed up is that? If I ever work there again I'll bring in my own amplification.

Furthermore, I can't comprehend the movement that "cannonises" the NS-10 as if it were the "strat" of monitors. So many tracks I hear mixed on NS10 have a totally hollow mid on account of their mid-emphasis (I have some revealing freq-plots of NS10s from Absolute Audio btw). I can only conclude that there is a learning curve with any monitor (I prefer the mid-size ATC for this reason as opposed to the larger 200s etc) and as such many people have become acustomed to NS10 due to popularity and their attitude is "better the devil you know". Yamaha really did give away many NS10 in the UK in the '80s, I think they've done a nice marketing job, one could even say an "industry standard" effort...

I still adore LS3/5A, 30yrs after their introduction, it's a shame Rogers didn't have the clout of Yamaha's promotion behind them...

IMHO "accurate" monitoring is one of the industry's best kept secrets, only the enlightened will venture beyond the obvious (well marketed) culprits...

Another thing: why do so many studios just place their nearfields on a shelf / bridge without any kind of isolation support such as spikes / elastymer pads etc? These accessories cost peanuts but make one hell of a difference, if you don't implement something the shelf will turn itself into one big extra "resonator", how come so few places appreciate this simple fact?

Please excuse the rant! Monday I guess.

[pounce]

monitors are discussed, but i make many other tweaks in the rest of my kit more often than i do with monitors. i've had the same monitors for a few years now and since i know them even better from all that use, they've become more valuable to me. they are dynaudio acoustics, and they have served me well. it'll probably be a while before i'm in the market for those again, i'm happy with what i have now that they are so familiar to me.

[barefoot]

Saucyjack,

Yeah, I hear you. Unfortunately, good monitors are very expensive. In fact, the prices clearly show you how difficult that little problem of accurately turning electrical waves into acoustic waves really is.

I see it from the opposite perspective, but with the same frustration. It's not like I want to sell expensive equipment. Even from a shear economic perspective, I could make a lot more money selling a hundred pairs of $1500 speakers than I can selling 1 pair of $7500 speakers. But, I also really care about what I'm doing and I want to build the best equipment possible. So, I scratch my head every day trying to figure out how to produce an affordable world-class monitor. There's just no easy answer.

Thermionic,

Yeah, this tendency of even big name studios to completely under budget their monitors is really what prompted this thread. I was reading through the Who is the biggest "gearslut" in the world? thread and eventually found my way to Jack Joseph Puig's Ocean Way Studio. You see this huge, gorgeous control room loaded with rack after rack beautiful gear. Then you see on the desk a pair of NS10s and what look to be crappy old stereo speakers. I don’t get it!

And I honestly don't believe anyone can hear the difference between model XYZ-943a preamp with the film-and-foil caps and model XYZ-943b preamp with the paper-in-oil caps using monitors like those.

Thomas

[Tim L]

Originally posted by Thermionic
I think one of the reasons monitoring isn't discussed as much as other gear is that it's so individual to one's taste, and as such getting into monitoring debate is a bit like arguing over your favourite beer.

... Well said... hiccup!

The topic is discussed quite a bit I think... but, like Thermionic said, just not as much as other bits. The threads are there you just gotta look for them.

[Yannick]

Another thing: why do so many studios just place their nearfields on a shelf / bridge without any kind of isolation support such as spikes / elastymer pads etc? These accessories cost peanuts but make one hell of a difference, if you don't implement something the shelf will turn itself into one big extra "resonator", how come so few places appreciate this simple fact?

I'm starting to think people actually like this sound of floorboards and cupboards resonating with their studio monitors ...

What about this one ( look at the same studio pics ) : what on earth is the use of putting studio monitors (be it good or bad ones) on their wrong side ?????????????????????

Let's design a monitor with the tweeter about 3 feet to the left of the woofer now

Or get these :http://www.link-audio.be/Linkenglish/K50.htm
(1500 euro a pair, I was shopping up to 4500 euro a pair !)

[barefoot]

Originally posted by Thermionic
I think one of the reasons monitoring isn't discussed as much as other gear is that it's so individual to one's taste, and as such getting into monitoring debate is a bit like arguing over your favourite beer.

I always see this word "taste' when it comes to monitors.... ???

Monitors are tools for hearing what you're doing. Why would someone want them to have sound of their own?

Ok, so maybe it's like a painter saying "I like painting with green tinted glasses. That's what work for me." Fine. That may very well be what works for him. But, if he pulls out his color palate and start talking about how he also likes to work with subtle shades of red and violet, somebody needs to tell him that he's full of shit!

Thomas

[Thermionic]

Originally posted by barefoot
I always see this word "taste' when it comes to monitors.... ???

Monitors are tools for hearing what you're doing. Why would someone want them to have sound of their own?

Ok, so maybe it's like a painter saying "I like painting with green tinted glasses. That's what work for me." Fine. That may very well be what works for him. But, if he pulls out his color palate and start talking about how he likes to work with subtle shades of red and violet, somebody needs to tell him that he's full of shit!

Thomas

But what if your definition of "clear glass" is different to another's?
Maybe that other person hasn't ever used a pair of clear spectacles? Or maybe they've spent so much on a pair they consider to be clean they don't want to entertain the idea that there could be some colour distortion present?

The first line in my post was an attempt to keep the conversation mild-mannered, in my experience debating monitoring issues on the 'web is a sure fire way to get embroiled in a heated argument.

In truth I believe that there are certain companies trading off marketing and hype, and companies that are "full of shit" do exist, but my opinions as to which ones are would be best not communicated in a public forum, I can imagine many rotten cabbages being thrown otherwise.

ATC's definition of "clear glass" would align with my definition quite nicely btw. I've yet to hear a well articulated complaint aimed at ATC, although I do prefer their range below the 200/300, just my "taste".

Let me ask this: Should monitors have a "learning curve"?

[barefoot]

Originally posted by Thermionic
But what if your definition of "clear glass" is different to another's?

Yeah, I see what you mean. Even at the top there are debates about what is the better definition of accuracy. And when your talking ATC versus..... say... Barefoot.... you're definitely in that regime.

Originally posted by Thermionic
Let me ask this: Should monitors have a "learning curve"?

I would say Yes and No.

No, in the sense that 1. I think there are obvious objective definitions of accuracy 2. loudspeaker are still a long way from meeting those definitions 3. "clear glass" monitors are superior because they provide the most control and flexibility over one's recordings. So, you shouldn't need to "learn" your monitors because ultimately the monitors should be transparent.

Yes, in the sense that, indeed, most people have never "heard" accurate monitoring. In fact, I would argue NONE of us have heard it, because there is still so much more that needs to be done in loudspeaker technology.

Thomas

[doug_hti]

Originally posted by Thermionic
Let me ask this: Should monitors have a "learning curve"?

No, they shouldn't, BUT, learning and knowing what translates WHEN YOU DO hear everything does!
I would rather have my mix sound great on 98% of systems rather than perfect on 2%...

That may mean a little more reverb or a little more presence or a little less (or more) bass.....

[Berolzheimer]

My monitors are probably the most important and most refined peice of equipment I own. I agree with a lot of what you're saying, Barefoot, which makes me curious to hear what you're making. Unfortunately I think there are a lot of people in this field (most?) who have very strange ideas about what a monitor should be or do, but I think a lot of that comes from just not ever having heard a proper set of speakers.

[alphajerk]

i use ADAM S3-A's opting to get great monitors so i can hear what the rest of the chain is doing. my work must of improved 10fold just with those monitors... in like a week of work. i always recommend great monitors [whichever brand to ones preference] instead of the cheaper POS's like NS10, horrortones, et al.

[Thermionic]

First time I used an ATC I felt at home immediately, no learning curve, the sound "felt" true (obviously truth is relative as we are many years away from the "perfect design"). Straight away I was at ease applying eq etc.

Since then I've used a plethora of monitors at different facilities (acoustics are a factor so I'm not trying to be harsh on the monitors). On certain designs I could name, I'm searching for information, I'm thinking "is that peak at 2.5k the sign of a good mix on these units?", looks to other engineer: "does that sound ok to you? Should the upper mid be so pronounced with these monitors?".

ATC represent the nearest thing I've heard to "truth" (there are a few other oems I could mention as well), I felt at ease immediately, able to make decisions without counter compensating, no learning curve there...

I dare say that a 100% accurate monitor would have a learning curve though as Thomas correctly asserts;"truth" is currently outside of the realms of manufacturable hardware, and as such would probably require some adjustment owing to previous conditioning..

[2leod]

Mr Barefoot, welcome!
In all these discussions the "human" factor comes up, so I may as well be the first to say it. People are all different - some have delicate stirrups and some have enormous lobes (nuge, nudge, wink, wink say no more IF you know what I mean). From having my ears tested I know that the left one's response dips slightly in around the 500 to 1K Hz, probably from an ear infection in childhood, and slightly more around 6 to 10 K, likely loud noise damage. Ain't no gear or monitor in the world gonna change that. This is always going to influence all that I hear, so what sounds good (or more to the point, accurate) to me will possibly be different to someone else. I guess I'm just working with tinted glasses...

[barefoot]

Originally posted by doug_hti
I would rather have my mix sound great on 98% of systems rather than perfect on 2%...

See, this argument makes no sense to me.

First of all, you're assuming that those 98% of systems are all the same. In fact, they're all over the map. Some are bright, some are tubby, some are fat, and some are thin. There is no generic.

I think it makes much more sense to stand on high ground and hear EVERYTHING going on inside your mix. Then, you can train your ears to mix in a way that translates best on the majority of systems, if that's what you choose. In some cases, you might also want to tweak on things for the 2% of listeners who can hear it. Of course, this will be lost on the 98%, but wouldn't you rather they be blind to the details than YOU be blind to the details?

Thomas

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally posted by Thermionic
...
I still adore LS3/5A, 30yrs after their introduction, it's a shame Rogers didn't have the clout of Yamaha's promotion behind them......

Many of us tried to use LS3/5as in a production environment only to watch them blow up. I used my home pair with a pair of subs for nearly 20 years before I got the Duntech Sovereigns I use for mastering now.

That said, doing the work to make balances sound right on NS-10s is well worth the effort because unlike most cheap speakers it DOES translate well. (Everybody I know considers this a fluke and NOT a matter of Yamaha's design genius!) I wouldn't ONLY have NS-10s but they are a great tool in terms of the quality of mixes that come off them. The hollow midrange is extremely easy to fix in mastering however the low-end in the hands of a beginner in a bad sounding room can indeed be a disaster.

[Yannick]

I completely agree that all speakers are way behind the rest of the chain.

The proof is the fact that the first generation of the improved version is already WAY superior to the K50 I own...

The second proof is that a pair of revised altec horn monsters (built in 1958) have qualities I NEVER experienced in modern speakers up to $15K.

Third : a good surround setup already eliminates a lot of the problems of a very good stereo setup.

Of course you could always argue that recording is a form of art and that a good SE makes a good sound - but that is not what I'm into.

Barefoot : your website doesn't seem to work for the moment ?

[barefoot]

Originally posted by 2leod
Mr Barefoot, welcome!
In all these discussions the "human" factor comes up, so I may as well be the first to say it. People are all different - some have delicate stirrups and some have enormous lobes ......

Thanks for the welcome!

Well, everyone hears through his or her own ears and that is that. As a recording engineer you're listening through your own ears and trying to make decisions about what will sound good to other people's ears. You just can't get around it. So, I think it's always best to get as much information to your ears as possible.

In some instances, people may need "corrective lenses" to compensate for a hearing deficit. That's fine, but starting out with "cloudy lens" material is never going to help you see better. See what I mean? There is much more to loudspeakers than frequency response. You might find that boosting certain frequencies is, on the whole, beneficial to you - even though it presents a small compromise in impulse response. I can even imagine a case where dynamic compression might aid a hearing deficit. But, do you think monitors that produce large amounts of harmonic distortion could ever help your mix? Cone resonances? Cabinet resonances? Intermodulation distortion? "Phase" distortion? etc.?

I say start out with a transparent medium. Then if you really need to make compensations, do so very specifically and conservatively.

Thomas

[doug_hti]

Originally posted by barefoot
See, this argument makes no sense to me.

First of all, you're assuming that those 98% of systems are all the same. In fact, they're all over the map. Some are bright, some are tubby, some are fat, and some are thin. There is no generic.

I think it makes much more sense to stand on high ground and hear EVERYTHING going on inside your mix. Then, you can train your ears to mix in a way that translates best on the majority of systems, if that's what you choose. In some cases, you might also want to tweak on things for the 2% of listeners who can hear it. Of course, this will be lost on the 98%, but wouldn't you rather they be blind to the details than YOU be blind to the details?

Thomas

First of all, I WANT to hear everything in a mix...my point was not arguing against accurate monitors, but rather that when you can hear a high level of detail (hopefully accompanied by full range accuracy), you can't expect others to always hear your intentions...and an example I used was reverb i.e. decisons regarding density, decay, attack. I know of tracks swimming in verb on my monitors, but on every other consumer system, it sounds great.
As far as the 2%, I'm all about details, mixing for the majority doesn't mean that you have to sonically compromise the mix or the level of detail. But rather knowing the CONSEQUENCES of putting in info that may be EXCLUSIVE to the elite full range and accoustically ideal monitoring.

However, If I was doing classical music, then I would worry less about consequences and be as accurate as possible, as most of those listeners may be aware that they can't hear the big 5' bass drum resonating for 3 bars coming through fully on a clock radio.


Thomas, if you don't mind me asking what monitoring do you think is ideal? What have you worked on before you built your monitor? what ones do you like? How did they translate? Where did they translate? what type of music do you work on mostly?
And I'm excited you created some monitors, I'm anxious to hear them, it's great that people are passionate about a specific subject. Are you at NAMM?

[natpub]

What amuses me is how so many people go bonkers about their DA's and argue how one needs something super-duper accurate and transparent on DA's to insure that (and I quote one of the gearsluts here, though I forget who said it) "first and foremost make sure what you hear at output is as accurate as possible to determine what you are doing at input..." or something like that.

Then they turn around and say that monitors are a matter of taste, toss around the word "translate" a few times, and be done with it.

It's quite entertaining.

Thomas, you'll find far more posts about stuff like DAC-1 than about monitors. In general, all I see from monitor posts is that there are like 3-4 fairly good models and brands that everyone wants and uses, and everything else is either astronomically expensive, or too amaturish to discuss.

regards,

Kurt

[jajjguy]

Maybe another reason monitors are discussed somewhat less is that people buy them differently than other gear. While everyone is happy to "need" another set of preamps or whatever, people tend to have one set of monitors they trust and another one or two for backup, and they aren't usually looking to add another set until a) something breaks or b) they are ready to spend a lot more money.

[joeq]

I think another reason you see fewer posts about monitors is that speakers are so much less "twiddleable" than other gear.

Compressors, EQs and the like have KNOBS that you turn every day, every which way and get different stuff out of them. Its human nature - or Gearslut nature.

speakers, you set them up once and you use them the same way every day. Boooooring!

I do see posts about monitors- but usually it's when people are sick of their old ones or when they just got some new ones. You can have a mic or a compressor for 5 years and still want to talk about some new thing you tried with it. You don't really turn the knobs much on your monitors.

that's not to say that monitors are not of paramount importance- only that they are less likely to spark a thread.

[barefoot]

Originally posted by doug_hti
First of all, I WANT to hear everything in a mix.......

.......Thomas, if you don't mind me asking what monitoring do you think is ideal? What have you worked on before you built your monitor? what ones do you like? How did they translate? Where did they translate? what type of music do you work on mostly?
And I'm excited you created some monitors, I'm anxious to hear them, it's great that people are passionate about a specific subject. Are you at NAMM?

Sorry if I misinterpreted your post. So, it looks like we agree. It's better to hear everything!

I've been designing and building speakers for 10 years. Primarily for home hi-fi and primarily as a side business while I was in graduate school or working as an engineer developing acousto-optical measurement technology. Here are a some examples of past designs:



The launch of the MiniMain12 represents my first step towards transitioning to a full time audio business with a true production model.

Ideal monitoring? Hmmm. Let's say a single 3mm diameter soffit mounted driver, with flat response from 20Hz to 20kHz, less than -120dB total distortion, zero dynamic compression, and able to produce a peak output of 120dB at 3 meters!

Seriously, I have great admiration and have been heavily influenced by ATC, Dynaudio, Theil, and of course B&W. And I think the MiniMain12 is on a par with the best products companies like these have to offer.

I used to play guitar in progressive rock bands, but now I primarily work on the computer writing, recording, and occasionally performing ambient electronic music and "intelligent dance music". I really only got into recording about 3 years ago. So, in conjunction wit this, I got quite involved in online recording forums and I moderate over at the Recording Studio Design Forum. While the MiniMain can be consider a natural evolution of my design philosophy, it also owes quite a lot to the discussions I've had with literally hundreds of online members.

I've also worked on some modern classical recordings and assisted on a couple discs released on New Albion.

Unfortunately I'm not at NAMM. I just launched this new business endeavor and couldn't work it out in time. Fortunately, Fletcher and some others have told me NAMM is really most effective if you're looking for dealers. I'm not at that point yet. But I will be at AES in the fall!

Originally posted by natpub
What amuses me is how so many people go bonkers about their DA's.....

Then they turn around and say that monitors are a matter of taste, toss around the word "translate" a few times, and be done with it.

It's quite entertaining.....

Exactly!

Originally posted by joeq
speakers, you set them up once and you use them the same way every day. Boooooring!

Hah, you've got a point!

Hmmmm. stike Maybe I should design a speaker with some "translation knobs"? stike Then there could be entire online forums dedicated to dialing in the perfect mix translatability!

Thomas

[joeq]

Originally posted by barefoot

Hmmmm. stike Maybe I should design a speaker with some "translation knobs"? stike Then there could be entire online forums dedicated to dialing in the perfect mix translatability!

Thomas [/B]

Wow! A tweaker speaker!

I hereby volunteer to be a Beta Tester.

[natpub]

Hmmmm. Maybe I should design a speaker with some "translation knobs"? Then there could be entire online forums dedicated to dialing in the perfect mix translatability!

LMAO, just add a few nobs that have some impressive looking wave form or grid under/around/on top of them, add a few outlandish phrases like "phase cohesion" or some such shit, then have the nobs lead to nothing. Kinda like the hilarious Funk Logic rack filler modules (my favorite is the Palindrometer - http://www.mercenaryaudio.com/funlog3pipal.html)!

Then folks can "dial-in" to their heart's content.


take care,

kurt

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally posted by natpub
...people go bonkers about their DA's and argue how one needs something super-duper accurate and transparent on DA's to insure that (and I quote one of the gearsluts here, though I forget who said it) "first and foremost make sure what you hear at output is as accurate as possible to determine what you are doing at input..." or something like that.

Then they turn around and say that monitors are a matter of taste, toss around the word "translate" a few times, and be done with it.

I've certainly said the former but never that monitors are only a matter of "taste." NOBODY uses NS-10s because of taste, they suck by any aesthetic measure. They remain a useful tool because they help some of us focus the midrange in our mixes. It's also useful to know what something sounds like on them because there are still an awful lot of them scattered around broadcast and recording industry offices.

Mixing speakers are never a substitute for accurate speakers, you need access to both. The way to find out if speakers are any good for mixing is by mixing with them and listening to the results elsewhere. Hopefully your "elsewhere" includes accurate speakers as well as boom-boxes and in the car.

[matucha]

Having no small speakers, I check the mix often with highpass for better mid mixing... and to uncover it from cloudy low in my terrible room. I have soooo big problems under 300, that I can't rely on what's there. ;-((((((((

In my opinion, it is mostly room that sucks, monitors are still gear, but putting money in boring panels or even room rebuilding?

[barefoot]

Originally posted by matucha
I have soooo big problems under 300, that I can't rely on what's there. ;-((((((((
In my opinion, it is mostly room that sucks, monitors are still gear, but putting money in boring panels or even room rebuilding?

Yes, the room is certainly a big part of the equation. Come visit us over at the Recording Studio Design Forum for some help in this regard!

Thomas

[matucha]

Great place - Been there, read alot, bought Everest's Handbook, did some "acoustic" design... but for a new place. I have to stick with the current for 1/2 year... grudge

I read your posts on RecPit about ADAM (Eton) woofers, very interesting read (recommended) about their mid-freq resonance. However, I'd like to know how it behaves on the other side too. To the point: can these woofers deliver reasonable performance at 32Hz as is written in the S3A specs? Someone measured S2A and they roll-off around 55Hz instead of 35Hz. Just curious, I have nothing about these great speakers, but why are ADAM specs so "missleading" or are they "missleading"?