Question about Near-Field Monitors

[Amr Kadry]

Hello All,

I am looking into buying near field monitors (and doing acoustic treatment to my room). I am looking at the Yamaha HS80m monitors, mainly because I am in Egypt and there aren't many music stores with a lot of variety around, but there is a Yamaha dealer. I am leaning more towards these than the smaller HS50m, mainly because from reviews I've read they have more low end and sound better.

There is something I am confused about though, which is listening distance from monitors. I read in a previous post on one of the cakewalk forums:

quote:

The larger the woofer, the larger the listening space required. 8's usually need a minimum distance to the listener of 6-10 ft, whereas 6/7's about 4-6 ft, and 5's as close as 3 ft. I forget where I got these numbers, and if I'm mistaken, please correct me.

My room is small and I currently record drums in it, and drums obviously occupy a lot of space

So my question is: will the HS80m monitors be too big for my room? Is the 6' minimum something that is completely necessary, or can I listen to them from a 3' distance, for example? If someone can explain to me why the bigger monitors require a further listening distance, that would be very helpful.

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by Amr Kadry

I am leaning more towards these than the smaller HS50m, mainly because from reviews I've read they have more low end and sound better.

Yes, it's always better to have full-range speakers that can go as low as possible without needing a subwoofer.

quote:
The larger the woofer, the larger the listening space required. 8's usually need a minimum distance to the listener of 6-10 ft, whereas 6/7's about 4-6 ft, and 5's as close as 3 ft.

That's just silly. Get the larger speakers.

--Ethan

[Amr Kadry]

Thank you Ethan!

Will the larger speakers be problematic if the room is too small? My room is 14ft x 11ft x 8ft, and has a drumset so it is currently a bit crowded. What distance do u recommend I place the speakers at, and how far should I be for a good listening position?

[audiomichael]

Regardless of the woofer size, most people have their near-fields closer than 6'. You should worry more about the character of the speaker (how balanced, transient response, etc) than the specs.

[steveschizoid]

I believe the HS80m's are by far the best monitors in their price range. I paid $400, used them for a few albums, then spent nearly $4000 upgrading. It was pretty much necessary to spend 3-4000 to get a significantly better monitor!

You wont be disappointed with the HS80m's.

[Amr Kadry]

thank you audiomichael, everyone seems to agree on this, that distance from the speaker has nothing to do with woofer size.

steveschizoid, yes they seem to be getting good reviews everywhere, more so than the smaller ones. i'm probably gonna go with those.

[Amr Kadry]

Ethan, I just watched your a cello rondo clip on youtube. Truly amazing! Great video, amazing music... and so much fun. Great stuff!!!

[Ethan Winer]

Thanks very much. Vimeo hosts much higher quality versions of my videos, and if you sign up (free) you can even download the files:

Ethan Winer's videos on Vimeo

--Ethan

[Amr Kadry]

cool, will definitely check them out, thanks!

[barefoot]

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

That's just silly. Get the larger speakers.

In fact, there is some truth to this. Larger drivers are more directional in their upper frequency range. Also, a larger woofer diameter will typically necessitate a wider spacing between the woofer and tweeter centers. Both these factors make a larger 2-way speaker more directional than a smaller speaker, especially in the octave or so just below the crossover frequency. More directivity means a smaller "sweet spot" at closer listening distances. So indeed, you might want to be slightly further away with a larger 2-way in order to avoid greater sound variations at different working positions (i.e. rolling your chair from left to right). Of course, these recommended distances that he listed are totally exaggerated. But it's not a completely silly idea.

Btw, this extra directivity in the upper range of the woofer is also one of the reasons why large 2-ways tend to have a somewhat recessed or "sucked out" midrange quality. They have a natural dip in their power response since they radiate less energy off-axis in that frequency range. Hence, the recessed midrange.

Thomas

[Audiop]

Originally Posted by barefoot

Btw, this extra directivity in the upper range of the woofer is also one of the reasons why large 2-ways tend to have a somewhat recessed or "sucked out" midrange quality. They have a natural dip in their power response since they radiate less energy off-axis in that frequency range. Hence, the recessed midrange.

Thomas

Well, yes.. or maybe. First you need to come up with a design goal from work on human hearing, room acoustics and stereophonic playback. Then even if it's true as you say that if everything is equal, a bigger driver will have earlier onset of increased directivity, it very much depend on cone material and voicecoil size. Also the baffle and tweeter plays a big roll (no news for you of course). A soft coned 8" that handles over to a waveguide loaded tweeter at a suitable frequency can produce very fine results.

There are also other ways of dealing with increased directivity of the midbass in a typicall 2-way speaker, such as not having the driver pointing "on axis" and balancing direct and diffuse sound that way.

As for dip in power response, a MTM layout is far more prone to this effect than a MT layout.. ;-)


/Peter

[O.F.F.]

Hmm… last time I checked the directivity of a driver depends on its size and not much else. It appears to be a geometrical problem regardless of cone material or vc diameter.

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by barefoot

these recommended distances that he listed are totally exaggerated. But it's not a completely silly idea.

Okay, thanks for clarifying Thomas. Though I'd still go for speakers large enough to get down at least to 40 Hz.

--Ethan

[Audiop]

Can we make that 30Hz.. ? :-)


/Peter

[insomnio]

Nice thread. It inspired me to try a new distance between my Mackies HR824 and me. I don't have a problem with my farther NS10s but I'm using the 824 only for the low end checking. I'm wasting those.
Definitely, I'm checking on a new distance right now!
Thanks

[Rednose]

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

Thanks very much. Vimeo hosts much higher quality versions of my videos, and if you sign up (free) you can even download the files:

Ethan Winer's videos on Vimeo

--Ethan

Wow, all done in Connecticut. Another great vid, thanks Ethan!

[marcz]

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

Yes, it's always better to have full-range speakers that can go as low as possible without needing a subwoofer.

quote:
The larger the woofer, the larger the listening space required. 8's usually need a minimum distance to the listener of 6-10 ft, whereas 6/7's about 4-6 ft, and 5's as close as 3 ft.

That's just silly. Get the larger speakers.

--Ethan

Ok, but what about the fact that a larger speaker (usually powered by a bigger amp) needs to be cranked to get into its optimum operating range..
...resulting in a too loud monitoring level at too close a distance.

I haven't articulated this very well but do you see what I'm getting at?

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by marcz

what about the fact that a larger speaker (usually powered by a bigger amp) needs to be cranked to get into its optimum operating range.

Loudspeakers are mostly linear, and so are rooms, so the idea that a speaker has an "optimum" volume level doesn't make sense.

--Ethan

[rashman]

All said about smaller vs larger speakers, I heared hs50s $ 80s a couple of months ago. First when I heared hs50s I was satisfied a lot whith the sound. So I was going to recommend them to a friend who was looking for monitors. But when I heared the hs80s I was disappointed. The tweeters seemed to be even harsher than my ns10ms. It delivered realatively good buttom when we compared them against tanoy reavesl-6s (don't remember the exact name) which were the only other thing we had in that shop. However the mids seemed to have that hollowness which somebody ( sorry don't remember the name) mentioned earlier in this thread. He 50s had a way smoother highs and tighter mids and perhaps were more successful in what they did deliver.
So that mid range argument maby relevant about small nearfilds.

[hereticskeptic]

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

Yes, it's always better to have full-range speakers that can go as low as possible without needing a subwoofer.

quote:
The larger the woofer, the larger the listening space required. 8's usually need a minimum distance to the listener of 6-10 ft, whereas 6/7's about 4-6 ft, and 5's as close as 3 ft.

That's just silly. Get the larger speakers.

--Ethan

Ethan,

Would you recommend an MTM design with two 6.5" woofers, over an MT design with 8" woofers?

I'm just trying to make sure that the MTM design will be suitable for my 11'x12'x8' room. Hope you're somehow still subscribed to this thread.

Thanks,

Dakhil

[Ethan Winer]

I'm not subscribed, and I'm so busy working on my audio book that I barely have time to check in here, but I did see this just now.

I don't know what MT and MTM stand for, but as far as I know what matters is total woofer surface area. So I guess two 6.5 woofers have more area than one 8. Then again, all that really matters is the LF -3 dB down point. And in a room like that you need bass traps just as much as good speakers.

--Ethan

[hereticskeptic]

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

I'm not subscribed, and I'm so busy working on my audio book that I barely have time to check in here, but I did see this just now.

I don't know what MT and MTM stand for, but as far as I know what matters is total woofer surface area. So I guess two 6.5 woofers have more area than one 8. Then again, all that really matters is the LF -3 dB down point. And in a room like that you need bass traps just as much as good speakers.

--Ethan

Looking forward to the audio book, and glad that you caught my post!

I believe the monitors with two 6.5" woofers go lower in the frequency response (37 hz vs 42 hz), so they might be the ones to go with. I was just a bit concerned that my room is too small, since many people suggest not even going with 8" or 8.5" monitors at all.

I definitely have a treated room, and plan to do more very, very soon! Reflection points taken care of, rear wall taken care of, corner traps taken care of.

Side question: what are your thoughts on absorbers/bass traps behind monitors?

[hereticskeptic]

Actually, it looks like the 8" monitor of a particular model I'm looking at goes down to 42 hz at -3db, and the two 6.5" woofer model goes down to 45hz at -3db. The manuals do say that the dual 6.5" model has a wider sweet spot, and better mid-range clarity (less forward, more legit, is what users report).

Would you advise one over the other, based on these specs? Is that 3 hz difference worth losing some mid-range clarity?

Thanks Ethan.

Dakhil

[Ethan Winer]

Sorry, I'm so busy with my book I haven't been visiting here much.

I disagree with the advice that this or that speaker is too big for a given room. What matters most in that regard is the LF response.

Bass traps are good almost anywhere, but mid/high frequency absorbers behind speakers is not usually warranted. More:

Front Wall Absorption

I'm a huge believer in specs, but when it comes to speakers, and wording like "wider sweet spot," I'd want to hear them in lieu of hard data showing off-axis response at many angles. Plus, a near-field setup doesn't necessarily benefit from a wide sweet spot unless you move around the room a lot while mixing.

--Ethan

[hereticskeptic]

Thanks for replying Ethan. I actually ended up going with the dual 6.5" monitors, since the deal on them was so outstanding. If I hate them, I'll resell them for more than I paid, and grab something like the Focal CMS65. I eventually wwant to get a pair of Event Opals, so I'm really just biding my time, while saving.

I'm definitely going to see how bass traps sound behind monitors, as I was advised by Bryan Pape from GIK to try a setup without front wall traps, and then judge whether I need them or not.

I've read that article on front wall absorption a few times, but always still feel that the need for trapping behind monitors is not really explained as either a sure thing, or unnecessary. I eventually will have to do a room analysis, and hope I can understand what I'm reading, haha.

As a side question, do I need both an spl meter and a room mic (dayton emm-6) to do a room analysis and calibrate monitors, or can one of them be used for both analysis and calibration. I've been trying to figure this out for months, but have gotten no answer. I wouldn't want to buy an spl mete and a mic, if having one or the other will take care of both room analysis and monitor calibration.

Thanks Ethan,

Dakhil

[Razik]

Happy with my Focal CMS 65's.Check out this episode of Dave Pensado's place.

Hope this helps!

- Pensado's Place - #21 - The secrets behind tuning your room! - YouTube

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by hereticskeptic

but always still feel that the need for trapping behind monitors is not really explained as either a sure thing, or unnecessary.

Again, you can't go wrong with bass traps everywhere, but thin mid/high frequency absorption behind normal "box" type speakers is not needed if the rest of the room is treated correctly.

You do not need an SPL meter to measure your room. Any decent SD omni will show you the basic response. In case you haven't seen this yet:

Comparison of Ten Measuring Microphones

--Ethan

[hereticskeptic]

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

Again, you can't go wrong with bass traps everywhere, but thin mid/high frequency absorption behind normal "box" type speakers is not needed if the rest of the room is treated correctly.

You do not need an SPL meter to measure your room. Any decent SD omni will show you the basic response. In case you haven't seen this yet:

Comparison of Ten Measuring Microphones

--Ethan

Thanks Ethan.

So, can an omni mic be used for calibration of monitors as well? That was my real concern (whether I needed an omni for room measurement, and an sple meter for monitor calibration).

When you mention normal box speakers, what do you mean? What if the speakers have a rear port? What about a bass reflex port?

Thanks,

Dakhil

Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using Gearslutz.com App

[Ethan Winer]

^^^

Yes, any decent SD omni can be used to calibrate speakers, but to calibrate their levels you need a reference. Maybe borrow a good SPL meter, then mark with grease pencil on your preamp's trim where 85 dB SPL is when using a given mic at a given distance from the speakers.

Bass ports in the rear don't radiate high frequencies, so that's not affected by thin absorption on the front wall behind the speakers.

[DAH]

Originally Posted by rashman

All said about smaller vs larger speakers, I heared hs50s $ 80s a couple of months ago. First when I heared hs50s I was satisfied a lot whith the sound. So I was going to recommend them to a friend who was looking for monitors. But when I heared the hs80s I was disappointed. The tweeters seemed to be even harsher than my ns10ms. It delivered realatively good buttom when we compared them against tanoy reavesl-6s (don't remember the exact name) which were the only other thing we had in that shop. However the mids seemed to have that hollowness which somebody ( sorry don't remember the name) mentioned earlier in this thread. He 50s had a way smoother highs and tighter mids and perhaps were more successful in what they did deliver.
So that mid range argument maby relevant about small nearfilds.

Owning HS80m I gotta say that you have should tried +2 mid EQ and -2 high EQ dip switch setting on them. This seems to be a common agreement on HS80.