The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
High end nearfield test Studio Monitors
Old 16th February 2014
  #1651
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audiovisjon View Post
Hey mate! I have really tried the best I can to get the Sm9 in the test but so far the distrubutor has not been able to provide me with a pair. I paged them again last week and are waiting for the answer..
thanks for letting me know and thanks for all your helpful info.
Old 17th February 2014
  #1652
Gear Guru
 
John Willett's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by pipolo View Post
I'm quite close to my speakers, 1.5m and i work at quite low levels.
Sounds like the RL906 will be perfect - they are designed to be listened to from a distance of between 1m and 2.6m.
Old 17th February 2014
  #1653
Gear interested
 

Thanks John, can't wait to try them. I just have this intuition

Still waiting for some news from ME geithain

Anybody else? Proacs 100 / Geithain rl906 ?
Old 17th February 2014
  #1654
Quote:
Originally Posted by idee und klang View Post
I'm an engineer - I do know. Seriously I can say if I like a speaker when I hear it and can give a quite good comment about it and I can for sure say if it is worth for me to test in my own control room (and then give a much more precise feedback). I worked several times with 2 different B&W's at Abbey Road. (Of course the position of the speakers between the glass window and the console is not ideal also but that is another problem). Good possible that if I would work more often there I would get used to it easily, but that does not change my mind that I can clearly say that they would not come in question for my own mixing room. Period.


That has nothing to do with it. The real room is anyway gone in a recoding - that is an interesting philosophic discussion about which I often speak with my students, but nothing for here. Just one thing is important: The art of engineering is to bring something to the CD that isn't there in the room, an additional beauty. A Reason that you listen to music on a CD (or LP or whatever). If nothing is there additionally it is only a documentation (at best). Never the less to create this Art I prefer a speaker with great precision. Only in that way I am able to create a great depth of field (but that may be different for others). Moreover when you have to mix a band that is playing virtuoso and an orchestra that function is not to be behind the band but to play fast and loud with the band, well you really appreciate a monitor with precision.
Check my latest project out if you want, it is fun to watch I think:

FINAL MIX: Kolsimcha and London Symphony Orchestra recording Noah at Abbey Road Studio 1 - YouTube

Daniel
www.ideeundklang.com

I really enjoyed listening to this on youtube. it really is a reference recording, so natural - In simple terms it does not sound like any eq or compression was applied, awesome dynamic range. The recording draws you into the music without making any effort - a truly aural experience. Wow...!
Old 17th February 2014
  #1655
Idee und klang's recording/PMC/Barefoot GEN2

I ABSOLUTELY loved this recording. I just ran a search on iTunes, but couldn't find it. Where can I pick this up? I'd love to get it into my collection.

As for my monitor search, I'm now demoing a pair of PMC twotwo.6 monitors in my little project studio. I'll be comparing them side by side with Barefoot GEN2 speakers by the end of the month (if spencerc can find the time).

As of now, I'm really impressed with the power and feature set of these little PMC 2-way near field speakers. They're definitely a step up from the old Focal Solo 6Be that i used to own. I was initially a little worried about tracking volumes on the PMC (as the Focal Solo 6Be claim the same power/SPL handling capability). The PMC twotwo.6 blow them out of the water, and they should considering the cost difference. Once again, I'm really starting to distrust 'specs' as posted by manufacturers, and completely understand why Thomas Barefoot doesn't post SPL specifications on his speakers.

Regarding the PMC twotwo.6, I'm reserving final judgement until I can directly compare them against the Barefoot GEN2 monitors (my winner from a former shootout I attended in LA). I don't feel that I'll get a true gauge of a speaker unless I can immediately test it against something else. However, I'd be perfectly content with these little PMC monitors as they're just a joy to sit and casually listen to music.

If I feel they're within 85% of Barefoot GEN2 quality, I may just call it quits with my monitor search, stick with the PMC twotwo series, and eventually grab the new twotwo.sub1 within the next year or two.

We'll see...

Cheers,

Phil

Quote:
Originally Posted by idee und klang View Post
I'm an engineer - I do know. Seriously I can say if I like a speaker when I hear it and can give a quite good comment about it and I can for sure say if it is worth for me to test in my own control room (and then give a much more precise feedback). I worked several times with 2 different B&W's at Abbey Road. (Of course the position of the speakers between the glass window and the console is not ideal also but that is another problem). Good possible that if I would work more often there I would get used to it easily, but that does not change my mind that I can clearly say that they would not come in question for my own mixing room. Period.


That has nothing to do with it. The real room is anyway gone in a recoding - that is an interesting philosophic discussion about which I often speak with my students, but nothing for here. Just one thing is important: The art of engineering is to bring something to the CD that isn't there in the room, an additional beauty. A Reason that you listen to music on a CD (or LP or whatever). If nothing is there additionally it is only a documentation (at best). Never the less to create this Art I prefer a speaker with great precision. Only in that way I am able to create a great depth of field (but that may be different for others). Moreover when you have to mix a band that is playing virtuoso and an orchestra that function is not to be behind the band but to play fast and loud with the band, well you really appreciate a monitor with precision.
Check my latest project out if you want, it is fun to watch I think:

FINAL MIX: Kolsimcha and London Symphony Orchestra recording Noah at Abbey Road Studio 1 - YouTube

Daniel
www.ideeundklang.com
Old 17th February 2014
  #1656
Gear Addict
Thanks Kodebode and Palaver for liking it!

Quote:
In simple terms it does not sound like any eq or compression was applied, awesome dynamic range
Great pleasure for me read that:-) as quite the opposite is the case, but it was my goal to do it to enhance the fun and spirit of the music and so it would give the impression of a great dynamic and power but also with a big depth of field!

Quote:
I ABSOLUTELY loved this recording. I just ran a search on iTunes, but couldn't find it. Where can I pick this up? I'd love to get it into my collection.
Here:
Kolsimcha & London Symphony Orchestra, jazzandrecords - exquisite jazz & world music - Online Shop

Soon it can also be downloaded in high quality, best is to monitor Kolsimcha's homepage:
Kolsimcha | Europe's Klezmer Band

Itunes is planed too. All goes a little slow because the band decided to do this without a label.

Cheers
Daniel
www.ideeundklang.com
Old 19th February 2014
  #1657
Gear Nut
 
stiba's Avatar
 

Hey Audiovisjon,

I saw you had some HD 800s laying around. Although it's comparing apples with oranges, to what monitors you tested is their sound character most similar? How do they compare to the 944k for instance? Have some HD 800 myself and am looking for a set of nearfields.

Thanks a lot!
Old 20th February 2014
  #1658
Gear Guru
 
John Willett's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stiba View Post
Hey Audiovisjon,

I saw you had some HD 800s laying around. Although it's comparing apples with oranges, to what monitors you tested is their sound character most similar? How do they compare to the 944k for instance? Have some HD 800 myself and am looking for a set of nearfields.
I have the HD 800 myself - I use them with the Grace m903 monitor controller and ME-Geithain RL906 nearfields.

Though I plan to get a pair of the RL944-K as soon as I can afford them.
Old 20th February 2014
  #1659
Gear Nut
 
stiba's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Willett View Post
I have the HD 800 myself - I use them with the Grace m903 monitor controller and ME-Geithain RL906 nearfields.

Though I plan to get a pair of the RL944-K as soon as I can afford them.
Hey John, cool combo. Do the Geithains complement the HD800 and vice versa in your opinion or do they more or less have a similar sound?

Thanks
Old 21st February 2014
  #1660
Lives for gear
 
Audiovisjon's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Strauss first impressions !

Quote:
Originally Posted by idee und klang View Post
Hi Audiovision

I am sorry to hear that you are not totally convinced by the Strauss, and I hope you don't regret to have gotten those for your test because I recommended them.

Just one thing I would like to mention if I may: what you write with the transients that you say are overemphasised, that really is strange for me to hear. I accept that every thing is a matter of taste, but just those transients were one of the reasons why I am a fan of those Strauss Speakers. In a passive Design I don't think transients could be overemphasized, could they? At worst, if the drivers are "slow" they don't come and at best they would be as fast as the impulse in front of the mic was. I always missed transients on speakers and was listening to a Stax Headphone. On the Strauss I thought that finally I have found a speaker on which the transients were as good. The Transient Response of my bigger Strauss (Se-Mf2) have changed my live, as for me, being a engineer for Acoustic Music that was what I was looking for years. I think that the transients also on the little Se-Nf3 are as good as it gets and really one of the strengths of that speaker.

I just saw your photo, if I may make a suggestion, would it be possible to get the Strauss just a little bit closer towards the listening position? I say this, because my experience with the Strauss Se-Nf3 Speakers is that for what ever reason they shine best if they are a little bit closer then one would normally think. It might be, because the domain were I believe they are strong (the precision) is transmitted best when as few early reflexions as possilbe from a desk or so will come in to the picture.

Those are just my 2 Cents, as I recommended them I thought I bring that in. But if you don't like them all fine for me and congrats for you having done such a long test with so many speakers! And enjoy whatever works best for you!

Cheers,
Daniel
www.ideeundklang.com

Hey Daniel! Don´t feel sorry.. Which speaker to test has totally been my own decision and I take full responsibility for that ..

Regarding my first impressions of the Strauss.Coming from Barefoot mm27 I think my search was for a speaker with better "balance " of brutalnesss and musicality. I did not want a speaker that shows harshness and spikes in 7 out of 10 reference-tracks that I know don´t really translates to the real world. When I first heard the NF-3 in my room I was reminded of the hardness and " emphesized" transient detail of the mm27 and experienced ear fatigue and loss in inspiration during my work..
I was very open about this when I was talking to Jürgen and all of his brilliant design philosophy pointed in a different direction compared to what I experienced. Could this be right ??

I can imagine that Mr Strauss was frustrated and disappointed in my experience and questions regarding this. I really hope I did not offend him or you cause that was never my intention. This was actually very frustrating for me too because I was starting to question my lifetime of ear training ..

I tried different amps , stands and positions. I even removed my hole mixing- desk to see if the reflections was what threw me off.. I even mounted them at the back of my studio up against the wall to see if the 2.5m distance from the wall had to much impact on the bass and so on..
They actually sounded very consistent no matter what I did and the transient detail was bothering me no matter what..

After the first week I had to take a couple of days break from the studio. Before I closed the door I put on som referance music on repeat at a moderate volume playing around the clock.

I am really not sure what happened but when I came back after two days I got a completely different experience. The stiffness and hard transients sounded very accurate and balanced. Nothing was overemphasised and the reproduction was on par with the best of the bunch !!

I did change my monitor controller to grace 905 and the amps I tried was pretty new.. Maybe the speakers , my ears or something else needed more breaking time.. I really don ´t know but at the same moment this aspect was balanced out, it completely changed my experience working with them..

I apologise to you and Mr Strauss for not waiting with posting my first impressions. With over 200 000 views I realise that I have a responsibility to make statements as honest and accurate as I can. Though I was honest, waiting to post opinions after a couple of weeks use is probably a good idea, and I will take this under consideration from now on..

Mr Strauss has allowed me to keep the speakers a little longer so I will post the review when I´m ready..
Old 21st February 2014
  #1661
Lives for gear
 
Audiovisjon's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Barefoot , Strauss and Geithains comparison

I have gotten a lot of questions from Barefoot owners regarding comparison to the Strauss SE-NF-3 . I did not have the chance for a direct comparison because the Barefoots had to be shipped back before the Strauss entered the house . However.. I have one Barefoot customer that wants to compare them with the Geithains 944..

Since my Strauss experience changed I would also like a direct comparison with the Barefoots to confirm my ears haven´t changed to much..haha
I will try to get all three of them in the same room for comparison as soon as possible..
Old 21st February 2014
  #1662
Lives for gear
 
Audiovisjon's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Headset questions

Regarding all the headset questions . I have some headsets lying around in my pictures posted in this thread. I have to get back to you all on the questions regarding experiences with different cans. I might even consider a high-end headset test when I get bored after finishing this .... goof
Old 21st February 2014
  #1663
Lives for gear
 
dandeurloo's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
Well, they still work for Serban Genea and Tony Maserati amongst many other top mixers........You don't hear issues with smearing in their mixes, do you?
The power amp makes a huge difference as well. Proac 100's and a great amp are really nice tools. I'm holding tight with these until I get into a new bigger space and then I will look at a 3 way full range system.
Old 21st February 2014
  #1664
Geariophile
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dandeurloo View Post
The power amp makes a huge difference as well. Proac 100's and a great amp are really nice tools. I'm holding tight with these until I get into a new bigger space ...........
Indeed, and me too.
Old 21st February 2014
  #1665
Here for the gear
 

What a thread!!! I spent quite a few days reading all the posts, and it has really been very informative and helpful! I'm a professional concert pianist and it sounds like the Geithain will serve e well with piano music and also symphonic works. I'm mainly listening, not into mixing or mastering yet, but I would hate any distorted or colored other than the Original Live sound. Thank you David and thanks to all you folks posted here!!! I learned a lot,
Old 21st February 2014
  #1666
Gear Guru
 
John Willett's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Passione View Post
What a thread!!! I spent quite a few days reading all the posts, and it has really been very informative and helpful! I'm a professional concert pianist and it sounds like the Geithain will serve e well with piano music and also symphonic works. I'm mainly listening, not into mixing or mastering yet, but I would hate any distorted or colored other than the Original Live sound. Thank you David and thanks to all you folks posted here!!! I learned a lot,
I have the Geithain RL906 for location recording and I specialise in solo piano recitals.

Plan to get the RL944 later, when finances allow.
Old 21st February 2014
  #1667
Lives for gear
 
Audiovisjon's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Passione View Post
What a thread!!! I spent quite a few days reading all the posts, and it has really been very informative and helpful! I'm a professional concert pianist and it sounds like the Geithain will serve e well with piano music and also symphonic works. I'm mainly listening, not into mixing or mastering yet, but I would hate any distorted or colored other than the Original Live sound. Thank you David and thanks to all you folks posted here!!! I learned a lot,
Great mate ! Welcome to gearslutz

The Geithain would definitely fit your needs. They presents everything as it is just with a 3 times bigger vertical window compared to most speakers..
If we are talking about the 944 they have lots of power and extends so low that a sub would be unnecessary. Truly great speakers !
Old 21st February 2014
  #1668
Lives for gear
 
Audiovisjon's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by JP__ View Post
That's a matter of getting used to the speakers
Translation is always a little bit of a subjective thing, is it?. What if a listener uses such a revealing, honest system. The remaining problems can be really annoying then. A lot of speakers are very forgiving regarding these problems and so a lot of records remain these problems.
But its still a problem of the recording not of the speaker.
So, I don`t see this point regarding translation. We don´t work for customers with crappy speakers only, don't we?
Yes, we have to work harder sometimes and especially with very problematic material we have still remain some artefacts cause to much processing is simply too much processing. So often its better to stay with flaws of the recording as with processing artefacts. But we know what we are doing and what we are deliver.

But maybe its more a point for a mastering grade system. Although fixing remaining problems in the mastering stage can't be the solution...

I don't really get this point...
Acoustic material needs a honest speaker. Electronic productions are quite more subjective. Also,there are no real flaws dynamic wise in it, there are no real resonances, no room sound...

I can get all your points for production stage. But for quality check in recording, mixing, mastering we simply need a honest system.

Hey JP! Sorry about the late reply..

I get your points and have been thru this checklist a number of times. It is a bit tricky to explain the interaction one have with a speaker and I think you overemphasized the meaning of my post.

All of these systems can be considered as very honest in my opinion. You can do great work on everyone of them that translates to the most critical hifi setup there is. I really think we are past that at this level of monitoring and it comes down to personal preferences and different aspects of interactions.

These differences I am talking about is quite subtle from a normal listeners point of view. For trained listeners like us these differences and personal preferences means a lot when you spend half your life in front of a speaker. Ear-fatigue after 10 instead of 4 hours suddenly means whether you can perform your work or not. A speaker that gives you inspiration and joy could be the reason why you are continuously producing great songs or even looking forward to go to work or not. To be very clear these statements is not to be confused with the aspect of pure listening pleasures. I think people who consider these speakers are beyond this level of thinking.

We can probably hear a fly peeing on a cotton rug on everyone of these speakers so I talk about these certain aspects in terms of what moves my personal preferences in which direction. When I talk about overemphasized transient response I might feel the speaker pushes the attack of the elements just a tad in a direction that feels unnatural compared to how I like to perceive the finished product. This aspect might feel the complete opposite to another user and bring him confidence and joy.

I work towards finding a speaker I don´t have to "learn" but pushes me towards a finish mix that sounds the way I like to perceive the sound and translates this to other systems.This is very subtle stuff (so subtle that a breaking period of the speakers can make the difference you need)but again has a great deal of importance for me when I spend half my life in front of a speaker.

I am not sure this clears things up or complicated them even more but nevertheless I appreciate your insight..
Old 21st February 2014
  #1669
Lives for gear
 
Audiovisjon's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by idee und klang View Post
I'm an engineer - I do know. Seriously I can say if I like a speaker when I hear it and can give a quite good comment about it and I can for sure say if it is worth for me to test in my own control room (and then give a much more precise feedback). I worked several times with 2 different B&W's at Abbey Road. (Of course the position of the speakers between the glass window and the console is not ideal also but that is another problem). Good possible that if I would work more often there I would get used to it easily, but that does not change my mind that I can clearly say that they would not come in question for my own mixing room. Period.


That has nothing to do with it. The real room is anyway gone in a recoding - that is an interesting philosophic discussion about which I often speak with my students, but nothing for here. Just one thing is important: The art of engineering is to bring something to the CD that isn't there in the room, an additional beauty. A Reason that you listen to music on a CD (or LP or whatever). If nothing is there additionally it is only a documentation (at best). Never the less to create this Art I prefer a speaker with great precision. Only in that way I am able to create a great depth of field (but that may be different for others). Moreover when you have to mix a band that is playing virtuoso and an orchestra that function is not to be behind the band but to play fast and loud with the band, well you really appreciate a monitor with precision.
Check my latest project out if you want, it is fun to watch I think:

FINAL MIX: Kolsimcha and London Symphony Orchestra recording Noah at Abbey Road Studio 1 - YouTube

Daniel
www.ideeundklang.com
Hey Daniel!

I just heard this recording and was VERY impressed by the natural reproduction of all of these elements. I can only imagine the level of effort you put into this. Everything translates great here on both Strauss and Geithains. Truly lovely piece of work !
Old 23rd February 2014
  #1670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audiovisjon View Post
Regarding all the headset questions . I have some headsets lying around in my pictures posted in this thread. I have to get back to you all on the questions regarding experiences with different cans. I might even consider a high-end headset test when I get bored after finishing this .... goof


Later you´all !!
A similar review of headphones at some time in the future would be epic.

Thanks Audiovisjon (and other contributors) for this landmark thread. I have learnt so much from the comments here.

Especially in the new online world where many red-brick stores have closed (Turnkey London being a key example) and the opportunities to audition a good range of monitors, side by side is a rarity, this thread has even more value.

The most significant thing I have learnt is how the specifications and measurable attributes do not fully portray how speakers sound.

Prior to this thread the primary measure of audio accuracy has been the published variances from an ideal response across the frequency, and the accompanying frequency plots across the spectrum, and over time as in waterfall plots. Typically these measurements are at a specific SPL, which means that at the measured SPL, its possible to have a speaker which has an ideal response curve - i.e flat, In many cases, augmentation with speaker /room correction is applied to improve this but even this approach is typically based on measurement at a specific SPL.

As I thought of this further, and a lot of the foundation for this came from the opinions expressed on this thread, while this measure at a specifc SPL, is a good effort to start with, it does not provide a measure of how linear the frequency response remains at all SPL's.

We assume here that real audio is NOT a pink noise, or similar test at a specific level, but varies in SPL, and frequency.

If we consider only frequency response and SPL, an ideal speaker would be linear in frequency response across the spectrum at all SPL's. If measures alone could express how accurate a speaker is, we would need an aggregated measure of how a speaker varies from the ideal across the frequencies, at all SPL's. In my mind I visualise a graphic plot similar to those used for communicating atmospheric pressure in weather plots or those used in microphone frequency plots - where multiple frequency plots could be used to demonstrate the accuracy of the speaker at various levels of SPL. Imagine taking multiple frequency plots using pink noise played back at different audio levels.

Using such a frequency plot at various SPL's, we could compare visually how different speakers respond to real audio. I imagine that we could from this - "see" how a speaker compresses audio relative to another, across the spectrum e.g at higher levels of SPL. I'll call this a multi SPL frequency response plot.

Case in point is how ported monitors are reputed (in general) to have a more accurate bass response only above a certain audio level, while PMC monitors are reputed to have a more consistent bass at both high and low SPL.

In the absence of a "multi SPL freqeuncy response plot", this thread is our best alternative to date, helping us all to appreciate how various speakers translate real audio signals, in the real world.

Real audio/music is afterall sound at various SPL's at various frequencies.

For the 1st time ever, I have really picked up from Audovisjon, how different types of speakers influence mixing, from the dynamic perspective. Very dynamic pin sharp speakers, leading to a tendency to either ear fatigue or a tendency towards somewhat smoother final mixes, while more forgiving speakers which I may safely deduce somewhat compress the audio and do not produce as linear a response (somewhat like tape compression makes it easier to listen to audio as the transients are not so prominent) and probably lead to a more dynamic final mix - with more revealing transients.

Amazing insights. Audiovisjon - Thanks a lot.
Old 24th February 2014
  #1671
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Willett View Post
I have the Geithain RL906 for location recording and I specialise in solo piano recitals.

Plan to get the RL944 later, when finances allow.
Wow! You specialize in solo piano recitals!! Probably we will work together someday in UK!!

yeah that's always the point...when finances allow....
Old 24th February 2014
  #1672
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Audiovisjon View Post
Great mate ! Welcome to gearslutz

The Geithain would definitely fit your needs. They presents everything as it is just with a 3 times bigger vertical window compared to most speakers..
If we are talking about the 944 they have lots of power and extends so low that a sub would be unnecessary. Truly great speakers !

Thanks David!! as you see I've just subscribed to gearslutz, and how lucky am I to see this very thread when I came in! lol
hmmmm as John Willett said, when finances allow, I would lean forward to the 944 for sure!!
Old 24th February 2014
  #1673
Lives for gear
 
Audiovisjon's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by kodebode View Post
A similar review of headphones at some time in the future would be epic.

Thanks Audiovisjon (and other contributors) for this landmark thread. I have learnt so much from the comments here.

Especially in the new online world where many red-brick stores have closed (Turnkey London being a key example) and the opportunities to audition a good range of monitors, side by side is a rarity, this thread has even more value.

The most significant thing I have learnt is how the specifications and measurable attributes do not fully portray how speakers sound.

Prior to this thread the primary measure of audio accuracy has been the published variances from an ideal response across the frequency, and the accompanying frequency plots across the spectrum, and over time as in waterfall plots. Typically these measurements are at a specific SPL, which means that at the measured SPL, its possible to have a speaker which has an ideal response curve - i.e flat, In many cases, augmentation with speaker /room correction is applied to improve this but even this approach is typically based on measurement at a specific SPL.

As I thought of this further, and a lot of the foundation for this came from the opinions expressed on this thread, while this measure at a specifc SPL, is a good effort to start with, it does not provide a measure of how linear the frequency response remains at all SPL's.

We assume here that real audio is NOT a pink noise, or similar test at a specific level, but varies in SPL, and frequency.

If we consider only frequency response and SPL, an ideal speaker would be linear in frequency response across the spectrum at all SPL's. If measures alone could express how accurate a speaker is, we would need an aggregated measure of how a speaker varies from the ideal across the frequencies, at all SPL's. In my mind I visualise a graphic plot similar to those used for communicating atmospheric pressure in weather plots or those used in microphone frequency plots - where multiple frequency plots could be used to demonstrate the accuracy of the speaker at various levels of SPL. Imagine taking multiple frequency plots using pink noise played back at different audio levels.

Using such a frequency plot at various SPL's, we could compare visually how different speakers respond to real audio. I imagine that we could from this - "see" how a speaker compresses audio relative to another, across the spectrum e.g at higher levels of SPL. I'll call this a multi SPL frequency response plot.

Case in point is how ported monitors are reputed (in general) to have a more accurate bass response only above a certain audio level, while PMC monitors are reputed to have a more consistent bass at both high and low SPL.

In the absence of a "multi SPL freqeuncy response plot", this thread is our best alternative to date, helping us all to appreciate how various speakers translate real audio signals, in the real world.

Real audio/music is afterall sound at various SPL's at various frequencies.

For the 1st time ever, I have really picked up from Audovisjon, how different types of speakers influence mixing, from the dynamic perspective. Very dynamic pin sharp speakers, leading to a tendency to either ear fatigue or a tendency towards somewhat smoother final mixes, while more forgiving speakers which I may safely deduce somewhat compress the audio and do not produce as linear a response (somewhat like tape compression makes it easier to listen to audio as the transients are not so prominent) and probably lead to a more dynamic final mix - with more revealing transients.

Amazing insights. Audiovisjon - Thanks a lot.
Thanks mate ! Most appreciated post and I am glad I could contribute to some of your conclusions..

As stated , all the technical qualities aside,the aspect of audio translation to the brain is different from person to person and can not be measured along with a long list of other aspects. Thats why a test like this has to be a mix by subjective experience backed up by objective measurements. If my thoughts and conclusions about a monitor make sense to how you would like to perceive the sound, that speaker might be a good starting point for you to audition. As you say specs alone can't tell anything about how you as a mixer will interact with the speaker in your own environment. If possible..Try before buy !
Old 25th February 2014
  #1674
Lives for gear
 
JP__'s Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Audiovisjon View Post
Hey JP! Sorry about the late reply..

I get your points and have been thru this checklist a number of times. It is a bit tricky to explain the interaction one have with a speaker and I think you overemphasized the meaning of my post. (...)
I am not sure this clears things up or complicated them even more but nevertheless I appreciate your insight..
Hey Audiovision,

no problem.
I only try to explain my point of view. Sometimes not that easy in english. So if I maybe sometimes sound rude or arrogant, its not my intention.

I was an huge geithain 'fan' some years before and know some of their speaker quite well. So I can agree with your impressions quite good; I simply come to other judgments about speaker quality. And this can be, as you said before, a very personal thing it seems...
Old 25th February 2014
  #1675
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by JP__ View Post
Hey Audiovision,

no problem.
I only try to explain my point of view. Sometimes not that easy in english. So if I maybe sometimes sound rude or arrogant, its not my intention.

I was an huge geithain 'fan' some years before and know some of their speaker quite well. So I can agree with your impressions quite good; I simply come to other judgments about speaker quality. And this can be, as you said before, a very personal thing it seems...
I follow JP and it will interesting to come back to this thread in 2/3 years and see if you still mix on Geithain.
Old 26th February 2014
  #1676
Gear Maniac
Old 26th February 2014
  #1677
Gear Maniac
Hi Audiovision
are you still using your Trinnov
and can you talk about your experience with the Trinnov
thanks
Dave
Old 28th February 2014
  #1678
Lives for gear
 
Audiovisjon's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by JP__ View Post
Hey Audiovision,

no problem.
I only try to explain my point of view. Sometimes not that easy in english. So if I maybe sometimes sound rude or arrogant, its not my intention.

I was an huge geithain 'fan' some years before and know some of their speaker quite well. So I can agree with your impressions quite good; I simply come to other judgments about speaker quality. And this can be, as you said before, a very personal thing it seems...
Absolutely ! I didn´t interpret it any other way mate..

Monitoring is indeed a very personal thing. After one week with the Geithains I felt most of my checklist for the dream speaker was fulfilled and it has just grown to a level of sound I simply can not live without. As we discussed the need for presenting micro dynamics and "hyper detail" in an even more emphasized way comes to mind from time to time. Every speaker design has its flaws and compromise, and we need to choose which downsides, or buy several pairs to fill in the gaps.

The past two weeks I have definitely learned that the Strauss monitor close the gaps Geithains can't fill. After getting past the first week with a bad first impression I have experienced the same amazing feeling with the SE-NF-3 as I did with the PSI´s. I would say a combination of Geithains followed by Strauss or PSI as a second speaker would be at the top of my dreamlist right now... I will try to share my final thoughts , test mixes etc with the extended period I had with the Strauss monitors early next week..
Old 28th February 2014
  #1679
Lives for gear
 
Audiovisjon's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by eclipse View Post
Hi Audiovision
are you still using your Trinnov
and can you talk about your experience with the Trinnov
thanks
Dave
Absolutely Dave ! I will try to post a full review of the Trinnov as soon as time allow ..
Old 1st March 2014
  #1680
Lives for gear
 
JP__'s Avatar
 

Audiovision, funny that you compare strauss and psi. In my experience I see psi more nearby the geithain than the strauss.
Weve listen to strauss with different poweramps. With a cheaper one they sounded like I know a lot of studiomonitors: flat, everything there but somewhat slow and unhonest. With a expensive amp( big hothouse) suddenly there was the all the presence, the room response, the attacks in bass and mids and the dryness that I have missed before.
With one amp I had the feeling of a nice pleasant cloudyness and with the other the feeling of real, sometimes even unpleasant honesty...
the differences between two different strauss modells and geithain rl903 in this studio was huge.
Regarding psi I ve only listen to 215A which can sound can sound quite defensive in the mids and pronounced in bass depending on the room. I know quite a lot people they see them and a lot of the geithain range as quite pleasant hifi speakers...
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+  Submit Thread to Reddit Reddit 
 
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump