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
Entry-level vs Ultra-High End Monitors: the JBL LSR638 compared to the Barefoot MM12 Studio Monitors
Old 16th September 2014
  #1
Gear Maniac
 

Entry-level vs Ultra-High End Monitors: the JBL LSR638 compared to the Barefoot MM12

How does an entry-level high-end nearfield like, say, the JBL LSR6328 compare with a no-compromise monitor such as the Barefoot Minimain 12?
What exactly do you get for the extra $17,300?

I thought I'd find out.

So I have been comparing these two fine monitors side by side, not in any scientific way (the monitors are sighted; there is no attempt at double-blind conditions; no precise matching of levels, etc) but as objectively as the conditions allow. I can only plead that I'm relatively immune from bias due to price and reputation; I've been exposed to more over-priced hype than I care to remember and so am always ready to give short shrift to anything I perceive as crap, no matter how many plaudits it has received by the self-styled cognoscenti.

The two monitors differ in many respects , mainly in the more expensive monitor's favour, although the JBL holds up well in most areas and in a couple of aspects even surpasses the Barefoot on some material.

1. Timbre.

Here the Barefoot is way ahead. The JBL, by comparison with the Barefoot (and the sound of real instruments and voices), sounds drab, grey, narrow, and homogenized. It emphasizes the transient aspects of the sound at the expense of the sustained elements (although, it must be said, not to the extent of the Lipinski L-707, which takes this tendency to almost surrealistic extremes).

The MM12 is as realistic at depicting instrumental and vocal timbres as any transducer I've ever heard. It portrays the entire timbral palette from the softest, most ethereal whispers to the harshest dissonances with exceptional fidelity, although it my have the mildest tendency to soften the sound. In this aspect, it sounds far more like a great audiophile speaker than yer typical hard-toned monitor.

Only the most exotic ribbon speakers and the extraordinary armature drivers that Ultimate Ears use in their top of the line in-ear monitors approach or equal it for timbral fidelity although some markedly cheaper monitors like the KRK VXT8 do a remarkably good job in this area for the price. But the LSR6328 doesn't compete here; moving from the JBL to the Barefoot is like going from black and white to colour.

This increased timbral delineation also makes it that much easier to identify sounds and instruments in a complex mix because you can differentiate them by their timbral differences.

2. Purity/Absence of grain.

The JBL once again doesn't come close to matching the Barefoot for purity and lack of grain.The JBL has some metallic friction constantly present which gives a hardening colouration to the sound while the Barefoot sounds as free of any discolouring admixture as anything I've heard with the possible exception of the ribbon and armature-based speakers I've already referred to. Everything else has varying degrees of metallic, tinselly, woody, papery, or plasticky colourations.

3. Extended bass.

The JBL has remarkable bass for its size; auditioners have asked me where the sub is hiding. It's also very controlled for a reflex-loaded monitor. Even so, the MM12 still has the edge in definition; it also has a lovely fat tone which is exemplary in its fullness and evenness. Extended as the JBL is, the Barefoot goes quite a bit lower and with great power and control. Where the JBL is starting to fudge, the Barefoot is ringing out with authority.

4. Balance.

The JBL is relatively flat-sounding (measurements indicate near-perfect spectral balance) but the Barefoot sounds considerably more full and much closer to the sound of unprocessed instruments and voices. The JBL emphasizes the"presence" region at the expense of the lower midrange. This gives it a very immediate sound - typical of the balance many monitors have - although it doesn't take this to the excess of some "brutally revealing" monitors such as the Lipinski L-707.

The Barefoot's balance is atypical of the majority of monitors and may well be controversial. It's not forward in any way; there doesn't seem to be exaggeration of any area of the frequency spectrum. It doesn't sound overtly "detailed", "brutally revealing", or any of the epithets beloved by Gearslutz aficionados; on a cursory listen it may sound bland and uninvolving. In reality it sounds very much like unamplified live music sounds: you can hear everything but it never shouts "DETAIL"! The Barefoot is relaxed and completely unfatiguing so you can analyze the mix at your leisure.

5. Ambience, the Acoustic, and the "sound" of the room.

The JBL does a good job at capturing the acoustic surrounding the instrumants and voices but, by comparison to the Barefoot, it sounds somewhat homogenized. The room echoes/reverberation sound a little samey; with the Barefoot, in contrast, the various ambiences are clearly differentiated to an extent I've never encountered in any speaker. The original MM27 has been criticized for an over-clinical reproduction of ambience; it's difficult to see how anyone could criticize this aspect of the MM12.

6. Dynamic range.

The JBL plays louder than I ever care to listen and it does it with relative ease. Even so,the Barefoot sounds that much more relaxed and authoritative. When the JBL is in third gear the Barefoot is barely out of first. Whether it can match the largest mains monitors for SPL's I doubt but any sane auditioner will never find these lacking for dynamic range.

7. "Vibe" and immediacy.

This is where the JBL excels: music just seems to explode (if not literally, at the very least, suggestively) out of the speakers. Following the music is a breeze; when I first heard these I'd never gauged the "intent" of the musicians so clearly. Every phrase, every musical line, has purpose..

By comparison, the Barefoot sounds a little polite and restrained; whereas with the JBL you're participating in the performance, through the Barefoot you're more of an observer. This doesn't seem to be a matter of transient performance; the Barefoot's are as fast as anything I've ever heard, even the most exotic ribbons. Perhaps it's simply a function of the completely unhyped balance; drums and guitars are less upfront and everything is more distanced. Whatever the origin, the phenomenon exists; whether it is due to hype on the JBL's part or whether to something more fundamental in the area of immediacy (could the extremely complex crossover be doing something to the sound?) I still haven't decided.

8. Imagery.

Another area where the JBL comes to the fore and once again the question of hype versus accuracy is paramount. With the JBL, voices and instruments almost seem "sculpted" out of the air in space; the sense of tangibility is as strong as I've ever experienced. With the Barefoot, there's less sense of solid instruments and voices. Outlines aren't sculpted but blend into the surrounding acoustic. With the JBL, you get a clearly demarcated foreground and background; with the Barefoot, the contrast is far less discrete - it's all foreground, not spatially but in terms of outlines, colours, and textures. To use a visual analogy, with the JBL you see the outlines with preternatural vividness but don't see what is within the outlines; with the Barefoot, you concentrate as much on what is contained within the outlines and outside them than on the outlines themselves.The JBL's are etched; the Barefoot's are far more variegated. The sense of overt "separation" is much greater with the JBL; the blending of instrumental and vocal outlines with the surrounding acoustic is much more evident with the Barefoot. However, if you think separation is somehow identical with clarity you may well prefer the JBL. The Barefoot sounds much more like live sounds; with them you don't get that sense of almost unreal discrete separation you get with recorded music.

The Barefoot is more precise in its spatial discrimination than the JBL; sounds can be differentated in millimeters while the JBL is a little more "spread". Sometimes the JBL sounds more "holographic" - whether this is due to illusory hype I'm still undecided. The Barefoot never exaggerates spatially; at times it sounds a little confined but then another recording will sound as expansive as you could wish for. There is always a great deal of variation from recording to recording - more than anything I've heard apart from some planar speakers.

Which leads us to......

9. Invisibility.

The JBL has a certain sound which it takes from recording to recording and makes them sound more samey than they do with the Barefoot. The more expensive monitor, indeed, reveals the differing characters of the recordings fed through it with far less sense of any obscuring mediation than any speaker I've ever heard. If you think it sounds a certain way, play a different recording.

Conclusions.

Is it worth the extra money? For perfectionists and those who have to hear music as close to live as technology can make it, I'd have to say, yes. As for the others..................
Old 16th September 2014
  #2
Here for the gear
 

Keyser Soze, another great plus of Barefoot MM12 is their ability to work normally as nearfields. Definitely they are the biggest nearfields ever made. But, of course, they could also be midfields or even mains. We are on gearslutz forum, so, we are all gearsluts, that is why, I suppose, the main issue in this case is money. My room is only about 17 square meters. But if I have 20 grands for monitors, I would definitely by MM12. Besides the way, did you have an opportunity to audition JBL LSR 6332 with good amp (something like Bryston, or, at least, Adcom)? I have heard these 3-way passive midfields are a bargain, considering their price.
Old 16th September 2014
  #3
Keyser Soze, thank you very much for the detailed report !

I agree with all points.

Only Barefoot MM27 owner...

R.
Old 16th September 2014
  #4
Lives for gear
 

While the OP writes a nice review for an audiophile publication, it serves little practical purpose for our members (too many subjective adjectives).

1). What you hear from any speaker is it's interaction with the room it's in and it's positioning. Thus different room, different results. Move the speakers a bit, different results. Presumably the OP spent a great deal of time to find the best positioning within his room for both pairs but makes no mention of this. Typically it can take a couple hours per speaker pair with a measuring tape, buddy to help, and beverages of choice. Then put some masking tape down marking those speaker's position and repeat with the next pair. People who think that because of nearfield positioning and low monitering volumes they are immune to this interaction, are wrong. We have had another recent thread here that dealt with the different room - different results testing nearfields issue (why it is important to test in YOUR room), reading that thread should be of interest for anyone in the market for moniters. Posting pictures of the test room and speaker's positioning within it would be a very helpful addition for members here to understand the conditions of testing. Obviously a properly acoustically designed control room will carry more weight in these type of tests but again you are judging the speaker's INTERACTION in that specific room.

2). You are comparing a three way design to a two way design, I would expect differences due to just the crossovers and their crossover points. Frankly a much fairer test would have been against another 3 way at midfield positioning and if picking another JBL to go against, maybe the JBL LSR32 or LSR6332 (under $1k used price but passive so the amp adds another variable) as it's used in studios and post houses. It's your test to pick contenders but in this instance they are not the same design.

3). Studio moniters are specifically used to find flaws, when mixing have that mix translate well to other systems, and due to the long hours of use be non-fatiguing. This shootout addresses none of those critical issues. You could have auditioned known flawed reference tracks and reported how each contender handled them. You could have done mixes with each contentender and checked for mix translation on a number of other systems and reported results (and included mix files). You could have put a couple of long days work on each and reported how quickly you burnt out (this item is very important as we have known great speakers that you can only get a couple of hours work done on them). These specific details are very important for Engineers selecting studio moniters as the "Better" speaker can easily not be the "Better" studio moniter.

4). Your point #3 about Bass . . . Measurement mics are $100 and the analyzing software is free on the net. When shooting out a $17k moniter would it be that hard to post measurement graphs of how it and any contender performs at the Engineer's position? While you are at it, how about a pink noise graph so we can see what the shootout room looks like with each contender.

5). Your point #5 about Ambiance . . . How about setting up a pair of mics (M/S and/or Stereo) and a musician in the live room and reporting what is really happening with room ambiance between the contender speakers. What is on a recording is a whole different matter and a simple treble boost will increase ambiance (this gets back into posting real world measurement graphs to see if this aspect is a result of a speaker's voicing or better performance).

6). Your point #6 about Dynamic Range . . . There is a difference between dynamic range and loudness. Your paragraph comes off as a confusion between the two. At what level a speaker goes into compression is valuable info especially for nearfields.

7). Your point #8 about Imagery . . . Using known and repeatable imaging references such as the simple LEDR test where you could report that "speaker A" has better defined extended side or up are tangable metrics. Even using well known 3D spacial reference tracks (Dark Side of the Moon) could be used for that purpose. One must keep in mind though that this is one aspect of speakers that is heavily dependent on positioning and the interaction of the room.

All in all, thanks for the effort and contribution and while I'm not trying to bust your balls, I find little practical information for an Engineer to use out of this shootout (go easy on the jargon adjectives and give us some solid info next time).
Old 17th September 2014
  #5
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Krivicky View Post
Keyser Soze, another great plus of Barefoot MM12 is their ability to work normally as nearfields. Definitely they are the biggest nearfields ever made. But, of course, they could also be midfields or even mains. We are on gearslutz forum, so, we are all gearsluts, that is why, I suppose, the main issue in this case is money. My room is only about 17 square meters. But if I have 20 grands for monitors, I would definitely by MM12. Besides the way, did you have an opportunity to audition JBL LSR 6332 with good amp (something like Bryston, or, at least, Adcom)? I have heard these 3-way passive midfields are a bargain, considering their price.
To be honest, I auditioned them only in the mid and far-fields. Their weight precludes moving them around and so I haven't moved them close enough to give them a fair go as nearfields. Barefoot themselves state they can be used at distances as short as a metre and if this is truly the case they are certainly the most versatile monitor on the market with the "meme" settings. The only practical problem is the weight.

I haven't heard the 6332 but would imagine it suffers from some of the other drawbacks of the 6328 as it shares the same tweeter and woofers made from similar materials. It's hard to see it coming close to the MM12's for (1) reproduction of timbre; and (2) absence of grain. In these two areas the MM12 seems to be in a league of it's own with only ribbon drivers from the likes of Raven and BEE Engineering approaching their performance.
Old 17th September 2014
  #6
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassmankr View Post
While the OP writes a nice review for an audiophile publication, it serves little practical purpose for our members (too many subjective adjectives).

1). What you hear from any speaker is it's interaction with the room it's in and it's positioning. Thus different room, different results. Move the speakers a bit, different results. Presumably the OP spent a great deal of time to find the best positioning within his room for both pairs but makes no mention of this. Typically it can take a couple hours per speaker pair with a measuring tape, buddy to help, and beverages of choice. Then put some masking tape down marking those speaker's position and repeat with the next pair. People who think that because of nearfield positioning and low monitering volumes they are immune to this interaction, are wrong. We have had another recent thread here that dealt with the different room - different results testing nearfields issue (why it is important to test in YOUR room), reading that thread should be of interest for anyone in the market for moniters. Posting pictures of the test room and speaker's positioning within it would be a very helpful addition for members here to understand the conditions of testing. Obviously a properly acoustically designed control room will carry more weight in these type of tests but again you are judging the speaker's INTERACTION in that specific room.

2). You are comparing a three way design to a two way design, I would expect differences due to just the crossovers and their crossover points. Frankly a much fairer test would have been against another 3 way at midfield positioning and if picking another JBL to go against, maybe the JBL LSR32 or LSR6332 (under $1k used price but passive so the amp adds another variable) as it's used in studios and post houses. It's your test to pick contenders but in this instance they are not the same design.

3). Studio moniters are specifically used to find flaws, when mixing have that mix translate well to other systems, and due to the long hours of use be non-fatiguing. This shootout addresses none of those critical issues. You could have auditioned known flawed reference tracks and reported how each contender handled them. You could have done mixes with each contentender and checked for mix translation on a number of other systems and reported results (and included mix files). You could have put a couple of long days work on each and reported how quickly you burnt out (this item is very important as we have known great speakers that you can only get a couple of hours work done on them). These specific details are very important for Engineers selecting studio moniters as the "Better" speaker can easily not be the "Better" studio moniter.

4). Your point #3 about Bass . . . Measurement mics are $100 and the analyzing software is free on the net. When shooting out a $17k moniter would it be that hard to post measurement graphs of how it and any contender performs at the Engineer's position? While you are at it, how about a pink noise graph so we can see what the shootout room looks like with each contender.

5). Your point #5 about Ambiance . . . How about setting up a pair of mics (M/S and/or Stereo) and a musician in the live room and reporting what is really happening with room ambiance between the contender speakers. What is on a recording is a whole different matter and a simple treble boost will increase ambiance (this gets back into posting real world measurement graphs to see if this aspect is a result of a speaker's voicing or better performance).

6). Your point #6 about Dynamic Range . . . There is a difference between dynamic range and loudness. Your paragraph comes off as a confusion between the two. At what level a speaker goes into compression is valuable info especially for nearfields.

7). Your point #8 about Imagery . . . Using known and repeatable imaging references such as the simple LEDR test where you could report that "speaker A" has better defined extended side or up are tangable metrics. Even using well known 3D spacial reference tracks (Dark Side of the Moon) could be used for that purpose. One must keep in mind though that this is one aspect of speakers that is heavily dependent on positioning and the interaction of the room.

All in all, thanks for the effort and contribution and while I'm not trying to bust your balls, I find little practical information for an Engineer to use out of this shootout (go easy on the jargon adjectives and give us some solid info next time).
Some valid points but I find it a little amusing that you consider the engineer's judgements on monitor-performance to be in any way "objective".
Anyway, let's take your points one by one:

1. Room interaction. Sure, different rooms affect the sound but I've found, in moving from a heavily-furnished and "dead" setting to a sparsely-furnished "live" one that the various monitors I've tried have still preserved their basic audio qualities and Floyd E.Toole, in a series of blind tests, found the very same thing. The JBL's still have every element I described in two very different rooms; ditto the Lipinski L-707 and the KRK VXT8. And I strongly doubt that the MM12 will suddenly sound grainy, hyped and over-present in any room imaginable.

2. Actually, it's a FOUR-WAY versus a two-way. But why does it matter? The point was not to compare like with like, but affordable with very expensive.

3. "Translation" is objective?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Pull the other one!!!!!!!!!!! AS for non-fatiguing, it's pretty clear the MM12 is extremely unfatiguing, what with the unhyped balance, absence of grain and low colouration - all "objective" factors in my book. " Lack of grain" is far less subjective than "I did a mix and it sounded great through my car-speakers so it MUST sound great on everything", don't you think?

4. Given the differences in rooms and your comments on room-interaction how can publishing graphs of how the two monitor's do on bass - the most room-dependent factor in monitor performance - in my specific, highly particular situation have any "objective" relevance to how their bass sounds in other rooms?

5. When you can hear the differences in rooms, echo-plates, and all other manifestations of "ambience" much more clearly through one monitor than another, why do a live comparison? Engineers, after all, are evaluating recordings, not live music, are they not?

6. Not sure how I'm confusing the two. If one monitor is cruising when the other monitor is showing signs of stress isn't this once again an "objective" phenomenon? And isn't it a matter of dynamic range pure and simple?

7. Well, obviously I did A-B comparisons galore between different recordings and duly reported that the MM12 was more precise in its imagery and varied more from recording to recording than the JBL. If you wanted me to go into specific examples I can do so. My point was to submit conclusions based on months of listening experiences. If you want specific comparisons of say, Floyd or Steely or anyone else you like I'm happy to do so.

As for practical information, the MM12's are rather good, you know. But expensive. And heavy!
Old 17th September 2014
  #7
Lives for gear
 

Keyser, The Engineer's judgment IS more objective in this instance than the Audiophile's just from the fact he tries to eliminate variables and blind tests when possible. We additionally are specifically talking about a major tool of the trade here and with any tool of the trade I'm going to put much more credence in and believe there is more objectivity in the opinion of someone using those tools on a daily basis to put food on the table for their families than from someone else. Example, if I'm a plumber, who do you think is going to have better practical advice about tools of the trade, the marketing departments of tool makers, a stock broker who does weekend home improvement, or other plumbers?

Your reply to point 1 . . . We have a whole subsection at this site devoted to "Acoustics" as it's that important. We spend great deals of money to control it (much more than on any speaker) as that is what a real recording studio does. In fact a commercial studio will likely spend more than $17K just on it's HVAC system to silence air flow as we know how much noise simple air movement makes. The costs of very good sound isolation are stagering and involve lots of mass and special construction. While a particular speaker may have the same character moving from room to room, its the INTERACTION you are really judging. Hense suggesting reading the other thread about auditioning in your own room. This also brings up the issue of division of budget as many home guys would be better off spending more on getting their rooms better first than on very high dollar speakers. If the room's geometry is bad there is little short of changing it you can do to make it work better as putting a better speaker in does not correct the major problem. This gets into the point further down the list of analyzing the room as well as the speaker's interaction from it's specific placement in it.

Your reply to point 2 . . . Comparing a 2 way to another 2 way or 4 way to another 4 way for that matter is about where the crossover points are and how a speaker handles them. The practicality comes into play as that crossover point has a counterpart in the recording. One speaker's type of construction's crossover frequency point might be where the female vocal is at and the other different constructed speaker might have it's point effecting the guitar part. Now you are comparing a guitar part to a vocal, apples to oranges. Matching construction type is just one less variable to be concerned over.

Your reply to point 3 . . . Translation is very objective to Engineers and why we use additional speaker sets in a control room for checks including the craptastic Auratones 5C's besides checking on outside sources. We specifically listen for translation of elements and especially mix balance. One common trick employed is playing a mix on the crap speakers at low volume and listening from another room through an open door. It's hard to get anymore low-fi than that but it can tell us a great deal about mix balance translation. If we use a pair of speakers to mix on and the mix sounds great but when we check translation, balances are out of whack or elements drop out then we have failed in crafting our product. Thus you can have a great pair of speakers but using that particular pair for studio moniters can be a failure. As for the non-fatiguing issue, yes this matters very much and a report of how you felt after a couple of long days mixing on a particular set of speakers is very important info to Engineers. Again some very good speakers have also been very fatiguing (only able to get a couple hours of work done on them before getting burnt out). Your report said you spend time with them, was it just listening to music? Did you mix on them? How many consecutive hours did you spend on them? This is the detailed info Engineers are concerned about with reviews on tools of the trade (that you actually used them as tools of the trade).

Your reply to point 4 . . . The speaker performance graph that you get from the manufacturer is likely just a computer model or test of one speaker in an Anechoic chamber. See this link dealing with just that info: Meyer Sound : The Anechoic Chamber Not only do manufacturers fudge marketing info to make their product look better, the speaker you get will likely be different in some ways from the one tested (if it was tested and not modeled). Even with the highest quality control there is a percentage of product variation. The purpose of setting up a measurement mic and analyzing lets us look at what BOTH the room and the speaker are actually doing. We can see if there is a bass problem in the room. We can see what the bass performance of a speaker is in a particular position in the room. By comparison of the graphs we can see the actual performance of the speaker. By comparison of graphs at increasing volume levels we can see when a speaker starts to go into compression and it's frequency response changes. Frankly there is plenty of objective info we get from IN PLACE measurement. Again head over to the "Acoustics" subsection here for practical application of how this info is used by recording studios. Obviously reviews that include this type of info are of far greater value to Engineers.

Your reply to point 5 . . . Engineers at least for acoustic instrument recording are comparing the sound at point of mic to what finally comes out the moniter. Hense comparing it to actual conditions. Knowing if a speaker just uses a treble boost in it's voicing instead of actually capturing greater detail is important info. Commercial studios will spend a great deal time and money on the acoustics of both the live room and control room. The aim of the control room is just that, very controlled neutral acoustics where the frequency nulls and peaks are spread out and as close as possible to flat (it's never perfect but the best that can be achieved under the real world physics of acoustics). This is done by room geometry (the biggest factor), room construction (the biggest factor in sound isolation), room treatment (the minor corrections we can do to get closer to the ideal), speaker and Engineer positioning (move either and you have a different response as room mic measurement clearly shows), and in some cases minor room EQ correction. Looking at actual measurement graphs will tell part of the story, seeing how a speaker performs under actual working conditions tells the rest of it.

Your reply to point 6 . . . Again Engineers use the term "Dynamic Range" to mean a specific thing, this link gets into it: Dynamic range - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Your description of one speaker showing stress is only useful information if put into the context of at what volume level and what is changing in the frequency response (again measuremnet graphs coming into play). If a particular speaker goes into compression at a higher level than we typically work at then it's not as big of an issue as a speaker that does that at typical working levels. This is very vital info for nearfields with their smaller drivers trying to sound bigger than they are.

Your reply to point 7 . . . Details about imaging matter to us and using a standard reference lets us know what your impressions are. What are the differences in the area between the actual left and right speaker (some can sound very 3D, others more stuck to the imaginary plane drawn beteen the two speakers)? What about the side area extended from the speakers actual placement? How do they handle elements placed in the up position (this can be very telling about imaging quality)? How do they handle elements behind the listener? How do they handle down (very few speakers handle down)? These are real concerns for the Engineer as I'm sure you have heard very flat lifeless recordings. Additionally with some digital gear we have to fight it's tendancy to pull elements front and center.

Again I'm not trying to bust your balls and thank you for your contribution. Hopefully I'm helping you understand the type of info Engineers regard as more vital and necessary in selecting any speaker short list for further research. The adjectives don't tell us much without much greater context and certain adjectives such as "Grainy" are far too general to use other than as a negative word (although I have seen certain cheap consumer speakers do too much smooth). And yes I go after the guys writing "it sounded good on my car stereo" for lack of context too. Just give us more critical info we can use next time out.
Old 17th September 2014
  #8
Jai guru deva om
 
warhead's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassmankr View Post
You could have done mixes with each contentender and checked for mix translation on a number of other systems and reported results (and included mix files).
I'm so sorry, but this has nothing to do with translation (which is learned, not suddenly present in one speaker vs another).

I see translation presented as something we can know based on posting a mix by one person in one situation and it kind of kills me.

The method would consist of taking a speaker in a room that you are not familiar with, mixing, then finding out what might be different than another mix on another speaker.

In reality this is the opposite of a lesson learned, because if the speakers were understood over many weeks or months in that spot in that room, the mix would not have just turned out the way it did (good or bad).

It's more like you're only reporting step 1 out of all the steps it takes to learn a speaker in a room, yet presenting it as proof that one speaker does a certain thing for all of humanity.

War
Old 17th September 2014
  #9
Lives for gear
 

Warhead, you are right that I reported that aspect from the point of view of an Engineer that has learned about translation in his room. Learning any tool you have (which takes time) is the key to a superior final product as evidenced by great recordings made with what we think of today as less than stellar rooms and gear. The control room itself is one of those tools as learning it's personality, flaws (they are never perfect), and it's work arounds is vital. As such the traveling Engineer needs time listening to his reference tracks to at least quickly adopt to the room before recording. We are again however making the point about what we hear is actually the speaker's interaction.

An Engineer should be able to do a quick mix on a canidate speaker in the room they know well so that the mix sounds good and with their standard checking determine how that canidate initially translates. Spending more time really getting to learn the canidate lets you fine tune that process however there are speakers that sound good in the control room and translate horribly to other systems. Do you adjust with that speaker so that the mix sounds mediocre or bad but translates well, or do you simply get a moniter speaker that does both well (best tool for the job in your room).
Old 17th September 2014
  #10
Jai guru deva om
 
warhead's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassmankr View Post
An Engineer should be able to do a quick mix on a canidate speaker in the room they know well so that the mix sounds good and with their standard checking determine how that canidate initially translates.
Aha, yes but the engineer is now only familiar with the changes in his situation / speaker setup.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassmankr View Post
Spending more time really getting to learn the canidate lets you fine tune that process however there are speakers that sound good in the control room and translate horribly to other systems.
Speakers deliver info, the engineer translates what he knows happens in this arrangement over time. Any good speaker can be learned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassmankr View Post
Do you adjust with that speaker so that the mix sounds mediocre or bad but translates well, or do you simply get a moniter speaker that does both well (best tool for the job in your room).
Yes, you adjust with the speaker to do a job you're being paid to do. This doesn't mean that if you, the engineer does not like the speaker or are fighting it for translation, that you have to stick with it. This is why in the end the only real way to know if you dig the texture and way a speaker forces you to work, is to bring it into your space.

Nobody on the internet can mix on speakers, notice the difference, then report that as some kind of "translation". Translation is learned and takes time.

War
Old 18th September 2014
  #11
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassmankr View Post
Keyser, The Engineer's judgment IS more objective in this instance than the Audiophile's just from the fact he tries to eliminate variables and blind tests when possible. We additionally are specifically talking about a major tool of the trade here and with any tool of the trade I'm going to put much more credence in and believe there is more objectivity in the opinion of someone using those tools on a daily basis to put food on the table for their families than from someone else.
Thanks for your detailed and thoughtful response. Rather than responding to every point individually, I'll just say that I have a diametrically-opposed philosophy to the Engineer's school of recording music which is the norm on Gearslutz and predominantly through the modern day recording industry.


So let me start by saying something controversial. The decline of popular music coincided with the taking over of the Producer's chair by engineers (not that this was the only factor, I hasten to add).

From the late 60s, the traditional Producer who was the Artistic Guy pure and simple, generally employed by the record company to churn out hits, and who had the engineers as subordinates who just twiddled the knobs at his command was replaced by the engineers themselves. The engineer no doubt liked music but his thing was the technical stuff. The olde-style producer, in contrast, didn't give a rat's about the stuff engineer's lost their hair about: all they cared about was getting a musical performance down on tape. So if it had technical imperfections that drove the engineer's crazy so be it. The performance got released, warts and all. Recording sessions were much quicker and more spontaneous because the producer realized that the artists were often at their best when they were fresh and inspired. Hence the era was one of brilliantly alive music and technically poor recordings.

Meanwhile, the engineers were feeling pretty damn resentful about it all. While they were sitting at the desks doing all the mundane work the producer would often just swan in to make a judgement about which take would be The One.

But a revolution was about to get under way.


Musicians themselves decided to take over the producer's role. Of course, being technically ignorant, they had to collaborate closely with the engineers.

Almost overnight the old artistic guys were put out to pasture and bit by bit the engineers took over the producer's role. NOW they could make the recordings they always wanted to make and they could spend months and even years doing it!

So now we've got to where we are: the recording world is the purview of the engineer who mulls over stuff that doesn't concern anybody outside of his insular world. I call it Stuff That Doesn't Matter. Stuff like "room interaction" and "translation" and where the crossover point is and all the other stuff that furrows the brows of engineers all over the world and which pretty well all the punters who actually buy and listen to the music couldn't give a toss about.

And for all the engineer's anguish is the music any better now than it was in the days of those frenetic three hour recording sessions?

And meanwhile the Barefoot MM12 lays bare this music in all its beauty and majesty.........but "beauty" and "majesty" are not "objective" matters, are they not?

And sorry to be flippant, but have you ever thought about What's It All About? What's important? Does all the "objective" stuff matter a hill of beans? Or should it be about getting an intangible something down for ever? Without bothering about how it might translate to some unknowable playback system?

There. Now you have my rant.
Old 18th September 2014
  #12
Lives for gear
 

You write a very good rant and this one in particular is propbably worthy of it's own separate thread as i could see many jumping in with their points of view on the subjects you raise (perhaps start another thread with a copy of the rant as not to get this one off topic).

My personal opinion is that many Engineers then and now view themselves as craftsmen. A craftsman will take pride in their work and do the best they can with whatever they have to work with, however that work product is used. Just like the guy who takes pride in doing a good job cleaning a public restroom knowing that by the end of tomorrow his work has been undone, Engineers take pride in less than stellar music endevors (polishing a turd). The state of music for all the eras is more a reflection of commercial workings than the Engineer's role(s). We are in the service industry and sell our time and experience. Unless an Engineer is recording himself, we do not write the songs, in most cases do not perform on the songs, nor control what material is fed to the mass markets. If the client is a Producer or the client chooses to hire one, we work at their direction.
Old 18th September 2014
  #13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassmankr View Post

One common trick employed is playing a mix on the crap speakers at low volume and listening from another room through an open door. It's hard to get anymore low-fi than that but it can tell us a great deal about mix balance translation.
I often do that with my Quested mainsystem and my Barefoots.
It is way too loud to be in the controlroom. But in the recordingroom sounds great.

And I think, I'm the only one with this idea...
Too bad...

R.
Old 19th September 2014
  #14
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassmankr View Post
You write a very good rant and this one in particular is propbably worthy of it's own separate thread as i could see many jumping in with their points of view on the subjects you raise (perhaps start another thread with a copy of the rant as not to get this one off topic).

My personal opinion is that many Engineers then and now view themselves as craftsmen. A craftsman will take pride in their work and do the best they can with whatever they have to work with, however that work product is used. Just like the guy who takes pride in doing a good job cleaning a public restroom knowing that by the end of tomorrow his work has been undone, Engineers take pride in less than stellar music endevors (polishing a turd). The state of music for all the eras is more a reflection of commercial workings than the Engineer's role(s). We are in the service industry and sell our time and experience. Unless an Engineer is recording himself, we do not write the songs, in most cases do not perform on the songs, nor control what material is fed to the mass markets. If the client is a Producer or the client chooses to hire one, we work at their direction.
I guess what I'm trying to say is: why does "House Of the Rising Son" by the Animals - which is my personal nomination for "most independent of playback systems" (i.e., most translatable) recording ever made - sound so much more communicative and alive through anything you play it through than virtually anything recorded today even though it was recorded decades before the concept of "translation" was anything more than a gleam in the engineer's eye?
Old 19th September 2014
  #15
Gear Maniac
 

.........but staying OT I'll try to give more background into my assessment of the MM12.

I've listened to them for nine months now and so have a pretty good handle on how they sound - no fifteen-minute auditions under show conditions. And I have a few handy comparison monitors to make checks on when I'm unsure about one thing or another. I just thought that my impressions might be useful to anybody using good but affordable monitors at present and wondering if it was worth starting to save up or going without food for a year or two.......

My focus is primarily on their ability to transmit the music as purely as possible without the upsetting interference pretty well every monitor imposes on the original sound. My belief is that the better a monitor does music the more accurately it does all the other stuff - the stuff that engineers seem to be primarily concerned about when they spend days at the mixing board. If a monitor gets timbre right - and the vast majority do a really bad job of this crucial aspect of music reproduction - then it'll get the myriad details that engineers are looking for right as well.

But of course this kind of monitor doesn't exaggerate this kind of detail; in fact, it may even minimize it in comparison to traditional-sounding monitors which emphasize and highlight the "presence" region where this sort of detail is concentrated.

If you're looking for an exaggerated-presence sound the MM12 is not for you. It is characterized (if this word can be used of such a neutral monitor) by a complete absence of exaggeration in any area. Every speaker and headphone I have heard seems to emphasize some aspect or another of the complete sound world. Monitors generally bring the sound forward and have a stark, exaggeratedly "separate" presentation that gives the impression of "immediacy" and overt "clarity". The MM12 sounds more distant and may be criticized for this but I quickly realized how much more like real music the MM12 sounds than the "brutally revealing" monitors which put the music into your lap by comparison.

And the MM12, in its unobtrusive way, actually offers more genuine detail than all the "brutally revealing" monitors I have heard. You can hear much more easily how things have been recorded because everything is in its place, everything is "complete" and not skewed in the way traditional monitors are. To take one example (of many). I've been listening to the Emerson Quartet's recording of the Beethoven string quartets through the Lipinski L-707's and couldn't figure out why it sounded so out of focus. It almost sounded as if it'd been recorded out of phase and the instruments sounded out of tune and lacking in the tonal beauty that real strings have. Anyway, I've just played the recording through the MM12's and not only was the beauty of the instruments revealed but they sounded dead in tune, and the recording suddenly became focused. The echo radiated from the instruments was clear and very much like what you hear in real life whereas with the Lipinski it was almost as if it'd been added electronically.

Now if you're of the "Hairshirt" School that believes that" the worse it sounds the more revealing your monitors are" then you may conclude that the Lipinski's are revealing faults in the recording that the MM12 is papering over. If so, then the MM12's are not for you. All I can say is that after five years of acquaintanceship with the Lipinki's and nine months with the MM12 that it is the MM12 that is far in advance at letting you know just what it is on the recording.

So, is that any help for engineers?
Old 19th September 2014
  #16
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by warhead View Post
I'm so sorry, but this has nothing to do with translation (which is learned, not suddenly present in one speaker vs another).

I see translation presented as something we can know based on posting a mix by one person in one situation and it kind of kills me.

The method would consist of taking a speaker in a room that you are not familiar with, mixing, then finding out what might be different than another mix on another speaker.

In reality this is the opposite of a lesson learned, because if the speakers were understood over many weeks or months in that spot in that room, the mix would not have just turned out the way it did (good or bad).

It's more like you're only reporting step 1 out of all the steps it takes to learn a speaker in a room, yet presenting it as proof that one speaker does a certain thing for all of humanity.

War
thank you for posting this, often i hear the word 'translation' used and abused so much it means nothing. very much like the term 'warm' etc. to me it's more about creating a room/sound that favours the type of mix i like, sound preference is a personal thing.

the actual monitor used is about say 30% of the equation, no doubt very important, but i rather take a mediocre monitor and set it up myself than having a great monitor set up by someone i don't sonicaly agree with it.
Old 20th September 2014
  #17
Lives for gear
 

Keyser, some info on your off topic subject that you may already know, if so then this is for others that may stumble on this tangent and be interested.

The Animal's "House of the Rising Sun" was recorded in one take (4-1/2 minutes with no overdubs) as part of an hour and a half they managed to fit into ITV's "Ready, Set, Go" session. If their Producer was even at the session (bandmates disagree with their recollections), then he didn't do anything. They recorded some other songs too at that date but not enough for a complete album. The Animals had been touring, opening for Chuck Berry and this song was their big closer, something they had perfected and been playing live for some time (the arrangement and band were extremely well rehersed).

This was the recording studio, De Lane Lea: Kingsway Studios - De Lane Lea although the linked main control room pic shows the changed studio 1966 setup (4 track), the song was recorded 2 years earlier in 1964 in mono with other equipment. What that pic does show is part of the live room which you can tell was large and had high ceilings. This studio is an actual basement studio as it's all underground and one reference said it was part of Winston Churchill's map room during World War II. The Engineer was Dave Siddle and this was his first electric instrument recording. Dave would go on to record some other classic material, the Rolling Stones, a Beatles overflow session, and Jimi Hendrix's "Hey Joe" and "Purple Haze".

So this is probably what we know about how it was recorded (if others know specifics chime in). It was tracked in a good acoustic space (high ceilings and large cubic volume). We know today that the magic "forgiveness number" if you have high ceilings is 5000 cubic feet and larger, where the volume of the space can forgive some bad acoustics. The pic looks like the live room / tracking room is larger than that. Back then they paid attention to the acoustics of the live room / tracking space so it may have been an excellent space regardless. The BBC did lots of testing and data collection which is still used today (material acoustics / room ratios / building assemblies / etc.). Given this particular studio did lots of dubbing work they may have had access to the BBC testing and applied it (it would be interesting to find this type of info out). The control rooms of that era were a different matter (something we learned a bit later).

The mics used were probably excellent and would today be highly desired, high end mics priced out of the reach of many. The recording style in London then was NOT close micing for fear of mic damage and signal overload so the room itself was a large part of the recorded sound. Remember that mics are basically the opposite of speakers, so that a Mic captures the INTERACTION of sound produced, the room, and itself. They didn't use a lot of mics either back then as mixing desks were fairly limited with input channels. As a result, the Engineers really had to know how to set up the musicians and mics in their room to get a proper balance before signal hit the mixing desk. The mixing desk would have been a tube design and maybe had very limited EQ (I'm guessing 2 or 3 broad bands).

It would likely have been recorded to a one or two channel tape deck but because of that limited track count you would have a wider tape print width giving you a better sound. Basically they were recording signal to MORE actual magnetic particle tape area per slice of time. Today some seek out 16 track head stacks on 2" tape decks instead of the common 24 track headstacks because of the extra physical width per indiviual track recorded on the tape (better sonics).

One would have to know the studio's specific details if they used a compressor(s) in the signal chain, if they did they would be tube too.

So all in all, lots of tubes and transformers in the signal path via top end gear with great sonics mixed down to a mono master tape.


Now as for the emotional impact of that recording. The song via it's composition, arrangement, and performance has the uber important "tension and release" throughout as all timeless great emotional works seem to share in common. In the words of one of the band members . . "We started at a certain pace - move it up a few notches - really drive it - and then drop it right back down - then build back to a crescendo at the end." Today with a poor manufactured formula song, which has even poorer lyrics, which is further quantized / worked to a grid / tuned, which is then mixed - mastered to use as much compression as possible for loudness, is it any wonder there is little to any "tension and release" (emotion).

As for songs today (in general), take your pick any of the above mentioned specifics to give you an idea of why you are not seeing equal results. The details mattered in 1964 as they do today if you want to achieve the same thing.
Old 21st September 2014
  #18
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassmankr View Post
Keyser, some info on your off topic subject that you may already know, if so then this is for others that may stumble on this tangent and be interested.

The Animal's "House of the Rising Sun" was recorded in one take (4-1/2 minutes with no overdubs) as part of an hour and a half they managed to fit into ITV's "Ready, Set, Go" session. If their Producer was even at the session (bandmates disagree with their recollections), then he didn't do anything. They recorded some other songs too at that date but not enough for a complete album. The Animals had been touring, opening for Chuck Berry and this song was their big closer, something they had perfected and been playing live for some time (the arrangement and band were extremely well rehersed).

This was the recording studio, De Lane Lea: Kingsway Studios - De Lane Lea although the linked main control room pic shows the changed studio 1966 setup (4 track), the song was recorded 2 years earlier in 1964 in mono with other equipment. What that pic does show is part of the live room which you can tell was large and had high ceilings. This studio is an actual basement studio as it's all underground and one reference said it was part of Winston Churchill's map room during World War II. The Engineer was Dave Siddle and this was his first electric instrument recording. Dave would go on to record some other classic material, the Rolling Stones, a Beatles overflow session, and Jimi Hendrix's "Hey Joe" and "Purple Haze".

So this is probably what we know about how it was recorded (if others know specifics chime in). It was tracked in a good acoustic space (high ceilings and large cubic volume). We know today that the magic "forgiveness number" if you have high ceilings is 5000 cubic feet and larger, where the volume of the space can forgive some bad acoustics. The pic looks like the live room / tracking room is larger than that. Back then they paid attention to the acoustics of the live room / tracking space so it may have been an excellent space regardless. The BBC did lots of testing and data collection which is still used today (material acoustics / room ratios / building assemblies / etc.). Given this particular studio did lots of dubbing work they may have had access to the BBC testing and applied it (it would be interesting to find this type of info out). The control rooms of that era were a different matter (something we learned a bit later).

The mics used were probably excellent and would today be highly desired, high end mics priced out of the reach of many. The recording style in London then was NOT close micing for fear of mic damage and signal overload so the room itself was a large part of the recorded sound. Remember that mics are basically the opposite of speakers, so that a Mic captures the INTERACTION of sound produced, the room, and itself. They didn't use a lot of mics either back then as mixing desks were fairly limited with input channels. As a result, the Engineers really had to know how to set up the musicians and mics in their room to get a proper balance before signal hit the mixing desk. The mixing desk would have been a tube design and maybe had very limited EQ (I'm guessing 2 or 3 broad bands).

It would likely have been recorded to a one or two channel tape deck but because of that limited track count you would have a wider tape print width giving you a better sound. Basically they were recording signal to MORE actual magnetic particle tape area per slice of time. Today some seek out 16 track head stacks on 2" tape decks instead of the common 24 track headstacks because of the extra physical width per indiviual track recorded on the tape (better sonics).

One would have to know the studio's specific details if they used a compressor(s) in the signal chain, if they did they would be tube too.

So all in all, lots of tubes and transformers in the signal path via top end gear with great sonics mixed down to a mono master tape.


Now as for the emotional impact of that recording. The song via it's composition, arrangement, and performance has the uber important "tension and release" throughout as all timeless great emotional works seem to share in common. In the words of one of the band members . . "We started at a certain pace - move it up a few notches - really drive it - and then drop it right back down - then build back to a crescendo at the end." Today with a poor manufactured formula song, which has even poorer lyrics, which is further quantized / worked to a grid / tuned, which is then mixed - mastered to use as much compression as possible for loudness, is it any wonder there is little to any "tension and release" (emotion).

As for songs today (in general), take your pick any of the above mentioned specifics to give you an idea of why you are not seeing equal results. The details mattered in 1964 as they do today if you want to achieve the same thing.
Thanks for all the info on how this remarkable recording was made. Your comments agree with the recollections the producer, Mickie Most, had to say about it: that it was recorded in one take, and that he really did nothing but sit there and approve it for release. In fact, he said the recording was "self-produced". One thing he did say on his recording philosophy was " I'm not interested in sounds and echoes and all that crap. I'm interested once I get in the studio, but I can't be attracted by the thought of going in there to make sounds - give me a good song, and then I'll go in the studio, and let's see if we can make sounds around it. Without the song, I wasn't motivated then, and I'm not today".

I guess that's my point about old-style producers and modern engineers-cum-producers. The emphasis was much more on the song and it's potential as a hit; the studio was only the means to do this. Nowadays the studio is almost an end in itself and the song becomes almost lost amongst the myriad of possible mixes. In the old days the mix almost took care of itself, partly due to the technical limitations of the time (how do you mix from a one-track tape?), but also because the song dictated that emphasis was on whatever carried the musical line - generally the vocals but sometimes a guitar phrase or riff. The other instruments were left to take care of themselves (bass-lines are often close to inaudible, for example) and the consequent simplicity and lack of clutter made the recordings sound fundamentally the same no matter what they were played through.

In fact, I'd like to offer a basic rule of translation: the simpler and less cluttered the mix and the more prominent the musical line the better it will sound on a wider variety of playback systems. Conversely, the more complex and "egalitarian" the mix the more dependent on a compatible playback system.

BTW Dave Siddle was obviously expert on capturing immediacy and excitement, based on just that small list of recordings he was involved with. Definitely someone whose work - and the means he employed to achieve it - should be carefully studied. Your comments on the recording techniques employed on "House" are a fine start.
Old 25th July 2015
  #19
Lives for gear
 
murphythecat87's Avatar
 

I wish you would have used the jbl lsr6332. would have made the comparison much more fair and relevant. thanks for the comparison!
Old 25th July 2015
  #20
Gear Addict
 

This, that, other stuff. None of this makes sense or is really useful. These critical listening speakers are to do something at the end of the day and the only thing that gets done is blowing a wad of cash and going on and on in some sort of schizo logic. Why not send me the money and write about your feelings on how you taped the cardboard box and how many times had to go to the bathroom and pee. Seriously, I can give you my address; I'll even pay for overnight shipping on the box of cash. A music producer uses speakers to produce music. A used music gear salesman buys and sells used musical equipment. Is there any plan of eventually getting a pair of speakers and making them work and sitting down to use them to accomplish whatever they were bought for? Or just buy, not quite content, blow mouth, sell, repeat.
Old 25th May 2017
  #21
Lives for gear
 
jimmyboy7's Avatar
Great discussion

Thanks for a great discussion gang!! All I have to add is that I just ordered my Minimain 12's last week

I am upgrading from Micro Main 35's so it's a big step forward!! I'll try to give some feedback as I work with them
Old 25th May 2017
  #22
Lives for gear
 
BarcelonaMusic's Avatar
 

I`ve had the LSR4328`s. I`ve had them for years. They are awesome. but, I`m always looking for some better. I have a good friend whos recorded more albums, than..I don`t know. Almost everything he recorded I listened to when I was in High School and after(so, naturally, I always have questions!). Several Grammys. I usually ask him before I buy anything big, and on his own, he still uses the LSR`s outside what said commercial studio has. But is used to these, they are GREAT speakers. I`ve been looking at KEF LS50W monitors. No balanced input, but I`ve been using digital monitors for years. I`m intrigued by them. I would NEVER spend $22,500 or whatever on Vintage King when you have all these other options, and still pay cash for a car. Just..no. The LSR`s are more than adequate. I usually end up using the Mixcubes more than those. And those are *gasp* $469.00!
Old 25th May 2017
  #23
Lives for gear
 
BarcelonaMusic's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rimisrandma View Post
This, that, other stuff. None of this makes sense or is really useful. These critical listening speakers are to do something at the end of the day and the only thing that gets done is blowing a wad of cash and going on and on in some sort of schizo logic. Why not send me the money and write about your feelings on how you taped the cardboard box and how many times had to go to the bathroom and pee. Seriously, I can give you my address; I'll even pay for overnight shipping on the box of cash. A music producer uses speakers to produce music. A used music gear salesman buys and sells used musical equipment. Is there any plan of eventually getting a pair of speakers and making them work and sitting down to use them to accomplish whatever they were bought for? Or just buy, not quite content, blow mouth, sell, repeat.
Great post! Said it better than I did.
Old 25th May 2017
  #24
Lives for gear
 

Keyser, you come from a romantic era which not necessarily ended, if you care to find the little shiny gems in the sea of what you call "overproduced" music. In my opinion -romantic just like you- we live great times where literally everyone gets everything they could've possibly ask in terms of music, engineers, artists, listeners, audiophiles, producers, etc. Whatever sound you may dig, well, is there, but you have to look for it. Some mainstream is, unfortunatelly, controlled by politics, so has to follow a certain agenda, and I'm not going into details with that, but tons of beautiful music lies underneath, usually not crazily promoted by anyone, with billions of views on youtube and such.
Something like this, for instance, doesn't even have 1,000 views on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrLjA5nMVwo
Long story short...just be happy, there are no reasons not to be. Is the music industry perfect? Of course not, what is? But today this industry offers everything if you know how to search.

Best!
Old 25th May 2017
  #25
Gear Maniac
 

Interesting thread.

Having said that I get afraid when people get their internal feelings, prefrences or opinions confused with undisputable facts and science because it's scary.

As a person who has plenty of friends who have made commercialy viable recording in less then optimal recording environments from an engineering standpoint; the entire chain explained by what I presume to be resonating from pros in here; from monitor placement sound isolation and optimisation is incredibly important and based on fundamental laws of physics that places restrictions on what is possible depending on what a particular room might be.

There is a reason why studio construction is a science and that the ones that are "good" at it have spent considerable time trying to master it; get paid the way they get paid and are highly in demand.

A mixing environment is like a guitar or a piano and consist of ALL of its parts; be it strings, wood or whatever.

So even if a EDM guy can get a billion YouTube hits from something he created in his bedroom in a few hours and resonates with whatever cultural vibe might be the cool aid flavor of the week; it does not mean that a proper treated room with well designed properties will be a more comfortable environment (at least for anyone who ever got a dime from making music) to work in.
Old 27th June 2017
  #26
Lives for gear
 
jimmyboy7's Avatar
Minimain 12's installed... First impressions are - WOW!! Not shocking I'm sure but the clarity and "liveness" is really something to behold. I've been using the micro Main 35's for over 5 years and this is another level of detail, another universe really.

It makes it easy to hear pinched mixes and flaws but also makes it easy to hear width and dynamics. I really want to go back and remix and master some things but I know moving forward I will definitely make better choices with dynamics and editing is going to be far easier to do.
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