The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
Barefoot MM35?!
Old 24th October 2009
  #181
Lives for gear
 
elambo's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harvey Gerst View Post
True, with most nearfield monitors, but that's because "most" nearfield monitors are a compromise - there shouldn't be a need for a "learning curve" with any speaker - if it's accurate.
There are room acoustics, there's the integrity of the signal feeding the monitors, there's the listening position, there's ambient noise (people talking) - many factors. I agree with you about the concept of trusting accurate monitors, but many things happen before sound reaches our brains. Sometimes a room can make an accurate monitor inaccurate, or improve an inaccurate monitor.
Old 24th October 2009
  #182
Lives for gear
 
Harvey Gerst's Avatar
Yup, but if nearfields are played low enough to avoid exciting room nodes, they should work well, if they're accurate.
Old 24th October 2009
  #183
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by elambo View Post
Just curious -- how have you verified that the first monitors weren't giving you the more accurate presentation? Maybe your remix broke what wasn't actually broken. All monitors sound different - it's not easy knowing which is truest. I listen on 5 or 6 different systems to find what translates best, on average.

I'm sorta playing Devil's advocate - the Barefoots are excellent - but as with any monitors there's a learning curve.
No problem with the devil's advocate thing....

Well, I was mixing a big band thing. It wasn't a translation thing....it was a problem with noticing blend and balance problems on the Barefoots that I hadn't noticed on the other monitors.

As far as a learning curve, the only thing I need to 'Learn" when dealing with the Barefoots is not to try and compensate for anything. They are very present sounding, but that just seems to allow me to hear nuance.

Kirt Shearer
Old 25th October 2009
  #184
Lives for gear
 
elambo's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbshearer View Post
As far as a learning curve, the only thing I need to 'Learn" when dealing with the Barefoots is not to try and compensate for anything. They are very present sounding, but that just seems to allow me to hear nuance.
(I'm starting to sound like a Barefoot basher by continuing the discussion, but I'm actually a fan - this is general monitoring dribble, not particular to Barefoot)

You've described how a lot of people felt about the Genelec 103x series, monitors everyone has mixed on at one point or another. They're very revealing, and they had a way of making everything sound good. It made a LOT of engineers lazy because of that. So while tracking, you heard so much detail that you felt like you were hearing everything. Which wasn't always the case. Checking 103x mixes on other speakers sometimes proved that the mix needed some more excitement, or that certain frequencies needed to be brought out. But it wasn't until you compared the Genelecs with several other monitors that this became apparent.

Kinda like watching a movie for the first time -- it comes from a projector, which may or may not be correctly calibrated, and you're assuming that your eyes are sharp (your vision is your vision - it's all you know). If the next day you watch the same movie in the Stag theater at Skywalker Ranch, wearing a new pair of corrective glasses, it will likely appear very different. Say the movie took place in Greece - which version is closest to the real Greece? And which one would be more indicative of the average viewer's experience at home when they watch the DVD?

I don't know the answer. It has taken me a long time to really trust my main monitors, and that has probably taught me to make subconscious compensations without realizing it. But I very rarely run across any surprises anymore. At first, there were quite a few.
Old 25th October 2009
  #185
Gear Guru
 
RoundBadge's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by elambo View Post
All monitors sound different - it's not easy knowing which is truest. I listen on 5 or 6 different systems to find what translates best, on average.

I'm sorta playing Devil's advocate - the Barefoots are excellent - but as with any monitors there's a learning curve.
True.however I've found I trust the BF's translation more than any speaker i've used..Gennies,Tannoy[M-lab] golds,Dyns,NS10's,adams,etc
for me not so much a learning curve. more like a slight shift or "adjustment"
.. lastly from S3A's to MM27's
Old 25th October 2009
  #186
Lives for gear
 

[QUOTE=elambo;4714089](I'm starting to sound like a Barefoot basher by continuing the discussion, but I'm actually a fan - this is general monitoring dribble, not particular to Barefoot)

You've described how a lot of people felt about the Genelec 103x series, monitors everyone has mixed on at one point or another. They're very revealing, and they had a way of making everything sound good. It made a LOT of engineers lazy because of that. So while tracking, you heard so much detail that you felt like you were hearing everything. QUOTE]

No...I don't take it as bashing at all. It's just dicsussion and opinion...which is what this is all about.

With the Barefoots, what I'm describing is knd of the opposite of "making everything sound good." I thought things were done and nuanced when mixing on the other monitors, but then checking with the Barefoots revealed things that were NOT in fact working well. It actually made me work my ass off to address a bunch of things that I didn't realise needed fixing....

Kirt Shearer
Old 25th October 2009
  #187
Gear Addict
 
krid's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbshearer View Post

With the Barefoots, what I'm describing is knd of the opposite of "making everything sound good." I thought things were done and nuanced when mixing on the other monitors, but then checking with the Barefoots revealed things that were NOT in fact working well. It actually made me work my ass off to address a bunch of things that I didn't realise needed fixing....

Kirt Shearer
Paradise Studios
Yeah I agree, the Barefoots are pretty much the opposite of the Genelec 103x.
I really hate those Genelec 103x (1030, 1032), they make everything sound good, and when you bring your mix at home, it sounds like ****.
The Barefoots are the total opposite, they translate perfectly and don't make things sounds good if they are not.
Old 27th October 2009
  #188
Lives for gear
 
Tetness's Avatar
There's only a few spots left for this 500$ discount promotion. However, it's safe to assume that some will drop out because finances or other reasons, so we will be composing a standby list.
Old 28th October 2009
  #189
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harvey Gerst View Post
Yup, but if nearfields are played low enough to avoid exciting room nodes, they should work well, if they're accurate.
This is something that boggles my mind. Why on earth do people think room nodes go away just by playing something at lower volume? That's just bull.. as far as I know.

The room is ALWAYS an issue, always same nodes, same nulls.. no matter how you play it. No EQ helps, nothing.. nulls and nodes never move.

Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong here. Thanks!

Cheers!
bManic
Old 28th October 2009
  #190
Lives for gear
 
The MPCist's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmanic View Post
This is something that boggles my mind. Why on earth do people think room nodes go away just by playing something at lower volume? That's just bull.. as far as I know.

The room is ALWAYS an issue, always same nodes, same nulls.. no matter how you play it. No EQ helps, nothing.. nulls and nodes never move.

Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong here. Thanks!

Cheers!
bManic
Room nodes are excited with level and vary in interference as you play louder/quieter. The room is always an issue but it's not always the same. What works at a certain level won't at 100db's.
Old 28th October 2009
  #191
Lives for gear
 
Harvey Gerst's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmanic View Post
This is something that boggles my mind. Why on earth do people think room nodes go away just by playing something at lower volume? That's just bull.. as far as I know.

The room is ALWAYS an issue, always same nodes, same nulls.. no matter how you play it. No EQ helps, nothing.. nulls and nodes never move.

Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong here. Thanks!

Cheers!
bManic
Many long wave nodes are only excited by higher levels. It's like blowing into a Coke bottle; it takes a certain amount of breath power to get the air in the bottle to resonate. The whole purpose of close monitoring is to get the sound to your ears first, without having those big nasty nodes coming back to you and messing up the sound.
Old 28th October 2009
  #192
Lives for gear
 
elambo's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmanic View Post
Why on earth do people think room nodes go away just by playing something at lower volume?
Because it's true.

(although they don't disappear entirely - they become less of an issue)
Old 28th October 2009
  #193
Lives for gear
 
barefoot's Avatar
 

Sorry guys, but bmanic is right. Room modes are completely linear with regard to amplitude until you get up beyond ear bleeding levels. All room modes are present and maintain their relative amplitudes from low sound pressure levels to high sound pressure levels. This is easily measured down to the ambient noise level of the room. The fact that we often don't hear these effects ourselves at low levels has nothing to do with nonlinearities in the room acoustics and everything to do with Fletcher-Munson and nonlinearities in our hearing. Our ears simply aren't very sensitive to low frequencies at low amplitudes. So it's really a matter of "out of sight out of mind."

Harvey's coke bottle is not a good analogy to a listening room. In order to excite modes in a bottle by blowing over the lip, we need to create air turbulence. Turbulence is a nonlinear effect that requires some minimum air velocity. We don't need air turbulence in a listening room. We have nice linear speakers to excite the room modes. So a coke bottle with an ear bud near the lip is a much better analogy to our room. Of course, we could also excite the room modes with air turbulence. We could open a door or window on a very windy day. Then, indeed, there would be modes or no modes depending on how fast the wind is blowing.
Old 28th October 2009
  #194
Lives for gear
 
elambo's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by barefoot View Post
Room modes are completely linear...

...

The fact that we often don't hear these effects ourselves at low levels has nothing to do with nonlinearities in the room acoustics and everything to do with Fletcher-Munson and nonlinearities in our hearing. Our ears simply aren't very sensitive to low frequencies at low amplitudes.
Which of the above is closest to the human experience - only one can prevail? It seems safe to say that the 1st comes from test equipment, the 2nd from the response of the human ear. I'm going with the 2nd, which parallels my personal experience, where modes would appear to disappear at lower levels. When I turn the monitors down, the problem created by the mode in my home studio nearly goes away. That's real-world to me.

Last edited by elambo; 29th October 2009 at 12:24 AM.. Reason: node ---> mode
Old 28th October 2009
  #195
Lives for gear
 
barefoot's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by elambo View Post
When I turn the monitors down, the problem created by the node in my home studio nearly goes away. That's real-world to me.
I think I understand what you mean. Of course, you don't improve the actual bass response by turning it down. The mode levels are directly tied to bass level from the speakers. You're only hearing less of the modes because you're hearing less bass altogether. On the other hand, our brains are not just dumb test equipment. We have all sorts of sophisticated ways of deciphering information. So, it's certainly possible that turning things down could somehow make it easier read between the bass lines, to twist a phrase, and come up with a better mix. But again, this it all about how we process information. It's not a matter of what is happening physically with the room acoustics.
Old 28th October 2009
  #196
Lives for gear
 
elambo's Avatar
It's that thin and crooked line between the physical world and our brain's perception of the physical world.

I've always wondered if speaker designers considered compensating for F/M curves. My car, for instance, eqs the sound differently depending on cabin noise and even turns the radio up when road and engine noise get louder. It works well. Why not pro audio with regard to quiet listening? I guess this is an issue for the preamp designers (e.g. the Loudness button on my old Marantz receiver) and it's being covered, to an extent, by room corrective software, which hasn't been entirely well-received, so maybe I'm proving my point irrelevant.

Sorry to enforce the distraction - sometimes it's worthy of a step or two away from the path. Modes always seem to be a problem.

Last edited by elambo; 29th October 2009 at 12:24 AM.. Reason: node ---> mode
Old 28th October 2009
  #197
Lives for gear
 
Harvey Gerst's Avatar
Well, yas, no, and kinda.

With nearfield monitors, the main signal is direct and the first audible reflection is off the top of the console. Other reflections are reduced and delayed by increased distances to walls and other reflective surfaces. The nodes are reduced proportionately by lower volume levels and the direct sound of the near fields is heard more clearly.

None of this discussion is to suggest that a well treated room is not important in reducing bass nulls and peaks caused by bad room response, but lower levels through accurate near fields will result in better, more accurate response in any room as compared to mid and far field speakers in untreated rooms, imho.
Old 28th October 2009
  #198
Lives for gear
 
barefoot's Avatar
 

No, the fundamental room modes and the first few harmonics will not behave as you suggest. These wavelengths are long enough that it impossible to distinguish the direct and reflected waves in the room. This is the nature of room modes. The speaker and room essentially act as a single system.

There is a near field effect with regard to room modes. But it is not the "near field" commonly used in recording terminology. In physics the term near field means that the listening distance is much smaller (< 1/10) than both the wavelength and the physical dimensions of the sound emitter. For a typical size woofer, this means the true near field is about 1 cm or less away from the speaker cone. In this vicinity, yes, the room modes would be insignificant relative to the direct signal from the speaker. All practical listening distances, however, are actually in the mid field or far field from a physics standpoint. These have precise definitions that I won't go into. Suffice it to say, strong room modes will dramatically affect the response at all practical listening distances. Recording "near field" listening distances, in and of themselves, do virtually nothing to ameliorate low frequency room issues.

At higher frequencies where the wavelengths are small compared to the room dimensions, recording "near field" listening distances can make the direct signal from the speakers predominate over the reverberant sound field and some early reflections. But these are not room modes.
Old 30th October 2009
  #199
Lives for gear
 
Tetness's Avatar
All 20 spots are taken. We are now composing the standby list.
Old 30th October 2009
  #200
Lives for gear
 

Thanks for the confirmation Thomas. I've been measuring our room at many varying levels and never seen any changes in the main room modes, no matter what the output level was (never tried ear bleeding / monitor breaking levels though).

The waterfall plot, the overall frequency response and all that stuff was identical, no matter what I did level wise. This is why I've always been so surprised about the "this monitor is too loud for the room" type of thing.

Psychoacoustically it might be relevant to monitor at lower levels and thus get better separation of room nodes/direct signal but this only happens in our brain/ear, not in the real physical world.

Cheers!
bManic
Old 31st October 2009
  #201
Lives for gear
 
elambo's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmanic View Post
Psychoacoustically it might be relevant to monitor at lower levels and thus get better separation of room nodes/direct signal but this only happens in our brain/ear, not in the real physical world.
I don't know about you, but what my brain perceives as the real world IS the real world, even when it's not.
Old 31st October 2009
  #202
Lives for gear
 
Fleaman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by elambo View Post
I don't know about you, but what my brain perceives as the real world IS the real world, even when it's not.

Ah, the Blue Pill
Old 31st October 2009
  #203
Gear Maniac
 

I can't get tired of learning new things by reading Barefoot posts

Just wanted to leave a link:

Acoustics Crash Course 1 - Modes
Old 31st October 2009
  #204
Gear Maniac
 

I find if my nearfields are at low volumes that I don´t hear the room so much and can make better mixing decisions.
Old 14th November 2009
  #205
A bump for the month of November!
Old 1st December 2009
  #206
Gear Maniac
 

Forgive me for such an ignorant question, but how would you get a natural sound when 100-Hz-and-below drivers play not in your ears but at the walls? I believe the direction of sound is still perceivable at 100 Hz… There's no bashing meant, it just concerns me.
And another question is about positioning. How far from walls the MM35's should be positioned?
Old 1st December 2009
  #207
Lives for gear
 
tiny333's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elix View Post
And another question is about positioning. How far from walls the MM35's should be positioned?
im also quite interested in this.....

?
Old 1st December 2009
  #208
Gear Maniac
 

And another thing that concerns me… Comparing this part in MM27's specifications:
Quote:
Frequency Response 38 Hz - 20 kHz (+/- 1.5 dB)
to MM35's
Quote:
37Hz - 20kHz (+/- 1.5 dB)
it is logical to conclude that MM35's go as deep or even deeper as MM27's?! With only 2x7" drivers compared to 2x10"? This sounds so ridiculously good to be true, no offence meant! How is that possible? Also, I'm interested in the quality of those low frequencies on MM35's. Is there more distortions in them than in MM27's? Are they less relaxed?
Please excuse my waterfall of questions as I'm very interested in buying these monitors yet I have no way of listening to them before buying. I live in Moscow, Russia (No distributors there yet, I suppose ).
Old 1st December 2009
  #209
Lives for gear
 
staudio's Avatar
 

On the Barefoot Sound product information card that was distributed at AES 2009 NY the frequency response of the speakers was listed as:

MM27: 30hz to 30khz (+/- 3dB) and 36hz to 20khz (+/- 1.5dB)

MM35: 35hz to 30khz (+/- 3dB) and 39hz to 20khz (+/- 1.5dB)

On the current Barefoot website the frequency response of the speakers is listed as:

MM27: 38hz to 20khz (+/- 1.5dB) and Bass Response -3dB @ 33hz

MM35: 35hz to 30khz (+/- 3dB) and 37hz to 20khz (+/- 1.5dB)

What is the correct information please?

Thank you.
Old 2nd December 2009
  #210
Lives for gear
 
Tetness's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by staudio View Post
On the Barefoot Sound product information card that was distributed at AES 2009 NY the frequency response of the speakers was listed as:

MM27: 30hz to 30khz (+/- 3dB) and 36hz to 20khz (+/- 1.5dB)

MM35: 35hz to 30khz (+/- 3dB) and 39hz to 20khz (+/- 1.5dB)

On the current Barefoot website the frequency response of the speakers is listed as:

MM27: 38hz to 20khz (+/- 1.5dB) and Bass Response -3dB @ 33hz

MM35: 35hz to 30khz (+/- 3dB) and 37hz to 20khz (+/- 1.5dB)

What is the correct information please?

Thank you.
Thanks for pointing that out. It's an error that will be fixed on our website. Here are the proper specs, which are reflected on the VK website:

MM27: 30hz to 30khz (+/- 3dB) and 36hz to 20khz (+/- 1.5dB)

MM35: 35hz to 30khz (+/- 3dB) and 39hz to 20khz (+/- 1.5dB)
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