Speakers/Power Amp

[Snowman999]

Well...you're the one who was having "problems" because they "sound so good" to you.
Now you're defending them.

I never said I had problems because they sound so good. I have problems because I have problems with mixing in general. I made this thread, because I like my speakers and power amp.

Right...people hang their hat on this notion that you can mix on anything...but in reallly, why would you want to?

Well, that's an easy one. The person might not be able to afford anything better.

There is no shame in being poor. If you can accomplish something with very little, it's that much sweeter.

 

[RFR]

Back to your your original posting.

I believe, if my memory serves me correctly, Peter Gabriel had a set in his studio at one point.
So, if they're good enough for him, I'm sure they'll work just fine for you.

 

[miroslav]

I never said I had problems because they sound so good. I have problems because I have problems with mixing in general. I made this thread, because I like my speakers and power amp.

Maybe you should go read your very first post.
I just read it the way you wrote it...that you had a problem because your monitors sounded so good.

If you can accomplish something with very little, it's that much sweeter.

Well...that's the rub..."IF" you can.
This has noting to do with any shame for being poor or any of that stuff...
...it has to do with mixing and speakers and problems...and no matter how good your speakers sound, if your mixes have problems...mmm...then maybe they are not as good as you thin,k or you haven't figured them out yet.

If mixes sound good to you on them...and then everyone tells you have that your mixes have problems...well, do the math.

 

[Snowman999]

Back to your your original posting.

I believe, if my memory serves me correctly, Peter Gabriel had a set in his studio at one point.
So, if they're good enough for him, I'm sure they'll work just fine for you.

Whenever I'd talk about music, everyone would always say "You must love Genesis." NO I hate them. Sorry. BUT, I worked for a fashion designer, and he wore her clothes. He comes up to take her to lunch, he's wearing tacky bermuda shorts. But, on his 50 year old arm is a gorgeous girl in her early twenties. It was embarrassing because she spoke between giggles. All they had for lunch was vegetables. I did get his autograph.

 

[miroslav]

... on his 50 year old arm is a gorgeous girl in her early twenties. It was embarrassing because she spoke between giggles.

I'm sure he wasn't bothered by it...

 

[42low]

My music will not be played on a mono system so I could care less.

And most people nowadays listen in headphones or earbuds, so yeah, their heads are off, but their ears are centered.

Ok. Right. I understand what studio monitors do. No discussion on that.

But exactly like no one listens mono or spot on centered between speakers ... no one either listen's to your or my music on studio monitors. The huge majority wil listen to your music on regular speakers.

So why isn't this an argument then agains studio monitors? And why not is it then an argument for good regular speakers?

 

[garww]

I did hear something half interesting in Stereo yesterday - a aea 88;
https://youtu.be/y9ftqEgyY9Y

I don't see much reason to waste two speakers on much stuff out there, so it's usually MONO

 

[ecc83]

"So why isn't this an argument then agains studio monitors? And why not is it then an argument for good regular speakers?"

I think there is some confusion as to what a studio monitor actually needs to do? It is essentially, NOTHING! Nothing in the sense that it should not impose its own character or limitations on the signal being monitored.

Ideally it would have a ruler flat acoustic response from 20Hz to 20kHz (and not much beyond 20kHz despite what the RA tweaks say) zero distortion and be a zero sized acoustic source over that range. Only very expensive monitors get close to the response and THD requirement and nothing I know of is a point source at 20k but the best are very good indeed.

Speakers that fall short of the above criteria might sound good but cannot, by definition, tell the whole truth. Yes, people can "learn" their monitors but they cannot know what cannot be heard.

As for Joe Public getting better kit? Nah! You cannot sell JP "quality" (uk JP anyway) Many years ago when BBC2 started up with very decent FM sound a company, Murphy put out a range of " Acoustic Deluxe" TVs with bigger than average speakers and better amplifiers. You could not sell the fekkers.

Dave.

 

[garww]

You know a Curtis-Mathes TV console is bigger than a London flat, right : )

 

[jimmys69]

You know a Curtis-Mathes TV console is bigger than a London flat, right : )

 

[gecko zzed]

Ok. Right. I understand what studio monitors do. No discussion on that.

But exactly like no one listens mono or spot on centered between speakers ... no one either listen's to your or my music on studio monitors. The huge majority wil listen to your music on regular speakers.

So why isn't this an argument then agains studio monitors? And why not is it then an argument for good regular speakers?

First hurdle: 'regular speakers' exists only as a concept. There is no such thing in real life. What there is, though, is a vast array of speakers, all of varying quality, varying sound, varying response and built for varying purposes. There is nothing regular about them.

So how does one create a mix that will sound reasonable on this non-uniform spectrum of speakers? If you mix to make it sound good on one set of 'regular speakers' there's a good chance it will sound not so good on other sets of 'regular speakers'.

What you are looking for is a set of 'regular speakers' that somehow represents the majority of speakers. This does exist, kind of. This is the function of studio monitors. The best ones are designed to be as neutral as possible, so that when you listen to the mix, you hear the actual content and not any coloration the speakers might impart to it. This doesn't mean the mix will sound good on every speaker. What it does mean, though, is that if it doesn't sound good, it is not a consequence of your own monitoring system, but of the capability of the speaker you are listening to.

 

[42low]

"So why isn't this an argument then agains studio monitors? And why not is it then an argument for good regular speakers?"

I think there is some confusion as to what a studio monitor actually needs to do? It is essentially, NOTHING! Nothing in the sense that it should not impose its own character or limitations on the signal being monitored.

Ideally it would have a ruler flat acoustic response from 20Hz to 20kHz (and not much beyond 20kHz despite what the RA tweaks say) zero distortion and be a zero sized acoustic source over that range. Only very expensive monitors get close to the response and THD requirement and nothing I know of is a point source at 20k but the best are very good indeed.

First hurdle: 'regular speakers' exists only as a concept. There is no such thing in real life. What there is, though, is a vast array of speakers, all of varying quality, varying sound, varying response and built for varying purposes. There is nothing regular about them.

'regular speakers' aka hifi speakers for home use, non specialized as studio monitors are.

That's were i wanted to go. I bet that very good quality 'regular' speakers are better than worst quality studio monitors.
So no one can point one sort as best.
We can only mix that what a human's ear can hear. We don't produce our music for dogs with wider hearing ranges. So IMHO if speakers cover that human hearing range there fine.
But if you want to hear what you've made then keep the sound 'flat' and NEVER ever use loudness or surround or whatever on your amplifier.

 

[garww]

I think regular are more likely to be a full range driver loaded in different ways. That probably extends to the Philips desktop-sized electrostatic, and those cassette-shell speakers with two little drivers. Then extended range speakers where they add specific range drivers.

 

[gecko zzed]

'regular speakers' aka hifi speakers for home use, non specialized as studio monitors are.

My point still stands . . . there are a multitude of 'hifi' speakers, and they will all have their differences. However, 'monitor' is just a fancy word for 'speaker'. It appears to have two main usages:
1 to describe a speaker of a particular type (i.e. one whose specifications make it suitable for high quality recording monitoring), and
2 as a consequence of point 1, as a marketing tool to get you to buy speakers that you think might be suitable for high quality monitoring (whether or not they actually are suitable).

As it happens, high end hifi speakers have the same attributes as high end 'monitors', i.e. they are neutral in their response and reproduce recorded material accurately.

That's were i wanted to go. I bet that very good quality 'regular' speakers are better than worst quality studio monitors.

Well, of course. And the best quality studio monitors are better than the worst quality hifi speakers. I'm not sure that your observation gets us anywhere. However, as I noted above, the tag 'monitor' doesn't always mean what people think it does.

So no one can point one sort as best.

True enough. Assuming by 'sort' you mean whether hifi or monitor, I feel this is a distinction that has been overworked in recent times (and the consequence is point 2 earlier).

We can only mix that what a human's ear can hear. We don't produce our music for dogs with wider hearing ranges. So IMHO if speakers cover that human hearing range there fine.

I think I now what you are getting at, but perhaps you have expressed it a little too simply, because speakers need to do more than "cover that human hearing range". They also need to cover that range accurately, and not have peaks and troughs.

But if you want to hear what you've made then keep the sound 'flat' and NEVER ever use loudness or surround or whatever on your amplifier.

This getting more into consumer territory than recording territory. The loudness switch is used on domestic amplifiers to compensate for the human ear's poor response to bass at low volumes. In studios, the loudness button is not there.

 

[miroslav]

'regular speakers' aka hifi speakers for home use, non specialized as studio monitors are.

That's were i wanted to go. I bet that very good quality 'regular' speakers are better than worst quality studio monitors.
So no one can point one sort as best.
We can only mix that what a human's ear can hear. We don't produce our music for dogs with wider hearing ranges. So IMHO if speakers cover that human hearing range there fine.
But if you want to hear what you've made then keep the sound 'flat' and NEVER ever use loudness or surround or whatever on your amplifier.

I guess all the studios around the world have been doing it wrong then...and they should just be using some home Hi Fi speakers.

Just out of curiosity...what studio mixing experience are you betting with...?

 

[42low]

Just out of curiosity...what studio mixing experience are you betting with...?

With mixing myself as a pro, none. (you got me there).
But as a partly schooled musician making music and started recording and mixing (as a hobby) on tapes when i was a kid, with several projects on my name spread in my surroundings where some played grey by several people. With a recording label owner within my family's friends who reached worldwide fame as guitarist and now produces (in my country) know artists, and experiences with music and sound in general more then enough to know differences. And that for near almost half a century, as i can say with regrets that i'm getting old. (damn, i know 'something' about sound and music, you still haven't got me down yet)

F*** man. Knew people in my life who had up to $100.000 speakers from 2 meters high in there room on systems on which a regular cd sounds realy bad, with sound as if the orchestra was there live and you still could hear the triangle as if it was near. Speakers were even the best monitors can't or can hardly compare with. And then you try to burn me down as if i 'know nothing'?

But i'll let you win. I'm quite from now on. [crawling back into my shell now]

I play with music for fun, record for fun, and i'm here for fun. So please keep it fun!!! Ok?
React to me as much as you want and be as critic as you wish, in friendly words like gecko zzed speaks! (for which i thank him). But if one tries to burn me down i too will stop being nice. Choice is yours.

 

[ecc83]

The emergence of the "budget monitor" was really only made possible by the advances in semiconductor technology whereby amplifiers could be incorporated inside the cabinets. Many thousands of words have been written on forums and in magazines about the "speakers" but almost nothing about the amplifiers* that drive them!

Active speakers can have the power tailored such that damage to drive units is unlikely whereas if passives were sold as monitors I bet they would cost pretty much the same as actives (GOOD crossovers are not cheap) and then the punter still has to find an amplifier. And yes, there are some VERY good "analytical" hi fi speakers but you don't want to be putting bass git or distorted lead through them!

*Seems a bit better now but only a couple of years ago there were quite a few forum Qs about monitor hiss. This was usually the actual speaker and not external to it. The problem was made worse by the fact that cheap monitors have to be "all things to all operating levels" and thus often have way too much gain. Even today you will rarely see a specification for Self Noise.

Dave.

 

[garww]

Well, most of the development comes from the money makers. Toss the grill cover and add a "m" to the ns10, etc..'course, the big boys were in on commercial systems from day one. We still ask which is better. The JBL L series compared to the studio series

 

[42low]

Just out of curiosity...what studio mixing experience are you betting with...?

Ow ... F*** ... forgot one on my biography.

I had professional studioexperience in the 70's for recordings for a vinyl record on which i performed too, which was actually released on the market then (so for sale, for money, for real). I still have this record (off course).
Enough?

 

[miroslav]

But if one tries to burn me down i too will stop being nice. Choice is yours.

Not sure what you are talking about...who is trying to "burn you down"....?

It was a simple question, you're betting that any decent home stereo speakers will do because that's what "we hear"...etc...

...but if you have nothing to back that up with, well...you lose the bet.

All that other stuff about you playing as a musician , and label owners in your family circle...yada, yada...is actually irrelevant.
There's lots of musicians who can't hear when their guitar is out of tune.