To make your old stereo speakers more suitable for monitoring.

[Boray]

To make your old stereo speakers more suitable for monitoring.

WARNING: Written by "the mad scientist".

As the good people at HomeRecording to my surprise brought my thread "How to turn your old stereo speakers into the best monitors you ever heard" to the top again, I decided to refine my method by eliminate/minimize the known problems it has. Old method: http://www.vsplanet.com/ubb/ultimate...c&f=1&t=010966

So, what was the main problems?

1. Room acoustics. Your speakers sounds different when you move your head around in the room.

2. Just any microphone can't be used as it's far from flat.

3. EQ degrades the sound by introducing phase shifts.

4. Good monitors are also influenced by room acoustics, so they are not completely "flat" responding at your listening position. So... going after "flatness" at the listening position would not sound like real monitors, even if this is what monitors are trying to achieve.

5. A 10 band EQ is not enough to compensate for room acoustics. Standing waves etc are much more narrow. At lease a 31 band EQ is needed.
---

Even if I noticed a big improvement with my old method, I know now that my monitoring got too much at the very high end and too little bass. This has mainly with the mic/preamp to do as it sounds about the same when moving the head around. Anyway, all 5 points above influenced the result less than the overall improvement I got. People still don't beleive this even though I have posted mp3s etc etc: The listening contest: http://www.vsplanet.com/ubb/ultimate...c&f=1&t=011764

Anyway.... Why not improve the method and eliminate the problem points above instead? Nr 2 can easily be solved by using a reference mic, but you would still have the room acoustics to deal with, so I found a much better solution:

You want your speakers to sound like monitors, right? The simplest solution is to buy yourself a pair of decent monitors. But if you still want to use your old speakers, for echonomical reasons or whatever - The solution is quite simple: Borrow a pair of real monitors and try to get your speakers to sound like them. This is how this is done:

* Borrow a couple of great monitors from a friend. This is probably the most difficult part.

* Place them beside your own speakers, but be careful to follow the manufacturers instructions on how the monitors should be positioned.

* Make some arrangement so that you easily can switch between listening to the monitors and the speakers (without altering the volume). You could for example aux send from one channel of the VS to the monitors and from another to the speakers and then use MUTE to switch between them.

* Put one 10-band graphical EQ (the internal of the VS) as an compensation insert effect for the speakers.

* Put one 10-band EQ for the test-source to be able to isolate frequencies from the test music. Use a mono input for the test music and insert the EQ twice (through both channels of the linked 2 channel EQ in series).

* Use a test source that has audible components in all frequency bands. For example unmastered music.

* Both EQs should be set to Link: On!

Now you will have a set-up like this figure:


(fig)

Now, first adjust the volumes of the two so that they are about the same. Then, the procedure is much the same as in my old method: Isolate one frequency band by setting one band to +12 and all the rest to -12 in the test EQ. (As it is inserted twice in series, it will actually be a lot more than +12dB). If you hear distortion, adjust the gains. Then listen to the monitors, then to the speakers and compare back an forth (at your normal listening position). If the monitors are louder, compensate by increasing the compensation EQ for that particular frequency band, if the speakers are louder, then decrease in the compensation EQ. Then go back to the test EQ and put the next band to +12 and all the other to -12 and continue this way. NEVER touch any volume controls during this procedure. When this is ready, go through the bands again, setting two at a time to +6, listen and compare. After that, you are ready. Save the compensation patch on your VS. Bypass the test EQ and compare the two. Your old stereo will now sound much more like the monitors than before.

Now, you can do the other way around, to give your friend a very good simulation of your old speakers for his monitors... As a thanks perhaps...

The EQ compensation patch is then simply used by inserting it at master in your normal setup. I can't guarantee that it will sound better to you, just that the sound will resemble the monitors more. Maybe you remember how amazed I was over my old method? Well, I have tried this new one (with my Alesis M1 active Mk2 as the reference), and the result is much much better than the old method. I choose not to use words like "magic" this time becasue I know how people react to that. The same people will probably say this new method is crap as well, but consider this:

1 * I have minimized the problem of room acousics::: The speakers and the monitors are placed (almost) in the same spot, meaning that the sound waves from them will travel in the same way in the room, bounce on the same walls, produce the same standing waves etc. Not exactly in the same way, but almost. Nearfield monitors are designed to not to be so dependent of room acoustics, but they are of course to a point. Anyway, this is the reason why I think it's better to lend a pair of monitors rather than to take your stereo to a friends studio and do the tuning there. That might work, but as nearfields are supposed to have less impact from the room, I think it's better to tune in your room as that is the sound you are after - the sound of nearfield monitors in your room.

2 * I have eliminated the microphone! You don't have to depend on a reference that you can't verify. Even if you used a real reference mic, it WOULD sound a bit different moving it around (not much in this setup, but in the old method). You could use a mic just as in the old method, but your ears are by far the best measurement.

3 * The phase shifts from EQing is still there. But you can't hear this if you don't have good monitors... and.... you don't! As a test of how accurate my method is and how much the EQ degrades the sound, you can test by using two of my EQ patches:

Simulation of Alesis M1 active Mk2 for my DUX stereo:
-5 6 -10 -7 -1 -1 0 1 -6 -2 (level +4dB)

Simulation of my DUX stereo for my Alesis M1 active Mk2:
8 -10 4 -1 -5 -7 -8 -9 -3 -6 (level +4dB)

Put them in series inserted at master in this order: ->"Simulation of Alesis"->"Simulation of DUX"-> Out

As this is supposed to bring back the original signal, this will allow you to hear the inaccurance of this method (times two) including the EQ degradation (times two). One of the simulations above was made on the VS840 and the other on the VS1680 and as these don't have identical effects, this should also affect the sound a bit (as well as two extra conversions for sedning the sound to the VS840).

4* "Good monitors are also influenced by room acoustics, so they are not completely "flat" responding.".... Yes... so this time we simulated real monitors in the same room instead of trying to achieve "flatness"....

5* ”A 10 band EQ is not enough to compensate for room acoustics. Standing waves etc are much more narrow. At lease a 31 band EQ is needed.”....... Well..... We are not trying to compensate for room acoustics, are we?

Anyway, Good Luck! This method works much better than the old one, even if the simplest solution IS to buy yourself a pair of real monitors! I don’t regret buying mine. Of course you will get the best monitoring by buying a pair of real monitors, but it still IS possible to improve the sound of your old crappy stereo. But if your stereo isn’t that crappy, then maybe it isn’t... All I know is that this worked on my stereo... and much better this time.... But I won’t of course use it at all this time as I have the monitors now.....

/Anders

[Blue Bear Sound]

Same old shit all over again... eh, Boray...?!?!?!

[Beltrom]

Boray,
even with the careful wording you used here and the numerous remarks that real monitors are better you still will probably get some bashing, many won't even read it. But you knew that I guess?
My take on this? If you're lacking in funds and have the equalizer lying around - you might as well try it. Even if nothing improves you will have to use your ears so it's a good exercise. I doubt you will ever get really close. Even if you manage to eq the speakers ok there's so much more to monitors.

[Boray]

Now you can listen to these simulations at:
http://www.homerecording.com/bbs/sho...threadid=72341

"Boray's listening challenge II: VSPlanet vs. HomeRecording. Your honour is at stake!!"

[Blue Bear Sound]

*yaaaaaawwwwnnnnnnnnnn*

[Boray]

Originally posted by Blue Bear Sound
*yaaaaaawwwwnnnnnnnnnn*

No wonder you have 5550 posts...

[Blue Bear Sound]

...even posts where I yawn have more useful information than anything I've seen you post........!

[Boray]

Originally posted by Blue Bear Sound
...even posts where I yawn have more useful information than anything I've seen you post........!

I know you think very highly of yourself. A short summary of HomeRecording.com: "Don't think for yourself. Don't learn by experiance, but follow the blue leader, course he is the way, the truth and life, Amen Haleluja! Never question his wisdom. If someone disobeys him, he should be stoned.". But the truth IS that you don't know how to attack this new theory (that you no doubt will say is old stuff and baby food), just because I have addressed and solved all the problem areas that you have been shouting about all the time. The only area I haven't solved is that EQ degrades the sound. (And we all know how dreadful this is... hmm...). When your knowledge reaches its limits, you just act like you don't care and post something like:

>*yaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnn*

or

>...awww, to hell with it.....
>
>You didn't understand before, and still don't -- and I've said it before......... >do whatever the hell you want!
>
>But if you post more nonsense here - you WILL be corrected..........
>
>Either way, I've had it with this inane thread..................


And that is the truth.

[Blue Bear Sound]

Same bullshit, different presentation... yadda-yadda.......

Go away.......

[Track Rat]

....but you don't understand....it turns up to 11........IT'S ONE LOUDER....

[Boray]

Originally posted by Blue Bear Sound
Same bullshit, different presentation... yadda-yadda.......

Go away.......

As I just said "When your knowledge reaches its limits, you just act like you don't care and post something like:

>*yaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnn* "

or .... what you just posted....

You act like this new method allready has been proven not to work. What you did back then was just to present a lot of critics againts the old method (you proved nothing). Some of the critics was indeed justified, and that's why I came up with this new method. Did you even read it through before calling it shit? I don't think so. Read it through again and think about it for a while. Then, if you don't think it would work better than the old method, then explain why!

/Anders

[Blue Bear Sound]

Originally posted by Boray
You act like this new method allready has been proven not to work. What you did back then was just to present a lot of critics againts the old method (you proved nothing). Some of the critics was indeed justified, and that's why I came up with this new method. Did you even read it through before calling it shit? I don't think so. Read it through again and think about it for a while. Then, if you don't think it would work better than the old method, then explain why!

We've all already proved you're a nutjob... there's no need for anyone to take it further........

You've worn out your welcome here, you kook......

[Boray]

Originally posted by Blue Bear Sound
We've all already proved you're a nutjob... there's no need for anyone to take it further........

You've worn out your welcome here, you kook......

Great idea, if you have no valid arguments against my new method, then just attack me!!! If you really want to be a man of truth, then you should not act like my new method has been proven not to work better than the old one. You do this by constantly saying that it's the same old bullshit, but it isn't. That is lying!!! My new method is not harmful in any way. Your behaviour is. It's not telling the truth.

[Blue Bear Sound]

See my answer here....

[Bigus Dickus]

What about speaker distortion? Or linearity? Or transient response? Or resonance? Or harmonics? Or....

A frequency response is hardly the determining factor of what makes a certain speaker sound the way it does. OK, so you've addressed one factor out of ten. How do you compensate for the other 9?

[Boray]

Originally posted by Bigus Dickus
What about speaker distortion? Or linearity? Or transient response? Or resonance? Or harmonics? Or....

A frequency response is hardly the determining factor of what makes a certain speaker sound the way it does. OK, so you've addressed one factor out of ten. How do you compensate for the other 9?

I'm not trying to "turn your old speakers into the best monitors you ever heard" this time, but just to make them more suitable for monitoring. To my experiance, frequency response is the biggest factor for how a speaker sounds. Of course you can never make a small radio sound like a big stereo, but I think everyone understands that...

[Blue Bear Sound]

Originally posted by Boray
...To my experiance, frequency response blah, blah, blah.......

There's the key phrase - "In my experience"....... problem is, YOU HAVE NONE!

[esactun]

Barring actually going out and getting real monitors--

Wouldn't it just be a hell of a lot easier to REALLY LEARN those crappy stereo speakers and then mix with them? Sure, you'll be missing some detail etc. when you're monitoring your mixes, but you should be able to get something that translates fairly well if you really know your speakers and test mixes out on other systems--preferably systems that have different sound drawbacks to the ones you're using, as well as systems that are of reasonably high quality--so you can pick out flaws that your "monitors" aren't revealing.

Once you EQ the monitors, you get phase distortion. Period. No way around it. I'd guess that the EQ-induced distortion will create artifacts that you only hear on your EQed monitors, which you'd then try to correct with EQ... puncing holes in what may have been perfectly nice frequency ranges and adding precisely the sort of artifacts and noise you were trying to correct for--only in a different part of the sound spectrum. You can go on wild noise goose chases that way, and end up with a steaming, EQed-to-death, reeking pile of moose dung. I know, 'cuz I've done it!

The advice you SHOULD be giving is DON'T EQ the snot out of your crappy home stereo speakers. LEARN THEM INSTEAD. Then save up for real monitors (which I'm doing now!).

[Boray]

Originally posted by esactun
Once you EQ the monitors, you get phase distortion. Period. No way around it. I'd guess that the EQ-induced distortion will create artifacts that you only hear on your EQed monitors, which you'd then try to correct with EQ... puncing holes in what may have been perfectly nice frequency ranges and adding precisely the sort of artifacts and noise you were trying to correct for--only in a different part of the sound spectrum. You can go on wild noise goose chases that way, and end up with a steaming, EQed-to-death, reeking pile of moose dung. I know, 'cuz I've done it!

Go to this thread: http://www.vsplanet.com/ubb/ultimate...c&f=1&t=012922

Read what "Jeff G" (producer Jeff Gardner) said about my tune "Cutterstone Hill". That tune was mixed on my infamous EQd speakers, EQd with my first "Turning your old stereo speakers into...." method... I wonder why he didn't mention any "holes in the mix" or any "reeking pile of moose dung"???

What EQs did you use? And what technique? White noise and RTA?

[Blue Bear Sound]

Originally posted by Boray
Go to this thread: http://www.vsplanet.com/ubb/ultimate...c&f=1&t=012922

Another laughable thread....... at least you're keeping us amused in your idiocy, Boray -- I'll give you that much!

[MISTERQCUE]

I luv fried pork chops, yellow rice and corn on the cob!


Hey Boray, I tried using your methods and for the life of me
I simply can't make my GENELEC's sound like pro monitors!!! HELP!!!!

[geekgurl]

I've been watching this little drama for a while and have kept out of it, but I'm going to just chime in ... just my .02 guys, OK, so take it for what it's worth.

Boray, it does seem like you've invested alot of energy into exploring this method of mixing and in defending it on the BBSes. Maybe MORE of the energy in defending it than researching it, who knows.

It seems to me, with all the the hours invested, one could pick up even a minimum-wage job, and in the same amount of hours, amass enough dough to GET decent monitors. I don't know how much stuff costs in Sweden, so maybe that's not a fair assumption (but I don't know what wages are either, and maybe their better than here, so ...).

At any rate, for example: I bought a pair of Event 20/20 monitors used. Cost: $200

I bought a Hafler P1500 amp, used. Cost: $200

Total: $400.

What's minimum wage in California these days, like $6.15 an hour?

$400 / 6.15 = 65 hours.

Damn, that's a lot of hours. But chances are most people who have this hobby make more than minimum wage. Shit, I can go down to the local bank and get a part-time job being a bank teller for $12/hour (I know, cuz that's what I did while in university). AND, what's your energy worth? Seems arguing really depletes energy, or creates negative energy, as well as takes time. But some people thrive on arguments and maybe you do, but I don't, so that's coming from my perspective.

[MISTERQCUE]

Originally posted by geekgurl
I've been watching this little drama for a while and have kept out of it, but I'm going to just chime in ... just my .02 guys, OK, so take it for what it's worth.

Boray, it does seem like you've invested alot of energy into exploring this method of mixing and in defending it on the BBSes. Maybe MORE of the energy in defending it than researching it, who knows.

It seems to me, with all the the hours invested, one could pick up even a minimum-wage job, and in the same amount of hours, amass enough dough to GET decent monitors. I don't know how much stuff costs in Sweden, so maybe that's not a fair assumption (but I don't know what wages are either, and maybe their better than here, so ...).

At any rate, for example: I bought a pair of Event 20/20 monitors used. Cost: $200

I bought a Hafler P1500 amp, used. Cost: $200

Total: $400.

What's minimum wage in California these days, like $6.15 an hour?

$400 / 6.15 = 65 hours.

Damn, that's a lot of hours. But chances are most people who have this hobby make more than minimum wage. Shit, I can go down to the local bank and get a part-time job being a bank teller for $12/hour (I know, cuz that's what I did while in university). AND, what's your energy worth? Seems arguing really depletes energy, or creates negative energy, as well as takes time. But some people thrive on arguments and maybe you do, but I don't, so that's coming from my perspective.

Excellent point their Ms.Geek!
Or if 400 is too much, a pair of used Proto J's @ $125 and a used Samson (from Sam Ash) amp for $100 and one can save even more money!

[Boray]

Originally posted by Blue Bear Sound
Another laughable thread....... at least you're keeping us amused in your idiocy, Boray -- I'll give you that much!

Another??? That's the same thread, moron!

[Boray]

Originally posted by geekgurl
I've been watching this little drama for a while and have kept out of it, but I'm going to just chime in ... just my .02 guys, OK, so take it for what it's worth.

Boray, it does seem like you've invested alot of energy into exploring this method of mixing and in defending it on the BBSes. Maybe MORE of the energy in defending it than researching it, who knows.

It seems to me, with all the the hours invested, one could pick up even a minimum-wage job, and in the same amount of hours, amass enough dough to GET decent monitors. I don't know how much stuff costs in Sweden, so maybe that's not a fair assumption (but I don't know what wages are either, and maybe their better than here, so ...).

At any rate, for example: I bought a pair of Event 20/20 monitors used. Cost: $200

I bought a Hafler P1500 amp, used. Cost: $200

Total: $400.

What's minimum wage in California these days, like $6.15 an hour?

$400 / 6.15 = 65 hours.

Damn, that's a lot of hours. But chances are most people who have this hobby make more than minimum wage. Shit, I can go down to the local bank and get a part-time job being a bank teller for $12/hour (I know, cuz that's what I did while in university). AND, what's your energy worth? Seems arguing really depletes energy, or creates negative energy, as well as takes time. But some people thrive on arguments and maybe you do, but I don't, so that's coming from my perspective.

Have you really been watching??? Then you would know that I have a pair of Alesis M1 active Mk2 that I'm quite happy with. If you just had read the first post in this thread through, you would have known that...