B&W DM601 S3 as monitors!?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gunther
  • Start date Start date
Beezoboy said:

"I just want to tell you not to trust SOS as much as you trust this forum and others"

Very good point. Last night I was leafing through a pile of old SOS mags before throwing them away. Just about everything got a good review (VideoLogic Sciroccos reccomended as good monitors? - yes they were).

Zoom pedals are great, etc. etc.

If I weren't so innocent I might think they were anxious to please their advertisers.:eek:
 
And SOS is supposedly one of the better mags, or so I hear. (It's the only recording magazine I read, and not very often at that.)
I sometimes feel Sven Lindqvist has a point saying all advertising should be banned, everywhere and in every form...
 
Last edited:
I have been researching monitors on this forum for a few weeks now... I was sold on the Yorkville YSM1p but the local dealer I was working with was not able to get them (yorkville is out of stock!!)

So I am seriously looking at the Tannoy Reveal passives and the B&Ws. My ears will make the final choice.

I still doubt that most if any of the low end monitors will have the clarity, detail and flat response of the B&Ws. I still refuse to exclude an excelent speaker simply because it is not labeled as a monitor.


Anyway I appreciate what you are trying to say, you're giving solid advice. But I am not going to count out the B&Ws until I hear them, I trust my ears.
 
Gunther, my main caution for you regarding the B&Ws is how loud do you plan on using them. Hi-Fi speakers are usually not designed to play for long periods at very loud level (ie 100db and above). If you are trying to impress clients by turning your room into a rock concert then maybe they arent for you. For home recording at typical monitoring levels of 83-85db (which is the optimum i think?) they will be great.
 
I still don't know how loud damn 83-85dba is. I don't a decimeter, or decible reader, or whatever it is you call those things.

I went to radio shack and they said they cost 100 bucks Canadian! So i passed it up.

Right now i monitor on a 4.1 set of klipsch multimedia computer speakers. 3.5inch mid driver, tweeters, and a sub. Terrible setup for mixing. I double check on some bottom of the line paradigm bookshelfs going through a crappy pioneer home theatre receiver. I suppose those would be better than these, but i don't really have a choice. But yea these are not idea so anything will be better, and because they aren't great i usually mix at very low levels. Like, the kind of levels your grandmother would be comfortable with.
Is there a cheaper way to get a Decimeter device thingy?
 
Maybe you missunderstood me, but my point is that studio monitors are a tool and tend to be the worst sounding speakers for listening to. The BWs are desighned to be listening speakers and the only reason they have them in any studio is that if the client listens back on studio monitors the results wont sound all that hot. Those B&Ws will hype the low and high end and make your mixes sound weak, trust me.
 
That does make sense.

I'm leaning towards yorkville monitors, but with a Hi Fi amp, a rotel RA-02.

I don't think the Hi Fi amp would be the same problem.
 
Darrin could you please look at the frequency response and cumulative spectral delay (waterfall) plots of the B&W DM303 and compare it with the KRK K-ROK in this article.

http://www.sospubs.co.uk/sos/Jun02/articles/monitors.asp

Are you honestly saying that the bass of this 'hifi speaker' is more hyped than the 'studio monitor' ? Look at the midbass hump on the KRK frequency response and the amount of stored bass energy on it waterfall plot.

Your generalisation is false. Not all hifi speakers are hyped and not all studio monitors are flat and accurate. Lets stick to talking about specific speakers and not stereotypes. Then maybe we can trust you.
 
I never said monitors were acurate, If they were there would only be one kind period, Its where they are hyped is important the bumps are there to make the mids stand out more, it helps.
 
Ok so what measurable aspect of a speakers performance makes it a good monitor and differs it from being a hifi speaker?

The Dynaudio BM-5 measurements are far more similar to the B&W than the KRK. Is the dynaudio a good monitor? If so the B&W is much more similar to it than the KRK.
If the B&W is inappropriate as a monitor then does that mean the dynaudio also cant be used?

If the KRK is a good monitor does that mean the B&W and dynaudios arent?

By the way the KRK has elevated mid bass not mids. Look at the hump at 70-80kz. All this does is give the (inaccurate) impression of more bass and extend low frequency response.

Lets talk quantative facts that differ a good monitor from a hifi speaker.
What measurements should we be looking at?
At what frequencies should the bumps be to be classified a 'monitor'?

If monitors shouldnt be accurate what should they be and how would that look like on its measurements? Or are you now saying that you dont believe that measurements are important?
On one hand you say hifi speakers have hyped highs and lows which is bad and then you say monitors shouldnt be accurate.

I am genuinely interested in understanding the difference in speaker design between a studio monitor and an accurate hifi speaker. Please explain.
 
Last edited:
There are many aspects of Monitors that cannot be plotted on a response curve. Like the woofers have a quicker transiant response. these things make stuff stand out more.

If you use B&Ws to mix with chances are your mixes will only sound good on the B&Ws.

Hell I have the Martin Logan theatre set, which are supurior to the B&Ws, and they are worthless as monitors.:rolleyes:
 
Oh and by the way, Quested was being used in Abbey road studios, It said on the site you linked me to. the mention of B&W 801s was prominately in the listening areas.

When you see any high end stuff like that in a studio, the pourpose is to show the clients how good their stuff sounds.

Do a search online for studios using the B&Ws and you will find that there are other nearfields present. then see the vast numbers using the Yamahas, which are responsible for 95% of the mixing since the 70s.
 
Questeds are only use in studio 3 of Abbey Road. Did you acutally look at the pictures of their studios? Studios 1,2 and the penthouse use B&Ws. Perhap you consider those studios listening areas but they sure looking like full on recording and mixing studios to me.

Martin Logans are very colored speakers! Have you looked at the frequency response and cumulative spectral delay of a martin logan electrostatic? The frequency response jumps all over the place and there is heaps of stored energy on the waterfall plot. They are very good at giving the false impression of added detail to an inexperienced listener.

They are inaccurate and a good example of a hifi speaker unsuitable for monitoring. They are in no way superior to a B&W if accuracy is the criteria you judge them by (though frankly I dont find the B&W the most accurate either - try a Dunlavy for comparison).

They sure do look cool and many people enjoy their colored sound for casual listening and home theater. But we are talking about monitoring.

Cumulative spectral delay (the waterfall plot) is a one measure of transient response. It indicates what and how much energy is stored after the music stops/changes. Stored energy obscures detail of the music to follow.

Measurements cant tell you everything but it gives you a strong idea of a speakers abilities and flaws. Of course many in the hifi crowd scoff at measurements and have all sorts of black magic voodoo, 'green marker' claims. Are you saying we should follow their lead and rely on purely subjective claims? You havent responded to any of my questions regarding the measurements of those speakers in the sound on sound article. Why?

I am no pro audio engineer so why dont people do a search of some proaudio forums like recpit at prosoundweb.com and see what those engineers think of yamaha ns-10s. Are you saying that there has been no improvement in speaker design since the 70's? Shouldn't we home recordists benefit from science and progress rather than being stuck in the past?

Anyway we are talking about home recording. The point of the B&Ws at abbey road example was to counter the false claim that noone can use them as monitors. Lets stop trotting out cliches and stereotypes and talk about specifics and facts and science.
 
Last edited:
Music did peak in the 70s dude and its been all downhill from there.

I didnt see any pics on the site but I read the equipment lists and found the Questeds to be in every room and the B&Ws to be in a couple. One such room they were the surrounds for a surround sound setup.

You can use any pair of monitors you want, Id be a fool to spend that much only to find that my mixes will translate well only on my high end speakers. Thats what will happen, Best case scenario is that you will learn the idiosycrises of that pair, and Mix well dispite the hurdle you put in front of yourself. Good Luck.:rolleyes:
 
But we are not talking about music, we are talking speaker design for monitors.

Regarding the Abbey Road issue, go look at the abbey road site studio by studio - try clicking on the specifications. There are B&Ws in studio 1,3 and the penthouse and Questeds in studio 2,3. You are the one that said no one can use B&Ws to monitor. I am not saying they are the best but cant you just accept the fact that they can be used very successfully by some people as monitors without any of the so called problems you mention.

Do you disagree with what I said about martin logans (which you consider superior to B&Ws)? How about any of the other points I made in my previous posts regarding speaker design and measurements? If I am wrong I would like to know so I can learn but you have avoided providing any direct answers.
 
Do a search for a dude named barefoot, he's a monitor designer and has forgoten more about this than Ill ever know. Just have some respect when he disagrees with you. He's not a student hes a professor.

The hated NS10s have a reputation for being hard to work with but when you get the mix to sound right there, it will sound right everywhere.
 
I am not disagreeing with Barefoot, I am disagreed with you on some specific points you made (and am happy to be convinced that I am wrong if you would provide some evidence). Where am I disrespecting him?

I did not say anything (positive or negative) about ns-10s other than to ask people to search for opinions on them. You brought up the NS-10s. Countless good mixes have been done on NS-10s.

How about we discuss those issues I raised previously regarding your posts.
 
Last edited:
I brought up the ns10s because for 30 years they have been the industry standard, and If you heard it on the radio 19 times out of 20, the song was mixed on them.

Go search out Barefoot, oh and by the way THD and power are two different things. We are both into high end gear on our stereos to I suppose, you ought to see the theare setup I have in my Tracking room.:cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top