
tubedude
New member
Everyone gather 'round...
Is anyone interested in a little test to help open our eyes about our indivdual monitoring systems?
It may require a little work, and this is open to any and all suggestions.
Some of the things that make monitors good are reproduction, translation, fatigue-factor, PRICE, and pretty importantly, how well they respond to EQ.
I want to find out which monitors are most responsive to EQ, for starters, and I am devising a simple test that we can all do and observe others findings.
To start off, everyone participating needs monitors! List here 1st which monitors you have, how well they translate to other systems and fatigue level. List your amplification too. Lets get a numbering system, 1 being bad, 10 being cant-get-any-better.
So, translation is 5, they do ok, 1 they suck, 8 they are pretty damn good. Fatigue, 1 is terrible, 10 is almost not fatigue EVER.
Have at it, we'll get this started soon.
Is anyone interested in a little test to help open our eyes about our indivdual monitoring systems?
It may require a little work, and this is open to any and all suggestions.
Some of the things that make monitors good are reproduction, translation, fatigue-factor, PRICE, and pretty importantly, how well they respond to EQ.
I want to find out which monitors are most responsive to EQ, for starters, and I am devising a simple test that we can all do and observe others findings.
To start off, everyone participating needs monitors! List here 1st which monitors you have, how well they translate to other systems and fatigue level. List your amplification too. Lets get a numbering system, 1 being bad, 10 being cant-get-any-better.
So, translation is 5, they do ok, 1 they suck, 8 they are pretty damn good. Fatigue, 1 is terrible, 10 is almost not fatigue EVER.
Have at it, we'll get this started soon.