For all those who think Rip Rowan is a wimp!

  • Thread starter Thread starter VirtualSamana
  • Start date Start date
VirtualSamana said:


Bruce: Here's your answer!!!

Check out Rip rip on some studio monitors at Pro rec! Check out Rip rip on some studio monitors at Pro rec!
Click to expand...
Yeah... I saw that... I disagreed with some of his opinions - most notably - the KRK V8s... 'cos I've heard them myself and the ones I listened to and the ones he talks about are seemingly 2 different things entirely!

But hey - monitor selection is pretty subjective...

The other side of my point though, is that just because a review is bad, doesn't mean the equipment actually merited it! The review can be unfairly biased against the gear just as easily as it is for it!!

The better strategy in dealing with reviews is to learn to read between the hype and glean the useful bits, and ignoring the rest... then check out the gear in question for yourself and come to your own conclusions.

Bruce
 
I bought a Joe Meek VC3Q based on many favorable reviews that I read. Everything I recorded with the pre had an "artificial" timbre and the compression was like putting a dark veil over everything. I took it back and bought a PreSonus MP20 and I'm loving the sound of it. I try to read reviews with skepticism but sometimes it's easy to buy the hype.
 
So much for KRK and Tannoy, Im going to stick with my alesis.:cool:
 
Darrin, if the Alesis work for you, great - keep using 'em....

But do me a favour - if you have a chance to A/B Tannoys, KRKs, and Alesis monitors in a well-equipped pro audio shop, please do so - I guarantee you will no longer like your Alesis....

Bruce
 
FYI I owned a pair of the Proto js for a week and listened to the KRKs side by side the day I picked up the Alesis monitor ones. So I know what Im talking about. Hell those products reviewed by Rip there are the cream of thier crop. ( the companies send only the best to get reviewed). And they didnt even pass muster.

I know you own a studio and I only Intern in one but I know what passes for what and I didnt think the KRKs I listened to passed muster either. The proto Js, well Im Just lucky they took them back.

Im standing by my monitor ones and the owner of the studio stands by his.
 
Please people.......

as pglewis can attest (we both met in cyberspace at prorec a few years ago) Rip has his credentials,provides solid tips and distributes his unbiased opinion and expertise (much like what
Harvey Gerst provides in our "MIC FORUM") on products he has tested. His thumbs-down review of the Marshall MXL2001 a year and a quarter ago represented his take via the recording applications that he put the Marshall thru in various mic'ing situations such as rec'ing acoustic,vocals,amp-micing etc. In a later article he maintained that ,again, these were his OPINONS,yet some may find acceptable uses for the MXL2001 in
various apps (The MXL does provides adequate spl, freq response
and clean reproduction in stringed instruments,rhythm-git mic amping &background vocals).He also stressed that use of your own devices (your EARS) will only determine if the MXL is suitable for your particular use.
Now, I'm not sure if the author of this thread intended to indicate that my main dawg,Cousin Brucie Blue-Bear,allocated advice to those who requested info on a particular product of which Cuz Brucie would retort somewhat like , "THIS PRODUCT IS TOTAL CRAP 'Cause I alone Tested it and A/B/C/D'd it so don't buy it and that's final!!!" Cuzz Brucie doesn't work like that! My man provides yeoman advice,gives his OPINION,just like RIP,AND is willing to listen to others (FLASH-BACK!!! "BRUCE,check out a Beh COMP"!!! <which he has done>)
Rip,like George Massenburg,like Bill Park,like Nigel Edwards,like S.Paul,like Bill Robinson,like Ward Anders,Like Ed(sonus-my-man) Rei,like Cuzzin' Brucie Blue Bear Valeriani(yeah,baby,I know the last name)and your own Mr.Q:D ,provides advice and opinions on recording and product matters,but your ears will ALWAYS be the final judge.
Peace
Mr.Q
 
Good points MQQ!

Darrin... just for clarity, I wasn't talking about the Proto-Js, I was talking about Reveals....

Bruce
 
Bruce,

Would you care to share your opinion of Reveals (active or passive) please.

Peace.........ChrisO :cool:
 
I compared the Event PS6s to the Tannoy Reveals, and at the time, I chose the Events. I liked both, but the Tannoys seemed somewhat less bright and had less low-end than the PS6s...

After having worked with the Events for a while now, although I like them, I think I should have gone with the Reveals... The Events ARE nice, but I find they sometimes gloss over things a bit too much... I suspect the Tannoys would be less forgiving and maybe more "revealing!" (ha!)

Actually, what I may do is sell the Events and go for the V8s... but they work for now....

Bruce
 
Mr. Q: I aint dawgin', Bearin', uh...er somethin like that on Bruce. That wasn't my intention at all. I just wanted to point out that some, though not many, reviewers actually give their honest opinion. Now when I go out and buy a product I let my ears to the buying but I also use the info I get from mags and websites. If I see something that looks like it has potential I definately check out this forum for more information since I rely on the opinions here more than those on the glossy pages.
 
Hey Virt Sam, sorry if my post seemed like I accused you of
of anything improper! You have basically verified with what I said in my post...." It's the ears,man....THE EARS!!!"

Peace
Mr.Q
 
Sorry Bruce

I guess I was remembering a post where you reccomended the proto-j's. (Didn't Gidge buy a pair)?

The revels scored some points when I tested them out, they were decent for Canadian products. I must say I was suprised. They were a bit much at the time. Still didnt have the low end of the pair I bought.

The only KRK's I got to try out were the rockets, KRK probubly puts out something better.
 
I bought the Proto-Js as an alternative to NS-10s for use as a secondary reference. They aren't my primaries but they do the exact same kind of thing NS-10s do for others, except they hurt my ears a lot less!!!

:D


Bruce
 
Blue Bear Sound said:
But hey - monitor selection is pretty subjective...
Click to expand...

Yeah, but should it be?

I like to think of my monitoring system as a bank statement. I want it to tell me exactly what's in there. I don't want my bank statement to read "Well, it sort of kind of looks as if your balance might possibly be something in the general ballpark of approximately $50 plus or minus, oh, let's say $75... maybe." No. Even if the news is bad, I still want to know exactly how much money I have to work with.

Shouldn't we all want this from our monitoring systems as well - the cold hard facts? So how does one figure out their balance? Numbers.

Now there seems to be this extremely prevalent notion that audio signals somehow defy analytical measurements - that there is some mysterious ingredient in the wave that cant be detected with anything other than the ears. This is just plain wrong. If you work on a computer look at your music in a wave editor at full zoom. That's it. Amplitude versus time. The only question to be asked is how closely do the pressure fluctuations at your ear resemble the waveform on the screen.

I'm not saying this is a completely simple question. For one thing, the listening environment throws a big wrench into the situation. Still, there are standard measurement environments which give a good representation of real listening rooms.

So are measurements enough? Yes and No. Yes there are measurements which can give you an extremely good picture of the accuracy of a monitoring system. But No, you don't normally (ever) see these measurements on a product data sheet and, therefore, don't have enough information to make an objective evaluation. Frequency response plots are not enough.

So why don't manufacturers provide this data? Sometimes they don't even have the proper equipment to collect the data. And in many cases, they just don't want you to see it. Why? Because especially in the case of speakers the numbers look BAD.

Is there room for subjectivity? Yes, I think so. I think subjectivity can come into play when the numbers don't provide an obvious winner in a comparison. For example, what if two monitors had broadband distortion versus frequency plots like this:
Code: 
|*
|***      *        * *     *
|************  ********** ****
|*****************************
+------------------------------


|*
|****        *         **
|*******  ********** *********
|*****************************
+------------------------------
The total distortion level is about equal for both, but the frequency distribution is different. In this case, it could come down to subjective opinion about which curve is preferable.

Anyhow, all I'm trying to say is monitor performance is very quantifiable these days. And we should demand more data from the manufacturers than just frequency response.

Numbers! Lets see some Numbers!

barefoot
 
Well yes... BUT..... measurements don't tell how those monitors will interact with the exact room they're in, so right there, specs can only tell so much.... basically - that the monitors were designed well or not!

The subjective part comes in because when we hear, it isn't only our ears that is doing the hearing - there is an interpretative component that our brain is doing as well --- which means for a given set of speakers, we don't all hear the same thing. (This is even more pronounced with headphone listening.)

So while you can have the best monitors in the world sitting there (Meyer HD-1s! :) ) -- they will sound bad in a bad room, and if they don't happen to give you the sound you want to hear from monitors, you will not like them no matter how good the specs say they are or aren't!

Bruce
 
Blue Bear Sound said:
Well yes... BUT..... measurements don't tell how those monitors will interact with the exact room they're in, so right there, specs can only tell so much.... basically - that the monitors were designed well or not!
Click to expand...

Monitor design can only go so far. Even if I were the best speaker designer who ever lived and I could build a set of monitors with equal dispersion across the entire frequency spectrum (the holy grail of loudspeaker design) the room they are placed in could still screw it all up. If this ever happens, I won't look at my incredible equal dispersion speakers and say "What do I need to change?". I will look at the room and say "What do I need to change?". Room performance is both the job of the speakers and the room itself. It's a system. If half of the system is fundamentally flawed, no amount of engineering on the other half is going to fix the whole thing.
The subjective part comes in because when we hear, it isn't only our ears that is doing the hearing - there is an interpretative component that our brain is doing as well --- which means for a given set of speakers, we don't all hear the same thing. (This is even more pronounced with headphone listening.)!

So while you can have the best monitors in the world sitting there (Meyer HD-1s! :) ) -- they will sound bad in a bad room, and if they don't happen to give you the sound you want to hear from monitors, you will not like them no matter how good the specs say they are or aren't!
Click to expand...
I'll answer this with a similar argument as the last. If I could design a perfectly linear set of speakers, giving perfectly dispersion in a room with ideal reverberant qualities, and all the music I listen to through this system doesn't sound so good, what should I think? Should I conclude that perfect linearity is not desirable? Or should I conclude that the flawed monitoring systems of the past have caused the engineers of these recordings to make errors of which they weren't aware? I think the latter.

And if we all hear so differently, what's the point of recording engineering? If everyone has to tweak their system all over the place to make it sound good to "their ears" then there is no standard. Then how you choose to mix your music is just a roll of the dice, because everyone hears it their own way anyhow?

I have to disagree with you on this one Bruce.:)

If you finally get a pair of glasses which allow you to see your world in perfect clarity, don't throw them out when you don't like what you see. Use them to make your world more beautiful.

barefoot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top