How to turn your old stereo speakers into the best sounding monitors you ever heard!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Boray
  • Start date Start date
Wow! Whew!

Tonight was my first exposure to this monstrous thread.

The interesting thing was, for the first 6 or 7 pages, I was completely convinced that BG was an alter-ego of Wascal. Certain stylistic similarities were uncanny. Then, of course, Wascal shows up and begins sparring with BG!

Too convenient? Has anyone actually seen Wascal and BG at the same place at the same time? Could Wascal's rumble with BG be merely a ruse to convince us they are not the same person?:confused:
 
Bdgr:
Elaborate, if you will a little more on the reed organs / vacuum cleaner connection. I find this to be the most interesting part of this thread.
 
wascal said:
yeah lots of ppls use vacuum cleaners on their organs. you have to be careful from what i hear cause you can injure yourself.
Click to expand...

Well aren't you the intelligent one!
 
*BG said:
Bdgr:
Elaborate, if you will a little more on the reed organs / vacuum cleaner connection. I find this to be the most interesting part of this thread.
Click to expand...

Old primative reed organs used a belows system to force air through reeds in order to make sounds. Sort of a pipe organ on a much smaller scale. They used these in rual churches a lot. This was pre hammond, and pre electricity. They were operated by pumping a pair of foot pedals while you played, or by an aditional person who pumped a belows off to the side. Many years later, people figured out that they could use a vacum cleaner motor to force air through in place of the belows. More convienent, and often the belows were shot anyway.
 
Bdgr:
Thanks for the info - quite interesting!

You other dimwits should appreciate the history of instruments such as these. Are you listening wascal?
 
The way to turn your old stereo speakers into the best sounding monitors you ever heard is a three-step process...
(1) Smoke a lot of good weed
(2) Look up the prices for new monitors
(3) Sit back and enjoy the best sounding monitors (for the price) that you have ever heard!!
 
Hi!

Remember this old thread? I just wanted to say that I still am using my old EQed speakers and I am very happy with my mixing results. My last 25 minutes long piece has the best mix I ever have achieved...

And there is a proof mp3 for you... A recording of my speakers with and without the EQ as well as the original test tune that was played through the speakers. I don't really know why I care to share this with you after all this time... But maybe it was a good idea to wait with the proof as I did. Maybe now after all this time you can listen to it with a sensible mind and actually agree that there is a huge improvement with the EQ turned on - istead of letting your feelings take command and shout that it all souds like crap the first thing you do.

Anyway, this below was posted on VSPlanet on 07-14-2002:

/Anders

----
And here comes the.....

PROOF!!!

Here is now a mp3 file as proof of that this really works.

(1.5mb) (Right mouse button and choose "Save Target As...")


1st part: The test tune. This is an early unmastered version of my "Amzidus (or "Focus" that it was called until recently). Here is the final version: http://www.vsplanet.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=11&t=000688

2nd part: The test tune played through my EQ tuned speakers.

3rd part: The test tune played through my speakers with the EQ turned OFF! (This is what I used to listen to).

Now, listen to this with HEADPHONES!!! And compare which of the second or third part that resembles the test tune most....

I recorded this test quite long ago when I was involved in that flamewar at Homerecording about this thread. I wanted to come with proof... But I didn't care to publish it... I had a feeling that this mp3 wouldn't change their minds anyway... So I had the recording on an unfinalized audio CD... until now... I thought you maybe would find it interesting to listen to it.... I think I placed the mics a bit strange (you hear a bit more from the right speaker), but this is the same for both parts... The mics are placed in the center of the room (at my listening position) with one mic pointing at each speaker.

Another thing I have discovered. When I turn the EQ off, the sound changes MORE when you walk around in the room compared to with it ON! Quite the opposite to what the critic people at HomeRecording said...

/Anders
 
Boray said:
Maybe now after all this time you can listen to it with a sensible mind and actually agree that there is a huge improvement with the EQ turned on - istead of letting your feelings take command and shout that it all souds like crap the first thing you do.
Click to expand...
Or...

Maybe we can just get a good chuckle at the fact that you are still obsessing over being set straight on these issues on Homerecording.com
 
The 2nd version sounds extremely hyped with the mids scooped... not very good at all, sorry.........

The 3rd version sounds duller than the 2nd version but still has the mids scooped out...... again, not good at alll.....

The 1st was the better sounding of all of them, but even so, still had a very demo'ish sound to it........

Sorry Anders - you've proved very little and I think it's pretty pointless to continue to try pressing your argument any further, since it's clear that you're not at a point in your engineering skills yet where you're able to properly judge the quality of sound....... and I don't mean that as an insult, simply as an observation that you have more ear-training to do........
 
I don't know what version I listened to. It was the first link on that post. Your a good guitar player but the song sounded distant and mushy. I'm not sure what this is proving.
 
TexRoadkill, the "proof" mp3 has 3 different parts playing the same thing. (Three parts in the same mp3). Are you sure this was what you listened to? 1st part: Original test tune to be played. 2nd: Played through EQd speakers. 3rd: Played through speakers without the EQ.

Blue Bear Sound, about what I expected (and what I had been warned) that you would say. But your task was not to say which of the versions that sounded best or worse, but which of the second and third part that resembled part 1 the most. And did you use headphones? Demoish sound? Of course... I said it was an early unmastered version. It's the mix as it was while I still was recording. And the whole mp3 was even recorded through my old Soundblaster16 card... But this wouldn't be important for the test. It's just to show that part2 resembles part1 more than part3 does. So can we agree on this? Are your ears trained enough for this simple task?

If you like you could even play part 1 through your own monitors and record it at your listening position and then to compare (using headphones) if your monitors resembles the original more than my part2 does. But this test wouldn't be correct as you don't use the same mic/mic preamp as I as well as the fact that much has been lost in the mp3 encoding...

MrZekeMan, Chuckle all you want! But listen to the mp3 first.

/Anders
 
This has got to be the all time Can of worms post I have seen. This is better than Mr.Novells Operating System War!:D
Its got me in Stitches!
:D :D
 
Neither part 2 nor part 3 sounded even remotely close to part 1...

And listening on headphones is pointless because every person's ear response when listening to cans varies considerably (ie, what YOU hear thru cans is not the exactly same as what anyone else hears for the same signal - which is a big reason mixing thru headphones is a big problem...)

Headphone listening doesn't allow for a common frame of reference - monitors do.... which is why monitors are used for mixing and not cans............
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top