I just got monitors, what you guys think?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sonicpaint
  • Start date Start date
I've got a pair of B&W "audiophile - whatever that mean" 601s in my control room.... they are excellent speakers and great-sounding.

They are useful as "ooh-aah" tools for clients to listening to, but I would NEVER mix on them -- they gloss over far too much compared to my nearfields.

True - use what works for you -- but don't fool yourself with specs.... unless you're listening in an anechonic chamber - there's no such thing as a "flat-response" speaker/monitor.

And the other thing is - as pointed out by CoolCat - there is a design consideration of "listening distance" that distinguishes nearfields from "standard" pleasure speakers, whether "audiophile" or not....
 
Have you heard the speakers?!!

Blue Bear I respect that you have you own studio and that you do this Engineering thing for a living, but please don't try and tell me what your thoughts are about speakers that you've never heard. It's one thing to hear the speakers compare them and then give your thoughts, but not without listening. I'm sure I don't have to tell you that your "B&W" audio file speakers are not the speakers I have, so how can you compare them? You've even said yourself in other posts that "speakers are subjective and personal".

You don't thing spec's make a difference? So are you saying that you just ask someone what studio speakers they used and then went out and bought them. Maybe you should be using NS10's then.

True - use what works for you -- but don't fool yourself with specs.... unless you're listening in an anechonic chamber - there's no such thing as a "flat-response" speaker/monitor.
Click to expand...

Now about the anechonic chamber...lol. I'd like to know if you have tested your speakers in one, have you? I doubt it. I also never said that there was a flat frequency response on these speakers. There are no speakers that are flat, I think everyone knows that. I said that the specs coincided with the way they sound.

When you post you should learn to leave your ego and cocky attitude out of your posts dude.

Again another narrow minded answer.:rolleyes:

sonicpaint
 
The title of your post:

"I just got monitors, what do you guys think?"

Now, did you really mean...

"Just got monitos, tell me what you think, if you have anything bad to say I'm gonna mouth off and call you narrow minded."

Seriously, Bear told you what he thinks, and Rumple just wanted to know what's powering them! Chill out dude!:mad:
 
Why is it?

"Just got monitors, tell me what you think, if you have anything bad to say I'm gonna mouth off and call you narrow minded."
Click to expand...

Why is it that you accuse me of mouthing off when all I did was ask questions that were not answered fully. Here's an example. Blue Bear said this
I've got a pair of B&W "audiophile - whatever that mean" 601s in my control room.... they are excellent speakers and great-sounding.
They are useful as "ooh-aah" tools for clients to listening to, but I would NEVER mix on them -- they gloss over far too much compared to my nearfields
Click to expand...
Then I said
I'm sure I don't have to tell you that your "B&W" audio file speakers are not the speakers I have, so how can you compare them?
Click to expand...
Then BlueBear said
but don't fool yourself with specs.... unless you're listening in an anechonic chamber
Click to expand...
Then I said
I'd like to know if you have tested your speakers in one, have you?
Click to expand...
I said this because I don't think that many people if any get to "test" out speakers out of the store.

Then Blue Bear said
there's no such thing as a "flat-response" speaker/monitor.
Click to expand...
A simply put, I never said there was.

Though my post were a little harsh in some spots I think my questions are justified. The only great opposed answer I've got so far was CoolCats. He answered with great points and brought up good questions.

I would apologize if I thought I was out of line, but when I get attitude in a response then I get a little defensive as anyone would.

later,
sonicpaint
 
Re: Have you heard the speakers?!!

sonicpaint said:
When you post you should learn to leave your ego and cocky attitude out of your posts dude.

Again another narrow minded answer.:rolleyes:

sonicpaint
Click to expand...
And you, my irritable young friend, should learn to fucking read. :rolleyes:

You completely missed the point of my post entirely, which in a nutshell, was to say that there is a difference between the design of hi-fi speakers and control room monitors and that hi-quality hifi speakers, even though they are good, don't necessarily make good tools in the control room.

I backed that point up with an example from from own experience, which again, was another point you missed completely. The fact that I was talking about different speakers really didn't enter into it at all....

You may not like the answers you're getting to your post, but people here are giving you good infomation and only you are responsible for your own wants.

Just because your assumptions are off-the-mark is no reason to get pissy with people who are trying to teach you something.

:rolleyes:
 
So far this is my question.

First off I want to say that I'm not irritable, though it might have seemed that way and I can read fine.

I guess when I posted this, I thought I'd get some great answers from people who thought it was a bad idea, but I ended up with opinions and personal feelings then hard facts or reasons.

No offense to anyone but the only thing has peaked my curiosity to find out is this: Let's say that two sets of speakers have the same specs though only one set of speakers is near-field, what makes the near-field better? Is it as simple as just being a "near-field"? Can you hear things in a near-field that you can't in a good regular speaker? If so, why?

If someone can answer these questions through testing, I'd be interested to know what the differences are.

I understand that your non near-field speakers are good but what is it that makes them different? If they
they gloss over far too much
Click to expand...
Maybe they aren't as good as you thought.

I'm just guessing here, I have never listened to your speakers but these are just questions that need answering if I'm to be proven wrong that my speakers are just as good as any "near-field" monitor.

later
sonicpaint
 
Re: So far this is my question.

You don't get it at all..... :rolleyes:

The B&Ws are excellent speakers for PLEASURE-LISTENING.... ie, they are very smooth, have exceptional imaging, and have a very balanced sound. This is why they gloss over too much -- they are designed to make music being listened to very pleasant and they gloss over many midrange details (according to my ears).

Nearfields designed for a control room are generally much more stark and in some ways harder to listen to when compared to many hifi speakers. This is true even of B&W's extreme high-end speakers (12000/pr) -- I auditioned several and wouldn't find them good for mixing.

When I mix on the KRKs, they give me the information I need to make mixes that translate well to many other systems. If I were to try the same with the B&W, it would not result in the same translation ability.


Now it used to be that at least some Polk speakers were considered audiophile - maybe they still are, but I don't follow much in the HiFi circles of audio - but regardless, they are designed as PLEASURE-LISTENING speakers. So you may find that they don't give you the musical information needed when being used as mixing tools and you may find your mixes don't translate well to other systems.

If that isn't the case, then great, you've found monitors that work for you.... but I'm pretty sure that you're ears will be telling you to upgrade to a better monitoring system sooner rather than later.

As for proving it to you - the only way I can do that is if you hear the difference in my facility -- drop by if you're in the Ottawa area....

But regardless, what do I know about it anyways --- all this simply amounts to my opinion.... do whatever the fuck you want that gets you results!
 
Hey Sonicpaint,

BB is giving you some good information here. You pay $5-10 for a magazine, and most of them have nothing but worthless reviews and pages of ads. :D Listen and absorb some knowlege around here. Don't take it for granted.
 
Thanks guys.

Blue Bear thanks for taken the time to post. I do understand the differences that are said to be the case between "near-field" and regular speakers. I have done some research in the past and some today to get some answers to my own questions and what I have found hasn't given "black and white" answers as to how a speaker is made (constructed) to be a near-field monitor. You know what I mean? I don't know if I'm saying things in a way that can be understood.

I came across an article about monitors that I thought was very insightfully and to be honest it had arguments for both sides. The "near-field" monitor has only be around for a short time and the increase of popularity was more due to smaller control rooms/ studios than anything else. (Says the research I've done) Thus the boom of the NS10's. (which by the way is considered a near-field monitor but was made for home use)

One other thing that concerns me about all this speaker/monitor stuff is that the spec's of the speaker does have it's importances but only when combined with listening and testing with reference music that you are familiar with. (that's my feelings anyway).

One last thing I'd like to mention is the comment made about home speakers being made to sound good. I agree that most home speakers are make to sound good, but how is this done? It's done by enhancing certain frequencies to add clarity and punch, thus giving you a large peak at frequencies from 3khz right up to 15khz in some cases (a la the Yamaha NS10). This "enhancement is what makes speakers inaccurate, because if stray's away from the zero line on the frequency plot graph. So in most cases if you have a speaker that fluctuates as little as 3db from that zero mark and listening test have seem to confirmed that, then I'd say (again my opinion) you have an accurate monitor.

I know that there are other specifications that come into play but the frequency plot graph is a large part of the accuracy or the sound your getting.

I hope everyone understands where I'm coming from here. Maybe speakers are like you said BlueBear "subjective" and what everyone else thinks doesn't matter. Let me know what you think of the things I've mentioned Blue Bear.

I didn't know you were that close, maybe one day I'll take you up on that offer, if you promise not to hurt me ;).

Chessrock, thanks for the heads up man!

Later,
sonicpaint
 
It's interesting you bring up the NS-10, because I'd imagine your setup would have to beat that out pretty easily in terms of frequency response.

I believe they have a 7 db bump at around 1000 hz.

7 dbs, and in a frequency range where our hearing is most sensitive! Which explains why so many NS-10 owners are going deaf. :D :D
 
if you mean -/+3db that's a very big swing, I used to think that was accurate too but that's a diff of 6db !!! and most "hifi" speakers generally have a "hole" in the mid range! Also something that's always missing in the specs is the measured power response which some would consider more important. And yes I sold Polk speakers for a few years, though now that model. Maybe I go and listen to them tonight.
 
Re: So far this is my question.

sonicpaint said:

No offense to anyone but the only thing has peaked my curiosity to find out is this: Let's say that two sets of speakers have the same specs though only one set of speakers is near-field, what makes the near-field better? Is it as simple as just being a "near-field"? Can you hear things in a near-field that you can't in a good regular speaker? If so, why?

If someone can answer these questions through testing, I'd be interested to know what the differences are.

I understand that your non near-field speakers are good but what is it that makes them different? If they Maybe they aren't as good as you thought.
Click to expand...

where is barefoot???? he's a loudspeaker design nut, yes?

I figured he'd be all over this question....licking his lips, clearing his throat...stretching his typing fingers..raising one eyebrow..

..spotlight stage one.....curtains up.....camera man 4 your on first angle...zoom for a closeup..

..we have barefoot and sonicpaint in 3 seconds....

Monitors short throw/long throw on 2
 
Now we're getting somewhere.

if you mean -/+3db that's a very big swing, I used to think that was accurate too but that's a diff of 6db !!!
Click to expand...

ds21, it's only a 3db meaning only -3db. I understand and know that if it was -/+ 3db that it's a 6db fluctuation. I put the link to the speakers on a previous post, check it out. I haven't seen the specs since since then but I think the spec's your talking about are there too.

Chessrock I can't quite remember what the spec's where on the frequency response graph but I know when I saw the spec's on-line I was shocked. I don't mean that they aren't good monitors but for my taste that sound is a bit too bright. Have a look on-line for the plot graph because the article that was on the same page was very very cool. I'm going to see if I can find it. If I can I'll post it here for anyone that wants too read it. I remember the article being a good eye opener for me and a friend of mine that also frequents this forum.

lol....COOLCAT! Thanks for your post about the short throw and long throw comments you made in a previous post. I've tried to find out what the advantages are of both but I haven't been able to find any good info on the distinct pro/cons of either type of speaker.

It's great to see more people lend their thoughts in this area. I think we're getting somewhere now.

later,
sonicpaint
 
The story with specs....

...you hear with your ears, not your eyes.

Not to mention the fact that monitor specs mean shit once you get them inside YOUR room. It doesn't matter how good or bad the specs read or how expensive the speaker's are, a monitor's response will be different for every room they're placed in.
 
I don't see a response graph for the Polks, is it on their site somewhere? plus I'd be very very surprised if the have any "power response" meaurments. Yeah I've seen both those articles a few months ago, no surprise and nothing new.
 
barefoot??? where the hell is barefoot?

Radio Shack has great printed specs on their speakers.
 
For real?

I agree that the room has a role in how the speakers sound but (for me) the spec's do tell a story.

I also think that you are misunderstanding what I think about the specs. Specifications are not the whole story and I've said this before. But if you collaborate the spec's with hearing tests and proper speaker placement, then you can estimate whether or not the specs seem correct or not. It's like a guideline.

Bluebear the comment about "you hear with your ears and not your eyes" was uncalled for. I think everyone knows that. You wonder why you get attitude.

I still haven't seem or read any justifiable info that "near-field" monitors are any better then the speakers I have.

I'm curious though that BlueBear said

Not to mention the fact that monitor specs mean shit once you get them inside YOUR room. It doesn't matter how good or bad the specs read or how expensive the speaker's are, a monitor's response will be different for every room they're placed in.
Click to expand...

and yet people still think (including BlueBear judging by that statement) that "studio near-field monitors" are better. Has BlueBear just counter-dicked himself? (I asking here not assuming) If there is not a guideline (as in specifications) then how does anyone know how accurate any monitor is for that matter?

To be honest I don't think there is an answer to this. No one including myself has found and answers as to how "near-field" monitors are better or how they even differ from a regular monitor. What I have found is that people are quite personal about this subject, what ever side they're on.

Though I like to add that the lack of info stating that "near-field" monitors are the way to go, doesn't fair well for the apposed beliefs and feelings toward it.

Right now there's still no answer as to if, why or how one speaker/monitor is better. Right now everything is "hear-say".

sonicpaint
 
Re: I found the links! Good Read.

sonicpaint said:


Post your thoughts if you end reading the article!
http://www.dillonacoustics.com/Loudspeaker_plans/Yamaha/Yamaha_XOYA1.htm

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/Jun02/articles/monitors.asp

sonicpaint
Click to expand...

good read. thought the summary and test tools were "gray".

what was the microphone used?
what kind of room?
how far away from the wall?
what acoustic-makeup was on the walls?
what calibrated the calibration unit?
so what speakers does HE USE???

i liked the NS10 article better IMO, same questions tho.

we've used waterfall graphs and charts at my work too.
the info, IMO, is the best we currently have as humans to communicate something...but there's alot of factors that play so much into the results, it leaves one mentally fried like myself, and a skeptic to everything.

article didn't mention anything on the physical materials that make a Nearfield or HiFi different? or did it insinuate there isn't one?

starting to think the style of music may have a lot to do with what "we want" from our speakers.....Rap-huge subs, Bluegrass-no subs? Heavy MEtal Pop Hop Frankie Opera Beatleboot Stoneshedgezepplin...

i do like the toilet paper on the NS10 tweeter...who invented that...cracks me up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top