Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 34

Thread: To make your old stereo speakers more suitable for monitoring.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    417
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    210336

    Arrow To make your old stereo speakers more suitable for monitoring.

    Sign in to disable this ad
    To make your old stereo speakers more suitable for monitoring.

    WARNING: Written by "the mad scientist".

    As the good people at HomeRecording to my surprise brought my thread "How to turn your old stereo speakers into the best monitors you ever heard" to the top again, I decided to refine my method by eliminate/minimize the known problems it has. Old method: http://www.vsplanet.com/ubb/ultimate...c&f=1&t=010966

    So, what was the main problems?

    1. Room acoustics. Your speakers sounds different when you move your head around in the room.

    2. Just any microphone can't be used as it's far from flat.

    3. EQ degrades the sound by introducing phase shifts.

    4. Good monitors are also influenced by room acoustics, so they are not completely "flat" responding at your listening position. So... going after "flatness" at the listening position would not sound like real monitors, even if this is what monitors are trying to achieve.

    5. A 10 band EQ is not enough to compensate for room acoustics. Standing waves etc are much more narrow. At lease a 31 band EQ is needed.
    ---

    Even if I noticed a big improvement with my old method, I know now that my monitoring got too much at the very high end and too little bass. This has mainly with the mic/preamp to do as it sounds about the same when moving the head around. Anyway, all 5 points above influenced the result less than the overall improvement I got. People still don't beleive this even though I have posted mp3s etc etc: The listening contest: http://www.vsplanet.com/ubb/ultimate...c&f=1&t=011764

    Anyway.... Why not improve the method and eliminate the problem points above instead? Nr 2 can easily be solved by using a reference mic, but you would still have the room acoustics to deal with, so I found a much better solution:

    You want your speakers to sound like monitors, right? The simplest solution is to buy yourself a pair of decent monitors. But if you still want to use your old speakers, for echonomical reasons or whatever - The solution is quite simple: Borrow a pair of real monitors and try to get your speakers to sound like them. This is how this is done:

    * Borrow a couple of great monitors from a friend. This is probably the most difficult part.

    * Place them beside your own speakers, but be careful to follow the manufacturers instructions on how the monitors should be positioned.

    * Make some arrangement so that you easily can switch between listening to the monitors and the speakers (without altering the volume). You could for example aux send from one channel of the VS to the monitors and from another to the speakers and then use MUTE to switch between them.

    * Put one 10-band graphical EQ (the internal of the VS) as an compensation insert effect for the speakers.

    * Put one 10-band EQ for the test-source to be able to isolate frequencies from the test music. Use a mono input for the test music and insert the EQ twice (through both channels of the linked 2 channel EQ in series).

    * Use a test source that has audible components in all frequency bands. For example unmastered music.

    * Both EQs should be set to Link: On!

    Now you will have a set-up like this figure:


    (fig)

    Now, first adjust the volumes of the two so that they are about the same. Then, the procedure is much the same as in my old method: Isolate one frequency band by setting one band to +12 and all the rest to -12 in the test EQ. (As it is inserted twice in series, it will actually be a lot more than +12dB). If you hear distortion, adjust the gains. Then listen to the monitors, then to the speakers and compare back an forth (at your normal listening position). If the monitors are louder, compensate by increasing the compensation EQ for that particular frequency band, if the speakers are louder, then decrease in the compensation EQ. Then go back to the test EQ and put the next band to +12 and all the other to -12 and continue this way. NEVER touch any volume controls during this procedure. When this is ready, go through the bands again, setting two at a time to +6, listen and compare. After that, you are ready. Save the compensation patch on your VS. Bypass the test EQ and compare the two. Your old stereo will now sound much more like the monitors than before.

    Now, you can do the other way around, to give your friend a very good simulation of your old speakers for his monitors... As a thanks perhaps...

    The EQ compensation patch is then simply used by inserting it at master in your normal setup. I can't guarantee that it will sound better to you, just that the sound will resemble the monitors more. Maybe you remember how amazed I was over my old method? Well, I have tried this new one (with my Alesis M1 active Mk2 as the reference), and the result is much much better than the old method. I choose not to use words like "magic" this time becasue I know how people react to that. The same people will probably say this new method is crap as well, but consider this:

    1 * I have minimized the problem of room acousics::: The speakers and the monitors are placed (almost) in the same spot, meaning that the sound waves from them will travel in the same way in the room, bounce on the same walls, produce the same standing waves etc. Not exactly in the same way, but almost. Nearfield monitors are designed to not to be so dependent of room acoustics, but they are of course to a point. Anyway, this is the reason why I think it's better to lend a pair of monitors rather than to take your stereo to a friends studio and do the tuning there. That might work, but as nearfields are supposed to have less impact from the room, I think it's better to tune in your room as that is the sound you are after - the sound of nearfield monitors in your room.

    2 * I have eliminated the microphone! You don't have to depend on a reference that you can't verify. Even if you used a real reference mic, it WOULD sound a bit different moving it around (not much in this setup, but in the old method). You could use a mic just as in the old method, but your ears are by far the best measurement.

    3 * The phase shifts from EQing is still there. But you can't hear this if you don't have good monitors... and.... you don't! As a test of how accurate my method is and how much the EQ degrades the sound, you can test by using two of my EQ patches:

    Simulation of Alesis M1 active Mk2 for my DUX stereo:
    -5 6 -10 -7 -1 -1 0 1 -6 -2 (level +4dB)

    Simulation of my DUX stereo for my Alesis M1 active Mk2:
    8 -10 4 -1 -5 -7 -8 -9 -3 -6 (level +4dB)

    Put them in series inserted at master in this order: ->"Simulation of Alesis"->"Simulation of DUX"-> Out

    As this is supposed to bring back the original signal, this will allow you to hear the inaccurance of this method (times two) including the EQ degradation (times two). One of the simulations above was made on the VS840 and the other on the VS1680 and as these don't have identical effects, this should also affect the sound a bit (as well as two extra conversions for sedning the sound to the VS840).

    4* "Good monitors are also influenced by room acoustics, so they are not completely "flat" responding.".... Yes... so this time we simulated real monitors in the same room instead of trying to achieve "flatness"....

    5* ”A 10 band EQ is not enough to compensate for room acoustics. Standing waves etc are much more narrow. At lease a 31 band EQ is needed.”....... Well..... We are not trying to compensate for room acoustics, are we?

    Anyway, Good Luck! This method works much better than the old one, even if the simplest solution IS to buy yourself a pair of real monitors! I don’t regret buying mine. Of course you will get the best monitoring by buying a pair of real monitors, but it still IS possible to improve the sound of your old crappy stereo. But if your stereo isn’t that crappy, then maybe it isn’t... All I know is that this worked on my stereo... and much better this time.... But I won’t of course use it at all this time as I have the monitors now.....

    /Anders

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Ottawa, ON, Canada
    Age
    54
    Posts
    12,874
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    42716

    Thumbs down *yaaaaaawwwwnnnnnnnnnn*

    Same old shit all over again... eh, Boray...?!?!?!

    [size=1][b]bruce valeriani
    [url=http://www.bluebearsound.com/articles]recording articles[/url][/b]

    [url=http://www.bluebearsound.com][img]http://www.bluebearsound.com/images/bb_siglogo.jpg[/img][/url][/size]

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    408
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    19
    Boray,
    even with the careful wording you used here and the numerous remarks that real monitors are better you still will probably get some bashing, many won't even read it. But you knew that I guess?
    My take on this? If you're lacking in funds and have the equalizer lying around - you might as well try it. Even if nothing improves you will have to use your ears so it's a good exercise. I doubt you will ever get really close. Even if you manage to eq the speakers ok there's so much more to monitors.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    417
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    210336

    Boray's listening challenge II: VSPlanet vs. HomeRecording. Your honour is at stake!!

    Now you can listen to these simulations at:
    http://www.homerecording.com/bbs/sho...threadid=72341

    "Boray's listening challenge II: VSPlanet vs. HomeRecording. Your honour is at stake!!"

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Ottawa, ON, Canada
    Age
    54
    Posts
    12,874
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    42716

    Thumbs down

    *yaaaaaawwwwnnnnnnnnnn*
    [size=1][b]bruce valeriani
    [url=http://www.bluebearsound.com/articles]recording articles[/url][/b]

    [url=http://www.bluebearsound.com][img]http://www.bluebearsound.com/images/bb_siglogo.jpg[/img][/url][/size]

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    417
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    210336
    Originally posted by Blue Bear Sound
    *yaaaaaawwwwnnnnnnnnnn*
    No wonder you have 5550 posts...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Ottawa, ON, Canada
    Age
    54
    Posts
    12,874
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    42716
    ...even posts where I yawn have more useful information than anything I've seen you post........!

    [size=1][b]bruce valeriani
    [url=http://www.bluebearsound.com/articles]recording articles[/url][/b]

    [url=http://www.bluebearsound.com][img]http://www.bluebearsound.com/images/bb_siglogo.jpg[/img][/url][/size]

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    417
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    210336
    Originally posted by Blue Bear Sound
    ...even posts where I yawn have more useful information than anything I've seen you post........!

    I know you think very highly of yourself. A short summary of HomeRecording.com: "Don't think for yourself. Don't learn by experiance, but follow the blue leader, course he is the way, the truth and life, Amen Haleluja! Never question his wisdom. If someone disobeys him, he should be stoned.". But the truth IS that you don't know how to attack this new theory (that you no doubt will say is old stuff and baby food), just because I have addressed and solved all the problem areas that you have been shouting about all the time. The only area I haven't solved is that EQ degrades the sound. (And we all know how dreadful this is... hmm...). When your knowledge reaches its limits, you just act like you don't care and post something like:

    >*yaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnn*

    or

    >...awww, to hell with it.....
    >
    >You didn't understand before, and still don't -- and I've said it before......... >do whatever the hell you want!
    >
    >But if you post more nonsense here - you WILL be corrected..........
    >
    >Either way, I've had it with this inane thread..................


    And that is the truth.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Ottawa, ON, Canada
    Age
    54
    Posts
    12,874
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    42716
    Same bullshit, different presentation... yadda-yadda.......

    Go away.......

    [size=1][b]bruce valeriani
    [url=http://www.bluebearsound.com/articles]recording articles[/url][/b]

    [url=http://www.bluebearsound.com][img]http://www.bluebearsound.com/images/bb_siglogo.jpg[/img][/url][/size]

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Ballwin, Mo. USA
    Age
    62
    Posts
    12,616
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 23 Times in 23 Posts
    Rep Power
    18113589
    ....but you don't understand....it turns up to 11........IT'S ONE LOUDER....

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •