Thoughts on monitors...

[upstairs]

Does anyone else really not like most modern near fields? I've never been high enough on the food chain to use any of the "real deal" mains out there, but the small ones marketed towards the home studio crowd seem pretty horrible to me. I've used Genelecs and JBLs here and there, and at one point bought some Focal CMS50s (based on internet hype - couldn't try them before). Tried to "learn" them. Hated them. Sold them for decent money. No translation what so ever compared to what I was using previously - some big 70s 3-ways with 12" woofers. Big by today's standards at least.

So to me, the problem seemed, is that these newer speakers are way too "detailed", at least in the wrong way. They have fancy tweeters. Woofers made of strange plastics or carbon fiber or who knows what...usually in the pursuit of detail and imaging or whatever, or at least to sound "pro". They sound very different to any speaker I've ever listened to music on in the normal world.

The way I think of it, most everything in the domain of the mix is volume relationships. EQ is volume control of separate frequencie ranges. Compression is volume control on the time domain. The faders change volume between elements. Yadda yadda...and if, either realistically or perceptually, volume levels are compressed, you have no good window to view your mix through.

- If you're hearing huge amounts of detail (background information or high frequency nuance or whatever) at a normal listening volume, it will sound full and rich and perfectly fine. Play it on a speaker that the sound has to "punch through" and it'll sound wimpy.

- Since you're hearing so much information presented so clearly, the volume relationship between what's loud and sticks out and what's quiet is compressed (in terms of elements, frequencies, sequential parts of sounds, etc), at least perceptually. This makes them sound "flat and neutral", leading to foolish young consumers gobbling them up and singing their praises while secretly trying desperately hard to "learn" them

Now, these Focals didn't have much bass, but the larger, bassier near fields I've used seemed to have the same problem. And I'm not arguing in favour of using crappy speakers "to make it sound good everywhere" or anything.

Just a thought. Am I off base here?

[Tim Halligan]

It really is a case of finding which monitors you get along with...and that can be a frustrating, time-consuming process.

I could never get along with NS10's for example, and could never get past the horrible "plastic-sounding" over-processed older Genelecs...yet I was quite impressed with the more recent 8000 series boxes I listened to.

I loved the baby ATC's I tried, but hated the similar sized Dynaudio Air series.

It took a while to find speakers I like, and can churn out good work on, so don't give up hope that there is a modern speaker out there that you will like.

Cheers,
Tim

PS: FWIW, I bought Quested 2108 speakers and drive them with a Chevin Research amp, and the Genelec 8000 (8030 I think) and the ATC were the only speakers I've heard that made me hide my wallet.

[upstairs]

Thanks, Tim. I guess I haven't heard enough to find a pair I get along with. Until then I'll stick with my standbys.

My theories may be a bit

NS10s are weird. I dig their dynamic response, but my mixes have always sounded a little funny on them. You know, just a little...funny.



Happy Halloween.

[Bob Olhsson]

NS 10s are OK sitting on a meter bridge of a large console because it fills in the low end. They are also very picky about the power amplifier. They always were a reference that were used alongside mains. The idea was to get mixes to sound great on both.

[John Eppstein]

Does anyone else really not like most modern near fields? I've never been high enough on the food chain to use any of the "real deal" mains out there, but the small ones marketed towards the home studio crowd seem pretty horrible to me. I've used Genelecs and JBLs here and there, and at one point bought some Focal CMS50s (based on internet hype - couldn't try them before). Tried to "learn" them. Hated them. Sold them for decent money. No translation what so ever compared to what I was using previously - some big 70s 3-ways with 12" woofers. Big by today's standards at least.

So to me, the problem seemed, is that these newer speakers are way too "detailed", at least in the wrong way. They have fancy tweeters. Woofers made of strange plastics or carbon fiber or who knows what...usually in the pursuit of detail and imaging or whatever, or at least to sound "pro". They sound very different to any speaker I've ever listened to music on in the normal world.

Well, yes, monitor speakers are supposed to be revealing and detailed. They aren't really made to "sound good" like consumer speakers, although many of the cheap prosumer models do have a certain element of that to carer to the unsophisticated ear of the beginner.

The way I think of it, most everything in the domain of the mix is volume relationships. EQ is volume control of separate frequencie ranges.

Not really. It's balance control not really "volume" - there's a difference.

Compression is volume control on the time domain

Again, not really. Compression is dynamics control, not really volume control. Again, there's a real difference.

The faders change volume between elements.

Sure.

Yadda yadda...and if, either realistically or perceptually, volume levels are compressed, you have no good window to view your mix through.

If you're having that problem you're using compression wrong.

- If you're hearing huge amounts of detail (background information or high frequency nuance or whatever) at a normal listening volume, it will sound full and rich and perfectly fine. Play it on a speaker that the sound has to "punch through" and it'll sound wimpy.

Again, I think you're not understanding the difference between tonal balance, dynamic range, and volume.

- Since you're hearing so much information presented so clearly, the volume relationship between what's loud and sticks out and what's quiet is compressed (in terms of elements, frequencies, sequential parts of sounds, etc), at least perceptually. This makes them sound "flat and neutral", leading to foolish young consumers gobbling them up and singing their praises while secretly trying desperately hard to "learn" them

What you're telling me is that you have not yet learned to differentiate between listening for pleasure and critical listening, the latter taking several slightly different forms.

It should be noted that a great many engineers do not use the same speakers for general listening that they use for monitoring.

[nobby]

Not really. It's balance control not really "volume" - there's a difference.

Balance of what?

Again, not really. Compression is dynamics control, not really volume control. Again, there's a real difference.

How about semantics control?

It should be noted that a great many engineers do not use the same speakers for general listening that they use for monitoring.

Maybe because they don't live in the studio they work in?
I use the same monitors/ amp/ converters for everything; mixing, internet, movies. It helps me compare my stuff with professionally done commercial material.

[meloco_go]

It really is a case of finding which monitors you get along with...and that can be a frustrating, time-consuming process.

I agree.

On the other hand, if you really spend a lot of time and listen to a lot of stuff on your setup, you do learn. Takes a while, though (and you have to not HATE your monitors to start with), so won't work if you need to get results fast.

My setup is humble Event speakers (small model, don't remember which one), they're kinda muddy but I got used to them.
I also use headphones to zone in on problem areas and general polishing, but that's the whole other can of worms.

[John Eppstein]

Not really. It's balance control not really "volume" - there's a difference.

Balance of what?

Tonal balance.

We don't perceive differences in tonal balance as differences in volume.

Again, not really. Compression is dynamics control, not really volume control. Again, there's a real difference.

How about semantics control?

How about trying to understand the concepts involved?

We're talking about PERCEPTION, not mechanical processes.

When we talk about "volume" we're generally talking about our perception of average level over time, usually of an overall program unless our thinking is in "mix mode", in which case we're talking about average level of individual tracks, more or less. When we talk about dynamics control we're talking about the difference between peak and average within either a track or a program, depending on context.

These are perceptual differences, and we hear them differently, although electronically they're all differences in voltage level. But that's not the way the ear processes audio.

It should be noted that a great many engineers do not use the same speakers for general listening that they use for monitoring.

Maybe because they don't live in the studio they work in?
I use the same monitors/ amp/ converters for everything; mixing, internet, movies. It helps me compare my stuff with professionally done commercial material.

Yes, I'm talking about guys who can afford a living space that's different from their work space. Guys who could (probably) afford to have monitors in their living room but more often than not choose otherwise.

As an aside, proper use of semantics and shades of meaning is very important when discussing technical matters in the perceptual arts.

[Toonman]

It really is a case of finding which monitors you get along with...and that can be a frustrating, time-consuming process.

My setup is humble Event speakers (small model, don't remember which one), they're kinda muddy but I got used to them.
I also use headphones to zone in on problem areas and general polishing, but that's the whole other can of worms.

Same here. When I was shopping for my set of speakers, I auditioned most of what the stores here had. I tried KRK's, Yamaha's, JBL's... even a pair of Genelecs. Didn't like any of them. I then landed on these Event TR8's, which I really felt comfortable with. Not that I have a lot of experience to compare, I just feel OK with them. Curiously, they were returned to the store by their previous owner (which landed me an additional discount. Yay.)

[nobby]

We're talking about PERCEPTION, not mechanical processes.

My perception is that if I use EQ to boost the midrange I may need to pull down a fader.

[nobby]

I've been using the same Event 20/20 passives for years, powered by a big custom made amp with no markings or name that was made to drive mains at a studio. Massive headroom. Lynx Aurora converters.

My brother has some really high end kit he spent thousands on, Bryston amps, much bigger speakers and high end sub woofers with adjustable crossover. I can check mixes through that to hear what it sounds like for the 0.06% of people who have systems like that

I listen to everything through the Events, I know how they translate, I'm comfortable with them. I even have a spare one because they stopped making them years ago AFAIK.
The added bonus is that I'm spared going through an endless cycle of flavor-of-the-month monitors.

And they're cheap. This is tempting, but I already have 3 and I don't have room for more stuff...

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Event-Electron ... 2588976939

[tylodawg]

While I'm hesitant to jump on "they don't make 'em like they used to" trains, I think I know what ya mean. It's similar to what goes on now with mics, where they add gobs of weird sounding high end so people think "wow, that's detailed", and/or inflated bottoms because, well, I guess that's what's in. That shit makes me nuts, but waddo I know. I do think it is market driven, ie, they are selling these things to a certain group of people, to satisfy these people's preconceived notions of what they think recording equipment is supposed to sound like - whatever the f^%k that means.
There are some good models out there. Ya just gotta filter through more noise nowadays to get there, but they're out there. (and to be fair, they made a lot of crap back in the day, too - nobody talks about it now is all. ). I settled on the KH120s, because for me, my ears, my room, my inadequacies, I whip up a mix, bring it somewhere else, bang, there it is. They're detailed enough for sure, and put out a pretty solid low end for a smaller speaker (well, until it hits it's limit down around 40 or so and droppppppps off, but life is full of give and take.) Ultimately, that's my marker. Translation, and for my ears in my room, those are working great for me.
For now. heh.

[John Eppstein]

We're talking about PERCEPTION, not mechanical processes.

My perception is that if I use EQ to boost the midrange I may need to pull down a fader.

Indeed.

[upstairs]

Well, yes, monitor speakers are supposed to be revealing and detailed. They aren't really made to "sound good" like consumer speakers, although many of the cheap prosumer models do have a certain element of that to carer to the unsophisticated ear of the beginner.

Well yeah, I'm talking about the difference between "sounding" revealing and detailed versus actually being revealing and detailed in terms of what is actually present. That depends on what your baseline is though, as the mix doesn't really exist until it comes out of speakers. So you could get into the "mix for consumer speakers" vs "mix for high end systems" type of debate, which I think is kinda bollocks.

The way I think of it, most everything in the domain of the mix is volume relationships. EQ is volume control of separate frequencie ranges.

Not really. It's balance control not really "volume" - there's a difference.

True. Should've worded that better.

Compression is volume control on the time domain

Again, not really. Compression is dynamics control, not really volume control. Again, there's a real difference.

Depends on how far back you look at the picture from, I guess.

The faders change volume between elements.

Sure.

At least I got that right

Yadda yadda...and if, either realistically or perceptually, volume levels are compressed, you have no good window to view your mix through.

If you're having that problem you're using compression wrong.

Not compression as in purposeful dynamic range squeezing, but my probably nonsensical definition I made up of perceptual compression. As a simple example (kinda restating myself here, forgive me), you've got a full mix and you're adjusting the level of a tambourine in relation. On some monitors which are sold as/talked about as "super accurate and detailed, you can hear everything, man", due to the design of the things, the tambourine presents itself as very clear and full. You can hear all the detail with it at a very low volume relative to the rest of the mix. You move it to another set and the tambourine is lost in the background. You meant it to be nearer the spotlight but now it's not.

On many of the monitors I've tried, I could imagine people perceiving all of that unnatural detail, that's not really present in the volume relationships you've set up (depends on what your baseline is though), as accuracy and flatness - flatness in that you're hearing all the low amplitude frequency content right up there with the loudest parts of the mix, creating a full sounding spectrum, when you probably shouldn't be.

What you're telling me is that you have not yet learned to differentiate between listening for pleasure and critical listening, the latter taking several slightly different forms.

Well I'm coming at it from the opposite end - that some speakers sold to the consumer market (I was about to write "prosumer", but you know) could be often feigning "accuracy" to appeal to wannabe engineers, such as myself

It's similar to what goes on now with mics, where they add gobs of weird sounding high end so people think "wow, that's detailed"

Yeah, that's pretty much it.

Though I have to say I haven't had terribly bad luck with mixing on speakers that just sound good to me, aside from some general "too much highs/lows" type issues. Maybe accidental.

Anyway, uh, back to your scheduled programming.

[John Eppstein]

So you could get into the "mix for consumer speakers" vs "mix for high end systems" type of debate, which I think is kinda bollocks.

A mix should translate well across all speakers, within the limitations of the speaker, of course.

The way I think of it, most everything in the domain of the mix is volume relationships.

Substitute the word "level" for "volume" and you're a lot closer. "volume" is a perceptual term, whereas "level" is a measurement term.

Yadda yadda...and if, either realistically or perceptually, volume levels are compressed, you have no good window to view your mix through.

If you're having that problem you're using compression wrong.

Not compression as in purposeful dynamic range squeezing, but my probably nonsensical definition I made up of perceptual compression. As a simple example (kinda restating myself here, forgive me), you've got a full mix and you're adjusting the level of a tambourine in relation. On some monitors which are sold as/talked about as "super accurate and detailed, you can hear everything, man", due to the design of the things, the tambourine presents itself as very clear and full. You can hear all the detail with it at a very low volume relative to the rest of the mix. You move it to another set and the tambourine is lost in the background. You meant it to be nearer the spotlight but now it's not.

On many of the monitors I've tried, I could imagine people perceiving all of that unnatural detail, that's not really present in the volume relationships you've set up (depends on what your baseline is though), as accuracy and flatness - flatness in that you're hearing all the low amplitude frequency content right up there with the loudest parts of the mix, creating a full sounding spectrum, when you probably shouldn't be.

What you're talking about here falls into the category of "hype". Since a lot of not very experienced recordists mistake exaggeration of certain frequency bands in the upper mid and treble for "detail" a lot of "monitors" aimed at that market exaggerate part or all of that area and say "see how detailed or monitors are when really they're not detailed, they're just bright. This shouldn't be confused with monitors that are both detailed and a bit shy on the low end, but it takes some experience to tell the difference. With a truly detailed system you can "hear into the mix" farther in that you can make out low level sounds that might be lost in another system, regardless of the overall tonal balance.

Another common form of hype exists on the opposite side of the spectrum, where some companies pass off exaggerated midbass as true bass extension. Often speakers aimed at the inexperienced recordist will exhibit both forms of hype.

Something else to be aware of is that most speakers exhibit some degree of mechanical compression of the program - all dynamic speakers do it at very high volume, but some do it most of the time to some extent. And in multi-driver systems (like nearly all conventional speaker systems) different frequency drivers may show mechanical compression starting at different levels.

What you're telling me is that you have not yet learned to differentiate between listening for pleasure and critical listening, the latter taking several slightly different forms.

Well I'm coming at it from the opposite end - that some speakers sold to the consumer market (I was about to write "prosumer", but you know) could be often feigning "accuracy" to appeal to wannabe engineers, such as myself

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about.

The thing is that you have to have the opportunity to do so serious listening on very good systems to be able to easily differentiate the difference. What you need to look for is clarity coupled with a balanced response.

Really good hi-fi speakers can make excellent monitors. The inverse isn't always true - some speakers can be quite valuable in evaluating a mix but don't actually "sound good".

The key is TRANSLATION a good mix done on a good monitor should sound like a good mix on many very different speakers, including some with fairly obvious problems*. If some element of your mix sounds out of balance on other systems you probably have a monitoring problem. And it's not necessarily frequency balance, there are other factors involved.

* - I used to check mixes on a jukebox system at a neighborhood bar that used truly horrendous Bose speakers set up in a configuration that was just wrong. If my mix sounded as good on that system as records played off the juke box then I knew that my mix translated well on what many people listened to a lot of music on. If something popped out, sounded smeared, or disappeared then I knew I had a problem.

Of course that was not my only check - I also used a pair of really lovely Trident monitors (designed by Harvey Gerst) in the listening room of my pro audio dealer, as well as various other systems.

[upstairs]

OK, I feel like I'm not totally nuts then. I guess it was just hype and some (actual) mechanical compression happening. Perhaps I should read that book on loudspeaker design I have lying around...nah! The quest continues. I'm pretty comfortable on my current set but they're not ideal.

[John Eppstein]

OK, I feel like I'm not totally nuts then. I guess it was just hype and some (actual) mechanical compression happening. Perhaps I should read that book on loudspeaker design I have lying around...nah! The quest continues. I'm pretty comfortable on my current set but they're not ideal.

Oh, NO - you're STILL totally nuts! If you're in this business, OF COURSE you're totally nuts.

But there's probably nothing wrong with your ears, or auditory perception mechanism.

[weedywet]

What matters with monitors is what they "make you do".
that's really ALL that matters; although it's a bonus if they're also pleasant to listen to, because you're apt to be listening to them for long hours at a time.

But even when Bob Clearmountain was describing how he came to start mixing on (and creating the evil epidemic of) NS10s, all he SAID was, (paraphrasing from memory): 'I thought they sounded pretty good, so I put them up and did a mix on them and took it home. and I liked the mix a lot except that the top was a little dull, so I put some tissue over the tweeters on theYamahas and did another mix and that turned out really well, and so...;
not a lot of scientific analysis.
he liked the MIXES he did on them.

that's all.


I love my JBL LSR28p. they work for me everywhere.
But that doesn't mean they'd work for YOU.

[Cirrus]

I think it's quite a common internet meme to say that you need to learn monitors, because they're all different.

And obviously there's some practical truth to that - you need to know, for example, in your mix environment what "too much bass" actually feels like.

But I think it's dangerous to get into a situation where you think you need to learn what "good" sounds like on your speakers. Because suddenly there's a layer of abstraction between what you've got and where you want to go - you need to second guess your instincts and your senses.

And I've made *far* more mistakes trying to be clever and second guess my monitoring than the times I've successfully outsmarted my speakers.

So now, I just try to make things sound the way I want them to sound. I can always make a broad brush change if there turns out to have been some systematic issue, or I can go back and tweak, say, a problem resonance that wasn't apparent in the listening situation I was in.

The alternative is second guessing your instincts and tail chasing.

I use CMS65's btw, nothing fancy. And they do have a sound. But I'm just happier and mix better if I pretend the speakers are invisible.

[Bob Olhsson]

The main thing about monitors is that you don't ever want any dips or holes in the response because they can suck up detail in a transparent way that leads to rude awakenings elsewhere. Over the years I've come to seriously question the whole idea of "learning" monitors. It's ONLY about what they make you do.

Armin Steiner had an interesting view of there being sweet combinations of monitors and console equalizers. His favorite was Altec 604s with knock-off Neve console equalizers. (He wasn't crazy about the sound of the transformers in their consoles and wanted stepped controls.) He followed a "two click" rule. If he couldn't get it to sound great in two clicks of a 2 dB./step equalizer, he needed to change or move the mike. His work always translated brilliantly.

[weedywet]

the other problem with the "learning" the monitors idea is: other people in the room.

when the guitar player (or the producer or the A&R weasel) says "that vocal isn't loud enough" or "that snare drum sounds dull", saying "I know, but it will be fine when you take it home" won't fly.
ever

[Bob Olhsson]

I agree, if they require "learning," they aren't good enough.

[meloco_go]

other people in the room

No way I would let those people into my bedroom!

Now seriously, when I was talking about learning it was more in a sense of "getting used to" the monitors. And if monitors sound completely wrong in the first place there's probably no way around it.

But if they are a little dull or a little bright (I would probably prefer slightly dull over slightly bright) or slightly mid-forward, but you are always using them to listen to the music etc, you do get used to this sound. It's not the case of "the vocal sounds f**ked up but I know it is right".

Again it might be a difference between having a home setup and a studio. When I basically spend most of my time on the same monitor system I am getting used to the way everything sounds on it.

[weedywet]

Home studio or not, I still think there is a difference between the perfectly reasonable “I know what the snare needs to sound like on these monitors”, and the ultimately unworkable actual FLAW, such as “it needs to sound a little too bright in here because my speakers are bright”

Rather than “learning” to correct, what the human brain actually tends to do is take the surroundings as ‘normal’
And so you start to mix as though your speakers DO NOT have the ‘flaw’ whether you intend to or not.
All you can do is try to make it sound good and balance AS YOU ARE HEARING IT.

[meloco_go]

All you can do is try to make it sound good and balance AS YOU ARE HEARING IT.

I agree.
But the general sound is as much a thing of fashion as of taste IMO. It is a thing of education to some degree. And with that, if one has a reasonably "right" sounding monitors and listens to a lot of records on them, the sound of these monitors itself becomes the point of reference.

[Bob Olhsson]

I disagree about fashion, i.e. poser-think.

The music just needs to "work" and connect emotionally with the listener.

[weedywet]

Totally

Whatever “fashion” is involved is already built in to the song and production on a musical level.

[John Eppstein]

I disagree about fashion, i.e. poser-think.

The music just needs to "work" and connect emotionally with the listener.

So you're saying that all those packets of white powder I lifted from Starbucks's aren't going to help?

[meloco_go]

Totally

Whatever “fashion” is involved is already built in to the song and production on a musical level.

I don't know. I think we are arguing on semantics.
For example, a band's choice of a guitar sound -- is it a musical level?
This choice is definitely a thing of fashion, i.e. it is totally dependent on what music band tends to like.
One can argue that song should come first and the band must choose the sound that works best for the song. And then one can argue the band already wrote a song with a particular sound in mind and it becomes a cyclic argument.
And when it comes to mixing, the band may ask for a particular sound in the mix again, how much reverb on drums, upfront vocals or tucked in, etc.

While I completely agree that music should come first and the most important thing is to get it to translate emotionally, I just can't help but think that there is a particular "sound" in music in certain styles and time periods. And this "sound" is a thing of fashion to a large degree.

Also, the "right" sound for a person is the one person is used to.

[Bob Olhsson]

Every single choice should be on a musical level. I think our problem today is too many choices based on fashion or hero worship and not enough actual mastery of an instrument. Fingers have a greater effect on sound than any recording gear.