Loving my Yamaha HS80M's!

I just purchased the HS80M's about four days ago after purchasing and returning the HS50M's. The HS50's sounded great but I wanted a more power at my programming station so I returned them and got the HS80M's. I tune all my monitors to my control room with my DBX Driverack, a must have for anyone serious about mixing in their own studio. It made a world of difference in my monitoring, mixes, and masters. So, as far as the HS80M's are concerned, I have them set completely flat and tuned to the room and they have nice tight low-end and smooth high's. I bought mine and Guiter Center and I don't regret the purchase at all. My main mixing monitors that I've used for about 3 years are my KRK V8's for near-field and a pair of KRK V88's for mid-field and they both sound great! However, I'm going to mix my next television commercial with the HS80M's.
Must my 2cents! :D

Hmmm...I've heard the Yamahas (also in a Guitar Center) and while they did sound nice, I don't see how one could describe them as blowing away the Mackies, (which I don't like, but found more robust and realistic nonetheless), Dynaudios and Events. First off, I've actually used all of those competing monitors in a real studio situation and discovered the strengths and weeknesses. Second, I would never base a decision about a loudspeaker on what I heard in Guitar Center. The placement of a monitor and the ambient surroundings (noise, etc.) are crucial to properly evaluating a monitor.

Also, the Drive Rack is a PA product - intended for live use, not for use on your studio monitors. A studio monitor, on its own, in a well-treated control room is the only solution. Placing a standard (read - non-linear-phase) EQ in front of it, only serves to smear the imaging and create distortion.

Just some thoughts - not meaning to be a poopie-pants.

J. 8-)

thanks for the reponses!

cucco, thanks for your input.

i agree with you for the most part. especially tuning a room with an eq. however, for some people that is their only option if they can't treat the room they are in or don't have the cash too. i think a lot of career people forget that most of the other folks in the world are dealing with limited resources and that sometimes an equalizer will atleast get somebody part way there for the time being. i see alot of gear heads and succesfull types generally getting an "all or nothing" attitude that other people can't, unfortunately, afford to adopt right now. i'm all for having somebody using a PA type eq if it gets them any closer at all to a better mix :)

but i think your general point, however, is that people should avoid doing things like that cause they might be fooling themselves about their mixes....? correct me if i'm wrong.

i'm also sorry because i don't think i made it clear that i was listening to all of these in a closed off control room setup they have for monitors and high end rack gear. guess its suppose to simulate a control room of sorts. it might not be an actuall studio but i think its the best that any newbie or hobbiest could hope for in terms of comparing monitors side by side in an in-store environment i guess that might point is that if you can't bass your opinion at guitar center, then where can you? i know i don't have access to multi-million dollar studios :D

you said that you have actually used all of those competeing monitors in a reals studio situationand discovered their strengths and weeknesses. i would then be very interested to know the specifics. for example, i like the smoothness of this monitor but find that presence peak in this monitor helps to keep me from mixing too much vocals, yada yada yada. i am seriously interested to know.

sorry if i seem impolite, but i get weary from reading people's genuine questions on these boards only to be replied with the whole "you've got it all wrong, this is what you should be asking" and them not even answering their own repurposed question. seems like a lot of people here just want to show off their knowledge and/or gear and not actually contribute the education of people.

i know that's probably not your intention, sorry. forgive me. it would help that when somebody says something like "can't believe what you hear at guitar center" to atleast let me know where to go afterwards. its just a pet peave of mine i guess. hehehe.

didn't mean to be rude ;)

I don't take it as being rude, no worries.

My concerns are:

1. For the cost of a crappy EQ, you could easily afford a $100 package of Auralex. This won't be the BEST solution, but it's sure better than even the best EQ for loudspeaker correction.

2. I know that choosing loudspeakers is a personal endeavor and that everyone has their varying opinions, but what you're comparing here are apples and oranges. The Dynaudios and the higher-end Events are serious, pro ranges of equipment. The Yamahas, while decent sounding, are budget speakers. You may find them to sound better, but you're very right, they are quite peaky. The definition of a good monitor is one that is devoid of these peaks (and subsequently the valleys too.)

If you can't afford the Dynaudios or the Events but find the Yamahas to be a great sound for the value, that's great (and I would whole-heartedly agree with you). However, to say that the Yamahas bested the Dyn's or the Events seems a little sensationalistic.

I didn't listen to these in multi-million dollar studios. I listened in my studio. My studio is meager at best and I spent a grand total of $500 on acoustic treatments (a little O/C 703, some fabric and some wood) but I dare say it's far better of a judge of good sounding monitors than any similarly priced EQ.

So, I too apologize if I sound rude, but that's not my intent. Instead, I simply mean to make sure that people do it right when possible.

Don't think that I own a multi-million dollar set-up. I started small and still am pretty small. It's just that, everything I have, I built from the ground up. After gig 1, I bought a better mic, after gig 2, I bought better pres, and so on and so on...

I just don't like to see people waste money on DriveRacks when they're not even using them correctly. Or trick themselves into thinking cheap monitors are a substitute for the real thing.

Sure, they'll work a heck of a lot better than even the best computer speaker, but they aren't Dynaudios or Events... Sorry...

J. :D

heheh, gotcha thanks :)

so the yamaha's are peaky then? do you feel that they are more hyped to sound good and that the dyn's will translate better?

Chris

aphid wrote: heheh, gotcha thanks :)

so the yamaha's are peaky then? do you feel that they are more hyped to sound good and that the dyn's will translate better?

Chris

In general, I truly do feel that the "flatter" the monitor, the better the sound will translate. If you have a monitor with an exaggerated bass, you will mix the bass lean to compensate.

I've found the Dynaudios to be some of the cleanest, clearest speakers out there. (Only a few others that I've played with come close or best them:
NHT
Paradigm
B&W
Revel)

The Event ASP 8s are darn near as good too, and at a far cheaper price than the BM15A, they're a real bargain.

In general though, just about any monitor can be used as long as the room sounds good and you know what issues you have with the speakers at hand.

So, I guess the short answer to your question is -- yup - I think the Dynaudios will translate better on other systems.

J.

hello evereybody,

the yamahas had a frequency response of 42Hz-20kHz (-10dB)!!!!

-10db, that´s a wide range.

i think the rubicon r6a are much better for the price.

remon

how come you prefer the rubicon's? any hard nose comparisons you couuld give us?

remon wrote: hello evereybody,

the yamahas had a frequency response of 42Hz-20kHz (-10dB)!!!!

-10db, that´s a wide range.

i think the rubicon r6a are much better for the price.

remon

Hey Remon! Welcome to RO.

Just a point though - specs mean very little. (To me, they mean just a tad more than nothing, but no more...)

I'm sure the reason they're quoting -10dB as their reference is that the -10dB point is 42Hz, which is quite reasonable for a monitor. Many manufacturers quote using a +/- 3dB as their reference, which, in my opinion, is still useless. They take the response at 1kHz and see how much it varies and if it doesn't vary more than 3 dB from that 1kHz reference, they quote the frequency range as xHz - xkHz +/- 3dB. The problem is, there's still the potential for 6 dB of variance there. That's a lot!

Some manufacturers (Paradigm is an example) will quote you +/- 1.5 dB! That's a lot better. That means that there would only be a potential variance of 3 dB over the entire range.

BUTTTTTTTTT..... Here's the real kicker...
None (or I should say, very few) of these manufacturers tell you how they came up with this measurement. Some state that they test in an anechoic room. Most of those that claim this are lying since there are only a couple in the world. (Once again, my hat is off to Paradigm as they do in fact test in an anechoic chamber.) But then, others simply close mic all of their drivers and then overlay each driver's response on a chart and remove/compensate for the overlaps and then show that as their plot.

More specifically, they don't even disclose their testing equipment. Were they using a spectrascope (HP or the like), were they using a cracked version of Cool Edit Pro v1.2, were they using calibrated/certified test microphones like B&K or Gefell, or were they using a Behringer...You get the point.

My point, though a long winded one, is - Specs are more or less worthless. They get you in the right direction, but little more than that. By no means should they be the determining factor behind a purchase.

For example - would this speaker appeal to you:
Drivers - (1) 4.5" (doped paper), (1)1" Soft-dome tweeter
Freq Resp - 85-20,000 Hz (+/- 3dB)
Imp - 8 Ohm
Sensitivity - 86dB/WM

Most people would reject this based on the specs alone, but in reality, these are the specs to one of the most critically acclaimed loudspeakers of all time, and in my opinion, some of the finest at any price.

Care to guess what they are??? Anyone???

j 8-)

hi,

maybe you´re right, i´m not a pro.

when somebody understand german please read the article on this site: http://www.amazona.de --- klick the archive button, then go to lautsprecher(monitore) and choose the rubicon.

there is a picture from the frequency response.

it´s a very positive test.

the shops in frankfurt/germany all recommend them.

you speak about the ns10m ??

r e m o n

The suspense is killing me :!: :!:

the frequency response test is made far away from any wall.

cucco, is it an NS10?

I first thought it was the LS3/5a, but the specs aren´t quite the same 8)

re:" they sounded better than the others"

So? There is absolutely NO WAY of telling if a monitor will perform its intended duty accurately by noticing it 'sounds better'

If anything, the 'better' they sound, the more likely they are flattering the mix. This depends of course entirely on what mixes you are listening to.

When I auditioned the Dynaudio's, they sounded mighty un-impressive on some of the mixes I played on them. Downright unmusical in some cases. I bought them.

Given the recommendations I'd had for them previously, and given their ability to tell the truth, and not necessarily to 'sound good' , they perform their task with as close to perfection I've come to. I've been mixing on them for three years and I never have to second guess anything now. Most mastering engineers say "I haven't much room to move on this mix, it sounds fine, there's not a lot to do to it. " ASAIC the biggest compliment for engineer, room and monitoring system!

I'm sure the Yam's are good, just be wary of using 'they sound good' as a basis for comparison.

okay then, which of these do you think is the most truthfull set of active monitors in the $300 to $700 range?

Yamaha HS80m
Wharfedale diamond 8.2a
Samson Rubicon 6a
MAudio BX5A
Behringer B2031A Truth
KRK RP8 Rokit
Alesis M1

please feel free to state your feelings on each monitors set. the more hard nose facts you could give in comparison the better. or please give reasons why you went with your monitors.

If i've missed any jems, please let me know....

I might post this as a poll in another thread, even though i think somebody already had done a similar one...

It's a tough question, as it assumes we / I have A/B'ed all those monitors together or at least done some mixes on each and checked the translation.

I can say, KRK make some good speakers like the 6000b's but I'm not a fan of their K-Roks, Rokits, or V series. Why? too harsh on the mids for my liking. I was alwaysa ending up with mid shy mixes. Bottom end was sometimes hard to guess too.

BUT I know OF a few peops that like them, no love them.

the Wharfedales aren;t specifically monitor speakers, but they seem to perfrom the task well. I have one friend who has them but only 'listens' on them, not mixes. I've read so far two glowing reviews on them....and they seem very favourable.

The thing about the Wharfedales for me, is that they represent something important. Sometimes, you are better of getting a good quality pair of bookshelf speakers like the dales rather than a 'supposed' quality set of cheap ass monitors. Companies like wharfedale have been around for a long time, and know for instance a lot more about quality control and accuracy than a company like Samson for instance.

That said, The best mixes I've heard so far on my BM15a's from people I know are from a friend who mixes on behringer Truths. He does lots of dance, ambient etc.... they seem to gel with that kind of music well. His mixes just sound top notch,

BUT this guy seems to be able to adapt to a new monitoring systems very well. He recenelty moved to Shanghai, and now has to use Mulitmedia speakers, and Hphones. His mixes went through a shit phase of adjustment, and now they seem to be as good as always!

He uses reference CD's to get his sound right. It goes to show how much more imprtant a good refererence CD can be to a good set of mons. ref CD being one with mixes that allow you to assess the deficiencies in a monitoring system you are unused to.

My recommendation? out of the list you offered? Rokits, Truths,perhaps the new Yammies you speak of (I'd definately give them a chance! :)

I feel, the truths will allow scope for better moden mixes than the Alesis mon's, but this is based only on the mixes that i've heard come from each (knowing two people with the truths and three with the Alesis's) . but there are soooo many variables like ears, room, room treatment or lack thereof, experience etc that it's really hard to say exactly whats doing what.

I basically can;t give you a simple answer :) And if someone does... BEWARE!

I'm a big NS-10 fan, so when I saw these I bought a pair to see how they work.
My normal mixing setup is NS-10 and JBL LSR28's with a sub. (just to give you an idea that I'm not some kid in a basement, I have mixed grammy winning records, and a few billboard #1's)

the HS80M's sound VERY close to the NS-10's ESPECIALLY WITH VOCALS!
The top is brighter, and the bottom is extended further (as is to be expected), but the midrange, presence and vocal level is very similar!

HERES the settings I liked, for an ns-10 esque match.
Otherwise they kinda sound like the other generic event/mackie stuff...
-------------------------------------------------------
hi freq -2
mid boost +2
room control -2
low cut FLAT
and I put 1ply of a kleenex over the tweeters.
(even with hi freq at -2 I still thought they were a bit hyped above 10k but not too much, tissues solved that)
------------------------------------------------------
I used them tonight for a mix for the 1st time, and they are working out quite well, I'd say they could easily become more used than my expensive LSR28 setup.
HERE's the kicker!
will they be right for you?? MAYBE!
I'm used to the way NS-10's work for vocals, mids, and the overall level in the mix. I like the way NS-10's work, and you may mix well on NS-10s, or you may not. Just depends on your ears. If your an NS-10 fan check these puppies out. They get about as loud as a pair of NS-10s powered by a bryston 4B. Not really loud, but I probly shouldn't be listening that loud anyhow :)

So far i'm pretty impressed with the HS80M's
epsecially for $700 for the pair (when new, my LSR's were over $1000 each!)

NS-10 purists check these out, you might be suprised. I wouldn't put a mackie/event/m-audio ANYTHING on my meter bridge, but these HS80M's might stay there a while.

There you go Aphid. If you like NS10's you may like the 80's.

I hate NS10's with a passion, no offense to any NS10 fans, they have hosted some insanely popular mixes of history and still do!!! they are legends really, can't be denied. But they are innacurate and harsh. Go figure.

This comes back to my argument for a good quality set of bookshelf speakers, if you have a good reference mix CD and / or learn the crap out of just about ANY speaker, then it can perform great mixes. That doesn't make it any more valid spending $500 for a low end set of monitors, than spending a mere $200 or less for a decent set of bookshelf speakers and then another chunk on a decent amp like a NAD or whatever else cheap but reaosnable quality.

Basically, you are going to have to do quite a bit of learning with NS10's or anything like them. You are going to have to learn the bookshelf speakers too.

So it's a matter of choosing a good set of speakers that as far as you can tell are reasonably flat, pretty much most of the ones on your list will do the trick. Then listen to them all with a variety of quality mixes that you'd aim for in the styles of music you are going to be mixing.

which ones sound the most like you would want them to sound? There's no point buying a set of boxes which you have to mix up a mix you don't like the sound of (example: if the speakers sound harsh and shrill when you play a variety of mixes from the style you are working in, then you may find you will be mixing your mixes to sound similarly harsh and shrill in order to get your stuff to that level. Make sense? if not pelase ask and i'll clarify).

So it's down to either an expensive quality set of monitors and a treated room for complete and utter accuracy and NO second guessing of mixes, or it's a matter of something cheaper and less accurate and a decent amount of learning the anomolies. and the only way to do that is buy, try and check your mixes out and about, notice the bits that weren't meant to 'sound that way' and correct them and rememebr that for next time and compensate. that and have a MIX REFERENCE CD. As valuable as a good set of monitors you know, and FAR MORE VALUABLE FOR THE TRAVELLING ENGINEER, who needs to use a veriety of different systems in a variety of different rooms.

Cheers mate. best of luck.

I really don't believe in total accuracy or one mix translating to all systems. From grot-boxes to highly expensive monitoring systems, it's all a matter of getting used to them and making subjective judgements. I think the variety of opinions in this thread demonstrates that.

I'd go with cucco's good advice about acoustics though, aphid- better to do a bit of DIY if necessary and hear less of those scarily unpredictable room tones than waste time putting expensive monitors in a room which sounds like a toilet.

People are usually trying to achieve a compromise which seems to them to be within a ballpark of a "standardized" or "competitive" sounding record - this really depends on personal opinion, on the kind of music being made, it's purpose etc and so again this is entirely subjective.

I'm basically saying there is no "best" set of monitors, it depends on how you hear music, so you just have to try them all until you hear something that, for you, represents accuracy and shows up flaws in a helpful way. Listen to speakers, not recommendations.

'Listen to speaker, not recommendation'?

no mate, listen to both.

If you didn't listen to recommendations, you'd never develop a short list.

If you are just starting out, how can you know what constitutes a quality monitor!?

Accuracy is key to a good monitor. I'm just saying you aren't even going to get any semblance of real accuracy below a certain price and position point in the market, thus the need to learn and learn. Because just like a preamp, it takes a certain level of components and expertise to design & manufacture accuracy, tight transient response, good off axis response etc...

On the acoustic point, absolutely! Not many people will spend $400 on mons and then go treat their room though. If you are going to learn learn learn anyway, may as well learn you room too!

My Ultimate setup to largely eliminate the need to learn and second guess: B&W Natilus or Dynaudio Air in a fully Realtrapped room.

So it can be done, but only if you are prepared to put a good portion of your income into it. For all the rest of us plebs, we need to learn learn learn, but on the MOST ACCURATE SYSTEM WE CAN AFFORD. I just feel the ones mentioned above are all pretty much not-flat speakers. all accurate means is as close to truth as possible. And alimoniack though you're right about the different versions os flatness, there is degrees of it right up to near perfection. perfection usually costs big bucks!

That's why I reckon if you can't afford da big boys, listen to heaps of the styles you will be mixing on your chosen ones, and gradually build up a MIX REFERENCE CD! A few colleagues mix amazing rock and electronica mixes with Alesis M1 active and Behringer truths. I'm a Dynaudio man myself, but their mixes truly do rock and make me look like I might've spent too much :) I bought the Dynes for the sake of the longetivity of my ears as well though. i can mix on them for eight to ten hour stints with zero fatigue (with short breaks of course). so we can't forget the all important fact of FATIGUE either.

I found the KRK K-Roks, JBL ' something or others' and Yam NS10's to be highly fatiguing for instance.

Hey antho, sorry if I seem to be pooh-pooing the whole idea of recommendation, it is interesting to know what and why others like using. I suppose what I said could be taken as a blanket statement, I really only mean that it's not the safest basis for a buying decision, your own ears are what matters.
For example, you find NS-10's fatiguing (so do I, after about 5 minutes, but I kinda like that gritty midrange in a way), but stereoeq loves them. Which recommendation should aphid go with? this is someone's hard-earned cash were talking about here, and while finding out which speakers are most highly recommended by the majority of users can be a useful starting point it may simply be the case that the individual in question simply prefers working on a more obscure setup. Your friends are getting good results on their budget monitors - it works for them, right?

You make a very good point about reference material, I would say when demo-ing speakers (or checking out a colleage's set) it's a good idea to have several commercially released tracks which you think represent a benchmark of quality audio and a few mixes you've been working on yourself - and as you very wisely did, pick a pair which reveal inconsistencies in the tracks.

"The most accurate system you can afford" is a matter of opinion, not fact. This thread alone is proof enough of that.

I agree with you that there are a number of desirable qualities a speaker should have in order to give the flattest, most uncoloured response, but I doubt if every engineer in the world would want to listen on B&W's or Dynaudios (although I personally wouldn't mind) and they may recommend something else. How is the buyer to know who to trust if he hasn't heard the results? Some people have wierd ears...
Even at the top of the range, you'll still find differences of opinion.

What I mean isn't so much that one should never listen to advice, more that the real acid-test is checking things out for yourself. "Taste and try before you buy" is what I should have said.

I almost forgot-

Yamaha HS80m yes, not too similar to ns10
Wharfedale diamond 8.2a don't know
Samson Rubicon 6a yes, ribbons ahoy
MAudio BX5A no, don't like the top end much
Behringer B2031A Truth never, Uli is clearly insane
KRK RP8 Rokit don't know
Alesis M1 yes, if you like bass

However, ignore my tastes and personally listen to everything you can at the top of your budget range!

Hi Alimoniack

No need to apologise, you are right on many points. But....

" finding out which speakers are most highly recommended by the majority of users"

I never said anything about trusting the majority of users. Far from it. Trust only a few select people who have been around for enough time to know what they are on about..and who are considered experts in their field.

"I'd never sit in my control room and say that I knew for certain it would translate perfectly to any system, I'd actually do the legwork to find out. This is the only real way to avoid "second-guessing""

well, sitting in the control room and mixing, thats exactly what i do with absolute success. I sometimes wonder if what you say means you haven't had the long term experience on a high end set of monitors like Dynes in a treated room.

Of course everyone hears different, but there are still 'accurate' monitors. There are 'grot boxes' as you call them, and of course if you use that then you are going to have to second guess everything!

Just go and buy a pair of Dynadio or greater and be done with it (kidding...well not really, but I wouldn't be that presumtious :)
) . I'm dedicated enough to my passion / profession and I care enough about my ears to invest the greatest amount of money into monitoring...more money than any other aspect of the studio in fact.

It's just not worth skimping on and a high degree of accuracy and translatability CAN be bought & then learned very quickly.

Nothing wrong with the 'check it in five places' method. But there's also nothing wrong with doing away with all that and knowing your system soo well that you just trust it 100% Not to say that's not attianable at a very low cost...but like I keep saying, you just gotta leanrn learn leanr. And get that ref CD going.

I find a ref CD very handy for out and about....but with my system, I hardly need it. Mix check out and about? in the car? of course! But there's never any surprises and very rarely does anyhting have to be altered.

so accuracy is attainable. Ear anomolies are a different matter....

Trust only a few select people who have been around for enough time to know what they are on about..and who are considered experts in their field.

I guess what you're saying then is that aphid should ditch the Yamaha's which sounded flat to his ear and go for the Dynaudio's? Obviously he can't possibly know what he's hearing, not being one of the "select few", right?. This idea seems somewhat elitist.

Perhaps you believe that the rest of the professional recording industry is just "wrong" for not all having dyne's on the bridge.

Oh dear. you are assuming a lot Al.

Take what I have to say, twist it a bit, then churn it out in your version.

Can I quote myself?

"Just go and buy a pair of Dynadio or greater and be done with it (kidding...well not really, but I wouldn't be that presumtious"

I was joking, but I was also trying to illustrate how important monitors are, and how often they are undervalued. Dynes were just an example of a high quality accurate monitor!! From my experience with a massive range of monitors from most companies in the industry & speakers from both hifi and audiophile worlds, I know what is accurate and what is far from it,

Firstly, you said Don't listen to people listen to monitors. I've tried to explain that you NEED to listen to people who know what they are about in order to get ANY idea about what to head for. thats the only way anyone gets anywhere. the road alone is a long a lonely one, and often leads to getting LOST.

Expert in their field?, that is me to a degree, yes... among many many other people here at this baord and from all around the world. Why do I feel I qualify? I could say I worked for five years at the school of audio engineering (hate it or love it ). Before that I studied and majored in monitoring and acoustics. Now I run my own studio for a living. Am I being pompous for knowing what I'm on about?

Have I had any stuff mastered? lol! Another assumption. everything I've taken to be mastered in the last few years has hardly been touched in the mastering suite.. twice we've walked out without a single change to anything other than bringing it nicely up to near zero with better limiting equipment than mine... Funny, four years ago I worked my ass off to get myself a good quality set of mons...what a coincidence. It's my choice to take the expensive monitor route, and i know my ears thank me for it every single hour of every single day. Along with the other great suggestions here...i've offered alternatives. Mix Ref CD, mix checks out and about like yourself, learning your room and mons,,,

It's funny you think I'm elitist, cos I'm so far from that it's not funny! Make sounds with anything! try the cheapest shittest gear you can get your hands on if it gives you a sound that can fit into your recordings & productions!!! I use cheap gear for effects all the time. But I just believe NEVER skimp on monitors. Pre's are all important at this place, and people don't get called elitist for demanding that people buy good pres, and cheap pre's gets outright ABUSED at this place..but for some reason when it comes to monitoring, people are like "oh, what's an accurate monitor under $200, and they get plenty of responses that are more about illusion than reality...

if you can't hear accurately what is going on....you cannot make accurate value judgements without a variety of other methods. THUS the need for the other methods, which are fine! As I've mentioed before! I've used them to good effect for years!

It seems ok here for people to say "oh that pre is shit..you have to spend XXX on a even half decent pre" but when I say " a good monitor costs a certain amount of money because, EXACTLY like a preamp, good design and components COST MONEY, i get jumped on?. its a FACT., and below that figure you're going to have to make compromises & do so much learning anyway, all i was saying is you might be wise to get a good amp and a set of quality bookshelf speakers (like the Diamond's for instance..which are sold as hifi speakers, not monitors, and they are dang cheap) which may cost less, and offer an easier listening experience than cheap monitors which do the job no better.

And so I get caned for offering advice and alternatives to my chosen path:
Can I quote myself again?

"Nothing wrong with the 'check it in five places' method. But there's also nothing wrong with doing away with all that and knowing your system soo well that you just trust it 100% Not to say that's not attianable at a very low cost...but like I keep saying, you just gotta learn learn learn. And get that ref CD going."

See? open mindedness? offering within one paragraph three different ways of doing things! I NEVER said there is only one 'high' road to take!!!!

How many monitors have you used to supposedly KNOW that accuracy is a subjective thing? Bob Katz for instance is working towards gaining standards in levels for mastering. there are those in the world who want a standard of accuracy for a monitor. Unfortunately rooms change everything...too many variables, so we can only do the best we can with the money we've got, and eventually work toward removing the room anomolies by treating them with either specific devices like hemholtz resonators or tube traps or go for something broad band and very effecitve like 'realtraps', which i believe are amazing.

Again " For all the rest of us plebs, we need to learn learn learn, but on the MOST ACCURATE SYSTEM WE CAN AFFORD."

Notice the US? including me? It's a case of, everyone is working at a certain level, i'm not putting anyone down by saying plebs. definiton of pleb according to encyclopedia Wikipedia: "one of the common people"

Thats you and me bro...we is all making music, attianing tools to help us along the way that hopefully are the best we can buy for the money we have to devote to them. No-one is better than anyone for the gear they use, or even for the acts they perform. You somehow read into my post that i believe otherwise.

You were basically telling aphid he was wrong to overlook the dyne's in favour of the Yam's, for all you know he'd get better mixes on a speaker he hears as flat - that's right he thought the yam's were flat.

Whatever standard Bob Katz is working towards, it will still be a subjective decicion.
The industry will never be done with the process of perfecting designs and setting standards. Until you can close your eyes and truly believe a band is playing in front of you it's all an illusion, so to speak.

har har? what does that mean? are you now being pompous for suggesting I shouldn't record digitally with some of the best equipment? I have to record analog? I have two tape machines both four track r2r. not the best, Akai GX 630d SS . I don;t use either any more but they look cool.

Most people at this forum don't use tape. Nor does a massvie section of the recording industry. So what on earth are you on about?

How many times do people say here at recording.org "Don't bother with X preamp, you may as well just jump right to the point and get Y preamp? X being usually Behry or Mackie etc etc. Y being API, Neve, Sebatron etc etc.

And yet when I say , as a joke mind you to illustrate a point, get the Dynes or other great mon that will eliminate second guessing, then you tell me I'm pompus? bugger off mate. Seriously.

Breakdown? Read your own post !!!

you say I lost an argument about accuracy not being attainable? lol! Why, because YOU said accuracy isn't attainable? You've got to be kidding. That's a pretty self absorbed attitude right there. I believe in accurate monitors. Monitors can exhibit a very flat response right through the freq spectrum when measured in a treated room (NOT just ananechoic chamber). So what on earth are you talking about?

I supervised & taught at SAE mate...for five years. What's this learning and cost biz? I earned a shitload more money from that place than I ever put in.

I'm only going to bother with two more aspects of your last post that I feel are important to clarify as it's getting silly and it should go back to topic...

"You were basically telling aphid he was wrong to overlook the dyne's in favour of the Yam's,"

Complete and absolute shite. The Yams and Dynes are worlds apart in price and sound. I offered suggestions from the list before the fact.

i gave MANY good suggestions including a mix reference CD, which is the SINGLE most important tool for an engineer who mixes on different systems to have besides a pair of accurate monitors.

If you don't believe in a system which allows you to believe your there at the place of recording , then you obviously haven't heard that many systems.

If you master on innacurate monitors (what do you use?), and actually have satisifed clients who don't cry when they hear their master on any other system, then you obviously know your mix system and room very well. enough to account and compensate for all the innacuracies. We've already agreed on the number of things you can do if your mon's fall short of the mark. this is called 'compensating for your monitors deficiencies' jUST like you might try to compensate for a flat lifeless preamp with lots of FX and processing to try and save the sound.

This is becoming off topic...but....there ARE DEFINATELY ACCURATE MONITORS IN ACCURATE ROOMS!!!!!!! Ones which eliminate the need to second guess, mix check , use ref CD etc etc. And (if so inclined) you can literally lock yourself in the studio and mix for weeks on end with little fatigue, NO references to outside world mixes or mixes from the style you are working with, NONE of the checks you do in the outside world normally...AND STILL you can come out with an aweosme mix that just translates everywhere. Do you get that?

WHY do you think people pay $bucks$ for a top notch system in a top notch studio where fifty engineers are coming thru each month and need as close to a flat response as possible? Why do you think some mons cost $200 and some cost $200000? for goodness sake, what a ridiculous notion you put up....

[quote=Antho]har har? what does that mean? are you now being pompous for suggesting I shouldn't record digitally with some of the best equipment? I have to record analog? I have two tape machines both four track r2r. not the best, Akai GX 630d SS . I don;t use either any more but they look cool.

Most people at this forum don't use tape. Nor does a massvie section of the recording industry. So what on earth are you on about?

How many times do people say here at recording.org "Don't bother with X preamp, you may as well just jump right to the point and get Y preamp? X being usually Behry or Mackie etc etc. Y being API, Neve, Sebatron etc etc.

And yet when I say , as a joke mind you to illustrate a point, get the Dynes or other great mon that will eliminate second guessing, then you tell me I'm pompus? bugger off mate. Seriously.

Breakdown? Read your own post !!!

you say I lost an argument about accuracy not being attainable? lol! Why, because YOU said accuracy isn't attainable? You've got to be kidding. That's a pretty self absorbed attitude right there. I believe in accurate monitors. Monitors can exhibit a very flat response right through the freq spectrum when measured in a treated room (NOT just ananechoic chamber). So what on earth are you talking about?

I supervised & taught at SAE mate...for five years. What's this learning and cost biz? I earned a shitload more money from that place than I ever put in.

I'm only going to bother with two more aspects of your last post that I feel are important to clarify as it's getting silly and it should go back to topic...

"You were basically telling aphid he was wrong to overlook the dyne's in favour of the Yam's,"

Complete and absolute shite. The Yams and Dynes are worlds apart in price and sound. I offered many suggestions from the chosen list before the fact.

i gave MANY good suggestions including a mix reference CD, which is the SINGLE most important tool for an engineer who mixes on different systems to have besides a pair of accurate monitors.

If you don't believe in a system which allows you to believe your there at the place of recording , then you obviously haven't heard that many systems.

If you master on innacurate monitors (what do you use btw?), and actually have satisifed clients who don't cry when they hear their master on any other system, then you obviously know your mix system and room very well. enough to account and compensate for all the innacuracies. We've already agreed on the number of things you can do if your mon's fall short of the mark. this is called 'compensating for your monitors deficiencies' jUST like you might try to compensate for a flat lifeless preamp with lots of FX and processing to try and save the sound.

This is becoming off topic...but....there ARE DEFINATELY ACCURATE MONITORS IN ACCURATE ROOMS!!!!!!! Ones which eliminate the need to second guess, mix check , use ref CD etc etc. And (if so inclined) you can literally lock yourself in the studio and mix for weeks on end with little fatigue, NO references to outside world mixes or mixes from the style you are working with, NONE of the checks you do in the outside world normally...AND STILL you can come out with an awesome mix that just translates everywhere. Do you get that?

WHY do you think people pay $bucks$ for a top notch system in a top notch studio where fifty engineers are coming thru each month and need as close to a flat response as possible? Why do you think some mons cost $200 and some cost $200000? think about it.

Hello again Antho,

Apologies for being cheeky. Shocking behaviour!

I'm sure a certain level of accuracy is attainable, however there will always be differences of opinion about what constitutes total accuracy - that's just how I see it.

I know a few people who have studied at SAE, they felt a bit let down. I went in myself to record a track with someone who was studying there and the staff could not operate the desk properly. They didn't have a tape machine, which annoyed the kids, who wanted to learn analog too. it isn't necessarily successful right across the board.

I'm really just holding to the idea of having to decide for yourself at the end of the day whether a speaker is neutral or not, 'cos you'll never know exactly what someone else is hearing, especially when choosing inexpensive monitors. Let's agree to disagree on that one, shall we? I did give my opinions of the speakers on the list, but advised the dude to judge for himself. I think that's the best way to advise someone to spend their money. The guy was on the right track anyway, he's probably got a pair by now.

We have differing views on subjectivity/accuracy & that's fine, I just can't be bothered with the "I really know what I'm talking about, so listen up" schtick one reads so often on these forums. I don't wanna argue with you endlessly about this and I'm sorry for being a bit rough on you, please don't take it too personally.

I really appreciate your attitude Alimoniack. Because A)you didn't give in to your own beliefs and B) you respected mine. This is why i love the maturity of these forums.

re: SAE, I couldn;t care less what anyone thinks about SAE mayt! honestly, SAE standards range from hi standard to fairly average,

You want a bit of inside info on SAE? They only hire their own. This accounts for problems in standards. IF they got a lot morEXPERIENCED INDUSTRY EXPERTISE into the colleges, they would be a lot better off for it!

The other problemo is the FACT that is 'privatised competency based learning' .I wont go too far into it,, and I'm not trying to develop disrespect for SAE, cos I know it has fantastic merits to it and i spent some amazing years there and developed some ideas & teaching methods I never would have otherwise! But, competency based learning allowed shitty undevoted student to STILL pass their exam! they'd paid their money, so there was almost an obligation to get them to ,pass . In a normal college, this is unheard of, and these peopl fail as they should.

The other thing of only employing graduates is a problem, because you get relative newbies supervising only not long after finishing. A supervisor get thrown in at the deep end and is expected to teach fairly quickly, which i FIRMLY BELIEVE is LOWERING THE STANDARD of SAE.

So, I have no problems with people disrespecting the establishment. But, I feel it offers a HECK OF A LOT MORE than it DOESN'T OFFER (yes, sorry, I'm shouting! its important :) I like the place, it just needs a few changes to be taken more seriously.

I really do know my monitors my good friend. I have spent more time studying monitors than anyting else in the world really. even women (and no, i'm not in to anything gay, though it shouldn;t matter, and it certainly shouldn't be raised as an issue in a discussion about speakers! What if i WAS gay? :0)

Take care. in relation to this thread an dmy past experience with what is for some potentially the 'World Wide waste of time' i have written a list of SELF IMPOSED RULES for my own internet use that is intended to help me save time for work and to help my biz grow and avoid nowhere arguments. Here it is (totally off topic i'm sorry Aphid!!!!)

1) I look up sites which aid me in development of my musical and money making quests.
2) I only visit a site if A) I need advice relating to music or my business & /or have the ability to help someone there or B) need something physical like equpiment for my music / business (i.e ebay etc)
3) I will NOT look up a site solely because I have an argument with someone that I feel the need to win or clarify my stance on. This is detrimental to both my business and my health: re: a non life threatening situation: “The fool stands and fights, the sage walks away

I only posted this becuase I felt it relevent, and also because each time I came back here to look at this thread, I had a 'feeling in the pit of my stomach' i.e: I wasn't proud of my 'having to prove my point' and i felt bad about my responses to you....because i lost a bit of perspective in the bid to prove my points. which relates to my rules list for myself above :)

tk care...all. Mery christmas all..

Hey Antho,

I'm impressed by your gentlemanly conduct (especially after my rather scathing and impolite post!) and pleased we sorted out our argument.

I just got back after a busy day's tracking and it was a nice thing to read.

That's a good set of rules, very sensible indeed.

Also, I'm sure there are plenty of decent branches of SAE out there, even if some of them are a bit lacking.

If we'd been arguing down the pub I would now be buying you a pint by way of an apology and as a gesture of goodwill. Cheers mate. Respect!

We'll shout each other a few virtual rounds 8-) Thanks man.

"It's ok to be gay for decent monitoring, I'm highly gay for tape machines."

lol! I think that makes sense....though you'd kinda have to be a tape machine to be gay for another tape machine? i.e batting for the same team! I'm not sure on the technicalities on the that one :oops:

re: the rules....well, I've written them, thats all good and well..now I just have to stick to them

:!:

Take care out there. All the best with your trackin' .

Aphid, I'm sorry we got away's from your main intent. I hope you uiltimately got the advice you were after from this thread, and that our long saga didn't get in the way too much! :oops:

First of all...their is no "cookie cutter" sound out there. The purpose of control monitors is to simply help the engineer hear "it all", the good and the bad. The bad being engineer induced and the other bad..being tools for the producer to be able to point out something that the artist is "doing, via accident or mistake", that is not within the artist intentions.

Many modern monitors "smooth and sooth" over many misnomers and they go unchecked. This is a problem mainly for the producer to communicate to the engineer what the artist intentions really are. If the engineer is acting producer (placed in that role intentionally) then critical monitoring is equally if not more so...crucial.

I want to help disspell the notion that monitors must sound "good" to be accurate. This is NOT the case. If you shop for monitors and you pick "the best sounding ones" you may be doing your artists a serious injustice. Please let me explain:

What we as engineers DO..is inverse to what actually happens..based on the thumbprint of your monitors. IF your monitors are really peaky in the midrange, then you will smooth that portion out..meaning it will be "oversmoothed out" on a typical consumer system..meaning your midrange slamm and presence is being "smoothed over" and the very 'bite' of a kick drum not authentically reproduced EVERYWHERE ELSE. Same for the bottom. The standards for "monitors" are all over the place. Too many different sounding examples out there to translate to consumer electronics. This is why the mastering engineer is so sought after today. We were not in the role to "fix things" with the audio quality in previous times. Were were there for quality control and converting the professional environment to the consumer envoronment. These days, we do a "ton" of balancing. We also have to be critical as to not change the mix away from the artists intentions. Hard work fellows!

I receintly visited (worked in) a relatively prominant mastering house in a city where the musicians could attend the session. Based on my mastering system verses theirs..their system had "so much more boom and bottom" than mine..but could not reach the lowest octaves..AT ALL. Trusting this system would mean (to me) that my resulting work would be very thin on the 45 to 80Hz range and I just may kick in way too much sub lows in the 25 to 40Hz range..which would be inappropriate for the music to make the SYSTEM sound level..when in fact, the system was not. It also seems that many records I have heard come from this facility..have this very same issue as well!. Inaccuracies can be learned and worked around..but not at the expense of "entire ranges" being unbalanced or neglected.

With respect to bandwidth, I will cut this post short (as I can go on and on about this until I am fatiqued) but would answer any questions of specifics pertaining to this post as needed.

The NS10's were touted as being an "ugly sounding loudspeaker, with little to no bass". In fact, they are highly accurate as to powerband response from 60Hz up and the "uglyness you hear" is usually cheap microphones and electronics or poor engineering. Play a well engineered album through NS10's and watch all of the "NS10 problems" vanish (sans deepest bottom)

This said, the 80's are very close in balance and have extended lows. I find them to be a winner..but I also...for vocal balance, find the Auratones to also be "winners" as well..and clone types of them are now available for much less than ebay prices, with original drivers.

Some of the higest paid and most sought after engineers use the auratones today to balance the vocal with the instrumental. IMHO, every mix engineer should not only learn them..but should own a pair. I am happy to note that they can be bought..as a non labeled product, that has the exact driver as the older models (reissued) and are available.

I hope this will bring some insight to those who are working in project studios. Those of us who have worked for decades in large scale facilities ..already know the above paragraphs..because they became second nature.

Excuse typos...I just got off of an 18 hour session.

First of all...I appreciate that you put a lot into that post...but a lot of its already been said my friend. It helps to quickly review the fifty or so previous posts to get an idea of where to head from here..

You say : "Many modern monitors "smooth and sooth" "

I say, many modern SHITE - CHEAP monitors do that. MANY modern GOOD and WELL DESIGNED monitors are FAR beyond good monitors of the days of old. Monitors are one of those things that have improved with technology. Preamps....different perhaps. We want old colour there. You get what you pay for. unless yuo get industry deals as I like to call them, then you get more than you pay for.

NS10's flat? you have got to be kidding me! they exhibit the OPPOSITE curve to the classic disco smiley. thus when you mix, according to your philosophy and mine of 'compensating for a monitors weakness' the resulting mix is often an awesome lucky strike of HAPPY DISCO CURVE.
GET it? U;nless you learn them inside out ans get used to them like a billion or so engineers....teh you can start compensating.

NS10s' are peaky in the midrange , shy on bass, and lacking in much treble detail . The resulting mix out of the box? more bass, less mids and more trebles......i.e disco curve, smiley face curve...hence good mix to many modern listeners. who appreciate that curve on their ears..

Nothing wrong with that! just VERY important to realise they are not ACCURATE mons!!!!!

Look I agree with some of what you are saying...for sure, you are spot on about accuracy and doing your artist justice..., it's just that its either already been said, or some of its plain innacurate info (ns10's for instance, no-one ever thought they were 'accurate' i hope).

RE: auratones....they are a secondary mix check for everyone bUT those who hail from the days of yore, who learned them inside out. They are but a CHECK for most engineers. They represent the littel AM/FM radio and they are an enigmatic reference to see how a mix will sound on a piece of shite radio system They are great for this...but how many auratones do you think are floating around??? Buggerall.

I use Dyanaudio BM15a's for main monitoring, and a little pair of Akai HI FI bookshelf speakers for the final mix check for shitty little department store stereo systems. My point? Anything sufficiently shithouse will do the job of the auratones in the modern day mix world. Auratones are fantastic for the job...but they are hard to come by, and they represent something that can be had for less much more easily: A small pair of bookshelf speakers that are average and allow you a quick reference to the radio style sound playback system.

Merry christmas

The Yamaha NS10's are +/- 2.0dB devices from 100HZ to 15K..and that is about as accurate in this range as money will buy..at their price point.

Some things on the internet claim "a 7dB rise in the midrange"..this may be due to a poor room, poor monitoring envioronment. Yamaha still has the PDF with the NS10 curve on it..and this is fact, not subjective information. The rise is less than 2dB.

Unlike many here, I work a full day everyday in the studio..so I cannot take the time to read all 50+ posts of the subject.

I will say this:

Compatability with consumer electronics (i/e, mp3 players to boom boxes to everyday car audio with factory systems), the NS10's time and time again..translate.

This is because they have an accurate powerband response. When I owned a set here, I never had any complains of my mixes..translation or missing frequency ranges. Scooped out mids of modern monitors is responsable for the painful sound you will hear when played over a typical consumer system.. (as well as dynamic compression cutting out the bottom)

http://www2.yamaha.co.jp/manual/pdf/pa/english/speakers/NS10MSTUDIOE.pdf

Cucco wrote: Also, the Drive Rack is a PA product - intended for live use, not for use on your studio monitors.

Just as a side note, DBX also came out with a version of the Driverack called the Driverack Studio. It was intended for studio use, with presets that reflected that. I wouldn't use it either, but I wanted to make note that the Driverack is not necessarily a PA only tool.

Totally fair enough on the not having time to read all posts...i can only have much respect for you being more devoted to your work than the net ! :)

It still pays to have a quick scan to get an idea to avoid repeating..., but at teh same time, i suppose it often pays to NOT read anything prior...in order to have a fresh & original perspective!

"The rise is less than 2dB."

This is pretty large. And since it was measured in the good ol anechoic.....who knows what just about ANY room will do to them :shock: ...as you say, same goes for any cheap mon...

The mid peak is also a pretty well known 'fact' of the NS's And if you read the earlier posts, you will see we agree that any speaker can ultimately produce good mixes....with a few othe given factors

The NS's have that classic anomoly that if you mix on them out of the box, in an average room...without any getting used to, and learning....you tend to end up with a disco smiley curve.... Which has gotta be a good thing since many people strive for that sound! But it's still an anomoly of the speakers.. which now i realise proves alimoniacks point about subjectivity.

The auratones are still just representative of a mix checker....even though some 'gineers have gotten so used to them in the past that they rely on them.

I'll ad that there are some lucky combo's out there....like Behhry truths and certain rooms with a bit of learning seem to produce killer electronic mixes...

Ultimately whatever works....works, and thats what people should individually adhere to for their own benefit.

The monitor path is a dang hard area to nail UNTIL you've nailed it....then you are homefree.....,

[quote=Antho]har har? what does that mean? are you now being pompous for suggesting I shouldn't record digitally with some of the best equipment? I have to record analog? I have two tape machines both four track r2r. not the best, Akai GX 630d SS . I don;t use either any more but they look cool.

Most people at this forum don't use tape. Nor does a massvie section of the recording industry. So what on earth are you on about?

How many times do people say here at recording.org "Don't bother with X preamp, you may as well just jump right to the point and get Y preamp? X being usually Behry or Mackie etc etc. Y being API, Neve, [[url=http://[/URL]="http://sebatron.com"]Sebatron[/]="http://sebatron.com"]Sebatron[/] etc etc.

And yet when I say , as a joke mind you to illustrate a point, get the Dynes or other great mon that will eliminate second guessing, then you tell me I'm pompus? bugger off mate. Seriously.

Breakdown? Read your own post !!!

I supervised & taught at SAE mate...for five years. What's this learning and cost biz? I earned a shitload more money from that place than I ever put in.

HI antho, always good to meet a fellow sae mate, i studied there all the way to the recording arts degree, was there 2000-2005, also supervised for about 8 months after i finished my degree.... man i swear when i read yr comments& opinions, i so agreed and thaught that guy has experience and seem to know what he is saying very well, but as soon as u mentioned sae, i was like no wonder i really agree, same academic backgound, same tools and studios, same variety we had the opportunity through sae to work and mix with, and the tons of theory and practical studio bookings,.......and the master cd thing for reference testing, i swear i felt you'ld be an sae mate. dunno which one u studied and supervised at though, i was in the london (caledonian st.) one, but i know they moved campus now......dyns, i agree with you 100%, and as u said , must be in a well treated room if u really wanna know what's happening...... but with ergo technology today, (you can check it on youtube) whatever monitor u have, With respects to flatness, honesty, etc., and a bit of room professional acoustic treatment, any thing will eventually give good result with respect to speakers ranges and prices, cababilties of coarse in mind,

i bought an m-audio bx8a today, even after have for hours read these forums, and most people commented on their boomyness, which imo wasn't that boomy, and how yam's are better and translate better... BUT when i read the specs(which aren't everything in yr final decision on what mons to use) i looked at it this way...

yams will not go as deep, hence explaining why they don't sound that bassy and therefor translate better to the outside world consumer level i pods, etc. and have shinyness in the mids/highs ,

......but with a very simple filter on the bx8a deluxe, i can filter out the low end up to the same lowest frequency the yamaha goes furthest down to (42 Hz) and therefor sound less bassy than the bx8a's usually do, and there u go, it does sound nice and has great sonic detail, honest, excellent imaging, etc. close to that yams

..BUT... u can't extend the yams low end a few HZ (LOWER than yams 42 HZ) and therefor reaching the bx8a deluxes lower bass extent frequency extending down to the cabinets resonance frequency 30 HZ without an expensive woofer.

Now here's an important point for MANY READERS to consider : get bx8a's and a simple plugin hpf filter, or yams, but with a sub to reach those low frequencies the bx8a extend down to. by the way i still do admire the yams sound and appreciate what it offers for its price range and how closer in translation it is, and i do prefer it to the m- audio, in that i don't have to tweak a lot by plugins to make it sound less boomy and bring up the mid slightly by therefore making it translate better,.... but .. which if done, will also give some maybe not marvelous, but at least good results as well, just another way of looking at the issue away from A-B'eing speakers, plus with a bit of ergo involved in balancing monitors to rooms, im not really too sure if monitors will ever be an issue later on in time..: )

back to you antho, bottom line, not all people have had the opportunity to learn what we did, but hey, remember day 1 how, even though with amateur backgrounds, for the most at least i must say, were also misjudgefull and biased at times just cos u heard someone say whatever piece of equip was good, but by time and years, which i agree with u again on this one, BEST OF MY LIFE, MADE WORTH WHAT I PUT IN SAE, we got to this open minded professional experienced level not many people have had the experience and many years and opportunity to try different gear in different treated rooms in the coarse of these years, and again remember day 1 in sae : ) so easy on the less experienced : ), though i must admit i come across really talented ones, who with some knowledge and experience will be great one day, at least mixing engineers when the effort input will equate that output

mate again its really nice to meet a fellow sae student and work college.