Add Quested to the list. Many models to chose from.

My vote goes to the Neumanns but anything out of that list would be killer.

meyer hd1's.

ChrisH, post: 405700 wrote: Hey all,

Which pair of monitors in this price range is the winner for you?
I've had to opportunity to use a couple of the speakers I've listed below, but I haven't lived with em.
There's no access where I live to try out any of these speakers back to back so I've gotta go on your experience.

(I may have overlooked a pair so please add to the list)
In this price range we've got..

1. Focal Twin6 Be

2. KH 310 a

3. Event Opals

4. Sonodyne SM300

5. Trident SG3's

6. Genelec 8050's

These will be paired up with my ever so trusty "mixcubes".
My control rooms frequency response is as flat as a 14ft x 20ft room with 9ft ceilings can get.

I auditioned the Focals before I settled on DynAudio BM15As. The Focals sounded incredible, but only with the sub woofer and without they were still a lot more expensive than the BM15As.

The Genelecs are bit more than 3500 a pair. worth every penny.

Event Opals are amazing.

hueseph, post: 405714 wrote: My vote goes to the Neumanns but anything out of that list would be killer.

Which Neumanns? KH 310's? I hadn't seen those, the design makes allot sense to me.

kmetal, post: 405718 wrote: meyer hd1's.

What have you compared these to?

Davedog, post: 405733 wrote: The Genelecs are bit more than 3500 a pair. worth every penny.

I'm worried about those not being able to show the 30hz-45hz range.

audiokid, post: 405734 wrote: Event Opals are amazing.

I have heard lots of good about those.

I'm sure the majority here are pretty sweet too, I'd love to have the new Neumann's that Hue mentioned but I think they are around $5000 for the pair? I own Neumann KH120, Dynaudio BM6A mosfets, Tannoy 800 but the Events are incredible. I highly recommend them. After I configured them ( with their included measurement software), my room looks like this now:

Attached files

audiokid, post: 405741 wrote: I'm sure the majority here are pretty sweet too, I'd love to have the new Neumann's that Hue mentioned but I think they are around $5000 for the pair? I own Neumann KH120, Dynaudio BM6A mosfets, Tannoy 800 but the Events are incredible. I highly recommend them. After I configured them ( with their included measurement software), my room looks like this now:

  

I mainly do rock, country, blues, and jazz.
Would you still recommend the Opals?

Totally. They are awesome for everything. You will not regret. They are very focused monitors with wonderful smooth clarity at all levels. I can mix on them for hours and hours with pleasure. You hear everything with these in a welcoming way. Its easy to mix on them and you can crank these when you want to have fun!

My room is treated though so this is something I highly recommend. Hope that helps.

Don't sell those cubes btw, but if you ever decide, I want them!

Sounds good! Have you tried the Focal Twins?

Sell my cubes? Never! Thats probably the best gear investment I've made.
With those I really just need something to check the lows and highs, they give me straight mid "Meat & Potatoes", and I can hear problematic frequencies
on those that I don't ever notice on my Adam A77's.
The Opals would replace the Adams, I didn't end up liking the Adams because of the exaggerated highs and cloudy lows below 200Hz.

Never tried the Twins, heard good and negative about them. Something tiring about the top end on those but its hear-say. I think they are probably pretty nice as well but I have never heard them. I was thinking about Focal's for a long time and then lost total interest in the product for a few reasons. One in particular was Vovox and Focal are tight and imho, Vovox cable is a bunch of over rated nonsense so it made me wonder about Focal hype and the distribution. Yes, I have strange methods I research...

A very valuable area noticed over the years, specifically using higher quality gear now, is how monitors severely effect people opinions and bias feedback opinions on everything. I mean, spending time on mixing contests this last year has been a real eye/ear opener!

engineers will suggest thoughtful but very bias opinions to another engineer, suggesting they add more top end, bottom end, comments like the toms are missing, HH ar too low or a mix that sounds like complete mud is wonderful to them. etc... And people listen and trust these opinions without even considering individual monitoring system everyone is using. I spend more time grouping people together so i have a common circle of trust these days.

But, if you follow the mix of the opinions, to see what their mix sounds like compared to yours, it tells a pretty solid truth about what they are hearing, missing or appreciating. I think many of us have great sounding mixes in "our own studio" but that doesn't translate so well in the real world and why this business of mixing is so difficult up until you get that all sorted..

Also, some of us have hearing loss, some are addicted to bass, some are mixing in rooms with no treatment, mixing on laptops, headphone etc and everyone is giving their opinions.. Some of these opinions are from kids that are very well spoken but clueless. Some are dance beat freaks and some are into traditional rock with the flabby kick sound as their benchmark flavour of choice . Its one big guessing game indeed.

This is a huge problem that hasn't been recognized on the web and is rampant over at GS. Gear, microphones, speakers.. so many products that are being misrepresented through the ears of very bad monitoring. Thank goodness we have mastering engineers to try and balance it all out in the end but that is diminishing too. All this confusion sure is messing up main stream audio.

Monitors are the one thing we need to buy for our specific studio environment and then be aware of our deficiencies and attributes and then get good at "trying" to get it right lol. I don't think I will ever be satisfied. ..

Sorry to go off topic but I felt it was an interesting one. back to you :) all!

[QUOTE] Originally Posted by kmetal
meyer hd1's.

What have you compared these to?

quested s7r, yamaha hsm 8's, bose computer speakers, sony boombox, makcie hr8, (and hr8mk2's),ns-10's. compared by mixing/tweaking multitracks, and just listening to music i'm familiar w/. FWIW (same two rooms)

i'm very interested in how focal compares. they're a much newer breed, which could be good or not.

i'm interested because alot of ME's are specific about power amplification, and distribution. which really isoltes the relationships/interaction between the components between 'stereo bus-> ears'

(edit- interested 'very' in focal for good reputation and as replacement for personal home studio mackie 8's)

Do the opals have a neutral sounding tweeter?
Part of what bothers me with the adams is the over-bright high end, makes me mix highs too low, and I'm never sure
if the oh's are really cutting or they just sound like they are.

ChrisH, post: 405827 wrote: Do the opals have a neutral sounding tweeter?
Part of what bothers me with the adams is the over-bright high end, makes me mix highs too low, and I'm never sure
if the oh's are really cutting or they just sound like they are.

Yes, I know exactly what you mean.

My room is treated well and is a nice size so they fit the room well for me, but I also have a Sub. Assuming because I have some foam treatment as well as trapping, upper mids are welcome for me. The Opals sound accurate to what I expect and I can mix for hours and hours without tiring. Listening to colleague mixes, whom I really respect, their mixes sound like I would mix and that paints a pretty confident picture for me about these. My mixes translate great on other systems including our TV's and my iphone but didn't on my other monitors.

That being said, Opal's aren't dull by any means though. My other monitors sound like the tweeters are at half volume compared to these. I strain to mix on the other ones and have to think objectively where these, I am enjoying them and trust exactly what I am hearing. Make sense?
I would say they are "clear and even", I don't hear hot spots or dips. The tweeters don't sound like they roll off like most Near Fields do. I think they would be a perfect match with the Cubes.

What I really love about these is how enjoyable they are to work under extremely low volume but kick ass when you want it and its the same expected sound, just louder. Cranking can be very addicting so I am always controlling myself.

I doubt there are many monitors this suitable for me at this price but they might not be right for you. We need to buy monitors for our room and personal hearing. So hard to say beyond trying now. I love these for sure. They suit my room and hearing pallet.

I am a firm believer that most of us hear a mix in our head close to how the majority thinks in our own environment but the hard part is when we send our mix away and people say you need to change this or that and we scratch our head wondering if its me or them, right? Don't we all agree? And 95% of us all never get our mixes mainstream so we go through our entire life thinking we are doing a pretty decent job at it.
I'm personally trying to move into that last 5% and get it right. Its been a life mission, obsession pursuing that common mix that translates to the majority. I'm getting closer, I think lol, but not without the help of a monitor control system too.

Monitors and our room acoustics are everything in my book. And, the monitor set-up like the Dangerous Monitor ST has been the greatest asset to my studio and education hands down. My world changed once I got that hooked up to everything. But I have an elaborate system but I would still want that or something similar to it even if I was working 100% ITB. I have spent literally a half million on gear over the years and the Dangerous ST has been the single and most important piece to date. Its taught me how to monitor a mix and what to and to do or buy $$.
The guys that master world class music designed this so what does that tell you!
Before the ST, I had the SPL MTC 2381 and that was awesome too. Either of these two work great. The ST is just more pro. These kinds of controllers are essential part of monitoring around a DAW system.

You could give me a mix of something and we could compare notes for fun. PM me if you want me to hear a mix that you feel sounds good. I should be able to tell you if you are in the same sonic pallet as me or if you need a monitor that is darker, brighter etc. Thats is if I am accurate too!

Hope that helps.

I've had allot of employees that work at the best audio shops in America tell me I need to up my budget to $7000 to get a truly professional monitor that's flat.

I agree. More like $10,000 but who's counting at the point. Less crap is more once you have the best of everything. But I do think we have an amazing ability to addapt and do a pretty decent job if we know what the deficiencies are. The hard part is learning what those are without hearing what you are missing.

If you have the coin, these would probably be a good place to put it:

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.gearslut…"]Gearslutz.com[/]="http://www.gearslut…"]Gearslutz.com[/]

audiokid, post: 405829 wrote: And 95% of us all never get our mixes mainstream so we go through our entire life thinking we are doing a pretty decent job at it.
I'm personally trying to move into that last 5% and get it right.

ya know i was thinking about this concept, and particularly about a broke guy engineer i know who mixed multi platinum records in the nineties. then really started thinking about how 'chart' music always seems to be well mixed and translate quite well. with typical things like bright mixes, vocals up, and tight kick/bass, seems to be a common denominator.

but beyond this i began thinking about just how many (i'll say 'commercial' recordings for a general term) have been made. millions, by many, many different engineers. lots of people i couldn't name, have work on the radio 20 years after they did it. i remember a sound on sound article about joan jetts 'rock and roll', and how it was recorded 5 times, and only made the album cuz they had extra time, from there relatively meager studio booking. These people weren't on the top dollar equipment, or rooms of the day, but made a mix that stands up.

Is it just that some people have 'it' and others don't? is it that there is a standard of quality between tracking mixing and mastering that has to be met? where 'decent' pro tracked sounds can be mixed mastered into that elusive category, or vice versa? i'm not talking the old 'write a and and it'll be a hit no matter how it's recorded' this is more from the recordists mixer POV.

Is part of it just the fact that your part of the whole process and just look at it any other way? so something like a vocal a bit low in someone else mix gets on ok but in your own it's a failure?

i mean i won't ramble on anymore right now, but there are so many 'nobody' engineers who have made records that both translate, and stood the test of time. and really, i think more than the sonics, we know engineers names because the so songs they recorded characterized a 'sound' because they were both good sounding but good songs, which the copycats tried to achieve the same sonics too. those are people like geoff emerick, or alan parsons, or bob rock. i couldn't knowingly name name more than one band each of those guys did projects w/. they hit an apex. lol i should wiki there credits, i bet we've all heard alot of their stuff.

my thinking is that there is like the idea of 'standard'. we're tastes and trends are constantly defining things, but w/ so many memorable recordings being done by such a vast level of experienced/equipped engineers, from nobody w/ barely anything, to mid level modest, to i was an intern yesterday, what really is "it". i doubt 'it's the same for everyone, but i bet if some statistician did enough crunching they'd find first, a still un-explanable phenomenon, but some very convincing 'key combinations'.

it'd be a great thesis for someone.

anyway, to say something relavent , if your in the 3-5k price range your getting a nice monitor. beyond that everything from the climate, to yada yadda contributes to the esoteric nature of your setup. lots of million dollar rooms w/ speakers like ns-10's. so i kinda +1 they get what you like and are comfortable w/. nobody mixes records or listens in science labs. FWIW i used the best of three monitors i brought home, at home, and use the studios stuff at the studio, because i like some of the sets they have (hd-1's, ns10's,) and would rather buy other pieces to put in the racks. i think 'flat' is overrated, and 'pleasing' sounding isn't considered enough, in most common studio situations.

Nicely thought through.

kmetal, post: 405907 wrote:
Is part of it just the fact that your part of the whole process and just look at it any other way? so something like a vocal a bit low in someone else mix gets on ok but in your own it's a failure?

absolutely

kmetal, post: 405907 wrote: with typical things like bright mixes, vocals up, and tight kick/bass, seems to be a common denominator.

Indeed.

When it comes to art, I think you either have it or you don't and this comes in all sorts of flavours.

I love really well made shoes, always have. When I walk into a shoe store I never look at the price. There is a certain look that I like. The sole, stitching, how its made inside, the smell, everything about it has a look that seems to represent a well made shoe. The shoe could be coloured blue for all that matter, but it still has a look about it that appears like it was made by someone that actually loves shoes as much as me. When I look at the price, its usually in with the most expensive shoes.

Music and mixing, monitoring is like a shoe.

From the time I was a little kid, I have always noticed music that sounds fuller and clearer with big bass that isn't boomy. One of my first albums was a Quincy Jones album. Not because I liked his songs, but because I loved the mix.
When I speak in a room, you can always hear me talk. I think you can mix well on almost any speaker made but its harder when things aren't in your favour. So I look at monitoring like a shoe. When I wear the shoe, am I comfortable or am I always feeling something pinching me.

If its easy to hear, its easy to walk without noticing what you are doing. That's kind of how I look at it all.

I just wanna take a minute and thank everybody on this thread, it's a rare occurrence that you get humble professionals willing to
discuss topics to the greatest details and at the same time openly admit that they're still perfecting their craft.
Thank you!

Sometimes I wonder why I actually care so much about having the "perfect" monitor, I may have to work a little
harder, go check the mix in my car, home stereo, ipod dock, wherever I can but I always end up getting the end result where I want it.
When I think about it, if my control room and monitors were so accurate "perfect world situation" that It took referencing out of the equation, I think it would lose allot of fun, I would mis the "Here it comes, hows it going to sound on this system?".
Now if I was mixing 12-14 records a year, would it be nice to save time not having to reference mixs on other systems? Absolutely! But I would
still reference my mix's, so whats the point?

Exactly! The fun and challenge is finishing what we create.

My story, evolution to mixing and building a hybrid system started from programming pop music 25 years ago. To do it well enough to get paid for it, I was forced to listen deep into a mix. After years of exposure I've developed/ became conditioned to that pop sound and formula. I guess this is the part kmetal brings to our attention about a sound hit recordings have. I don't necessarily like a lot of the pop music but I love the sound of five star mixes and how the Vox and bass work together.

Whether I can actually pull it off is another story. If a recording sucks its pretty hard to get things done without replacing the key components which are the drums and bass section. Pretty much everything else will work inside a mix if you have those parts set up and ready to go. So, my entire mission from day one has been about bass and learning how to make lower mids full without sounding like honk. All the pro's I look up to seem to get that sound I crave.

Live mixing taught me alot about manipulating a PA over screwing with the mix perfectly done. When I performed and mixed live music, the console rarely ever got changed. I mean, would you remix the same song everytime you sang in it? Not me but most are always turning knobs and levels on a console.
The console is always that last place I go when I am on tour. Its the place you have to tweak but only because you cannot get it through the PA. The entire show, all the programming levels in the workstations are done and locked in, once on tour, something had to be pretty important to unlock the mix and adjust something.

So, when the sound sucks, it isn't the mix at that point, its the room and the PA creating issues. So, I learned to listen to the room anomalies, standing wave, peaks and dips, where to sit so I can protect that perfect mix. Not be fooled.

Never once in 18 years did setting the console back to flat ever serve me as well as fixing the room, speaker placement, graphs and volume control between crossovers on the FOH system first. Fix the room before you mess with the mix. Otherwise, you will never sound like a hit recording. never.

Monitoring is everything to me. Get that right and your mix is always better. The bass is always bigger and fuller and the vocals stand up and speak with impact. You can use all the power in you system if it is all balanced and right. Soft or loud, the mix should sound good at all levels if the room can handle it and your speakers are right. So, know your room, speakers and SPL boundaries. .

Its not how much they costs. Monitors should help you get it done in your environment so we don't mess our mix up and develop really bad habits and concepts along the way. But, expensive things usually are more accurate, give you more ability to do things without adding noise into the mix.

My hybrid rig and monitor control system works just like a PA system. I mix the music on DAW 1, use analog gear to create a better live sound in the middle, and sum it all on DAW2 which is essentially the audience.

Thats my take on monitors and acoustics.

Thanks back at you too! I love our forum here.

So what do you guys know about PSI A17M's?

I've heard good things. I believe the same distributor for Prism has this line and that company is all about high quality.

audiokid, post: 405925 wrote: I've heard good things. I believe the same distributor for Prism has this line and that company is all about high quality.

Yeah? I've heard lots of good about em.
However... I may just have to save up for a pair of ATC SCM25a's..

I've shared my story on how I got here, how did any of you get into this business and what are your mixes like? What monitors do you use? Are you happy with your mixes?

i got into this as a hobby to record my own punkrock band as a 13 yr old. got a 4 track tascam portastudio. i just really started to enjoy the control i had over volumes of each instrument. my mixes vary from un-treated basement recordings, to studio 'neutral studio sounding'. vocals have been becoming more defined, and forward in the past couple years. otherwise, you can always hear them in my old mixes. i prefer full, to bright, and i still love my tascam crap, for a raw sound, i find it tought to beat. my mixes are rarely 'thin', but don't always have that 'huge' thing, that's what i need. that larger than life thing. they otfen just sound, 'real'. dynamic, but don't often 'jump' out of the speaker.

i got into this business for because i took a liking to music and sounds early in age, and found various aspects of it, from acoustical construction, to system repair/installation, both fascinating, and useful to musicians. i find it a bit of a luxury and hard work, when i get some loot to 'make a record, or song'.

i use the mackie hr8 mk2's at home, i like them better as hi-fi type speakers than critical monitors. fun sounding speakers, that the truly great mixes sound very enjoyable on in the living room. mixing balance is decent translation-wise, no surprises, but the common man car and ipod test, just yeild 'acceptable', not 'wow' like some real deal engineers figured out.

studio is the hd1's and computer speakers.

happy? well i can bang out reallly good demo recordings, i think. thats where i personally evaluate my level. very good demos, fast. a decent band tracks 3 songs, an hour per song later, plus some 'master bus' treatment, done. i've been happy at this, but knowing, it's not of 'classic' quality. they could make an album cut maybe, but my fave mixes were of well rehearsed, popular cover songs. so arrangement was well done.

still working on that elusive 'thing'. i tend to not make 'bad' mixes very often anymore, live or recorded. i rate myself, on the ' close to next step' side, of entry level professional.

i know nothing about the PSI A17M's.

p.s

you may have to adjust your room a bit to cater to your speakers. if you get a fav pair then maybe a couple room tweaks would go a long way. again, it's not like many people hear things in 'flat' conditions, pro's, or just listeners alike. all i know is my hr's sounded more pleasant in the less f'd up room. meaning the bass was pleasantly exhaggerated. in the larger room the low end is much more realistic as far as transalation goes. in the small one, it was put it where you like it, then turn down a notch or 2. home rooms, same speakers, same foam, eh, may put them back in the small room for fun.

I started when I was 12, I wanted to find a way to record my guitar "riffs".
So I figured out a way to manipulate my old radio shack karaoke machine by
putting a cassette in deck "A", record a guitar or a tabletop drum beat, once that was good
I'd transfer it over to deck "B", and while deck "B" was playing I could try adding another layer
by recording to "A" then once I got what I wanted I'd copy it over to "B", I had no idea at the time that I was multi-tracking.
After a year or two of that I got a Fostex MR8 "digital recorder" with TWO inputs, I could mix levels, man I thought my possibilities were endless. Two years later after learning my limitations with it I purchased a 8 input audio interface, and thats when I started studying and getting serious about sound and perfection. I'm 24 now and I'm so glad I have this passion, I never knew I'd make money with it, let alone that fact that it has saved me from not being able to pay my bills and rent before.

So should I justify saving up $8000 for a year to get the ATC 25's, or stick with my original budget?

Here's the thing that makes sense to me due to "taste" in monitors but also is frustrating..
After talking to literally 50 knowledgable people (since I can't hear them for myself)
those who like the Opals love em but most have never heard the Focal Twins, and then those
who love the Focals hate the Opals.

I've also been recommended a set of Focal Solo 6b's and a sub about 5 times.

However, something about using a sub and not have a single speaker that can show me the whole picture bothers me, am I crazy?

pro acoustic designers will specify a speaker and then build a room to that or even custom design speakers. this how Westlake got it's start. i know of many studios that have shelves of different speakers. they are always buying / trying and then moving on. imo you can't beat the old school way of going about it .... you already have a set of mix cubes (Auratones) now all you need is a set of NS10's and then a set of honkin' big MAINS. in my case the room wasn't too big so the best (biggest) i could go was a set of Tannoy DMT12's. between the 3 sets i am able to get mix's that travel. no matter what you choose, it will not be your last monitor purchase ... get used to the idea that there is no "perfect" speaker. i know it can be intimidating and you don't want to make a huge mistake and dump a ton of dough on speakers that you will later hate but it's the nature of the beast. enough hemming and hawing ... buy something. just try to get a deal that is good enough that you won't take a bath if you decide to sell them in a short while.

If I could afford $8000 monitors, I would without a question. But what they would be I have no idea.
Even though I can hear 40hz on all my nearfields I still use a sub because its easier to mix and more fun. I've been on the fence over using a sub but its because I didn't know my system and room as well as I do now. I would rather have less sub in my mix than too much and the sub helps me hear that.

I doubt you can go wrong with the Focal's but i have no idea, never used them. MadMax has those and I believe loves them.

Exactly;

it's all just what you like. maybe you like a pronounced low end, or a forward midrange. at the place i'm remodeling, we got urie 813c mains, ns-10's and a sony boom box. the room has been re-built around the mains 3 times in the past, so i expect them to be decent.

i'd say just buy monitors that give you what you want to hear, that you like the sound of. nobody listens to music flat, so get monitors w/ tendencies you'll like and thats it. but you gotta do it in your room. could be very expensive, could be cheap. again the meyer hd 1's are my fave, and would be the only pair in the 5k price range i'd hapily buy. right now.

what about the lowere priced focals? they got raving reviews in sos. the solo 6.

i feel like subs are fun, but not necessary. if the monitor has reasonable bass reach, you could, be opening up something bad. otherwise subs are fun, and depending on what your mixing, essential. i like 'em. as long as you don't get carried away.

Once I have my new studio blueprints ready and I know how big my new control room will be, I'm going to take a trip to California, to a pro shop that
has a huge selection of monitors, in a good room, with a switcher of course, and I'll decide that way, in person.

audiokid, post: 405963 wrote: If I could afford $8000 monitors, I would without a question. But what they would be I have no idea.
Even though I can hear 40hz on all my nearfields I still use a sub because its easier to mix and more fun. I've been on the fence over using a sub but its because I didn't know my system and room as well as I do now. I would rather have less sub in my mix than too much and the sub helps me hear that.

I doubt you can go wrong with the Focal's but i have no idea, never used them. MadMax has those and I believe loves them.

Yup... I do... But they aren't for everyone... or for every room.

Monitoring is like drums... Smaller drivers for smaller rooms.

I find it hysterical when I see some of these "higher end studios" and see 4x12's/side soffited up in a room smaller than my room, and just shake my head. Those are "wow" speakers and not for mixing. Those are places where the massive sound of the final mix is supposed to impress you.... and you'll always find 2 or 3 other nearfields and/or midfields that the work was actually mixed on.

By the same token, I've seen cats soffit mount NS10's and they're producing really good work... but it's a smaller room. Typically smaller than I prefer to work in... but I'm spoiled and have the advantage of a huge control room.

And I gotta second the fact that whatever monitors you buy now... may end up with you at the end of your career... but they won't be the ONLY pair you have worked extensively with.

I'm still jonesin' for a pair of Barefoot's, ATC's and a pair of Boxer's. The only reason I haven't snagged any yet... besides now being poor as a church mouse, is that I'm waiting to see what 5.1 does. If I go 5.1, then I know there's a solid path with Focal. The boxer's... not so much. ATC can do a 5.1, but you need to purchase that all at once... Barefoot's I'm not so sure of either way... bit I'm sure that Thomas could make that happen if push came to shove.

I'm kind of with you on the Barefoot's but only because of the hype I've read. The new Neumann series looks very interesting to me too. But I have to say, these Event Opals are right on. I just love them and I am truly very happy with these. I think a monitor is right for you when your mix translates well on other systems, like in my truck, iphone, TV etc. , which it does. :)

But, I'm not always happy with my mix and is this because I suck somewhere in my mind or abilities, maybe my hearing is challenged or do I need more accurate/ tuned monitors for my hearing and/or room.
Or, am I at a point in life where I need a professional to come in and tweak my room. dunno... I tend to think its a bit of everything. Seems every mix i learn something that is different from the last one.

Those are "wow" speakers and not for mixing. Those are places where the massive sound of the final mix is supposed to impress you.... and you'll always find 2 or 3 other nearfields and/or midfields that the work was actually mixed on.

true. big speakers are getting more and more accurate, but you need the right room, and the right budget. big speakers, big room, huge budget. and even if you can mix on them, there's still a point where your gonna use something else to make sure your not doing anything dumb.

besides the blow your head off impressive use, large speakers also have a use when tracking, like for band member in the CR who are used to playing live, and used to high DB's. or bassists who want to really feel it, in the cr. the old inaccurate 813's should be fine for all this, but i would not use them as a primary mix tool. that's what the our nearfields are for. they sure do look cool tho, a little visual flash never hurts.

:edit: i will have my earplugs in if those things are going for more than i minute or two. i've learned from other peoples mistakes on this type of thing. i need my ears for a long time.

5.1- we were considering this, but held off because we do not do much broadcast, or film work. as i music studio, i don't think it's very necessary at all. i love my home entertainment system, wish it caught on. it's funny to me how many people either bought a budget surround system, or have the one that came w/ the tv. and they don't have it setup right, or just use the tv speakers anyway. lol. it's too bad cuz it can really add to the expericne of watching tv or movies.

kmetal, post: 406213 wrote: besides the blow your head off impressive use, large speakers also have a use when tracking, like for band member in the CR who are used to playing live, and used to high DB's. or bassists who want to really feel it, in the cr. the old inaccurate 813's should be fine for all this, but i would not use them as a primary mix tool. that's what the our nearfields are for. they sure do look cool tho, a little visual flash never hurts.

:edit: i will have my earplugs in if those things are going for more than i minute or two. i've learned from other peoples mistakes on this type of thing. i need my ears for a long time.

We might just have to agree to disagree... In a well designed and properly executed build, the frequency response is flat (+/-3db) from 20Hz-20kHz, and acoustic energy will be capable of reaching at least 96db with no more distortion than what the speakers deliver.

In your tracking example, the system shouldn't need anything more than to deliver a flat response... and if the main drivers are not delivering that, then they are inaccurate and not useful for mixing decisions... and it's typically due to the room being inaccurate.

I typically track loud music in the 80-90 db range, only periodically. And when I approach that 90db range, I'm usually using ear plugs, or I'm getting out of the sweet spot at least.

I generally mix in the 65-72db range when I make my critical mix decisions, but vary the listening level all over the place to check my mix decisions... including that uber loud level... but I find that I'm checking mixes outside the room when at those loud levels... what I call, kitchen music level. e.g. If I was fixing dinner for a party and I'm in the kitchen.