i may be in the minority, but my philosophy on gear is: you get what you pay for.
buy the best you can afford, or better if they will extend you a credit line ;)

learn to use it well.
reference reference reference
make the best you can with what youve got.

the name on the front is irrelevant

wait.
100$?

DO NOT buy 100$ monitors
wait until you have 1000$

"They both sell under $100 for the pair. Since they are for studio monitoring, I want to buy the one that would produce a much clearer (true to sound) output, that way I can only concern myself to treating the sound via the EQ from either the software or the [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.behringe…"]Behringer[/]="http://www.behringe…"]Behringer[/]. Thank you."

$100 a pair? You're kidding, right? How about $1000.... each?

Why is it that everyone new to this craft wants and expects a professional sound, or as you put it "a true clear sound"....yet they aren't willing to pay for it, or accept the fact that in order to get good sound, you have to use GOOD GEAR??

Look, nothing worth anything good in this business is cheap. You're gonna get what you pay for. A $100 gear investment is chump change. It's even lower than that. It's the price that most of us here pay for a pair of good speaker cables.

Your recording rig will only ever sound as good as your weakest link does. Save your money and look at a REAL pair of studio reference monitors.

Get serious about it, and then we'll talk.

PS...
In the future...
Please...don't say you are "mastering". You're not mastering.... Not while using headphones and a $500 Behringer mixer in your basement or bedroom, anyway. You have no accurate sense of what your sonics are doing and how your room is reacting and you're "mastering"? Uhm.... no. You may be "mixing" - or trying to mix - using headphones - but you're definitely not mastering.
There are professional ME's here. Try to not offend them by claiming to do the same thing that they do while stating in the same breath that you are looking at investing $100 for monitors.

d/

Josh Conley, post: 418640, member: 47953 wrote: i may be in the minority, but my philosophy on gear is: you get what you pay for.
buy the best you can afford, or better if they will extend you a credit line ;)

learn to use it well.
reference reference reference
make the best you can with what youve got.

the name on the front is irrelevant

Thanks, I have heard the saying "you get what you pay for" many times, but I'm not convinced by it in many levels. Some gears you pay for their name and not quality and I noticed that what's good in my ear might be bad for others. I agree with you that I need to learn how to use it to get the best out of it.

Josh Conley, post: 418641, member: 47953 wrote: wait.
100$?

DO NOT buy 100$ monitors
wait until you have 1000$

How is $1000 speaker better than $500 and how is $500 better than $100? Or are you saying brand+price means quality?

DonnyThompson, post: 418646, member: 46114 wrote: "They both sell under $100 for the pair. Since they are for studio monitoring, I want to buy the one that would produce a much clearer (true to sound) output, that way I can only concern myself to treating the sound via the EQ from either the software or the [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.behringe…"]Behringer[/]="http://www.behringe…"]Behringer[/]. Thank you."

$100 a pair? You're kidding, right? How about $1000.... each?

Why is it that everyone new to this craft wants and expects a professional sound, or as you put it "a true clear sound"....yet they aren't willing to pay for it, or accept the fact that in order to get good sound, you have to use GOOD GEAR??

Look, nothing worth anything good in this business is cheap. You're gonna get what you pay for. A $100 gear investment is chump change. It's even lower than that. It's the price that most of us here pay for a pair of good speaker cables.

Your recording rig will only ever sound as good as your weakest link does. Save your money and look at a REAL pair of studio reference monitors.

Get serious about it, and then we'll talk.

PS...
In the future...
Please...don't say you are "mastering". You're not mastering.... Not while using headphones and a $500 Behringer mixer in your basement or bedroom, anyway. You have no accurate sense of what your sonics are doing and how your room is reacting and you're "mastering"? Uhm.... no. You may be "mixing" - or trying to mix - using headphones - but you're definitely not mastering.
There are professional ME's here. Try to not offend them by claiming to do the same thing that they do while stating in the same breath that you are looking at investing $100 for monitors.

d/

Thanks for the reply and I apologize if I offended you when I said mastering. Obviously, I am in the beginning stage of mastering and that's why I'm looking to take a further step from headphone to cabinet. I didn't ask to compare a $100 speaker vs $1000 speaker, but since you opened that conversation, may I ask you why you think the $1000 speaker is better than the $50? Is it the brand? Is it the quality over time? Do you hear more from 1K speaker than 50? If you do, is it because of the frequency range, setup, noise, power, etc?

i like the Mackies best but if i were you i would go for which ever ones i could get cheaper ..... have you checked out Behringers? maybe they make monitors that will match up to your mixer better?

I'll be your huckleberry. What happens is, when you pay the sort of money you are talking about is lack of cabinet quality as well as speaker. Cheaper connectors, cheaper wire, solder and on and on. Bad overall frequency response separation. We all here (I'm not in the highest end at all), have lo fi speakers, that we rely on to know what the average Joe Smo hears through. These days even less hi fi if on earbuds too of course. It is true that some brand names mean more $ without necessarily meaning = to cost.

Generally speaking some prudent research will tell you what are favoured speakers for monitoring. Environment is more important than almost anything, you will never convince the average user of that, but they hear the result of these masters doing their thing.

Keep in mind if a brand is popular with people that know what they are doing, they usually do the job intended from them. If they didn't they wouldn't be used for long, and the company making them would be out of business in that range. Hope that helps somewhat. I am down the bottom of the middle in what I spend, so I can make suggestions. First one would be to look and see if somewhere will extend you say interest free credit ie: Sweetwater over 24 months.

Cheers,

Tony

Kurt Foster, post: 418656, member: 7836 wrote: i like the Mackies best but if i were you i would go for which ever ones i could get cheaper ..... have you checked out Behringers? maybe they make monitors that will match up to your mixer better?

Thanks Kurt. I'm thinking the same thing about Mackies, simply because they made better loudspeakers. Hoping that they didn't make crappy starter kit. Re: Behringer, if I ever bump my budget up, I would consider KRK instead.

masterdeeno, post: 418654, member: 48350 wrote: How is $1000 speaker better than $500 and how is $500 better than $100? Or are you saying brand+price means quality?

i smell borderline trolling or cognitive dissonance, not sure which.

electronics.
component quality matters.
circuit design matters.
assembly matters.

none of these have anything to do with labels. youre not buying jeans all made of the same denim and thread. far from it. get out of that mindset.

go to guitar center.
listen to and inspect their most expensive monitors, the wood, the connectors, the switches, how insanely heavy they are.
then do the same with the 100$ speakers.

you tell us the difference.

Makzimia, post: 418657, member: 48344 wrote: I'll be your huckleberry. What happens is, when you pay the sort of money you are talking about is lack of cabinet quality as well as speaker. Cheaper connectors, cheaper wire, solder and on and on. Bad overall frequency response separation. We all here (I'm not in the highest end at all), have lo fi speakers, that we rely on to know what the average Joe Smo hears through. These days even less hi fi if on earbuds too of course. It is true that some brand names mean more $ without necessarily meaning = to cost.

Generally speaking some prudent research will tell you what are favoured speakers for monitoring. Environment is more important than almost anything, you will never convince the average user of that, but they hear the result of these masters doing their thing.

Keep in mind if a brand is popular with people that know what they are doing, they usually do the job intended from them. If they didn't they wouldn't be used for long, and the company making them would be out of business in that range. Hope that helps somewhat. I am down the bottom of the middle in what I spend, so I can make suggestions. First one would be to look and see if somewhere will extend you say interest free credit ie: Sweetwater over 24 months.

Cheers,

Tony

Thanks Tony. I've dealt with Sweetwater and Zzounds before. Even SamAsh is giving me great deals on their studio monitors. The problem I have with any of them is the lack of try-before-you-buy policy, since they are online stores. Meaning, if I didn't like the sound of the speaker (which eventually will depend on my room acoustics), then I'm wasting my money for its return shipment - not once, twice maybe more. Anyway, the purpose of this thread is really to understand which product can I get most out of the $100. I have plans on upgrading it to a higher end down the road, but I just don't understand why would anyone pay more for monitor. If we are talking about loudspeakers (which is used for the main output), then I would understand the need of higher end, but for monitoring it's a bit edgy for me. For example, if you are to release your own music to the general public 80% of those listeners are on a consumer-grade speakers. Will they still be able to distinguish the music made from high-end studio monitor, from mid-range or from low-end (esp if their loudspeaker is on the high-end)? Will the high-end studio monitor provide additional benefits on top of having a good mic to record live sound (guitar, drums, vocals, etc)?

$100 for monitors, go get a soundblaster with an aux in and use that until your are able to upgrade. There is nothing Pro Audio in the price range even considering.

Josh Conley, post: 418660, member: 47953 wrote: i smell borderline trolling or cognitive dissonance, not sure which.

electronics.
component quality matters.
circuit design matters.
assembly matters.

none of these have anything to do with labels. youre not buying jeans all made of the same denim and thread. far from it. get out of that mindset.

go to guitar center.
listen to and inspect their most expensive monitors, the wood, the connectors, the switches, how insanely heavy they are.
then do the same with the 100$ speakers.

you tell us the difference.

i am sorry if you felt that i'm trolling. maybe, i was misunderstood for initially asking which $100 speaker to buy. you were the one who told me to save 1K and buy a more expensive speaker without providing additional info to support your case. i just thought you had an experience of using low-ends and still ended up going to high-ends and so I asked the question if you had experience between low, mid and high studio monitors.

audiokid, post: 418662, member: 1 wrote: $100 for monitors, go get a soundblaster with an aux in and use that until your are able to upgrade. There is nothing Pro Audio in the price range even considering.

does studio monitor really have to be loud? or at a certain range where you can hear the music clearly. i just don't want to be mistaken for wanting studio monitors vs loudspeakers.

85db is a standard reference level, but @ $100 retail for studio monitors, what ever you get at that price will be far from accurate; at least to my knowledge.
Get this on ebay for $100. This is awesome for exactly what you need. Its my latest "go to" portable monitoring addition. Love it!

http://recording.org/index.php?threads/sirius-sub-x1-universal-plug-n-play-boombox.57471/

audiokid, post: 418665, member: 1 wrote: 85db is a standard reference level, but @ $100 retail for studio monitors, what ever you get at that price will be far from accurate; at least to my knowledge.
Get this on ebay for $100. This is awesome for exactly what you need. Its my latest "go to" portable monitoring addition. Love it!

http://recording.org/index.php?threads/sirius-sub-x1-universal-plug-n-play-boombox.57471/

wasnt it more of sensitivity rating for studio monitors - like 95db per 1w?

http://recording.org/index.php?threads/why-doesnt-it-sound-like-what-i-hear.774/#post-6127

Mackies or alesis monitor one are decent options, a bit more money, but having used both they are worth the money, I've heard a lot worse for mire expensive. Something w a 5 or 6" woofer should be a good first step. As you gain a better feel for it all, you'll know what you want, out of a better higher priced upgrade set. Between micing and mixing and eqing and basic room acoustics, a set of speakers like this should be fine.

While the accuracy is basically a non issue in this situation, I'd say just pick the ones your favorite stuff sounds best on. The comment "I never knew that was In that song!" Is a sure fire good thing, with regards to clarity, and detail. Hopefully this happens to you. It'll get you used to mixng on 'monitors' where they aren't necessarily designed to be entertaining, they present music in a different style than other speakers.

Okay [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.recordin…"]masterdeeno, Stop with the technobabble since you know absolutely nothing. You know nothing, absolutely nothing. You don't know what's good. You don't know it's bad. You've only known what you read about is marketing blather. And when you start using the wrong techno-speak lingo colloquial speak, it impresses no one that actually knows what you're not talking about. Now you might think this answer rude and curt, which it is. We don't purchase $100 monitors to use as critical reference sources. They are used to make sure that your mixes through the $1000 monitors will play nicely on virtually anything like $100 monitors.[/]="http://www.recordin…"]masterdeeno, Stop with the technobabble since you know absolutely nothing. You know nothing, absolutely nothing. You don't know what's good. You don't know it's bad. You've only known what you read about is marketing blather. And when you start using the wrong techno-speak lingo colloquial speak, it impresses no one that actually knows what you're not talking about. Now you might think this answer rude and curt, which it is. We don't purchase $100 monitors to use as critical reference sources. They are used to make sure that your mixes through the $1000 monitors will play nicely on virtually anything like $100 monitors.[/]

Of course wearing headphones for 4+ hours isn't comfortable. They're not supposed to be. Because you're wearing the wrong headphones. You're wearing the $20 headphones. And we don't usually record and mix, with headphones. Unless you are doing an on location broadcast production without a control room, with loud PA speakers blaring just feet from ya. Got that? Good.

What's the difference between the $100 monitors and the $1000 monitors? About $900 difference in quality that's what. Kind of like the difference between your moped and a Harley.. Though they both seem to still have two wheels? Imagine that?

So... how many newspapers do you have to deliver before you can afford something to record with? Maybe about 20 years? It will cost you 20 years. Maybe even 30 years? Because the equipment costs as much as a house. Not one made from Lego. Or tinker toys.

Now there's nothing wrong with your Behringer. You're just going to need 10 SHURESM-57 & 58 which will set you back about one grand i.e. $1000, just for the microphones to plug into your high-quality Behringer. Enough to record a band all at once. And the microphone stands. And the microphone cables. And the microphone snake. And the custom headphone monitoring system with plenty of headphones to go around.

Next stop, the other important ancillary equipment like cheap DBX and Behringer dynamic range limiters/compressors. Since your Behringer might have a digital effects device built-in? You might not need that Eventide Harmonizer H-3000 nor Lexicon 480, PCM 90/80/70/60? Because the Behringer should be as good as that. LMAO NOT!

Obviously, what I'm saying is, don't bother to swap out your monitor speakers. Your Electro-Voice Whatever's are perfectly fine. If you really learn what they sound like. Which you do by playing back the top recordings by the top hit making groups recorded by the top producers and engineers. Generally nothing from the 21st century but from the late 20th century. Like Michael Jackson. Like Earth Wind and Fire. And when you listen to those recordings through your Electro-Voice goodies? It'll tell ya what ya need to know. It'll tell ya what your stuff is supposed to sound like through those Electro-Voice ditties. You'll then have a reference to work from. No matter how good or awful they might be, they'll be a reference when you start with the proper reference material to listen to first.

With the money you'll save, not wasting your money on crappy replacement speakers costing what? $100 for the pair or $100 each? I don't care. It's a dumb purchase. Better you should buy a SHURE, SM-58 with an additional foam pop filter. And if ya don't get that foam pop filter? Then you probably also don't know how to wipe your own ass.

Do you want to learn from real professionals? Or do you want to learn from other 15-year-olds like yourself? I'm sorry... I meant 16. I didn't want to be rude. Right LMAO! Yes I did! So there is truth in advertising here.

What am I some kind of joker or something? I absolutely am. I've done standup comedy in addition to garnering 4 major music award nominations and 20 years spent with NBC Television and Radio, as one of their top audio people. But I started just like you did. Using a handful of cheap, consumer, home stereo equipment like Sony tape recorders, RadioShack microphones and RadioShack low impedance to high impedance transformer adapters, used both forwards and backwards. Because you can. Hell... when I was only 17, had no money and no equipment. This is what I had. This is what I did.

I had a cheap Electro-Voice 636, omnidirectional dynamic microphone. Which was balanced XLR out. I took its output via a $10 RadioShack low impedance to high impedance adapter transformer thingy. I plugged that into a cheap RadioShack cassette deck. I put a blank tape in and hit record pause. I took the output of the RadioShack cassette deck and plug that into a $50, five band, BSR, graphic equalizer. I took the output of the graphic equalizer and plug it into a Sony cassette deck, that had a built-in limiter. I put the tape in and hit record pause. I then took the output of that Sony cassette deck and plug it into the line level input of my Sony TC-250 Tape Coder. To use for a voiceover and singing recording signal chain. Never once rolling any of those cassette tapes in those decks. Putting them in record pause was the only way to get audio to pass through. And all I had was a pair of 6 inch RadioShack speakers in a small wooden box. And then I listened to reference recordings, made by the hit makers, to adjust my hearing to my monitoring system. Which cost all of $50. But that was 1972. From there I worked my way up.

My next acquisition was a pair of SHURE M-67, 4 microphone input, 1 line level output, used mixers. I needed 2 for stereo. And to accommodate up to eight microphones. And then I got the Sony TC-630 stereo tape recorder so now I could also have tape echo. And then I bought a pair of Hammond reverb springs for $10 each. And powered those from the speaker outputs from the Sony TC-630 power amplifier outputs. And then I bought a second five band $50 graphic equalizer. I was really flying now. As I moved up to having two, 8 inch, wide range, RadioShack speakers and enlarge to the hole on my speaker boxes. Now I had some really high-quality monitors LOL.

But above all, I listened to the top hit making recordings. That's what told me all that I needed to know or need to hear. And for folks to tell me you can't learn how to make good recordings that way? I guess they never learned how themselves? That's why they tell everybody you can't do that. They never figured it out for themselves. You listen. If you listen into and carefully. You'll get it. Otherwise maybe you should just be running a Good Humor truck and jingling your bells? I said your bells! Not your balls. It takes balls to jingle bells. Let's just be clear about that LOL.

I'll take a strawberry shortcake.
Mx. Remy Ann David

RemyRAD, post: 418851, member: 26269 wrote: Okay [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.recordin…"]masterdeeno, Stop with the technobabble since you know absolutely nothing. You know nothing, absolutely nothing. You don't know what's good. You don't know it's bad. You've only known what you read about is marketing blather. And when you start using the wrong techno-speak lingo colloquial speak, it impresses no one that actually knows what you're not talking about. Now you might think this answer rude and curt, which it is. We don't purchase $100 monitors to use as critical reference sources. They are used to make sure that your mixes through the $1000 monitors will play nicely on virtually anything like $100 monitors.[/]="http://www.recordin…"]masterdeeno, Stop with the technobabble since you know absolutely nothing. You know nothing, absolutely nothing. You don't know what's good. You don't know it's bad. You've only known what you read about is marketing blather. And when you start using the wrong techno-speak lingo colloquial speak, it impresses no one that actually knows what you're not talking about. Now you might think this answer rude and curt, which it is. We don't purchase $100 monitors to use as critical reference sources. They are used to make sure that your mixes through the $1000 monitors will play nicely on virtually anything like $100 monitors.[/]

Of course wearing headphones for 4+ hours isn't comfortable. They're not supposed to be. Because you're wearing the wrong headphones. You're wearing the $20 headphones. And we don't usually record and mix, with headphones. Unless you are doing an on location broadcast production without a control room, with loud PA speakers blaring just feet from ya. Got that? Good.

What's the difference between the $100 monitors and the $1000 monitors? About $900 difference in quality that's what. Kind of like the difference between your moped and a Harley.. Though they both seem to still have two wheels? Imagine that?

So... how many newspapers do you have to deliver before you can afford something to record with? Maybe about 20 years? It will cost you 20 years. Maybe even 30 years? Because the equipment costs as much as a house. Not one made from Lego. Or tinker toys.

Now there's nothing wrong with your Behringer. You're just going to need 10 SHURESM-57 & 58 which will set you back about one grand i.e. $1000, just for the microphones to plug into your high-quality Behringer. Enough to record a band all at once. And the microphone stands. And the microphone cables. And the microphone snake. And the custom headphone monitoring system with plenty of headphones to go around.

Next stop, the other important ancillary equipment like cheap DBX and Behringer dynamic range limiters/compressors. Since your Behringer might have a digital effects device built-in? You might not need that Eventide Harmonizer H-3000 nor Lexicon 480, PCM 90/80/70/60? Because the Behringer should be as good as that. LMAO NOT!

Obviously, what I'm saying is, don't bother to swap out your monitor speakers. Your Electro-Voice Whatever's are perfectly fine. If you really learn what they sound like. Which you do by playing back the top recordings by the top hit making groups recorded by the top producers and engineers. Generally nothing from the 21st century but from the late 20th century. Like Michael Jackson. Like Earth Wind and Fire. And when you listen to those recordings through your Electro-Voice goodies? It'll tell ya what ya need to know. It'll tell ya what your stuff is supposed to sound like through those Electro-Voice ditties. You'll then have a reference to work from. No matter how good or awful they might be, they'll be a reference when you start with the proper reference material to listen to first.

With the money you'll save, not wasting your money on crappy replacement speakers costing what? $100 for the pair or $100 each? I don't care. It's a dumb purchase. Better you should buy a SHURE, SM-58 with an additional foam pop filter. And if ya don't get that foam pop filter? Then you probably also don't know how to wipe your own ass.

Do you want to learn from real professionals? Or do you want to learn from other 15-year-olds like yourself? I'm sorry... I meant 16. I didn't want to be rude. Right LMAO! Yes I did! So there is truth in advertising here.

What am I some kind of joker or something? I absolutely am. I've done standup comedy in addition to garnering 4 major music award nominations and 20 years spent with NBC Television and Radio, as one of their top audio people. But I started just like you did. Using a handful of cheap, consumer, home stereo equipment like Sony tape recorders, RadioShack microphones and RadioShack low impedance to high impedance transformer adapters, used both forwards and backwards. Because you can. Hell... when I was only 17, had no money and no equipment. This is what I had. This is what I did.

I had a cheap Electro-Voice 636, omnidirectional dynamic microphone. Which was balanced XLR out. I took its output via a $10 RadioShack low impedance to high impedance adapter transformer thingy. I plugged that into a cheap RadioShack cassette deck. I put a blank tape in and hit record pause. I took the output of the RadioShack cassette deck and plug that into a $50, five band, BSR, graphic equalizer. I took the output of the graphic equalizer and plug it into a Sony cassette deck, that had a built-in limiter. I put the tape in and hit record pause. I then took the output of that Sony cassette deck and plug it into the line level input of my Sony TC-250 Tape Coder. To use for a voiceover and singing recording signal chain. Never once rolling any of those cassette tapes in those decks. Putting them in record pause was the only way to get audio to pass through. And all I had was a pair of 6 inch RadioShack speakers in a small wooden box. And then I listened to reference recordings, made by the hit makers, to adjust my hearing to my monitoring system. Which cost all of $50. But that was 1972. From there I worked my way up.

My next acquisition was a pair of SHURE M-67, 4 microphone input, 1 line level output, used mixers. I needed 2 for stereo. And to accommodate up to eight microphones. And then I got the Sony TC-630 stereo tape recorder so now I could also have tape echo. And then I bought a pair of Hammond reverb springs for $10 each. And powered those from the speaker outputs from the Sony TC-630 power amplifier outputs. And then I bought a second five band $50 graphic equalizer. I was really flying now. As I moved up to having two, 8 inch, wide range, RadioShack speakers and enlarge to the hole on my speaker boxes. Now I had some really high-quality monitors LOL.

But above all, I listened to the top hit making recordings. That's what told me all that I needed to know or need to hear. And for folks to tell me you can't learn how to make good recordings that way? I guess they never learned how themselves? That's why they tell everybody you can't do that. They never figured it out for themselves. You listen. If you listen into and carefully. You'll get it. Otherwise maybe you should just be running a Good Humor truck and jingling your bells? I said your bells! Not your balls. It takes balls to jingle bells. Let's just be clear about that LOL.

I'll take a strawberry shortcake.
Mx. Remy Ann David

That was a long reply. You should've skipped the bashing lol Anyway, I ended up buying a pair of JBLs. They're not $100s, but they aren't $1Ks either. The sampling from (soundcloud's soundsonic) allowed me to differentiate between 5-6-8-10" speakers, so I ended up with JBLs. Truthfully, I noticed difference in hi's and lo's, but it wasn't a factor for me, bec my gig is mostly on pop/rock recording and not a rap/hiphop genre which will definitely ask for wider thumps. Regarding mics, I already have shure m57s and apogees for vocals and other analog instruments like guitars and drums. I thought of Neuman, but they're expensive. I might ultrade to AKGs, but still researching the facts from multiple av forums. The headphones I am using for mastering is an entry level too, but they are not $20 cheap. I spent $200 for my
monitoring headphones simply because of the SPL rating. It was good, just uncomfortable in the long run. Anyway, thanks for the lengthy reply. Peace!

I have a much higher opinion of you since you have a couple of 57's. And I'm basically pleased that you settled on the JBL's. It's hard to go wrong with those two brands. Though some of their lower end consumer oriented stuff has been somewhat underwhelming. Great for the entry-level guys... sort of.

Well, personally, I don't trust any website giving me examples of 5-6-8-10 inch speakers until I hear them in person. At your local music store to start with. But then they never sound that way once ya put them in your own place, in your own space. Because of the different acoustical places and rooms that you put them into. We've all had to learn this firsthand, in our control rooms, bedrooms, living rooms, basements. The advertisements and reviews can't tell you what they sound like until ya hear them. I once purchased a pair of Tannoy's for my control room. It didn't take but 10 minutes and I boxed them back up and returned them to the music store. They sounded great... at the music store. They were crap in my control room.

You've got an excellent converter by Apogee. Indicating that your Macintosh-based. Pop rock is good. Rap and hip-hop bass drums are generally keyed 60 Hz oscillators, keyed from the sampled bass drums. Which require 1000 W digital amplifier's and 18 inch woofers for, in your car. So that you can bother your neighbors three blocks away. Which we don't use in, our control rooms unless you're a filthy rich moron. And there are plenty that are, lucky for them. They don't need any brains nor talent. Sounds like you've got some. Ya had me worried there for a minute LOL.

Don't get me wrong. I have the Neumann's, I have the AKG's, the Beyer ribbon microphones and RCA ribbon microphones. I have SHURE condenser microphones. But in all actuality, I'm quite happy with a bunch of 57 & 58's used almost exclusively on my recordings. There is hardly anything finer. Better yes. But only better is that better is better for you. Not better because someone tells ya it's better. Or cleaner or more neutral or more uncolored, blah blah blah yuck. Give me the color. Give me the fat. I like high cholesterol sound!

You spent $200 for your monitoring headphones simply because of the SPL rating? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Virtually any headphone made since the 1970s, with only 1 W of input power, is enough to deafen you. Which is why I usually put in 150 ohm in-line resistors to knock down the potential permanently deaf from excessive sound level mistakes. WHICH CAN HAPPEN! So that comment my friend about the $200 and SPL rating, makes no sense. What? 140 DB instead of 138 DB? Ya know permanent deafness occurs around 140 DB? Is that what you really wanted? So why do you have an Apogee? You won't be able to hear much of it soon.

What I gave you was not a bashing. What I gave you was sound advice. Your headphones are going to give you a bashing. Learn the difference. I'm a hard-nosed old school engineer and I'm not here to speak to you like a kindergarten teacher would. Like everyone else here does. I'm not politically correct. I'm an engineer! I do the job and I do the job right, better than most. You want to do that too? Learn from an old schooler as my name used to be Altschuler. I live up to my original last name.

Jesus SPL Christ? Ya like it when it hurts or Hertz? Are those treats for your pet from Hertz? Or was that the car-rental?
Mx. Remy Ann David

RemyRAD, post: 418856, member: 26269 wrote: I have a much higher opinion of you since you have a couple of 57's. And I'm basically pleased that you settled on the JBL's. It's hard to go wrong with those two brands. Though some of their lower end consumer oriented stuff has been somewhat underwhelming. Great for the entry-level guys... sort of.

Well, personally, I don't trust any website giving me examples of 5-6-8-10 inch speakers until I hear them in person. At your local music store to start with. But then they never sound that way once ya put them in your own place, in your own space. Because of the different acoustical places and rooms that you put them into. We've all had to learn this firsthand, in our control rooms, bedrooms, living rooms, basements. The advertisements and reviews can't tell you what they sound like until ya hear them. I once purchased a pair of Tannoy's for my control room. It didn't take but 10 minutes and I boxed them back up and returned them to the music store. They sounded great... at the music store. They were crap in my control room.

You've got an excellent converter by Apogee. Indicating that your Macintosh-based. Pop rock is good. Rap and hip-hop bass drums are generally keyed 60 Hz oscillators, keyed from the sampled bass drums. Which require 1000 W digital amplifier's and 18 inch woofers for, in your car. So that you can bother your neighbors three blocks away. Which we don't use in, our control rooms unless you're a filthy rich moron. And there are plenty that are, lucky for them. They don't need any brains nor talent. Sounds like you've got some. Ya had me worried there for a minute LOL.

Don't get me wrong. I have the Neumann's, I have the AKG's, the Beyer ribbon microphones and RCA ribbon microphones. I have SHURE condenser microphones. But in all actuality, I'm quite happy with a bunch of 57 & 58's used almost exclusively on my recordings. There is hardly anything finer. Better yes. But only better is that better is better for you. Not better because someone tells ya it's better. Or cleaner or more neutral or more uncolored, blah blah blah yuck. Give me the color. Give me the fat. I like high cholesterol sound!

You spent $200 for your monitoring headphones simply because of the SPL rating? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Virtually any headphone made since the 1970s, with only 1 W of input power, is enough to deafen you. Which is why I usually put in 150 ohm in-line resistors to knock down the potential permanently deaf from excessive sound level mistakes. WHICH CAN HAPPEN! So that comment my friend about the $200 and SPL rating, makes no sense. What? 140 DB instead of 138 DB? Ya know permanent deafness occurs around 140 DB? Is that what you really wanted? So why do you have an Apogee? You won't be able to hear much of it soon.

What I gave you was not a bashing. What I gave you was sound advice. Your headphones are going to give you a bashing. Learn the difference. I'm a hard-nosed old school engineer and I'm not here to speak to you like a kindergarten teacher would. Like everyone else here does. I'm not politically correct. I'm an engineer! I do the job and I do the job right, better than most. You want to do that too? Learn from an old schooler as my name used to be Altschuler. I live up to my original last name.

Jesus SPL Christ? Ya like it when it hurts or Hertz? Are those treats for your pet from Hertz? Or was that the car-rental?
Mx. Remy Ann David

You crack me up! Thanks for the inputs on Neuman/AKG. It might take me a while to get there. Like you said, the shure's are working fine right now. If ever, there's a need to, they're my next options. Re headphones, I was told that the higher the input SPL rating is, the clearer the sound is (in a sense of flatness, clarity, realness, etc) meaning I didn't have to turnup the volume to hear everything in my music. That is the reason too why I considered JBLs, bec the $100/pair speakers only have rating of 97db max (about 30db less than my headphone).

Masterdeeno, shure 57/58 are great because they are not very sensitive and their Cardiod partern is very narrow. One of the reason they are widely used on stage and on budget home studio is that they capture good audio when you're close to them but reject everything else.
You then get less reflection from walls and external noises from other rooms.
Altought they are not the most detailed mics, it is sometime a good thing when the environement is not ideal.
Going, let say, for a large condenser mic can give you some bad results if you don't have a treated room.

Congrat on the monitors, don't forget to listen to a lot of commercial CDs on them to get used to how music translate on them. You'll get better mix if you get to know them well.. ;)

Thanks buddy. Glad you got a laugh. That was all that was intended.

The ratings on the input SPL levels, should not greatly impact any studio quality headphone. Sure, it perhaps is a good indicator of its useful, low distortion transient dynamic range reproduction? I don't look at any of those types of specifications. I merely listen. And while I do like turning up my headphones rather loudly at times. Personally, I really can't take advantage of that rather extended dynamic range, without pain. And while I love it loud, I do go through a bit of angst as to whether I am causing myself, my hearing, any damage, from excessively loud reproduction? So please do be careful. Flatness, clarity, realness? I don't think so. Though that is influenced by our hearing, as our hearing is not flat but varies in response with reference to loudness levels. As per the Fletcher Munson curves and others. Fletcher Munson is the one most popularly referred to in professional audio. Though other similar graphs have also been investigated by others, who came up with similar curves to Fletcher Munson. They weren't following Fletcher Munson. They were doing their own tests on people.

So while we all want flat response headphones. Your hearing varies dynamically. So that kind of specification is only a subjective one at best. We are not flat. We are human. Sorry to tell ya that ... somebody had to do it LOL. So when you cited the 97 DB capable range of the loudspeakers against the headphones that are supposedly 30 DB better? Not really. Not quite as it appears. That's 97 DB at like, is it one foot or 10 feet? I forget? But the headphones are a bit closer LOL. So you're really taking these specifications out of context as to what they actually mean. The speakers are effective to a maximum average of 97 DB. At a predefined distance. The ratings are in a sense apples versus oranges. Now I am not an electrical engineer. So too my answer may not be exactly technically correct? It doesn't have to be. I don't need to be monitoring anything at its balls to the wall, Maxim. It's foolhardy to think you wouldn't go deaf doing so. It's over the top. Out of the realm of common sense. Which is rarely common.

I find specifications rather misleading. Which is kind of like a Christian pastor saying they don't really believe the Constitution when it comes to the separation of church and state. Oh really? The pastor thinks he knows better than our countries founders. Isn't that nice? This actually happened recently. And all in the name of Christianity. After all the country was founded by Christians, for Christians. So why separate church and state? Look at one Muslim killing another Muslim and then telling you that Islam is a peaceful religion. Oh really? But then the Catholics were also killing the Protestants. In a little place called Ireland. Not so terribly many years ago. So when you look at the New Testament, what sense can you make regarding the Irish Catholics versus Protestants? It shouldn't be happening at all. But it is and it will. But I digest.

I listen carefully to equipment. And the only thing I want to know about the equipment, is what it won't do. Not what it will do. Because if it has the stamp of Professional on it? I will assume, it's designed for critical Professional use. And I will be able to glean what I need to get from them regardless of what the specifications tells me. I only look at the specifications to see if my hearing confirms the specifications. And that's all. I mean why would I purchase SHURE, SM-57 or 58's when their frequency response is indicated as ± 2 DB, 50-17,000 Hz? It's not 20-20,000 Hz. Which would deem the 57 & 58's, to be substandard for professional use. In fact they are just the opposite. They're better than most others. Better than the ones that are rated at 20-20,000 Hz. So how could that be? Because all ya got a do is listen. And listening tells you what ya need to know. It's that simple. How else do you think professionals like myself got through a lifetime of this and those before me? Especially so many years ago. When we maybe had 4 or five modest headphones to choose from. So don't record audio with your eyes. Do it with those two other thingies offset a couple of inches.

In a similar comparison, why don't all cars have V-8 engines? They certainly all outperform 4 bangers. Who cares about the gas mileage? Don't you care about performance? Isn't that Paramount in your decision-making when you buy a vehicle? It should be the most powerful you can get. But does it make practical sense? Unfortunately, there is absolutely nothing practical about studio recording. In fact, it's one of the most impractical functions, anyone could do. I make practical recordings. They're live. Take one. That's it. Live to 2 track, with all its imperfections and flaws, for live FM radio and TV. How could anyone live like that LOL? It's easy. I smoke pot. It makes it all better.

Why didn't I move to Colorado? And why did I leave Washington DC just as they decriminalized it?
Mx. Remy Ann David

"I find specifications rather misleading. Which is kind of like a Christian pastor saying they don't really believe the Constitution when it comes to the separation of church and state. Oh really? The pastor thinks he knows better than our countries founders. Isn't that nice? This actually happened recently. And all in the name of Christianity. After all the country was founded by Christians, for Christians. So why separate church and state? Look at one Muslim killing another Muslim and then telling you that Islam is a peaceful religion. Oh really? But then the Catholics were also killing the Protestants. In a little place called Ireland. Not so terribly many years ago. So when you look at the New Testament, what sense can you make regarding the Irish Catholics versus Protestants? It shouldn't be happening at all. But it is and it will. But I digest.""

Oh for the love of....

Not for nothin' ... this is one of the main reasons why so many simply people simply peruse your posts - and in many cases, skip right over them... because you drift off topic so much, that very few are able to actually hang in there long enough to get to your point .... that is, if you ever actually get around to making one.

WTF does the above paragraph have do do with anything the OP was asking?

You really need to rein it in, Remy.

RemyRAD : your previous post on this thread was precise and right to the point (well almost)
I was telling myself, hey, a good post from Remy..

But this last goes off the planet again... well.. :rolleyes:

This is just another way of providing examples, in a different vernacular that people might be more familiar with? Than with professional audio. You get it Donny, PC record gets it. Because you know what I'm talking about. Whereas that last section might say something to someone that they can more closely discern the differences thereof relating to a real-life situation reverses the inanimate, incongruent, black magic, voodoo like nature of audio. Because we are trying to teach audio to people who do not understand audio. But likely, they understand religion?

When we talk about SHURE, SM-57/58's, we usually indicate that you could also use them as hammers. And they'll still work! So most people can relate to hammers better than they can relate to microphones. But the one thing they know about hammers is... you can beat the holy crap out of a hammer. And it'll still work. Try that with the average condenser microphone and what do you get? A broken condenser microphone in parts and pieces. And we all know that. But the average Joe won't. So when you like to do a lot of Rock'n Rolling and schlep your microphones all over the place. What are the first microphones to get broken? The lightweight condenser microphones, that's what. So we use microphones that can have the holy hell beat out of them and still come up smiling. Which ain't condenser microphones.

I'm not trying to teach you guys as you guys already know. I'm trying to teach Billy Bob whose 18 years old.

Come on fellas... give me a break, please. My teaching methods work.

I'm not a professor. I'm a princess.
Mx. Remy Ann David

RemyRAD : It's a good point to say that they are very robust. But, unless you are gonna record in a forest while cutting trees it may not be the best reason for buying one !! (just teasing you Remy ;) )

What mathers for a mature person that wants to start recording is how surprisingly those mics sound even at this low price and especially in a none treated environment. Durability is a nice extra of course..

We also should add a disclamer to point out that the sound of the 57/58 will be greatly affected by the choice of preamp and the tracking skills (placement, control of proximity effect, gain staging)

I can put a KSM44 against a SM57 any day when plugged to my UA LA-610 which I wouldn't do with an AudioBox. (I'm not saying one is better, just that some sources will shine with one better than other on other sources)

But I agree that someone need to have somewhat trained ears and good monitors to appreciate the difference.
Going on with small steps when buying gear gives you time to adapte and trained your ears along the way !

I gotta say, this is the most interesting conversation about studio monitors I've ever heard. I'm just glad you didn't go with the $100 set... (y)

What kind of Behringer mixer do you have? Now that you have some good monitors you might want to upgrade that mixer... If it doesn't die first.

Oh yeah... monitors... right. Okay... back to monitors.

I'm not totally disrespecting $100 each monitors. Some like the KRK line, I've rather liked, appreciated and enjoyed. One of their lowest cost models the RP-5's, were very affordable and I loved mine. I sold those to a friend and purchased one of their V6's pairs as I had been doing some mixing at another studio on their V-88's. Which are both active monitors as are the RP-5's. Which by the way are slightly more versatile and adjustable, than my older V6 models. Which you really can't tweak. Those speak to me much like the JBL's I've used, since my early 20s, nearly 40 years ago. And I continue to use those, today. Why? Because even the better sounding monitors like Adam, Meyer, Genlec, while I've worked on them, they are lovely sounding, they still don't speak to me with a definitive, old-fashioned, rock 'n roll sound. And the KRK's, do. Not that Mackie's, Tannoy's and others won't do it for me. They do. They can. Any can. As long as I start with my reference CDs that will tell me what I'm listening to. But just like underwear... I have my preferences.

My biggest gripe, with any monitor speaker, be it passive speakers with power amplifiers du jour or active monitors, is the polarity (not the phase) of the output amplifier to the speakers. With passive monitors and separate outboard amplifiers, I have complete control of absolute polarity. This is different from phase. While both monitors can be in phase, they may be and usually are wired in reverse polarity. To be honest... I have no idea why except for academics? With the academics, they all want positive polarity. What that meant was that if you applied DC to the input of the amplifier. Where positive voltage was sent to tip/hi and ground was sleeve/black negative. And they would want to see likewise at the output of the amplifier where the red positive binding post would show an elevated positive voltage. And the ground, black/sleeve, would be the ground.

But when you connect it to the woofer Plus side from the plus output on the amplifier. The speaker would suck in! Imitating the compression of the diaphragm on the microphone. Now is that right? Or is that wrong? Too many companies that designed and built this stuff, they consider that, correct. Not me. Not everyone. To me that's reverse polarity. When the bass drum is a kickin', the woofer shouldn't suck. It should spit at ya (the tweeter spits). And the woofer should punch ya, right in the face. Which to me, is positive modulation not negative modulation. But everyone has their own ideas of how things should be. So when it comes to monitoring and monitor speakers, with their respective amplifiers, only your ears can tell you what's right or what's wrong. And I hear a lot of wrong, wrong, wrong and some more, wrong, all over the place. Which doesn't make it right, except for the manufacture that wants it that way. Why? I'll never know? You can't fix stupid. And this seems to be a stupid problem that seems to be nearly endless in stupidity? It's all in how ya like it because it is 100% subjective. I just happened to be the right one.

You can listen to me or, you can listen to bad monitor systems LOL. And then wonder what's wrong? Once ya hear the difference? Everyone has come around to my way. Including API Audio when Paul Wolff ran the place.

So moral of the story is, trust your hearing, not the manufacturers. It's up to you to decide, not them. And with compact, powered monitors? You are at the mercy of the manufacture. How do I relate to my powered KRK's? Well... I still do. But it's not quite the same and they are certainly out of polarity to my JBL monitoring. So having them both on at the same time (which I can do) sounds horrible. So much so, I'm probably going to screw around with my V6's and reverse the polarity of both the tweeter and the woofer. And then see/listen to whether I still like them after doing that? And something tells me... I might like them even better that way? Though I haven't bothered to play with that in the past umpteen years, I've had them. Don't ask me why LOL? Actually let me answer that.

The reason why I have not done that to my KRK's is that I can mix on them, quite nicely, that way. They have their own particular sound that I just like. And while they are in reverse polarity to my JBL's. I don't use both simultaneously together. But maybe that would be a nice mod? So when I get itchy fingers? It's no big deal to do it or to reverse it. Maybe I'll just put a big honking double pole double throw switch on the back of the V6's? Which would be a Tweeter and Woofer, polarity flipper. Two different sounding monitors out of a single model! Two-for-one! What could be bad?

You guys don't know what you're missing until you try this out for yourselves. It's jaw-dropping, different. It's the one fix acoustic engineers just can't wrap their heads around.

I've had my head wrapped on. As opposed to rapped, on. Boing! DOH! Ouch!
Mx. Remy Ann David

Interesting take on the push rather than pull on the woofers Remy. Back in the mid 80s I remember having a really nice JBL Hi Fi. Used to watch those woofers try to leap out at me when I cranked it up. Going to have to pay attention to what my Mackies and the Events do (when I get them).

Cheers.