Those are some nice choices, they ar mix monitors. Something geared toward mastering starts around 10k per speakers and usually has an entire specialized room built around them. Vice versa.

I don't like the Adam tweeters, and while they re great for hearing errors in the vocal range, they tend to put things forward. But I only used the Adam a 7s.

You might consider something from focal. They have a great rep.

A lot of it depends on the size and shape of the room itself, and that's and budget is gonna determine the best monitor range for you, the it's personal preference from there.

A7's are very clear in the top end. You'll need the sub for them to be trustworthy as they are great for top end but judging bass/low mids is hard.

You didn't mention the environment you are working in.... in relation to acoustics. Much of a monitor's ability to do what it does will depend on this.

The list of your choices is solid... but if your room is inaccurate acoustically, even the best monitors will only ever serve you so much and to a certain point....and if your room has phasing issues, standing waves, null points, flutter echo, or any of the other common problems associated to mixing in "just any room" without proper acoustic treatment, not only will the room's issues effect your ability to accurately hear what the mix is doing frequency-wise, but it will also effect the clarity and definition, the imaging, and, your ability to hear those subtleties and nuances you describe.

FWIW

d.

DonnyThompson, post: 420476, member: 46114 wrote: You didn't mention the environment you are working in.... in relation to acoustics. Much of a monitor's ability to do what it does will depend on this.

The list of your choices is solid... but if your room is inaccurate acoustically, even the best monitors will only ever serve you so much and to a certain point....and if your room has phasing issues, standing waves, null points, flutter echo, or any of the other common problems associated to mixing in "just any room" without proper acoustic treatment, not only will the room's issues effect your ability to accurately hear what the mix is doing frequency-wise, but it will also effect the clarity and definition, the imaging, and, your ability to hear those subtleties and nuances you describe.

FWIW

d.

Adding to what Donny is saying, even with accousticly accurate rooms, it also depends on where the monitor will be placed.
(near a wall or not, on a mixer shelf or on a desk) All those variables may change your choice because some monitors need space behind them to build bass and some don't really need it (or need less space)

kmetal, post: 420376, member: 37533 wrote: Those are some nice choices, they ar mix monitors. Something geared toward mastering starts around 10k per speakers and usually has an entire specialized room built around them. Vice versa.

indeed.

From a pro audio pov, forget using the term "Mastering Speakers". You are thousand of $ away from commercial mastering accuracy. Room and acoustics, conversion, monitor controller and HD speakers are all part of that step. But this doesn't mean you can't get a the best possible sounding mix on those already mentioned either. There is a lot of hype in this industry.

Beings said though,
Save your pennies and start with Event Opals. They aren't "high end" mastering but they are so accurate you'd be hard pressed to find anything better in the price range. I own a pair and love them. Avatones are also excellent for dialing in mids.

I suppose it's all subject to how serious you want to get with this.

First off, let's start with this question... are you interested in Mastering, or Mixing? Because there is a difference, and many people commonly mistakenly refer to one when they actually mean the other.

A very brief explanation: http://www.audioshapers.com/blog/difference-between-mixing-and-mastering.html

If you are indeed Mastering, then, as Chris pointed out, from a truly professional POV, monitors for critical application (mastering) are rather expensive, as are the other facets involved - room acoustics, conversion, monitor controllers, etc., And, Marco's statement regarding placement is also spot-on. All of these things mentioned will play a major and equal part to the quality of your production chain. If even one thing in that chain is of lesser quality than the other parts of the chain, then everything else in that chain will only ever be as good as that weakest link.

If professional standards are important, then yes, you would want to get into a pro specification monitor designed for critical listening applications... but, as mentioned above, there are other things beyond just the monitors that are going to matter quite a bit as well.

If, however, this is something you are doing to just have fun with, or to simply demonstrate to your students the basics of audio production, then any of those monitors you mentioned would certainly do the job for you, and in fact, you could get by with more inexpensive solutions. As Chris stated, Events are a good, accurate NF monitor for average level production needs, and Avantones - which are the modern equivalent to the old Auratone cubes - are also very helpful when determining what your mixes will sound like through "average" listening scenarios.

FWIW

d.

kosmas31, post: 420353, member: 48544 wrote: my students some times record demos for class review, auditions etc and i usually do the mixing. nothing fancy, I use karaoke pre-recorded songs and I add their voice on top.

Doing demos and karaoke recording isn't like a full band productions with critical mixing/mastering intended for mass distribution. It in no way disminish the importance of a good monitoring system but I think you will be well serve with any of the choice you presented.. ;)

testing forum permissions

pcrecord, post: 420496, member: 46460 wrote: Doing demos and karaoke recording isn't like a full band productions with critical mixing/mastering intended for mass distribution. It in no way disminish the importance of a good monitoring system but I think you will be well serve with any of the choice you presented.. ;)

Exactly as you put it! I need a quick polishing of tracks produced by students. I have used prism lyra with sennheiser 600 along with some t-racks and melda plugins and I have achieved better results than local mastering studios with lipinski monitoring and Weiss converters. There is no sense to treat my room for student demos, unless we talk about monitors with autoEQ build in or other room correction software

Well, it's kind of a catchy thing.
If you were using headphones to mix and master. When you switch to monitors, you add the room factor that wasn't there with the HD600
If the room is so deffective that it boost certain frequencies too much. Even with the best monitors in the world your mix will suffer from the room. One doesn't go without the other if you seek success.

BUT ! let's talk balance. Since you will not do critical stuff to sell broadly.
Buy a middle range monitors kit and a minimum of treatment to control the early reflections and you'll be ok !
In the end, you will still need to get used to the new environement.

kosmas31, post: 420532, member: 48544 wrote: I have achieved better results than local mastering studios with lipinski monitoring and [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.weiss.ch/"]Weiss[/]="http://www.weiss.ch/"]Weiss[/] converters.

I'm a bit surprise to read that ! no insult intended but maybe you don't hear the difference or they have poor audio engineer ;)

I have conducted orchestras with 120 players, highly unlikely I don't hear well!

I thought so :LOL:

kosmas31, post: 420532, member: 48544 wrote: There is no sense to treat my room for student demos, unless we talk about monitors with autoEQ build in or other room correction software

This is not the case. There are likely large variations in your room's frequency response. Mastering requires decision making in levels that are much smaller than the variances in an untreated room. As the gentlemen above pointed out, your acoustical environment is just as, if not more important than your monitors.

If you're serious enough to spend as much as you are on monitors, you're serious enough to treat your room. I think you'd be amazed at what even a few hundred dollars can do.

Putting flat monitors in an inaccurate room, is like driving a sports car on a wet road, it works, but not very well.

The speakers your considering are pro level, and intended for rooms that are made, or adapted towards that kinda of listening. Not to sidestep the monitors which was the real question, but really I wouldn't bother spending that kind of money without factoring a baic RFZ, Criling cloud, and a couple traps. Really, it's not worth it otherwise. That can be as cheap as some moving blankets and something to stuff in the corners. Your never ever ever come close to hearing what your interface converters and speakers are doing, uses your room allows them to show it. Take the advice and just get it over with, otherwise you'll likely be very dissapointed when the final touches you spend time working on, do not translate as intended.

Granted it's just vocals over tracks, but that's how it starts, than a acouple db of this and that next thing you know your adding a shaker to the thing at 5 am lol. Really tho, your obviosly a professional and if your conducting orchestras than you must have some appreciation for acoustics, and how the room effects things. Different requirements obviosly between a concert hall and a home studio, but still the effect is real. You don't have to become an acoustician, or spend a lot of money, but if you at least hit the basics, you,l be in far better shape

kosmas31, post: 420535, member: 48544 wrote: I have conducted orchestras with 120 players, highly unlikely I don't hear well!

I liked that.

I often wonder how close we would all mix if we used the exact same room to mix in.
fwiw, I've own about $200,000 in really nice equipment and none of that would make a difference if I didn't have excellent room acoustics and a serious monitor control system to go with it. The speakers I have are only 1 part of it. I can get by on less then special speakers but not the acoustics and monitor controller.
When I first started in this business, I knew I was gifted with great ears, but I soon found out that didn't matter if my room was lying to me.
I used take bass traps and acoustic treatment around with me even when I toured as a band. Treatment is the number one priority for me.

kosmas31, post: 420532, member: 48544 wrote: I have achieved better results than local mastering studios with lipinski monitoring and [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.weiss.ch/"]Weiss[/]="http://www.weiss.ch/"]Weiss[/] converters.

It;s possible your ears are more finely tuned to the genre.

Mastering for classical/orchestral and choral is a different beast than your average, typical rock/pop mastering is. Dynamics and spatial placement is probably the main difference between the two genres.

Nice gear and a good room does matter. But, if it isn't in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing with it, or, are limited in their knowledge to just that of popular music, then the finest EQ, monitoring and room treatment available won't matter.

I know several mastering engineers in both genres of music, and the rock/pop guys I know will admit that they aren't good at orchestral styles, and the guys who work in the orchestral mastering end will freely admit that they aren't comfortable in mastering popular music.

There are many great recording, mixing and mastering engineers out there, who are great at what they do within the waters that they swim.... but bit all that many can move freely, comfortably and effectively between all the genres.

For example, someone like Mutt Lang - who is a great talent and highly respected within the popular music industry, and who has successfully recorded many contemporary albums - but I'm pretty sure that he wouldn't be the first choice of Telarc Records to record the Cleveland Orchestra. ;)

kosmas31, post: 420532, member: 48544 wrote: There is no sense to treat my room for student demos, unless we talk about monitors with autoEQ build in or other room correction software

Well, I suppose we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this.

d.

Recording, mixing or mastering acoustic music is all about realism. Capturing the room is critical with classical music. Perhaps the OP is missing the critical importance of room acoustics, seeing treatment as something you use for modern music?
Discovering why acoustic treatment is so important is critical for the students because, if they miss this early on in life, they are sure to have a long journey of guessing followed by developing massive bad habits.

If the OP is only capturing the music and printing it, (no altering with volumes, EQ etc), then who cares. But, why does he need mastering speakers? Maybe you are only wanting to review your performance for study purposes?
If he is taking the performance into a control room, (including HD headphones) to tweak anything, you need to treat the room so these changes translate exactly to all other playback systems. This is perhaps even more important for classical music. There is no guessing. Its all about the truth.

Perhaps the OP is missing the concept about acoustic translation.

Maybe it's a wife problem !:sneaky:
I had quite an argument with mine (well girlfriend) when I built my studio in our basement
The trick that I found was to offer her something of interest at the same time. So my control room is also a Home theater. She's not happy about the accoustic pannels but she knows the are needed for the studio and they make the home theater audio system sound better.

Compromises get you a long way ! (y)

I know that room matters. That is why I mixed with the senns 600 to take the room out of the,equation. I have brilliant results with,these cans, my mixes translate exactly be it itunes, iPods, car, Lipinski hi end speakers, you name it. So why change this? Two reasons. My house is,brand new and I don't want to put ugly DIY acoustic treatment and I don't want to wear heads for more than two hours per day. Even if I monitor at conversation level. Today I visited a mixing engineer who has a fixed Auralex Acoustics Max-Wall 831 kit and a pair of presonus sceptre. He's even doing DVD audio mastering for warner. I wa sceptical at first but an hour later I realized this kit really worked, at least for his room. And the speakers, well they stand up there with monitors costing twice or more. Also the sweet spot on these speakers is,huge, as if they are midfields. He told me they adapt to amy room. He also has a van when,doing mobile,recordings and he does quick mixes on,these too. I was really impressed. Both monitors and,acoustic kit set him less than 2000€. What is,your opinion?

kosmas31, post: 420558, member: 48544 wrote: Today I visited a mixing engineer who has a fixed Auralex Acoustics Max-Wall 831 kit and a pair of [="http://www.presonus.com/"]PreSonus[/]="http://www.presonus…"]PreSonus[/] sceptre.

http://www.presonus.com/products/Sceptre

Sounds like you have your answer! We are having another monitor discussion [[url=http://="http://recording.or…"]here[/]="http://recording.or…"]here[/] using DPS technology. This seems to be the next frontier in monitors.

I'm excited to hear these now. http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/SceptreS8

This is how my DIY acoustic panel looks like :

Not quite ugly I hope ! ;)

kosmas31, post: 420558, member: 48544 wrote: He told me they adapt to amy room.

Any automatic system that ajust it-self to the room will do it by analysing the room's frequencies and compensate.
What those won't be able to do is to compensate for room reverb, ping pong delay and other spatial defects most house room has.

The best thing is to threat the room. If you want to compromise, it's up to you. For it to be ugly depends on how much you want to spend (time or money)

Some companies will print any pictures or paintings on acoustic pannels so they become art !
here's an exemple :

I love these painted panels! look like paintings. these are definitely NOT ugly I must say! my room is very similar to that on the picture. same dimensions and all-wood construction.

audiokid, post: 420560, member: 1 wrote: http://www.presonus.com/products/Sceptre

Sounds like you have your answer! We are having another monitor discussion [[url=http://[/URL]="http://recording.or…"]here[/]="http://recording.or…"]here[/] using DPS technology. This seems to be the next frontier in monitors.

I'm excited to hear these now. http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/SceptreS8

its a cost effective solution. I also listened to the PSI A17M, but they cost around 3,500 euros. theses would be my dream monitors. but I guess i have to spend around 5,000 in room treatment in order to make use of these...

I've heard good things about the Sceptres, and would like to hear them. I have a pair of the Erises and am happy with them, but sort of wish I would have sprung for the coaxials.

A word about their adaptability to rooms - while they do a couple of basic acoustic tuning features, they're broad-band in nature and won't do anything for individual nodes. The DSP seems to all be phase/time correction, and seems to not have to do with frequency response. This probably isn't a bad thing, depending on who you talk to.

Good luck!

you are so right. it seems coaxial technology has evolved considerably. sceptres are leaps and bound to the eris line. also check out the KS DIGITAL C-5, D-60/80 if you like desktop sized monitors. Simaen Skolfield loves them. Adam S1X is also fantastic if you fancy the likes of PMC. Really surgical. Unsung Heroes. they are so revealing, you can mix @ 10% of their output level, and that's really important. in my opinion, if you have to pump up the volume to 40% to listen to details, then the monitor is not right. no matter how it costs.

I also want to share with you all some talk I had had recently with Bobby Owsinksi. the guy has collaborated with Pensado, Douglass, Schoeps, Ludwig, Kramer, Schmitt, Sax, Grundman, Weckl, Thorn, Glaub etc. He;s the author of some 25 books. I had a talk with him about home mastering. he runs a hi end mastering facility in California, and we talked about room acoustics and stuff and he told me ''don't be fooled by hype, selling companies or selling engineers. a home room will never be a professional tracking/editing/mixing/mastering room no matter how much money you put into it. your room will never sound tracking or mixing room. You don’t have floating floors and ceilings, walls within walls, or even the right shape of a room to sound as pro as the big boys. Your room was built to be a bedroom, or an office, or a living room, or a basement, not a recording studio, accept this limitation and you will be happier. I have done great mixing and mastering on a pair of KRK VXT4s. So can you. Learn your room and your speakers and always listen to the lowest volume possible.''

kosmas31, post: 420575, member: 48544 wrote: ''don't be fooled by hype, selling companies or selling engineers. a home room will never be a professional tracking/editing/mixing/mastering room no matter how much money you put into it. your room will never sound tracking or mixing room. You don’t have floating floors and ceilings, walls within walls, or even the right shape of a room to sound as pro as the big boys. Your room was built to be a bedroom, or an office, or a living room, or a basement, not a recording studio, accept this limitation and you will be happier. I have done great mixing and mastering on a pair of [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.krksys.c…"]KRK[/]="http://www.krksys.c…"]KRK[/] VXT4s. So can you. Learn your room and your speakers and always listen to the lowest volume possible.''

With the exception of "listening to the lowest volume possible", and, if you also add to that statement the gear that separates the pro studios from the home studios - the preamps, mics, consoles and console strips, converters, etc., and the fact that pro engineers really know what they are doing (as opposed to your average home-hobbyist) I tend to agree with this sentiment, for the most part.

Although I say "for the most part" because that's not to say that you can't improve your room's acoustics and/or soundproofing characteristics, as well as the equipment you are using, which will allow you to do very good work in your home-based recording room, and I don't agree that listening at the lowest possible volume is the right way to go about circumventing the problem of a bad sounding room.

While I don't monitor at a continual 90db, (I generally monitor for long stretches around 75 db ) I do check my mixes frequently at 85 db or so, to make sure I can hear potential issues that may be happening - like noise, for example, as well as checking the overall volume and tonal balance(s) between the tracks. Listening at too low of a volume can mask those issues.

So yes, it's true.... without substantial investment, your home studio will likely never rival those of the Criteria or Abbey Road caliber... but, you can do certain things to make your recording/mixing room sound much better, and to turn out a much nicer product - if you have the money required, and put it towards the right improvements.

FWIW

d.

some Grammy awarded mixing engineers I have asked about (Celis, Latham, Nelsen, Collins) have all agreed on very low monitoring, because they do so themselves. they claim if the mix sounds good at very low levels it will translate stellar at loud levels, but not the opposite. in my particular case they told me (more/less) that if the DAC is stellar (say, prism sound) and the nearfield monitor is extremely revealing (say, Unity Audio The Rock Mk2) then there is no need for high volumes. although decent room treatment and arc software will dramatically improve my sound, as you already said. also bear in mind that I have a 25 years training in classical music and a specialization in early music on authentic instruments. these ensembles produce altogether lowest db than a single piano playing pianissimo! so my ear is trained like that. someone who is trained in rnb, hard rock, metal, trance, etc needs quite a volume to get an idea.

Here's what Space said in another thread : '' I would submit that when you get your gear together do not treat the room, whatever shape it is in, and here is why. When you record the room will make an acoustical "stamp" on the recording. I think you need to hear that. When you hear your mixes and start questioning why it sounds like a bedroom then you will be at a better position to advance and make attempts to remove the room from your recordings.''

I found that quote to be very clever and it might be the best thing to do for you Kosmas.
I feel you are a well educated person and have the chance to already have well trained ears.
Many of us have strong opinions that comes from trials and errors. When writing to a stranger on a forum, we mostly are shooting blind and stating common solutions without knowing the level of education of the OP and how his room and equipment actually sound.
I hope someday somebody would write an easy application that can capture the Acoustical properties of a room so we could ask that print and then comment, suggest and help !

I see you made a good job of challenging all the options and opinions ;)
So I think you are well equiped to make your own acoustic recipe and make it work for YOU.

Let us know how it turns out and stick around, I'm sure you have a lot to share !

kosmas31, post: 420592, member: 48544 wrote: they claim if the mix sounds good at very low levels it will translate stellar at loud levels, but not the opposite. in my particular case they told me (more/less) that if the DAC is stellar (say, [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.prismsou…"]Prism[/]="http://www.prismsou…"]Prism[/] sound) and the nearfield monitor is extremely revealing (say, Unity Audio The Rock Mk2) then there is no need for high volumes.

I check my mixes at 85db but always mix a very low level so I tend to agree with this. If your speakers translate, then its a no brainer.

True. I have seen recording engineers monitoring loud while recording a classical guitar. I couldn't figure out back then. Years later I watched the same engineer in another studio monitoring a full band session at 1/3 of the previous volume. Then then I Figured it out. The first studio had genelecs 8050a installed while the second studio had atc 50a. Both studios used apogee rosseta and pro tools hd

kosmas31, post: 420602, member: 48544 wrote: True. I have seen recording engineers monitoring loud while recording a classical guitar. I couldn't figure out back then. Years later I watched the same engineer in another studio monitoring a full band session at 1/3 of the previous volume. Then then I Figured it out. The first studio had genelecs 8050a installed while the second studio had atc 50a. Both studios used apogee rosseta and pro tools hd

You've actually touched on (common sense).

The day I stopped trusting the first opinion on forums was the day I actually started learning things for myself. There was a time I trusted the mass and more so, those who were using a lot of analog gear..

Everything is subjective to the experience of the user, tools, chain, room, style of music, creative taste, their hearing, good and bad habits etc etc etc.... What works for one guy never is ideal for the next.
We tend to forget to qualify or ask people why they are doing something a certain way too. I've found when asking too much, a forum topic will quickly fall off track. Reading between the lines is a must.
There are revealing indicators in this business. So many opinions are based around support of purchase. We all want to believe we did the right thing.

As an example of an indicator for me: I never trust anyone who says the 10M is making a huge difference to their sound. I do agree that the 10M is helping, but not because the clock is right for me. It is a product that will help studios with bad clocking errors. Through my research, these opinions are shared by studios doing the round trip, using Pro Tools or Logic which are also Mac based. All area's I have no interest in.

Problem Based Learning... indicators of why we think things to be true or right for us would be fun and very informative subject to discuss but a can of worms no doubt.

I monitor at low volumes because I want to save my hearing, I find listening at low levels reveals freq that I don't think I hear as well, louder,
my room isn't 100% perfect so I feel lower levels reduce standing waves and reflections that may distort my monitoring,
I have a monitoring system that allows me to use different speakers that I know work better at different volumes.
Less ear fatigue
As a habit of choice, I do everything in increments or stages so I invested in a monitor control system that is designed for that..

they claim if the mix sounds good at very low levels it will translate stellar at loud levels, but not the opposite. in my particular case they told me (more/less) that if the DAC is stellar (say, [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.prismsou…"]Prism[/]="http://www.prismsou…"]Prism[/] sound) and the nearfield monitor is extremely revealing (say, Unity Audio The Rock Mk2) then there is no need for high volumes.

I agree with some of this. if I remember it was more about being sensible, but I duno exactly which book it was, and in general people seem to mix at or a little above a conversational level.

There are some very good reasons to monitor low like the fletcher Munson curve and to help minimize negative room effects, ear fatigue.

But there's no real way to check the low ends, and sibilants with out cranking it up. there are plenty of very sucessful platinum selling and Grammy winning guys who monitor loud, so it's a personal choice not a rule. I just listen at whatever volume I normaly listen at which fairly soft, no matter what genre, and check at all volumes. Low, nothing should disappear, high, nothing should hurt.

One thing I will also coment on, it's inspiration. Even if the big loud monitors agent themost accurate, they sure are fun and make things life sized or bigger! So there's no reason to me to ear beat with volume, it sure is fun to have a huge stereo field, and be inspired by the surrounding and sound.

What I don't get is why having realing monitors and good dacs has anything to do w monitoring volume? If anythig you'd want modest volumes on a compromised system to avoid over worked computer and headroom starved monitors.

I'm definatley all for safe volumes and professional studios, and I think that the important part about your quote from bobby owinskis quote was to just have fun and don't get fooled by marketing 'miracles'.

But, it also cam off a little elitist, maybe it's just my interpretation a of it, but especially coming from someone who's made so much money educating beginners. And it's really easy to knock things when your used to running w the high rollers in big studios. And remember pro doesn't always mean better, and I'm sure some of those guys could tell you about some really bad sounding, beautiful rooms.

And small room acoustics is a relatively new science, when considering how long humas have been thinking about it. It only matters when audio reproduction came into play. Nobody has figured it out yet. Name the perfect room. You'll get as many answers as people you ask.

It's simply because it's a merging of art science and technology. A comfy studio will get better recordings than an uncomfortable better equipped one w some people. Flat doesn't account for timbre and we all hear differently as well. acoustics is just part of it. It's heavily overlooked. But some very very good sounding records have been made by talented people, in some less than scientifically idea rooms. Headly grange was a mansion, abbey road wasn't sceintifiacllly designed. And why did so many people mix on ns 10s if acoustic accuracy meant everything?

I'm playing the devils advocate a little bit, but I think people think one thing or another is the missing key, which usually involves them pointing the finger away from themselves.

I agree that inspiration is more important than anything. True, abbey road was not scientifically designed neither ns10 which was a defective hifi initially which became legend. Timbaland can make better productions with a laptop and earbuds than someone on a 300000$ studio. As you said, the music art has no easy explanation. And most miraculous things often happen by mistake or chance...

It will come down to knowing your speakers and your fault with your room. I wonder if there are 2 rooms that are identical in the world gear and design wise. Lower volumes suggestions from pros are mostly to judge placement better of front to back and imaging plus to save your ears. That's what Ns10's shine at. I think I read somewhere in a Bob Katz book that 84 db is optimum for the average listener, that movie theaters go for around 84 db.

kosmas31, post: 420632, member: 48544 wrote: And most miraculous things often happen by mistake or chance

My entire life has been one big experiment deciding what mistakes to keep.

Dynaudio makes some very good low cost (relative) speakers. http://dynaudioprofessional.com/en/bm-series/bm-mkiii-series/bm6-mkiii/ is very good for mixing and mastering. Tannoy also makes some excellent low cost speakers that are of mastering quality. If you can find a use pair of Tannoy DMT-10 like these http://www.ebay.com/itm/USED-PAIR-OF-TANNOY-SYSTEM-10-DMT-II-SPEAKERS-STUDIO-MONITORS-WITH-GRILLS-/231414331808?pt=US_Pro_Audio_Speakers_Monitors&hash=item35e15e79a0 you wll be well served. I used these for mastering the first two years I was in business. Also KEF makes some very good speakers and if you can find a pair of KEF 104.5 they will make mastering a whole lot easier. We now use the ALON IVs which I dearly love and you could probably pick up at pair for under $2K.

As to room acoustics. The most important money you can spend for mixing or mastering...

Chris Perra, post: 420633, member: 48232 wrote: I think I read somewhere in a Bob Katz book that 84 db is optimum for the average listener, that movie theaters go for around 84 db.

I know that many pros recommend this level, related to the FM curve and such, but personally speaking, I have to be honest and say that 84db is - at least to me - damned hot for any real length of time.

I can periodically check the mix 85db, but I can't sustain a mix at that level for very long without getting fatigued pretty fast.

I mix at lower levels than most of my peers, for extended sessions, I'm probably around 70 - 75 db or so, with 75 db being about the hottest I like to get, if I have to be at it for any longer than about an hour or so.

The very first frequency that I become hypersensitive to is that honky 900 - 1k region, especially on vocals. The next is around 3.5 - 5k, where I'll actually start to encounter some pain if I mix at anything hotter than 80db, max. The third - but certainly no less important - band, is that ssssssibilance (LOL) range, which is around and generally within the 5 - 8k (I'm speaking generally, of course. There are exceptions).

I do know that there are indeed engineers out there who routinely monitor at 85 - 90db all the time; personally speaking, I can't see how they do it. If I tried to monitor at those levels as a matter of routine, I'd be worthless within an hour.

But, that's just me. ;)

FWIW

d.

Regarding your original question I´d chose the KS digital D series speakers. I´ve heard them and know that they are good enough for very accurate listening. Some others of your list are not... But that´s only my opinion. Speakers is a very subjective thing. One mans floor is the other man´s ceiling...