hmmmm.....

It's an interesting Idea.
I checked the website, they sell it bundled and the less expensive one is 4000$
I first thought this could be cool for people who have limited budget to buy room threatement.
but with that price !!! That's not it.
The video says it doesn't fix the side reflections. So WHO will buy this?
I'd rather buy 3000$ monitors and 1000$ of room threatment (if I had the money) lol

On a personal note, I think they are quite ugly ! I guess it's like the beetle or the nissan cube, you like it or hate it.. ;)

I don't know what to think either, these are so different, who knows. The increasing testimonials are pretty positive. The further I get into mixing, the more it revolves around acoustics and monitoring so I'm open minded. I'm going to try and get a pair to test.

They look bazaar enough, I bet the upgraded paint jobs are really wild!

Mmmmm....I dunno guys... You can do a whole lot of room treatment for that $4000 ...

At this point, let's consider me to be dubious. But I'm always more than glad to be corrected, or illuminated. If Chris does get a pair to try, I'll wait for his report before I knock these any further. :)

Just throwing a final thought out there ... Even if these things do work in an untreated or poorly treated room, they still wouldn't do a thing to help the acoustics of the room for tracking. ;)

FWIW

d.

imagine what The Beatles could have done if they had them ..... ???

the guy clearly says they do not address anything beside reflections off the console/desk . you still have to trap, you still have to treat for side reflections, you still have to fly a cloud and you still have to diffuse. oh yeah, you still have to get clients that pay.

desk reflections have been an issue since dirt. i've seen many remedies from simply placing a piece of acoustic foam on top of the desk to console surfaces made from porous metals. still, a lot of people have been able to muddle through to make some pretty good records without having to resort to such hanky pankey.

Humbly edited:
For a fun debate,
I have at least $5000 invested in treatment and I'm very satisfied. Mind you, my treatment isn't DIY so the cost to have it all made for me, plus the shipping added a big part to that number. Acoustics aside, my room looks great too (looks do matter) and that impresses/ engages people to talk which returns in $ for me. Its a win win.

I'm as skeptical as everyone but don't you just love the fact I take all these chances lol, and get some of this stuff to try? Most of the steps I've taken have been spot on. The 2 DAW thing is the bomb, I kid you not. And the Monitor ST is essential for those who are really looking for stellar workflow monitoring..

FYI, having a few Pulse Techniques MEQ-5 Pultec's that cost me $7000 can truthfully be had ITB, so I sold them at no loss. I admit not seeing them though, they were so beautiful! Had I not had a great monitoring chain, and a fantastic 2 DAW tracking and mixdown system I would not hear what I now hear. Just saying... some people keep round tripping gear through a crowded DAW thinking it will do some mojo magic when a good monitoring system is really what I personally feel they lack.
The whole industry is reinventing a lot of the past that is grossly over rated by the blind leading the blind, as I got sucked into thinking tube EQ's were the end and all be. They do sound great, but not even close to what comes stock in Samplitude for a fraction of the cost.

Using the Beatles as a reference is redonkulous. I love the Beatles but their sound doesn't compare today. They have zero sub or top end freq's. Tape doesn't capture or reproduce as good as digital so what are HD monitors going to do for those who only lust over the 70's sound? Nothing.

I think you are simply saying, Kurt, what difference does this make, a great song is a great song which I whole heartily agree! I don't need much more for my studio. I find this all to me more amazing than I have to have them. We shall see,

My favorite monitors are Opals and Avatones.

I love this :

Computers and computer models can drive a car, fly a plane, predict weather and volcano eruptions, model new body parts, animate in 3D, model buildings and infrastructure... but not boost 3dB's of 10kHz to satisfaction.

The DSP brain is of interest to me. Digital Audio is only getting better.
I'm at the point where any improvement is baby steps.

M.E's go to great lengths to get an extra %. Sometimes its ridiculous as I found out with some 2-bus analog compressors. Lets hope they send me some. I love the look more and more. Makes me want to buy a new house lol.

Look at this now! I wonder if my wife would enjoy this!:D
http://phasx.com/thunder-under.php

Without hearing any of this for myself, I really admire the strange concepts.

I about half of my audio related work relates to acoustics treatment/construction and system setup/repair. To me, the personal studio is the future reguardless of what the comercial studio business is like. From professional touring, to stars, to average joe, these personal studios are going to only grow, not shrink, for quite some time.

Now I'm far from any of the guys who are expert level, but most of these budgets I see are enough for the basics.

The big thing w me is keeping your chain links equal.

I don't know that these speakers or 4k worth of treatment would turn any common room into a pro deal.

I think it's great that people are innovating speakers and listening systems. It's about time. I mean a a moving peice of pulp attached to a small electrode magnet in a wooden box! It's genius, but there has got to be more room for improvement in sound reproduction.

The other thing I don't know if I agree w is the audiophile purity thing. I get entertainment and I'm all about big music you can feel.. I love it! But this attitude of clarity and purity seems to be some fools gold to a point. If the studio your album was recorded in didn't have a 10k gold cord for the power, and your rooms were within both within similar acoustic tolerances, then your hearing not hearing the music they way they heard it, which to me would be the " purest". I have to say it's amazing when I get to play familiar tunes thru awsome speakers, it's like layers that I never heard before! That's really been affecting my attitude towards mixing and arrangement creatively.

This stuff is cool though. I think it's just a matter of icqorpertaing new materials in new ways. Yah know I'm amazed what how good music can sound some speakers and a room funny anfglesd and wood and fiberglass!

I wish surround sound was more popular, I dunno how it is to mix, but it sure is fun to experience!

kmetal, post: 420276, member: 37533 wrote: I don't know that these speakers or 4k worth of treatment would turn any common room into a pro deal.

Totally agree. But, who knows, maybe they sound really accurate too and the DSP aligning is so refined that the phasing helps us hear that much better. I wish I had a time aligned PA system back in my touring days. I was busy using EQ's on the speakers and messing with crossovers. Today, its so much simpler, more fun.

kmetal, post: 420276, member: 37533 wrote: The other thing I don't know if I agree w is the audiophile purity thing. I get entertainment and I'm all about big music you can feel.. I love it! But this attitude of clarity and purity seems to be some fools gold to a point. If the studio your album was recorded in didn't have a 10k gold cord for the power, and your rooms were within both within similar acoustic tolerances, then your hearing not hearing the music they way they heard it, which to me would be the " purest". I have to say it's amazing when I get to play familiar tunes thru awsome speakers, it's like layers that I never heard before! That's really been affecting my attitude towards mixing and arrangement creatively.

Remember AM radio? It reminds me of MP3 today. Which always comes back to the song. If its good, we love it.

What do those Phasx monitors sound like on proper speaker stands, i.e. not on a desk surface? Does playing with the directional properties of the cabinets improve the unimpaired sound?

Like most of us here, I haven't had the chance to hear these monitors, so can't comment on the sound quality. However, I'm a little worried that the signal flow is through A-D converters, DSP, D-A converters and then power amps feeding the transducers, with the result that you replace your monitor loudspeakers and amplifiers, but also incur another digitization process. Before shelling out $4K, I would ask if I could try out the DSP box set to no processing inserted into my present monitor feed lines to see how the conversions sound.

Boswell, post: 420291, member: 29034 wrote: However, I'm a little worried that the signal flow is through A-D converters, DSP, D-A converters and then power amps feeding the transducers, with the result that you replace your monitor loudspeakers and amplifiers, but also incur another digitization process.

Indeed. I'm hoping they send me some so I can hear for myself.

I do however hope if the monitoring translates like the testimonial hype, who cares. Keep in mind I also have the Dangerous Monitor ST and Dangerous Master , those two units allow you to seamlessly A/B many signal variations and speakers so there will be no fooling/guessing here. I'm never tied to any one speaker. Comparisons are at a click of a relay.

To be honest, the desktop reflection design is sort of silly to me but until I try it, I'm open to being transformed. I use foam on my desk and monitor at the optimum 85db SPL so I don't really feel I need some speaker to do this for me. But, who knows. I expect these to sound really accurate so I'm hoping this is where they actually excel.

I received http://www.realsoundlab.com/ a few years ago and in the right system I think would be great. I think there is hope for digital controlled monitoring technologies. I think we will look back at the old monitors soon enough and chuckle. Do I need more technology though, I don't know.

kmetal, post: 420276, member: 37533 wrote: To me, the personal studio is the future reguardless of what the comercial studio business is like. From professional touring, to stars, to average joe, these personal studios are going to only grow, not shrink, for quite some time.

Without question (y)

it's a product designed to address a specific problem which, a lot of c/r's don't have. i don't see a lot of desks where the monitors are placed directly on the desk surface. usually they are set at ear level on stands or a shelf / meter bridge, even hung on walls. i too am a bit weary of the processing used. i have yet to see any electronic device that actually improves the signal. all processing comes at some cost.

Kurt Foster, post: 420295, member: 7836 wrote: it's a product designed to address a specific problem which, a lot of c/r's don't have.

Again, I'm not talking myself into these but for fun debate I'm guessing they still improve something that standard monitoring can't.

Kurt Foster, post: 420295, member: 7836 wrote: i don't see a lot of desks where the monitors are placed directly on the desk surface. usually they are set at ear level on stands or a shelf, even hung on walls.

If these actually improve workflow and ability to mix better, I don't see why we can't adapt. My monitors are on my desk right now. I use spacers to get them at ear level. For conformation monitoring, I have a second room and those monitors are also on a desk.

A representative from the company may chime in here to answer our questions.

Kurt Foster, post: 420295, member: 7836 wrote: i have yet to see any electronic device that actually improves the signal. all processing comes at some cost

Good point, but this isn't part of a capture so how could that come at a cost?

I think Kurt was picking up on my earlier point and referring to a cost in sonic quality.

When, for example, we choose to set up an analog mix system using a process that takes digital tracks, converts them to analog, goes through an analog mix and then re-digitizes the resulting 2-track output, we have weighed up the disadvantages of having a D-A-D sequence against the sonic advantages afforded by an analog mix and chosen to go that way.

In the Phasx system described here, there would be another inherent pair of domain boundary crossings simply to access the (unspecified) processes that take place in the Shadocaster's DSP box. The end result would have to have sufficient acoustic advantages to be worth the system's additional A-D-A process, given also that it seems we have to take their choice of critical elements such as converters rather than use our own.

Maybe I am misjudging their system, and it is indeed possible to connect their DSP box in-line at a point in your 2-track flow where the signal is already in digital form, rather like the (analog) Bose pre-compensation boxes that you had to insert in your power amp input feeds when using the Bose loudspeakers. If digital I/O actually is a selectable option in the Shadocaster system, then I did not see that sort of potential selling point in the scant detail contained in the available Phasx sales information.

They do seem to be hyping their DSP heavily. I'm trying to figure out exactly what processing they're using. From what I can glean
1. Time alignment due to driver setback
2. Compensatory EQ to flatten the system response.
3. Emulation of different types of speakers.

I don't see any of these add revolutionary, but good ideas. Of course, I'm not in the market for $4000 monitors. I'm a hobbyist, so would probably be more inclined to throw down some panels on the desk.

Anybody see other processing being done?

Also, I saw a few references to their DACs, but none to ADCs. That and their digital inputs leads me to believe things can be kept in the digital domain.

Just speculation...

Boswell, post: 420302, member: 29034 wrote: Maybe I am misjudging their system, and it is indeed possible to connect their DSP box in-line at a point in your 2-track flow where the signal is already in digital form, rather like the (analog)

I'm unaware there is any ADDA "contamination" effecting our material. If I am wrong, I wouldn't even consider this.
Based on other digital monitors, I'm assuming this is similar. The digital steps it does are for correction withing the box, not our actual mix, thus you hear its correction. What we hear is only a monitor mix corrected to what I'm sure is also fully programmable.

To add, and I still could be misreading this system but isn't its DSP independent monitoring. The ADDA it performs is only its process /interface to get our analog feed to and from its dsp box.
I see the clock but I'm not sure we need to be replacing our converters to a point that our actual mix is going through its adda. Is this what you are all reading? I'm thinking this is similar to Coneq , correction software inside a box that processes only what we hear. Selecting another set of monitors would bypass those monitors.

Hi Everybody,

First, I want to thank Chris for getting the conversation going here. All of you have great well founded questions and we are going to do our best to answer all of them in short order. We are in the process of making short video answers commensurate with the respective question(s). As each video is completed we will post them on an FAQ page on our website then I will reply to each of your questions here by copy/pasting the URL for the video(s) for your review.

Thanks for all your input this is a good exercise for us and serves us well as we prepare to proceed in the market. I personally look forward to learning a lot in here about recording and production as I am on the musician side of all this and am shifting my focus from bands and recording in big studios to producing my own music.

Cheers!!

I found some more information on these Shadocaster monitors on the SOS site which is not not the Phasx site. It seems they have all input types covered: straight analog line-level, digital bitstream and also a USB interface.

My earlier comments about additional domain boundary crossings do indeed refer only to the monitoring feed and not the printed mix, but the point remains that the monitoring should be an accurate representation of what is being printed. If it has to go through separate correctional processes it could undermine the confidence in how accurately we are hearing what is contained in the mix.

If you can get Phasx to send you a pair to evaluate, Chris, I look forward to your comments on how they perform!

Gavin Washburn, post: 420317, member: 48540 wrote: First, I want to thank Chris for getting the conversation going here.

Hi Gavin, welcome to RO and thanks for chiming in.

Gavin Washburn, post: 420317, member: 48540 wrote: Thanks for all your input this is a good exercise for us and serves us well as we prepare to proceed in the market. I personally look forward to learning a lot in here about recording and production as I am on the musician side of all this and am shifting my focus from bands and recording in big studios to producing my own music.

Nicely put!

As you can see, we are a passionate group here with some skepticism and concerns. The last comment Bos posted is pretty spot on for us all. I hope our questions help your company too! I'm looking forward to learning more about these.

Boswell, post: 420318, member: 29034 wrote: My earlier comments about additional domain boundary crossings do indeed refer only to the monitoring feed and not the printed mix, but the point remains that the monitoring should be an accurate representation of what is being printed. If it has to go through separate correctional processes it could undermine the confidence in how accurately we are hearing what is contained in the mix.

+ 1

audiokid, post: 420271, member: 1 wrote: I'm as skeptical as everyone but don't you just love the fact I take all these chances lol, and get some of this stuff to try?

Of course!

And, you never know.... there was a time when the world was flat and the thought of going to the moon was fantasy. Not that I'm comparing a pair of monitors to Neil Armstrong's One Giant Leap For Mankind, but sometimes improvements and innovation comes in small steps at first. I used to think I had a decent handle on what the road ahead held for musicians / engineers.

That false clairvoyance died a long time ago....coincidentally it happened just about the time I first saw multi-track audio successfully recorded to a computer. ;)

d.

DonnyThompson, post: 420267, member: 46114 wrote: Mmmmm....I dunno guys... You can do a whole lot of room treatment for that $4000 ...

At this point, let's consider me to be dubious. But I'm always more than glad to be corrected, or illuminated. If Chris does get a pair to try, I'll wait for his report before I knock these any further. :)

Just throwing a final thought out there ... Even if these things do work in an untreated or poorly treated room, they still wouldn't do a thing to help the acoustics of the room for tracking. ;)

FWIW

d.

Hi Donny, we are making videos to answer these questions so that in the future we might not have to answer the same/similar question(s) again and again but rather direct people to our video FAQ page... thanks for taking the time to comment and I hope this is helpful. We'll get everyone's questions answered quickly I hope.

http://phasx.com/blog/the-truth-about-phasx-studio-monitors-room-acoustics/

I appreciate your timely response. It shows that you are serious about what you are doing. I can respect that.

I do have some comments that could be taken as opposition; however, I'm willing to play fair, and am keeping an open mind on this subject.

Accordingly, I'm going to wait and reserve further opinion until I hear what Chris (or others whom I trust who have actually used the system) has to say about them.

I'd really like to hear from Chris, though. I trust his ears, I trust his judgement, and we are very similar in our approach(es) to recording and production, as well as what we like - and don't like - to hear; relative to specifics in sonic integrity and overall sound.

;)

-donny

Your patience and understanding does not go unappreciated. It's tough for us to already have some attention from the market and not actually be in the market for a few more months where our products could speak for themselves. We will definitely get a pair to Chris as soon as we get our first pilot run from the factory.

Cheers - Gavin

What is the setup procedure? Do you do any acoustic measurements?

audiokid, post: 420364, member: 1 wrote: What is the setup procedure? Do you do any acoustic measurements?

Here is a URL to view the response to your question(s) - Thank You!!

http://phasx.com/blog/phasx-monitors-setup-procedure-and-acoustic-measurement-discussion/

audiokid, post: 420292, member: 1 wrote:

To be honest, the desktop reflection design is sort of silly to me but until I try it, I'm open to being transformed. I use foam on my desk and monitor at the optimum 85db SPL so I don't really feel I need some speaker to do this for me. But, who knows. I expect these to sound really accurate so I'm hoping this is where they actually excel.

Please see our video here: http://phasx.com/blog/phasx-shadocaster-monitors-built-for-accuracy/

Gavin Washburn, post: 420409, member: 48540 wrote: Here is a URL to view the response to your question(s) - Thank You!!

http://phasx.com/blog/phasx-monitors-setup-procedure-and-acoustic-measurement-discussion/

"Voicing the speakers", that was a good definition to my question and exactly what I was wondering. Excellent. thank you.

I like the idea of being able to store and/or compare preset A, B, C etc.

Thanks for the response!

Boswell, post: 420291, member: 29034 wrote: What do those Phasx monitors sound like on proper speaker stands, i.e. not on a desk surface? Does playing with the directional properties of the cabinets improve the unimpaired sound?

Hi Boswell, here is a URL to a video on our blog talking about the Shadocaster monitors on speaker stands:

http://phasx.com/blog/shadocaster-monitors-on-speaker-stands/

Boswell, post: 420302, member: 29034 wrote:

In the Phasx system described here, there would be another inherent pair of domain boundary crossings simply to access the (unspecified) processes that take place in the Shadocaster's DSP box. The end result would have to have sufficient acoustic advantages to be worth the system's additional A-D-A process, given also that it seems we have to take their choice of critical elements such as converters rather than use our own.

Hi Boswell,

Another video URL here to answer your question here about our DSP and ADIO box with respect to analog to digital and digital to analog... hope this helps, cheers!

Thanks for the videos - very informative.

IMO, the bottom line on this system, and where the most objection to it is focused, is on the price.

In the first FAQ video response, it was mentioned that these we meant to be targeted more towards "working musicians". Being one of those myself, I can say with complete honesty that even if I found the PhasX system to be a great monitoring system,( and it may in fact be great) still, I would never drop 4 grand on a pair of monitors for a project level studio.

Part of my job in the last few years as an engineer, is working as a consultant for home-based/project studios, owned - for the most part - by these "working musicians".

To my knowledge, out of the 20 or so clients that I currently have - or even including those that I have had in the past - not one of them could ever afford this system.

Even if they did have 4 Large at their disposal, the home studio owners I know would use that money to improve their mic collection(s), their pre amps, converters, and room acoustics treatment, way before they would consider a system like this at this price.

You can do quite a bit of corrective room treatment for that kind of money, ( actually, you can do quite a bit for even a quarter of that) which also results in the added benefit of also giving you a nice environment in which to record. Contrary to what PhasX may believe - based on what they said in that first video response - the majority of working musicians with home studios are NOT working with multi-room recording spaces. They absolutely are using the same space as both a tracking room and a mixing room. And I'm not referring only to tracking midi-based VSTi's, either. It is not at all uncommon for these songwriters to set up a mic in the same room, and record acoustic guitars, or vocals, etc. In fact, it's more the norm than it is the rarity. Whoever is doing their research has dropped the ball on this crucial fact.

I do wish PhasX all the best, but I fear they will find out sooner or later - sooner, I think - that if they continue targeting working musicians and project studios as their main demographic, they will find that this demographic won't be purchasing the systems in the numbers that they had perhaps hoped for; because with very few exceptions, that price point is just far too prohibitive for the demographic they are targeting.

IMO of course. ;)

- donny

My feeling is always correct the problem, by attacking it t the source. This system seems to rely dsp corrective processing and eqing. I'm not an electrical engineer, but I am curious how cancellations are dealt with, as eq cannot correct for that.

Assuming these work well, the potential market I could see for them is professional location engineers, where they find themselves in back rooms and nooks all the time. Anything that brings consistency to their varied conditions would surely be welcomed. Also audiophiles who may have untreated rooms may appreciate something like this.

The main problem I see is something Donny hit on, and it's a upper end professional mix engineers price range for speakers, but addresses a problem that is primarily an ametuer problem. Knock a 0 off the asking price and they would be in the right range, but probably wouldn't go very far towards the R&D for these. its cool to see innovation, but i don't see the same market for these as phasx does.

I could see a low price speaker that was physically designed to help decrease problems for the budget market, and the dsp technology being employed by itself, for discerning professionals looking to get the last DB or two in check for their pro monitoring systems, as a final step in room tuning. But they meet an awkward price point combined in their current state. Just my 2 cents.

cost aside, the design doesn't lend itself to portability and as for audiophiles i think the narrow sweet spot could be an issue. they might find application in a mastering suite.

the dsp is where i really get lost on these (and other) speakers of this ilk. can anyone show me an example of where applying dsp & eq actually works without creating even more problems?

i can imagine the occasional scenario where these would be a solution but it's one that i don't think occurs very often. and the issues they address can be solved cheaper and easier with a rethink on speaker placement and room treatments.

it occurs to me that someone could manufacture just the pyramid diffuser part of these and place them in front of a set of regular monitors close to the same effect might be acheived?

The independent enclosure for the tweeter is interesting. When you have more info on that, please share.

There must be a fair amount of the cost/ consumer value just in the build of these. I just watched this which is very informative:

[[url=http://[/URL]="

[/]

I would appreciate learning about your history, how you came into designing these and some background?