Hi all,
do you have any suggestion which the best monitor under $500? mostly I am working with acoustic guitar, contra bass. cello, flute and vocal.
Cheers,
Learn2fly
Topic Tags
Comments
Personally I would avoid the Rockit and Yammies. I'd look for J
Personally I would avoid the Rockit and Yammies. I'd look for JBL LSR or (gasp) Behringers with the JBL being the top of the pile in the price range. I've measured several of these and the little JBL are great performers. Look at these polar response graphs between 1 kHz and 5 kHz to make you pick:
[[url=http://[/URL]="http://dtmblabber.b…"]****DanTheMan's blog****: Review of Polar graphs[/]="http://dtmblabber.b…"]****DanTheMan's blog****: Review of Polar graphs[/]
If you want evidence for why the Yammies are bad, just ask,
Dan
Jack, with all do respect, you are incorrect. If it was possibl
Jack, with all do respect, you are incorrect. If it was possible to not know the brand, size, color, etc... of what you were listening to--think DBT--you'd be correct. Of course then you'd pick performance anyway. Unfortunately we are filled with biases whether or not we know it or admit it. Those are the facts. There was once submitted to the AES a test that showed yellow grill clothed speakers are picked to sound the best regardless of speaker performance lol. Your best bet is to know the performance of the device in question. The sad truth is that pro audio still doesn't know this in general. It seems odd. Compare us to any other profession--no one else is guessing, but we are. To do a number of DBTs is difficult and time consuming--knowing the graphs is much quicker and any competent manufacturer should be doing this in the design phase. JBL, Mackie, Behringer, Genelec, Neumann and I'm sure others are manufacturing speaker that are designed to be accurate--that also means preferred under blind conditions.
Here's the iceberg's tip:
[="http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2008/12/part-3-relationship-between-loudspeaker.html"]Audio Musings by Sean Olive: Part 3 - Relationship between Loudspeaker Measurements and Listener Preferences[/]="http://seanolive.bl…"]Audio Musings by Sean Olive: Part 3 - Relationship between Loudspeaker Measurements and Listener Preferences[/]
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/search?q=dishonesty+of+sighted+listening
Check out how powerful of an influence sight can have:
[[url=http://="http://www.youtube…"]YouTube - The McGurk Effect - Horizon Is Seeing Believing?[/]="http://www.youtube…"]YouTube - The McGurk Effect - Horizon Is Seeing Believing?[/]
Hopefully this is helpful and not hindering or inflammatory.
Dan
Not inflammatory at all. Manufacturers fudge their data all the
Not inflammatory at all. Manufacturers fudge their data all the time and this is just as proven as the McGurk tests of which I am familiar. Resolution of charts and graphs of course being a primary point of masking. Additionally, any graphs or tests not done in a treated room are not going to be as valid either. EQ corrective software at this point in time generates quite a lot of advertising but I don't know many folks that think these softwares sufficient for mixing or mastering audio. Speaker and microphone manufacturers have complete ability to perform the tests but marketing departments take over from there. Behr**** products for instance are often designed/copied/stolen/whatever from quite good originals but then the parts used are often substandard and the quality control is less than average. MXL is in that same boat.
For what it's worth, I too believe that folks get blinded by names or biases. I'll go with actual hands on experience in real life situations though before I get too worked up over a marketing chart.
Actually, you just need space and know how, not a treated room t
Actually, you just need space and know how, not a treated room to make a graph. My graphs are not from manufacturers. To my knowledge, none of those manufacturers print those details or even anything close to that. I think only Genelec and Neumann do on just their better models.
I understand completely about Behringer and MXL, but some less affluent people need equipment as well to get them through in a pinch. I don't like what they are accused of, but when I was in college I would have no other choice. The cheapest possible was the only possible. They certainly don't measure as well as the JBL or Mackie anyway and those JBL are fairly cheap. If everyone posted reliable date we wouldn't need to listen. Right now it's our only choice as measurements are scarce. I just tried to chip in as best I could.
Dan
It all boils down to each listeners comparative hearing. Give o
It all boils down to each listeners comparative hearing. Give one person a track to mix down and then get another person, sit them in the same chair with the same track and equipment and.........low and behold....it sounds different !!!
Which one is right ?
In fact, give the original person the same task on another day (same seat, same track and same gear) and it will sound different again !
I may be blown away with an amazing tech spec but I may not actually like the sound of the speakers when I listen to them.
Acid, your post runs contrary to all available evidence--and the
Acid, your post runs contrary to all available evidence--and there is over 30 yrs worth--close to 40. Actually certain specs have been correlated to listener preference with remarkable accuracy.
As far as day to day, hour to hour variations in listening tell you that listening to loudspeakers is not a very productive way to choose unless you are going to do it blind, everyday for months and keeping score and then do a statistical analysis on it.
Dr. Olive of NRC Canada/JBL fame and Wolfgang Klippel found mathematical weighting schemes that could predict listener preference based on: flat/smooth response on axis, off axis response smoothness and bass extension--traits that speakers continually had that were winning DBTs. they found a flat/smooth, extended on axis, and resonant free power response are essentially where it's at.
Nice that speakers that measure well are preferred--that's not really strange at all however, but many seem to think so. IOW, of the speakers tested on my blog, you want 1) the Mackie HR624 mk2 (ignore the top octave just like your ears do and don't try and sick Oohashi on me haha), 2) the JBL LSR2325 and then 3) either the B2031P(with cotton) or 1030A and the KRK bringing up the rear with the cotton free B2031P. Interesting as this correlates perfectly with what I like and what sounds right. The 1030A is probably the most revealing however in the MR/treble. I heard things on recordings that made me think it was broke--and there are good reasons for that.
Here's my primers on psychoacoustics:
[[url=http://[/URL]="http://dtmblabber.b…"]****DanTheMan's blog****: Psychoacoustics[/]="http://dtmblabber.b…"]****DanTheMan's blog****: Psychoacoustics[/]
You can follow the links for more info.
Dan
ACIDMAN, post: 363521 wrote: I may be blown away with an amazing
ACIDMAN, post: 363521 wrote: I may be blown away with an amazing tech spec but I may not actually like the sound of the speakers when I listen to them.
If you are purchasing monitors for mixing and mastering, arguably the truth of the sound is more important than the subjective "liking" of the sound. Cruelly honest is a phrase I like.
Hi Jack, Hi Dan, my apollogies for being a little pedantic and c
Hi Jack, Hi Dan, my apollogies for being a little pedantic and contrary ! Since my start in the business 20 years ago I've seen a lot of changes and none more than monitoring gear. I've a couple of friends in particular who couldn't disagree more with each other. One swears by his KRK's the other won't listen to anything other than his GENELEC's (no matter how much technical proof). Another guy is saving for some ADAM S3X's( apparently nothing else will do). So as much as these are all good monitors why do people still not agree on scientific evidence ?
As it happens I must admit I do agree with you both although personal taste,in my humble opinion, still has some bearing otherwise we'd all use the same monitors.
No worries Acid--hopefully you take no offense to my position/po
No worries Acid--hopefully you take no offense to my position/posting either. As far as people not agreeing with science--nothing new there. Placebo is powerful and skepticism is healthy, but denial is not. I've often seen 3 things around the web: 1) people don't know about the evidence and therefor are not in denial. They are just ignorant of the facts. 2) people have purchased other things based on their 'listening' experience or what they read on XX-dot-com and learn that the purchased item is not a great performer. They have an intense desire to defend their belief/purchase as they have stated them many times with a lot of strength/conviction and don't want to lose their web cred. 3) They are a manufacturer and they manufacture objectively inferior products and want to ascribe good sound to some sort of magic concocted by a mysterious genius sorcerer that will never divulge their strange brew to the mere mortal. They will sell it to you at a premium however.
Dan
Provided you want truth(which fortunately has been shown to soun
Provided you want truth(which fortunately has been shown to sound the best hundreds of times as well when bias is removed):
http://www.genelec.com/documents/datasheets/DS8260A_2.pdf
[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.Neumann-…"]Georg Neumann GmbH - Professional Monitoring[/]="http://www.Neumann-…"]Georg Neumann GmbH - Professional Monitoring[/]
The Mackie HR624mk2 for under 1g and the JBL LSR 2325 for under $500.
All these will need subs and some dsp of course.
There are probably others, but meaningful measurements are scarce.
Dan
2.5) People that have owned the gear or similar gear by the same
2.5) People that have owned the gear or similar gear by the same manufacturer and found it wanting. Some of these folks aren't afraid to call it bad despite the specs. Of course this goes for any level of "good" and not just the bottom end. ;-)
---------
One thing to remember about nearfield monitors is that in real mixing and mastering rooms a sub is not often used. Sometimes there is one to do a double check a final mix with but almost never as an aid to the actual mixing. This goes for high end and low end. Corrective software is not used at all. Lots of money is spent however on room treatment which is always always beneficial.
Additionally, in the low end spectrum of monitors it is likely far better to have powered (active) monitors as the amplifier for the speakers is just as important if not more so than the actual speaker and frequently would cost more than you spent on the monitors.
As far as the 2.5 goes, you are my first. Most fall into the ot
As far as the 2.5 goes, you are my first. Most fall into the other categories. To say something is bad contrary to all available evidence w/o monetary reason or first hand experience is totally new to me. ;)
In the low end the room and placement is more important than the amp by a mile. Popular belief runs contrary, but the research is complete and obvious if you have experience with these matters. Maybe the amp could become as much of an issue if you use a poorly designed tube job or any high output impedance piece of kit. Not many of those available for subs thankfully. To have a monitoring environment and no form of dsp, parametric EQ and measuring or subs is part of the tragedy of today's recordings. What a shame that the majority of us have no clue about fact and fiction. Such simple things to implement and widely available now.
I haven't had a chance to hear the Neumann yet. You could ship them to me when you get a chance, or learn to make the graphs and see if they're honest with theirs.
Just let me know,
Dan
I think you misunderstood. In the low end of quality not frequen
I think you misunderstood. In the low end of quality not frequency response. IE the cheap crap. All mix and mastering engineers use eq. If your room is good and treated you shouldn't have to be compensating for that room in your speakers.
Don't take this personal Dan, you come around slinging a bunch of stuff and have called into question others qualifications without giving any reason why you have bona fides yourself. Do you record or perform professionally or just read a lot. You've got some good points on some things, but it gets obscured a bit in your own fervor.
Quality and FR in the bass are very closely tied. There's so mu
Quality and FR in the bass are very closely tied. There's so much evidence for that statement it's disgusting. You need a good room to get a good FR--but ARC will help and many are using it. The woofer/alignment will have more to do with the bass than the amp so long as the amp will put out what it's called on to do.
I'm not looking for your qualifications--I don't try to argue the man as it's foolish. How many old doctors still misdiagnose? Argue the principle if you have something to argue. That's common decency and logic.
Dan
How many doctors sell snake oil or are in the pocket of pharmace
How many doctors sell snake oil or are in the pocket of pharmaceutical companies? I don't disagree with everything you've stated. You in fact just acknowledged the importance of the room and treatment as part of the equation. If your goal is to make trance music compilations rather than mix songs then I suppose you might like subs all the time. If your goal is to mix down an 80 piece orchestra the high and mid freqs are as important as the lows and the amp has to be able to accurately reflect not just the rms but he fast transient spikes. I don't know of any low end monitors/amps that do very well at this. This aspect doesn't show up on any graphs normally either. Straight ahead freq response just is not the whole picture.
I think to summarize a bit since this thread has gotten sidetrac
I think to summarize a bit since this thread has gotten sidetracked/hijacked with the present quality of the Behr gear:
1-Your mix environment is a crucial factor. Correct what you can and work around what you have to.
2-Specifications are a place to start.
3-If possible, listen to the monitors before you purchase them. Use a test song(s) that you know inside and out that shows details of highs, mids, and lows. Honest flat sound is what is important and not something that resembles your favorite eq setting in your car. Know that whatever you choose, it's going to sound different in your untreated bedroom than in a high end studio.
4-Sometimes you can't afford what you would like to purchase. Get the best you can afford however that will be RELIABLE for a long time. The name on the grill or cabinet isn't as important as whether it is honest and will function every time you turn it on.
5-When possible use companies with good customer service (retail and manufacturer).
Everything else can be pretty much argued to death.
Jack, you are getting all over the place and away from your prev
Jack, you are getting all over the place and away from your previous topic. Reread my first post on the bass topic. You'll see what I didn't 'just' write about the room. So far I can't see why you'd disagree with anything I've said. ;) Certainly not like I'm making it up or contradicting known, accepted, demonstrated and repeatedly demonstrated acoustics or psychoacoustics.
As far as frequency response and whole picture--in the bass, it is nearly the whole picture but not totally. Here the frequency response needs to be measured in the room. In the mid/treble it's more complex than that and this is where anechoic data is more useful. Read my blog posts [="http://dtmblabber.blogspot.com/2010/12/psychoacoustics.html"]****DanTheMan's blog****: Psychoacoustics[/]="http://dtmblabber.b…"]****DanTheMan's blog****: Psychoacoustics[/] and this will be clear.
I don't know any monitors that do deep bass, but some of those larger ones probably do. The nearest I've used to doing deep bass is the Behringer B2031P--gets to a full 20Hz before dropping off in my bedroom at my listening position. Accurate is just that no matter if it's an orchestra, Trance, Rock, or Bluegrass etc... here or there. Amps nowadays play a small role in this so long as they have the raw power--good power supply to go along with it. It's now very cheap to make these. 10 years ago it may have been a different story and 50 years ago it surely was. Maybe I should just show a few studies available on the web instead of arguing. A man with evidence is never at the mercy of a man with an argument.
[[url=http://="http://home.provide…"]ABX Double Blind Test Results: Power Amps[/]="http://home.provide…"]ABX Double Blind Test Results: Power Amps[/]
http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf
Here's one done differently and with interesting results:
[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.matrixhi…"]Matrix HiFi --> Blind testing high end full equipments[/]="http://www.matrixhi…"]Matrix HiFi --> Blind testing high end full equipments[/]
interesting stuff huh?
Dan
Interesting study. I'm glad Acidman liked his A500 and had a go
Interesting study. I'm glad Acidman liked his A500 and had a good experience with it. The following comments are not contradicting the studies at all as they have nothing to do comparing equipment directly.
Before I became Sound Chief at my Marine Band, in a two year period we went through six Ultracurves and three Xenyx 32 channel mixers. All were taken care of, mounted in Anvil shock cases, kept with dessiccant packages to minimize moisture, all power filtered and protected, gear was pallated prior to shipping in CH46's or C130's or 6 tons. They were chosen by higher authority based upon marketing and price point. When the Behr** amps came out the same thing happened. The Crown and QSC amps were mothballed and new Behr amps were procured. They had an abysmal failure rate. I salvaged half of the old Crowns and most of the QSC before the Base DRMO unit had disposed of them and tossed the Behr** gear. I haven't looked back since. There were actually some useful functions on the Ultracurve if you could keep them working in a real environment. Then mixers would drop channels or start sputtering or just stop functioning. We went back to individual channel discreet component boards after that little fiasco. After I was promoted to Sound Chief we never went cheap again. That was just my Corps experiences. You get good at writing sole source purchase orders. After I got out and was working for two installation companies as a subcontractor, I utilized whatever gear they specified in their proposals for install. Inevitably there was plenty of Behr** gear. Inevitably that gear required the most service calls and warranty replacements.
Sometimes an individual has to go cheap and I understand that. I just won't recommend a company that produces substandard gear. None of this has anything to do with the aural signature of the gear. And I'm not some gear snob. I don't own the best of the best. I utilize great quality workhorse gear and I take care of it but a location recording engineer only gets one shot at a concert and gear failure isn't an option.
I would also like to believe that Uli has changed his business practices with regards to quality control and stealing/acquiring of designs. That's going to take quite a bit of convincing.
It's certainly a good point Jack. No sense in choosing a cheap
It's certainly a good point Jack. No sense in choosing a cheap product if it is unreliable--that's just not green/ecologically responsible ha ha. I have heard of some of the Behringer monitors amps going out, but not really at any massive rate. There's so many sold.... roll the dice a hundred times and you'll probably get a few sixes. Truly, that's why I've kept their passive models--less to go wrong and simple to fix if needed. I haven't needed to. I also wonder how many of the monitor amp troubles are d/t the clarity of the speaker. I thought the 1030A samples I has were broke b/c I was hearing so much preamp noise left on the recordings. They were too revealing for anything but monitoring! The research is correct w/ regards to dispersion. Too bad I didn't know it at the time of the testing. The more the music makers learn about sound and perception, the less guessing we'll do in music production. This should lead to better products in less time--win/win. The 1030A do have their flaws as you can see their MR/Treble are not as pristine as the Mackie and JBL. Afterwards I was able to hear the same noises on other speakers just not so clearly and I had never heard it before. I think excruciatingly clear monitors are a good idea to prevent any mishaps like this. Some studio apparently do not use them.
Dan
Ask any professional, seasoned, studio builder/designer about eq
Ask any professional, seasoned, studio builder/designer about eq'ing monitors, and i bet 9 out of 10 will say use it as a last step, if it's needed. The whole challenge in room design is to deliver a smooth frequency response, in an astetically pleasing manner. If an eq was all it took hollywood wouldn't spend 250k for some fella to come up w/ a plan. I can make mixes in my car if i need to, only because i know how my favorite songs, and my numerous mix attemps sound/should sound in there. we can learn any speaker/room. thats not the point, nor is it fun. You want to be confident that your hearing whats going to tape is actually what your hearing. hence the need for honest monitors, smooth rooms.
dan, call as many pro studios as you can, and ask them if they eq their monitoring systems. and if they use subs. bet most say no to both. all subs do increase the modal activity in the room, making louder modes, softer nodes.
sure perhaps there is one mathematical .1 square inch in the room that is "flat", but considering my ears are much further apart, that ain't helping.
Until all monitors are tested in the same room w/ the same procedure, manufacturers will create what they need to print.
One reputable materials testing lab is riverbank, they'll acoustically test your carpet of choice if you want.
My mackie hr's came with a graph, so did my 414. how much does that really help me when these things are used in completeley different rooms? that graph doesn't state room characteristics, testing procedure, or even a db level/ tone it was tested at.
Yes they are decent pieces of gear. But do some live sound, and see for yourself, how the equpiment you know well responds to each room.
As far the the original post, at the end of the day, get the best you can afford that you like the most. Waterfall plots are for your room treatments. which ones do you like to use? do you generally mix bright/dark, bass light/heavy, which ones compliment those tendencies? You have to try them in your room tho, unless we all listen in the same anechoic chamber, no, we won't, then your room plays as big a role in your monitoring as your monitors.
mix the same song on your top 3 choices, listen to them around, and choose which set help get you where you want to be the most naturally.
If you have a $250k studio, you might not need an EQ. ;) But yo
If you have a $250k studio, you might not need an EQ. ;) But you may still benefit from it. Hard to know until you measure one.
Your statements about subs demonstrate a limited understanding of the issues at hand.
Flat is just a goal, not a reality. You might be surprised how close you can come over a wide area. I'm sure you know the '.1 inch square' statement is silly.
The Mackie graph is useless--again, we need to start seeing the ones closely correlated to perception. The room characteristics really comes into play in the bass--and not just modes. I thought I posted all this info already in these 2 threads. If there's any that's missing, just let me know.
Live sound is a different world. I'm not making recordings for live sound--sort of implied. Still much of this is useful, but other metrics become more important depending on several obvious factors. I certainly don't want to muck up a studio monitor thread with live sound. I'd never use a studio monitor there.
It doesn't matter which type/what brand. What matters is the effects to the sound and what is your goal. There are several books on that topic and it can't reasonably be dealt with in a web post as I'm sure you know.
Dan
i think comb filtering is just as important to address. as far
i think comb filtering is just as important to address.
as far as subs go,it just takes a large room and or massive treatment in a medium sized room to be able to accurately reproduce low end frequencies. adding a sub speaker(woofer) creates more low frequencies to control.
The average control room isn't large enough to reproduce fundemental sub frequencies accurately.
i've read the gear lists of nearly a hundred pro studios, subs a
i've read the gear lists of nearly a hundred pro studios, subs are missing.
adding bass that you need to control makes no sense acoustically in a critical situation. I love cranking the music at the club i work at on the weekends!!
oof 6 huge jbl subs, + 6 jbl mains. Heck yeah!!!! love feeling it! with a pitched 12-15' high ceiling and a bunch of crest amps, urei (by soundcraft) dj style mixer, mackie vlz (8ch), denon cd players, stanton vinyl, DBX Drivrack! That place is fun!! i love crankin it! Super fun. that's live. i am lucky enough to get to use that system to check my studio mixes on too.
Would i mix there? no. i labor during the week/sundays, at the studio to make nicely translating mixes. A pair of meyer hd1's, and a nicely designed/built/treated room is what i have to work w/.
My treated bedroom, has mackie hr8's and you can bet everything get's listened to there too.
Would i check to see if my mix is overblown on a 20,000watt system? sure. flat response is not necesary in a club type setting, so the subs make sense, they let you feel the lows in the room, albeit at different frequencies every foot or so, but it gets people going.
it's funny in the interviews in the book 'behind the glass', most of the famous producers/engineers used their choice nearfields. those cool looking, loud, expensive, soffit mounted mains, mainly just impress the clients.
but the engineers didn't mix on those. must be a heck of an a/b tho huh?
You really have to read my blog to even begin to have this conve
You really have to read my blog to even begin to have this conversation(and it's no where near complete--just the beginning of small room acoustics and Psychoacoustics). There are several good books that are a must to have a deep conversation. Don't want to get into reductio ad absurdum yet. It's a bit too early. Remember that common practice and best practice are not the same thing and that old habits are really hard to break. The medical field constantly battled this and progress is made everyday--at a high cost I should add. I suppose if audio had that funding we'd progress as rapidly. When you put psychophysical findings into practice, good things start happening. The old ways work, but they are not optimal. One of the biggest problem with acoustics is that most of the research/money has been done for concert halls where we rarely go and not small rooms where we spend most of our time listening.
Yea, those soffit jobs are impressive in general--and I don't have any(yet). Some things you just have to have some day.
Dan
For that price I've seen Yamaha HS80M's on sale new a couple of
For that price I've seen Yamaha HS80M's on sale new a couple of times and you can definitely buy them used.