# Studio Monitors anyone?



## Niah (May 11, 2005)

What do you recommend for studio monitors? Preferencely good quality and good price.


----------



## Lex (May 11, 2005)

I guess it allways comes down to what works for your ears...

My personal favs at the moment would be JBL LSR6300 series, if you have a very good studio space for them...

For the very cheap solution, and in your face nearfield monitoring I would go for Behringer Truth B2031



aLex


----------



## Marsdy (May 11, 2005)

I've been pretty happy with Genelec 1030s although they are a tad forward in the top end with their metal dome tweeters. There's a slight danger of treble light mixes as a result but generally mixes travel really well and they are easy to work with for long periods.


----------



## Marsdy (May 11, 2005)

Totally agree room acoustics are crucial. It definitely pays to try before buying in the room you will be using the monitors in even if that means renting first.


----------



## synergy543 (May 11, 2005)

I'm looking at addng Dynaudio BM-15a or Genelec 8050 or 8040. I haven't heard any of these models yet but I'm familar with Genelec 1032s. My speakers are about 7 feet away and I have a surround setup. So here are a few issues:

Dynaudio BM-15a - I have received nothing but accolades about these and they are about half the price of Genelecs. Very tempting. However, they are not symetrical so the center channel will be slightly askew. As I don't run a commercial studio I'm not too worried however, for that money it does feel a little odd to not have things "perfect".

Genelecs: I've heard the 8040s are actually smoother than the 8050s. And they are about half the price. My room is quite large (26ft x 17ft) but I usually listen quietly and only in the surround sweetspot in the center of the room. So maybe 8040s will work? At 7 ft will they still work if I crank things up?

If I go for the 8040s I could get the entire surround setup. With the 8050s, I'll probably on get three 8050s in the front and mix and match my existing "unique" Sony monitors* (which I like very much) in the rear. I understand the dangers of mix n match but I also have good knowledge how to balance and adjust everything so I'm pretty confident it would work quite well.

Suggestions welcome and I'd love to hear from anyone who is actually using any of these models.

*Not sold outside of Japan - Sony SMS-2P RS
http://www.ecat.sony.co.jp/business/prof_audio/products/index.cfm?PD=12743&KM=SMS-2P_RS (http://www.ecat.sony.co.jp/business/pro ... =SMS-2P_RS)


----------



## Niah (May 11, 2005)

Hey guys thanks for the insight and recommendations.
Yes, studio monitors is a very personal thing as well as headphones.
As for budget I was thinking of spending no more than 500/600 euros since it's the first time I buy studio monitors.

My studio is in a pretty small room apartment so the acoustics are not very nice. :oops: 

The genelec monitors have a great reputation but they're a little pricey, except for model 1029.

Anyway, I have been looking into some m-audio studio monitors; models BX8 and BX5.
Anyone owns one of these? How are they?


----------



## synergy543 (May 11, 2005)

Niah said:


> As for budget I was thinking of spending no more than 500/600 euros since it's the first time I buy studio monitors.


I'd check out the Dynaudio BM 5s or 6s. They should be right in your budget range and I've heard great reports about them as nearfields.


----------



## Niah (May 11, 2005)

Humm, not too expensive at all. Thanks for the tip Synergy543 !


----------



## Niah (May 11, 2005)

One other thing. 

Aside from the monitors do you thing that it's important to also have a subwoofer? Or is that total irrelevant for mixing?


----------



## synergy543 (May 11, 2005)

Niah said:


> One other thing.
> 
> Aside from the monitors do you thing that it's important to also have a subwoofer? Or is that total irrelevant for mixing?


For the smaller speakers such as the Dynaudio 5+6 I would use a sub. But the I think you can get by with a lesser quality sub to save money. I'm just using a consumer Infinity sub just to smooth out the low end.

Be sure to balance it carefully though. You can get a good but inexpensive dB meter at Radio Shack that works nicely for tuning. And sub location is fairly critical - read about it online. Many sites such as Genelec and BlueSky have downloabable test tones you can use and suggestions for speaker setup.


----------



## Jackull (May 11, 2005)

Lex said:


> My personal favs at the moment would be JBL LSR6300 series, if you have a very good studio space for them...
> aLex



Was that the greyish or silverish color? 

JACKuLL 8)


----------



## synergy543 (May 11, 2005)

Folmann said:


> Adams - to die for studio monitors.


Do they play nicely with other monitors? How do mixes sound on other systems?


----------



## Lex (May 12, 2005)

Jackull said:


> Lex said:
> 
> 
> > My personal favs at the moment would be JBL LSR6300 series, if you have a very good studio space for them...
> ...



6300 are dark dark gray...or black mate..

aLex


----------



## Scott Cairns (May 12, 2005)

Anyone tried the Event Studio Precision 8s? Ive heard lots of good things about them.


----------



## fitch (May 12, 2005)

i hear the Genelec 8040 speakers yesterday.. I must say i preferred them over by Tanny Reveals :D .. am going to have to invest. asap


----------



## Jon Paouli Trapek (May 12, 2005)

Scott Cairns said:


> Anyone tried the Event Studio Precision 8s? Ive heard lots of good things about them.



Yeah, I've bought some for my home studio to replace my knackered old 2020s. Pretty neutral and clear - just what you need for mixing. Not as accurate as the Dynaudio BM6As I now use in the studio but once you get to know them they're a really good buy and I'd happily mix on them anytime.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 12, 2005)

Blue Sky System One over here.


----------



## Brian Ralston (May 12, 2005)

Another Blue Sky System One over here. :D


----------



## drasticmeasures (May 12, 2005)

The Adams monitors are amazing. Best crisp clarity I've ever heard - but without the additional sub, they tend to lack the "it go boom" factor that is often needed.


----------



## synergy543 (May 12, 2005)

Which Adams? And how to mixes translate onto other monitors? Do you find you need to compensate?


----------



## Andy B (May 17, 2005)

I have a pair of Adam P22-As and I'm very happy with them. Of course it depends on the style of music you're writing, but I haven't felt a need for a bigger bottom end. Mixes translate well to other monitors - it really is a case of what you hear is what you get.

Andy.


----------



## Maya (May 17, 2005)

I prefer Genelec?s S 30 D. Does anyone have electro static loudspeakers? (Me dreams of a pair of Quad ESL 988, hehe).

*sigh*

WOLFine alias Maya


----------



## esencia (Jan 24, 2006)

I've been testing several ones (ADAM P22A, Genelec 1030, 8040, 8050, Mackie...).. and finally I've decided to buy the Dynaudio BM15A. 
They really rocks! Even better than Genelec 8050A. Punchy and clear sound with good stereo image.

I hope to receive my new units soon :D


----------



## Frederick Russ (Jan 24, 2006)

Hey Scott - I checked out the Event Studio Precision 8's at the Namm show - great and very accurate monitors for the money. For those who don't have the time or expertise to tune their room the new JBL LSR 4328's are also very cool with an added plus: computer assisted calibration for better bass response at the mix position. (I thought it was hype at first but the demo in the closed room proved me wrong. Nice sound and very accurate.)


----------



## Scott Cairns (Jan 24, 2006)

Hi Frederick, thanks for the info mate. I still need to upgrade my monitors sometime this year. The JBLs you mentioned sound interesting too.

Just in general - Id been hearing great things about the Adams and checked some prices - arent they like $5,000 each? (might be AUS dollars where I saw the price)


----------



## fv (Jan 24, 2006)

Hi Scott,

It depends on the model for the ADAMs. I have the S-2A's and they were about $2500 US each at the time. Really nice, with a wide sweet spot, punchy lows and excellent imaging. They have lower-priced models too (as well as much-higher priced ones).

Anyway, IMHO, monitors are such a personal choice that I always recommend that people check them out for themselves if they are able to. Everyone has different ears as the old saying goes.

FV


----------



## hv (Jan 25, 2006)

If you're on a budget, don't overlook some of offerings which pro audio names target for consumer home-theater markets. Things like the Tannoy Eyris E and DC lines as well as JBL Northridges. There are some remarkable values there in monitors that come awful close to the performance of their pro models in rather stylish packages. I've been looking at these for doing living-room double checks of my mixes.

Howard


----------



## Didier Rachou (Jan 25, 2006)

Adams are lovely. I also tested the Quested VS2108's here in my room and opted for the Quested. Purely personal taste though. Both are solid.

DLR


----------



## synthetic (Jan 26, 2006)

fv, it's nice to find an S2A user. I like the sound of them (though I wish I could afford S3As) and have been saving up for months to buy them. I've mostly heard the S2As at trade shows, and preferred them to the S2.5As as well as Genelecs in that range. 

What size room are you working in? I'm hoping that S2As will give me most of the performance of an S3A in a small room, since they're essentially the same design minus the subwoofer. The designer said this was the case, and that's what my ears told me as well, though I've only A/Bed them in a noisy, open environment.


----------



## fv (Jan 26, 2006)

Hi synthetic,

My room is kinda crappy as the ceiling is too low. My room is roughly 4m x 5m x 3m. It is also currently untreated as I'll be doing some renos eventually to increase the size of my studio by knocking out one of the walls and grabbing some space from the room adjacent to it.

I bought the S2-A's before the S2.5-A's were released. When I heard the S2.5-A's, I also did not like them as much as mine or the S3-A's. If you have a small room, the S3-A's may actually not work as well as the S2-A's. 

I preferred the S3-A's as well but I just could not justify the expense for my personal situation. I had the money at the time and the green light from my wife but I just felt that the extra money could be better spent on other gear/libs/etc. The difference would have been about $3,000 CDN. 

I did not compare them side by side in my own space though. I heard the S3-A's first at a studio and got the S2-A's first. The A.D.A.M. guys told me that the S2-A's would work better for me and the only thing that I would miss would be a little bit of the bass that the S3-A's put out. Volume would probably not be a huge concern because my room is not large.

HTH,
FV


----------



## Scott Cairns (Jan 26, 2006)

Thanks for the info FV, I agree that monitors are very much personal taste.

Im definetely upgrading this year, hopefully to something decent enough that they wont have to be changed for years to come.

Hmmm, so many choices.. 

8)


----------



## synthetic (Jan 26, 2006)

Thanks for your feedback. I've read bad reviews of the S2As on Gearslutz, etc. so this is good to hear. I didn't think that my ears were failing me. They sound to me like S3As with slightly less bass. If you turn them on their side, they sound even more like S3As. 

I'll keep saving my allowance and find out soon enough...


----------



## synthetic (Jan 28, 2006)

A friend of mine is the ADAM rep for the USA, so I've heard all about the tweeter.  I never liked Genelecs, JBLs or any other metel-dome tweeter designs. Right now I have Alesis monitors, which are OK for the money. But I just had a project that had distortion on it that I didn't hear until some people on the board pointed it out. It would have been embarrassing if that had been bounced from a dub stage or something. 

I'll keep saving my pennies. Why is it so hard to spend money on monitors? They just don't seem as sexy as other gear, I guess, though everyone who does it has no regrets.


----------



## synthetic (Feb 24, 2006)

Bought the ADAM S2As.  Wow. Wow. Having all of the usual experiences -- hearing parts on CDs I never noticed before, that reach-out-and-touch laser perfect imaging, etc. I'll have to do some mixes before I see if they have enough bass or if I need to add a sub. But I don't think it will be a problem. 

Highly recommended. Good studio monitors are the most important part of your chain. And these are the best I've heard. :smile:


----------



## Waywyn (Feb 26, 2006)

JBL Control One here 

very neutral sound but better with a subwoofer which i am still looking for. the sb1 is not produced anymore, but compared to quite a few studio monitors they sound pretty amazing for that price ...


----------



## José Herring (Mar 5, 2006)

Anybody ever try the KRK monitors? I'm testing a pair right now and they seem pretty accurate to me.

I'm thinking of picking some up until I can comfrotably afford the Adams or new JBL's, but would like somebody's opinion on them in case I'm wasting my monies.

Jose


----------



## synergy543 (Mar 5, 2006)

Jose, although I haven't personally heard these monitors I would compare the KRK to the following and which shouldn't be too much more. At least I would try to listen to them side by side.:

Dynaudio BM5A - $999 This is the pair price which makes them look even better
http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/BM5A/

Event Studio Precision 8 - $649 oops....price/speaker not per pair
http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/ASP8/

Event Studio Precision 6 - $549 oops....price/speaker not per pair
http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/ASP6

Some places will let you buy all of them on your credit card and then return the ones you don't want within a few days. Being able to compare in my own studio makes a HUGE difference. You'll know exactly which ones you want then. Talk to your dealer and work out a deal.


----------



## synthetic (Mar 5, 2006)

Which KRKs? The high end sets are very nice. The Rockit level are not as great. Remember that you're not just buying the box and components but the amplifier as well. The cheaper monitors cut a lot of corners to hit the price and end up inferior. Monitors are one of the most important components of your studio, next to the sample libraries and comfy chair , so it's best not to skimp. For some reason it hurts to pay a lot for good monitors, but once it's done I haven't heard anyone voice their regrets. 

Even with the ADAMs, I heard a big difference between the P-series and S-series.


----------



## Frederick Russ (Mar 5, 2006)

Careful on the Event Precisions - those prices are per monitor and not for the set.

One way to address a price point is to get passive monitors (Event Precisions are available this way) and get a good amplifier. This way you can upgrade either amplifier or monitors separately when the time is right without losing much investment-wise. Good luck in your choice.


----------



## synergy543 (Mar 5, 2006)

Oops....you're right. Sorry about being misleading there...


----------



## José Herring (Mar 5, 2006)

KRK V6 or V8 with a Subwoofer. How important is a sub these days anyway? To tell you the truth my mixes are coming out pretty decent with my old JBL 4206's. I'm borrowing a pair of KRK V6's and there's a bit more clarity and I noticed that they sound better once I pull out of the sweet spot. Like I can go across the room and here the mix pretty good too. The 4206 get pretty muddy outside of the mix position.


----------



## synergy543 (Mar 5, 2006)

Hi frequencies are very directional so there's usually a fairly narrow sweet spot. If your speaker spread the hi freq around with a waveguide they might be bouncing around the room in ways you don't want (and require acoustic treatment). There are certainly trade-offs here.

As for subs, they are certainly nice for sharing the low freq load with small speakers IF you have a device that is splitting the load (if its just in parallel it won't help the clarity but just make things boomy). For example if you try to play the Pirates of the Carribean "Black Pearl" on a near-field monitors it will probably sound like crap (can anyone say "SPLAT"?) even on fairly good nearfields as it will most likely be terribly distorted because the low frequencies are mixed SO LOUD (and they compressed the hell out of this sucker too). However on a system with bass management and a sub-woofer it's much better. So it clearly shows the problems of bad mixes where strong low freq can cause with nearfields and no subs. Most CDs don't have this problem but this particular one is a glaringly bad example and therefore a great test (although the overwhelming bass works well in the movie). I guess that's what they mean "overproduced" by Hans Zimmer?


----------



## José Herring (Mar 5, 2006)

I think releasing a mix that sounds sucky on regular speakers without subs is risky. I understand for film usuage but on a CD?

Well I guess the bottom line is whether or not I should bite the bullet and go for the expensive monitoring system. Does having the best quality monitors really increase the quality of mixes? Heck I was in a speaker repair shop and the guy was telling me that a lot of top studios still use the NS10's for everyday mixing. They add a sub for extra bass. That's why I'm hesitant about spending too much on this.

Jose


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 7, 2006)

> Hi frequencies are very directional so there's usually a fairly narrow sweet spot. If your speaker spread the hi freq around with a waveguide they might be bouncing around the room in ways you don't want (and require acoustic treatment). There are certainly trade-offs here.



I'd argue with that, with all due respect. You want good high freq dispersion so the off-axis sound is as uncolored as possible. A friend of mine, Dave Moulton, designed a dispersion lens that gives you almost 180 degrees of dispersion with an even freq response (they're licensed by B&O - the Beolab 5), and they sound killer in hotel room demos with no treatment, precisely because they have such great dispersion. 

If your room needs treating, it needs treating - and that doesn't mean putting low-pass filters on the side walls as is the conventional wisdom. Good speakers don't make the room sound worse, in other words.

Jose, I think the V8s are very good. We did a shoot-out a few years ago, and three of us all agreed that they were the best of the bunch we had in many ways.


----------



## José Herring (Mar 7, 2006)

Thanks Nick. Yes I'm pretty sure I'm going to get the V8's up until I can get something better. What makes the System one so good? That's almost affordable to me right now. It be a streach and I'd have to sweet talk my wife. But it might be doable.


----------



## synergy543 (Mar 7, 2006)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Mar 07 said:


> > Hi frequencies are very directional so there's usually a fairly narrow sweet spot. If your speaker spread the hi freq around with a waveguide they might be bouncing around the room in ways you don't want (and require acoustic treatment). There are certainly trade-offs here.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd argue with that, with all due respect. You want good high freq dispersion so the off-axis sound is as uncolored as possible.



Nick, I'm not sure what part you're arguing with. :???: 

With all due complimentary respects I simply stated the physics. I'm not saying wide hi-freq dispersion is bad but you are going to have reflections bouncing around. Sorry those are the the physics. This is why near-field monitors have become so ubiquitous - they limit the relationship between the direct and the reflected sounds. Sure wider hi freq dispersion will give you a wider sweetspot but there are consequcences of sounds bouncing off of rack gear, mixers, monitors, etc. That's all I was pointing out. I'm not making this stuff up. How can you disagree with basic physics?

I mean honestly, Jose, is talking about going across the room and it still sounding pretty good. I don't care what famous acoustic-design witch doctor you hire there's no control room where its going to sound the same across the room. Not even a hotel room. :roll: 

You can improve you monitors up to the point where room interactions begin to interfere. Burying your head in the sand doesn't make the problem go away. But the sand might cut down on some of the reflections. :wink: 

You could also bring the monitors closer in to change the ratio between the direct sound and the rooms interaction. That along with the carpet and beds (that help cut down on reflections) may have been why your friend's system sounded so great in the hotel room.


----------



## José Herring (Mar 7, 2006)

In reviewing my post I may have not been clear. What I want to say is this.

When I mix I mix in the mix position as usual. Towards the end I'll take up different volume levels and move around the room a bit to change my perspective on the sound. Then I'll mix a little more because I'll hear things differently.

The KRK's definately sound better than my JBL's when I'm moving around the room. The mix won't sound much different if I change perspectives on the KRK. I have no idea if this is good or bad. As a matter of fact I find them to be really too bright in the mix position. The mids thin out quite a bit but the clarity is awesome.

I didn't mean to say that the KRK's sound better outside of the sweet spot. I just meant to say that the mix holds up from different positions in the room.

Best,

Jose


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 8, 2006)

I'm arguing with the part where you say speakers with narrow dispersion are somehow better.

You see, "the physics" are counterintuitive. That's the point: the room actually *helps* the image. The reason stems from the fact that the speakers aren't heard as the direct sound, they're heard as the first reflections.

And the conventional wisdom about NFMs is that they "eliminate the room" (at least partially). Well, you can't really do that. My guess is that they work well because the sound is different when you're closer to the speaker. In any case, the room is your friend, not your enemy. You want reflections. What you don't want is long reverb, and the way to get rid of that is to deaden the front of the room.

So you're going to get sound bouncing around anyway; the difference with wide-dispersion speakers is that what's bouncing around is better. Plus the sound doesn't go to hell as soon as you move your head a quarter of an inch. I agree that you have to tweak the room to sound good for where you mix, though.

This is one of my favorite cocktail party subjects, synergy - I've done a lot of reading about it over the years and know almost enough to be dangerous.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 8, 2006)

(fricking Quick Reply sent my reply into space!)

Jose, the sound of the System One is what makes it so good! They're both pleasant to listen to and accurate - not boom/sizzle, just good. I also really like the Bass Management Controller, but that's a separate thing.

But it's all highly subjective - you have to listen and decide what works for you. There are lots of opinions about speakers, which is what makes the speaker industry go around.


----------



## synergy543 (Mar 8, 2006)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Mar 08 said:


> I'm arguing with the part where you say speakers with narrow dispersion are somehow better.
> 
> You see, "the physics" are counterintuitive. That's the point: the room actually *helps* the image. The reason stems from the fact that the speakers aren't heard as the direct sound, they're heard as the first reflections.



Nick, I did not say that. You misinterpret and misrepresent what I said. I said high frequencies are very directional. Here is exactly what I said:



synergy543 said:


> Hi frequencies are very directional *so there's usually a fairly narrow sweet spot*. If your speaker spread the hi freq around with a waveguide they might be bouncing around the room in ways you don't want (and require acoustic treatment). There are certainly trade-offs here.





Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Mar 08 said:


> And the conventional wisdom about NFMs is that they "eliminate the room" (at least partially). Well, you can't really do that. My guess is that they work well because the sound is different when you're closer to the speaker. In any case, the room is your friend, not your enemy. You want reflections. What you don't want is long reverb, and the way to get rid of that is to deaden the front of the room.


Nearfields don't "eliminate" the room, they simply alter the balance between direct and reflected sound.

L.E.D.E. is generally a studio design concept I agree with. However, most home studios are not acoustically designed and often are in small bedrooms where the flutter echo and bass resonances between untreated walls are not always your friend. It all really depends upon the sound of the room. It is not desirable to stimulate the room resonances of a bad room. Once you stimulate the room resonances, the acoutics of the room play an equally important part in the monitor system as the speakers and there's no point in paying attention to one and not the other.



Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Mar 08 said:


> So you're going to get sound bouncing around anyway; the difference with wide-dispersion speakers is that what's bouncing around is better. Plus the sound doesn't go to hell as soon as you move your head a quarter of an inch. I agree that you have to tweak the room to sound good for where you mix, though.
> 
> This is one of my favorite cocktail party subjects, synergy - I've done a lot of reading about it over the years and know almost enough to be dangerous.



So have I Nick. I think if we were to argue long enough we'd probably be close 100% in agreement. There is a lot of interaction going on in acoustics. That's all I was pointing out. And my comment was misconstrued.


----------



## jamriding (Mar 8, 2006)

Genelec 1029a speakers here.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 8, 2006)

I'm not trying to be a weenie, Synergy, but you've said a couple things that I just can't agree with.



> If your speaker spread the hi freq around with a waveguide they might be bouncing around the room in ways you don't want (and require acoustic treatment). There are certainly trade-offs here.





> most home studios are not acoustically designed and often are in small bedrooms where the flutter echo and bass resonances between untreated walls are not always your friend. It all really depends upon the sound of the room. It is not desirable to stimulate the room resonances of a bad room.



The only flutter echoes you can possibly get from speakers travel from front to back (or v.v.), and you can break those up very easily. That's with speakers that have either wide or narrow dispersion. If you're playing instruments in the room, sure, but speakers aren't going to excite flutter echoes.

And you're going to excite room resonances with a loud enough signal (such as the ones we monitor) whether or not you have waveguides.

Bass is a separate issue.

My point is that good speakers are not a trade-off. All things being equal, I'll take the speakers with wide dispersion every time, regardless of how fucked up the room is. Better is better.


----------



## synergy543 (Mar 8, 2006)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Mar 08 said:


> I'm not trying to be a weenie, Synergy, but you've said a couple things that I just can't agree with.



Nick, how can I win? You're the editor. The competition is unfair.:wink: 
I just had to rewrite an entire aticle and I vow never to write another again.



Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Mar 08 said:


> > If your speaker spread the hi freq around with a waveguide they might be bouncing around the room in ways you don't want (and require acoustic treatment). There are certainly trade-offs here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It certainly depends upon how loud you play and what bangs your drum. To imply tht sound only travels front to back is a bit naive even for an editor to say. Wouldn't you agree?



Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Mar 08 said:


> And you're going to excite room resonances with a loud enough signal (such as the ones we monitor) whether or not you have waveguides.


Yes, now you're making sense.



Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Mar 08 said:


> Bass is a separate issue.


We're in agreement now.



Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Mar 08 said:


> My point is that good speakers are not a trade-off. All things being equal, I'll take the speakers with wide dispersion every time, regardless of how up the room is. Better is better.


I would choose wide dispersion too but then I'd carefully consider where my reflections are coming from and not all of the reflective areas (such as those with very close time-frame to the direct sound ) are desirable. If you don't address the room acoustics, the $35,000 Lipinski's are gonna make a nice flower stand and that's about it. They won't sound significantly better than little $5,000 Adams.

btw, while we're throwing out big names and mud slinging, my BWW 525iT is bigger than yours! :lol:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 8, 2006)

> It certainly depends upon how loud you play and what bangs your drum. To imply tht sound only travels front to back is a bit naive even for an editor to say. Wouldn't you agree?



Now we're getting to the point.

Sound travels in all directions, but it's impossible for speakers to create flutter echoes off the side walls. That's why I say that your waveguide isn't going to create flutter echoes.

That's number two. Number one is that the conventional wisdom is all wrong. Most people believe that you don't want reflections off the side walls, because they're going to combine with the "direct" sound from the speakers (which once again aren't heard as the direct sound, they're heard as the first reflection) and comb-filter. You'll hear people recommend putting a mirror up on the side; if you can see the speaker in the reflection, you should slap some foam up there. The exception is if the walls are over roughly 25' away so that the bounce-back is outside the Haas integration zone (i.e. sounds greater than 50ms apart are heard as discrete echoes rather than a single comb-filtered sound). 

That's wrong. The only way you'll hear comb-filtering is if the sounds come from the same angle - i.e. from front to back, which is why it's good to put absorbent material at the front of the room. Because the sounds come from a different angle, the ear is fully capable of separating them. Nobody has every heard comb-filtering caused by sounds bouncing off the side walls.

If you want to read a much better explanation of this, check out www.Moultonlabs.com.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 8, 2006)

> It certainly depends upon how loud you play and what bangs your drum. To imply tht sound only travels front to back is a bit naive even for an editor to say. Wouldn't you agree?



Now we're getting to the point.

Sound travels in all directions, but it's impossible for speakers to create flutter echoes off the side walls. That's why I say that your waveguide isn't going to create flutter echoes.

That's number two. Number one is that the conventional wisdom is all wrong. Most people believe that you don't want reflections off the side walls, because they're going to combine with the "direct" sound from the speakers (which once again aren't heard as the direct sound, they're heard as the first reflection) and comb-filter. You'll hear people recommend putting a mirror up on the side; if you can see the speaker in the reflection, you should slap some foam up there. The exception is if the walls are over roughly 25' away so that the bounce-back is outside the Haas integration zone (i.e. sounds greater than 50ms apart are heard as discrete echoes rather than a single comb-filtered sound). 

That's wrong. The only way you'll hear comb-filtering is if the sounds come from the same angle - i.e. from front to back, which is why it's good to put absorbent material at the front of the room. Because the sounds off the side walls come from a different angle, the ear is fully capable of separating them. Nobody has every heard comb-filtering caused by sounds bouncing off the side walls.

Not only that, the sound bouncing off the side walls actually helps you define the image coming from the speakers. It's bizarre, but that's how the ear works. A microphone will "hear" comb-filtering; the ear won't. We can localize sounds in the most ringy rooms all day long for that reason, regardless of the direction they're coming from.

So it's actually good to have hard, flat side walls. I don't, due to my room, but it is a good design.

If you want to read a much better explanation of this, check out www.Moultonlabs.com.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 8, 2006)

> If you're playing instruments in the room, sure, but speakers aren't going to excite flutter echoes.



I should have added "from the sides," of course. Speakers aren't going to excite flutter echoes from the sides.


----------



## synergy543 (Mar 8, 2006)

Nick, you're response is creating flutter echo posts. You sound flustered. :wink: 

Happens to me when I argue the wrong point too sometimes.:lol: 

I think I'll just agree to disagree with your assertion that monitors can't stimulate flutter echo between side walls. That's too blanket a statement for me to agree with. High frequency sound will reflect off of any hard surface in a similar manner to light. So it all depends upon how you're reflecting it. I don't know about your studio but I can go to the far corners of mine and still hear a surprising amount of high frequency content. And I have a fairly large control room (17 x 26 x 12) so even though my speakers are aimed at the mixing position, there's still a fair amount of sound bouncing around the room to get those high frequencies nice and cleanly all the way to the far corners. The reflections in my control room are nice and diffuse.

And reflections can be good as you say (although I still can't figure out why music can sound so damn good in my car!)..... but they can equally be bad.

I had the fortunate experience of "misfortune" at one time that landed me in a much smaller studio with narrow side walls and I'll tell you that unfortunate encounter was an enlightening and humbling experience. The room soundò7ú   3WE7û   3Uþ7û   3Uÿ7û   3W`7û   3Wa7û   3WŠ7û   3W‹7û   3WŒ7û   3W7û   3WŽ7û   3W7û   3W7û   3W‘7û   3W’7û   3W“7û   3W”7û   3W•7û   3W–7û   3W—7û   3W˜7û   3W™7û   3Wš7û   3W›7û   3Wœ7û   3W7û   3Wž7û   3WŸ7û   3W 7û   3W¡7û   3W¢7û   3W£7û   3W¤7û   3W¥7û   3W¦7û   3W§7û   3W¨7û   3W©7û   3Wª7û   3W«7û   3W¬7û   3W­7û   3W®7û   3W¯7û   3W°7û   3W±7û   3W²7û   3W³7û   3W´7û   3Wµ7û   3W¶7û   3W·7û   3W¸7û   3W¹7û   3Wº7û   3W»7û   3W¼7û   3W½7û   3W¾7û   3W¿7û   3WÀ7û   3WÁ7û   3WÂ7û   3WÃ7û   3WÄ7û   3WÅ7û   3WÆ


----------



## ComposerDude (Mar 9, 2006)

Perhaps part of Nick's point (and by extension, Dave Moulton's) is that binaural hearing localizes sidewall reflections. Not just "an ear is better than a microphone" but "two spaced ears are better than one microphone" due to the ear-brain processing.

However it would seem that console reflectance must still be avoided because the reflected sound would be impinging on your ears at about the same angle as the direct sound from the speakers, relative to your centerline. And that would be a place for the "I can see the speakers in the mirror" technique.

Alas, adding Sonex to the console obscures the controls, so "vertically-in-front-of-you" reflections force us into moving the speakers...

(On the other hand, adding Thonex to the console, that's all good.)


----------



## synergy543 (Mar 9, 2006)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Mar 09 said:


> Sorry Syn, but your speakers were not causing flutter echoes off your side walls. And the reflections off the side walls in that narrow studio were not what was causing that room to sound like - not that I have any doubt that it did.


So you deny that rooms have side axis resonance? And a loud percussive sound from a speaker won't trigger room resonance?

Come on Nick, you're a smart guy. Then why can I hear room resonances from convolutions?
Take any convolution into an FFT and you can "see" the E/R resonance.
Science and Faith can co-exist peacefully Nick. I can accept your premise if you acknowledge the basic science as well. :wink:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 9, 2006)

I don't deny that rooms have resonances; I deny that it's physically possible for a speaker to trigger slap echoes laterally. The dispersion is simply not wide enough. If you clap, yes. If you play a recording of a clap, no.


----------



## José Herring (Mar 9, 2006)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Mar 09 said:


> If you clap, yes. If you play a recording of a clap, no.



That's a good idea. I'll try it out and report back.

Jose


----------



## synergy543 (Mar 9, 2006)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Mar 09 said:


> I don't deny that rooms have resonances; I deny that it's physically possible for a speaker to trigger slap echoes laterally. The dispersion is simply not wide enough. If you clap, yes. If you play a recording of a clap, no.



Interesting point. 

OK, I concede there certainly could be a difference between such two sources. And this is exactly because the high frequencies ARE directional. Which is what I was saying in the beginning. So we've come around full circle chasing each others tails!

I think we agree on the physics but we're arguing symantecs. I grant you, the editor, the last word.

TouchÃ©, go ahead and make your strike. I'm ready.... my grammer's terrible. I know. :shock:


----------



## José Herring (Mar 9, 2006)

Okay I did a test, Scientifically of course and the result was conclusive.

First I recorded a clap and of course the live clap had tons of slap back in my room which is untreated and which doubles as my living room at night. That test was not very telling because the mic recorded the original slap back reflections and printed it on the track so that was a waste.


But, I then set the metronome click to play and set the playback volume at around the normal listening level. The beep was clean of course as it's electronically genereated. I walked around the room and just listened.

Conclusion. There are various amounts of refelctions going around the room pretty unevenly. Between the original signal and the first refection there's about 50ml delay. The refections sound like crap bouncing off the the walls and ceiling unevenly. Definately noticable and I personally can't find anything usefull in them.

After writing this I'm realizing that maybe I don't know what the heck you guys are talking about anyway.

Jose


----------



## José Herring (Mar 9, 2006)

I did the test again a found different refections coming off my window. Yet another off the back wall and another off the ceiling. The sound is a ricoche sound. Is that what you guys mean by slap back?

Jose


----------



## synergy543 (Mar 9, 2006)

Jose, the main goal (IMO) is to have some diffuse reflections (like smooth short reverb) but not strong distinctive echoes and certainly not ones that are very close in time to the direct sound from the speakers to your ear. For example, if you have a low ceiling, you might want to eliminate that source of reflection so it doesn't "smear" the direct sound by arriving within an extremely close time period (just a few ms) so that it could cause phase cancellations and comb filtering. 

I prefer to avoid ping-pong echoes bouncing between any two parallel surfaces although Nick points out that lateral reflections are not likely to be as prominent as front-rear reflections. The sound of clapping your hands will be very omni-directional whereas even with waveguides on your monitors they will tend to be much more directional (at high freqs) so they are less likely to stimulate the lateral room resonaces to the same degree they would trigger front-back reflections. However, supposing you have a window on one wall, if you place a bookshelf on the opposite side, you can scatter the reflections (and thus avoid the richochet ping pong sound you hear).

I believe Nick pointed out it is often preferable to deaden the front-end of your room and keep the back alive (Called L.E.D.E. Live-End, Dead-End an acoustic design concept). This keeps reflections but makes sure they arrive at a later time period than the direct sound from the speakers. You want to maintain a balance though, as deadening the room completely makes an anechoic chamber; not a good control room.

Acoustics in the past often involved a lot of black magic and voodoo (remember Hindley rooms?) but the physics of sound reflections is very measurable and definable with todays tools. And the way sound reflects in your room will affect the sound as much as your speakers so its worth paying attention to. Well, Nick was supposed to get the last word so maybe he'll have something to add.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 9, 2006)

No, I insist, you get the last word.


----------



## synergy543 (Mar 9, 2006)

:mrgreen:


----------

