# Recommend smallish monitors with sub?



## Echoes in the Attic (Mar 28, 2013)

I've had the same pair of yorkville YSMP1 (6.5 inch) monitors for some time, however my speakers are always very nearfield and against a wall in a fairly small room so I'd like to downsize to something smaller, maybe 4 or 5 inch, with a sub.

Any recommendations on a good combination for this kind of setup?

thanks


----------



## muk (Mar 28, 2013)

You could have a look at the Blue Sky eXo2's. They come with an integrated sub and got a lot of praise when they came out. Some people over at VSL tend to recommend Blue Sky, too.
I have them for some time now and I am very happy with the sound. Had one horrible experience when it came to a smaller reparation (they fixed it finally, but it took a lot of time and many calls/mails on my part), but that might be better in the U.S.


----------



## rayinstirling (Mar 28, 2013)

<--------------------------


----------



## Blakus (Mar 28, 2013)

+1 rayinstirling!
I can't recommend BlueSky Mediadesk 2.1 enough. Totally amazing.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 28, 2013)

^
|

(I have the original and larger System One.)


----------



## Dan Mott (Mar 28, 2013)

How big is your room?


----------



## Martin Brannigan (Mar 30, 2013)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Mar 28 said:


> ^
> |
> 
> (I have the original and larger System One.)



+1. And I, too, have the original and larger System One.


----------



## germancomponist (Mar 30, 2013)

I never ever would use a system with a sub ... .


----------



## rayinstirling (Mar 30, 2013)

germancomponist @ Sat Mar 30 said:


> I never ever would use a system with a sub ... .


Why?


----------



## Synesthesia (Mar 30, 2013)

I like the Genelec 8020 plus sub, sound nice and clear, I use the Dynaudio BM5a with the sub.

Its good to have a sub available so you can switch it in and out to check whats happening in the very low end. It has to be set up correctly though otherwise you might end up with bass light/heavy mixes..


----------



## germancomponist (Mar 30, 2013)

rayinstirling @ Sat Mar 30 said:


> germancomponist @ Sat Mar 30 said:
> 
> 
> > I never ever would use a system with a sub ... .
> ...



A sub can fool you very quickly. 

It is much better to have a good/best treated room and a good main speakers system. At least that is my personal experience. I do not say that a system with a sub cannot sound very good, but I do not trust him.. .


----------



## rayinstirling (Mar 30, 2013)

germancomponist @ Sat Mar 30 said:


> rayinstirling @ Sat Mar 30 said:
> 
> 
> > germancomponist @ Sat Mar 30 said:
> ...


Well I use only near field monitoring in a relatively small room. I'm convinced ported cabinets will be less accurate. I used many CD tracks of various genre to determine the most appropriate attenuation level on the sub to lessen the chances of poorly balanced frequency response.
I doubt I'll be converted to using anything else in my personal circumstances.


----------



## germancomponist (Mar 30, 2013)

rayinstirling @ Sat Mar 30 said:


> . .


Well I use only near field monitoring in a relatively small room. I'm convinced ported cabinets will be less accurate. I used many CD tracks of various genre to determine the most appropriate attenuation level on the sub to lessen the chances of poorly balanced frequency response.
I doubt I'll be converted to using anything else in my personal circumstances.[/quote]

Sure, you're doing the best out of your situation (small room ...). Absolutely ok! 

o-[][]-o


----------



## Synesthesia (Mar 30, 2013)

OF course, in a bad room you probably won't need a sub, it will be nice and boomy anyway! (j/k)


----------



## germancomponist (Mar 30, 2013)

Synesthesia @ Sat Mar 30 said:


> OF course, in a bad room you probably won't need a sub, it will be nice and boomy anyway! (j/k)



There's the difference if I hear in a treated studio or in a small room at home... . One can not really compare. Two completely different situations.


----------



## rayinstirling (Mar 30, 2013)

Synesthesia @ Sat Mar 30 said:


> OF course, in a bad room you probably won't need a sub, it will be nice and boomy anyway! (j/k)


Agreed, and what makes me laugh quite often is seeing a pic of someone's room where the monitors seem to be an afterthought. Tucked in corners behind a ton of modules, screens etc. as if being the least important hardware in the place.


----------



## germancomponist (Mar 30, 2013)

rayinstirling @ Sat Mar 30 said:


> Synesthesia @ Sat Mar 30 said:
> 
> 
> > OF course, in a bad room you probably won't need a sub, it will be nice and boomy anyway! (j/k)
> ...



+1

I can tell you! Some month ago I installed some hardware, a table, a PC for internet a.s.o. in my studio and the sound had changed. I rebuilt it in a minute after I noticed it.


----------



## Blakus (Mar 30, 2013)

germancomponist @ Sun Mar 31 said:


> I never ever would use a system with a sub ... .


Have you ever heard a set of the BlueSky's? I used to say the same thing, but these certainly changed my mind at least :D


----------



## germancomponist (Mar 30, 2013)

Blakus @ Sat Mar 30 said:


> germancomponist @ Sun Mar 31 said:
> 
> 
> > I never ever would use a system with a sub ... .
> ...



No, I have not. I will listen to when I next do a visit in cologne, musicstore... . But I know that this systems can sound very good, as I said before.

Blakus,

last year we built my new studio. After the big parts were done, we tested it only with this little Yamaha NS 10 speakers and I was blown away from the sound in this room! I have learned that the room is the most important thing..... .


----------



## guydoingmusic (Mar 30, 2013)

True the room is VERY important. But for those of us with less than perfect rooms... ----> sub.


----------



## Echoes in the Attic (Apr 1, 2013)

Oops, hadn't checked the thread in a few days.

To answer a question, my room is not set up for anything special. I'm a hobbiest. Me setup is in the same area as a rec/living room, not a huge space. However there are huge fabric curtains all along one wall in front of a big window, plus very absorptive couches! So it's very small (I'd say about 12 x 9 feet maybe). The speakers are right up against the wall, as is usually the case with my setups. One speaker is right in the corner. This won't always be the case of course but they will likely always be agaisnt a wall.

The BlueSky Mediadesk 2.1 isn't available anymore it looks like but the mkII 5.1 is a bit out of my price range. I'm coming from $500 speaker pair and I would spend more but not over $1000. If I could get similar priced ones, that would be great, but I'm prepared to go up to a grand.

The BlueSky eXo2 look like they have good reviews and cheap. They seem similar to the old Mediadesk. I checked the connections, do these things just use regular stereo speaker wire? It's been a while since I've used speaker monitors without XLR or 1/4 inch inputs. And these are just 3 inch mids eh?


----------



## Mike Brosnan (Apr 1, 2013)

Another very happy BlueSky user here. 
I've had their Pro Desk 2.1 system for some years now and can't imagine ever wanting to replace them. Excellent imaging and definition and more than enough power for my 4m x 5m treated room. And my mixes translate well.
Also, for an untreated room such as yours, it's my personal belief (FWIW) that unported monitors such as BlueSky's will perform significantly better than ported...
As you mention, the Media & Pro Desk systems are discontinued but it should be possible to find them used at a reasonable price.
Good luck. Mike


----------



## guydoingmusic (Apr 1, 2013)

btw... I am using the Dynaudio Bm5a's with sub as well. Works fantastic for me.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 1, 2013)

Ray said and even Gunther agreed:



> I'm convinced ported cabinets will be less accurate.



Right, but of course ports and subs are two different questions. The Blue Sky System One (6" 2-way acoustic suspension - meaning no ports) sats + 12" sub is very accurate, but not in the way that, say, old Tannoys are, i.e. it's still pleasant to listen to. And you certainly can trust it, Gunther, because it doesn't have the usual disjointed effect that most systems with subs have.

However - and I've posted all this here before - I still say that even though they're not necessarily as accurate, there's no substitute for large monitors (nor is there a substitute for having more than one pair of monitors for reference). There's something about the bass on my UREI 809As that's overwhelmingly right, and you don't get that on any small speakers I've ever heard.

My theory is that it has to do with the acoustic compression in a small box. You hear all the frequencies, and they may even be flat, but it's just not the same thing. They all sound like you're listening to a box.

And I say that knowing full well that the 809As have flaws.

By the way, it's time for Gunther to stop being wrong about "treated" rooms.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 1, 2013)

Paul, boominess in rooms is usually about an octave higher than most subs. It's maybe in the 200-400 mudrangs, and subs cross over at 120 or below.


----------



## wst3 (Apr 1, 2013)

uh-oh, Nick and I agree on something... no, this isn't an April Fool either...

The 809s are not perfect, the old Tannoys and Altecs weren't either. But they have this attitude thing going - best way I can describe them. They are accurate, and they are fun to listen to.

I trust my 809s to a point - I still want to hear a mix on other monitors. I'm anxiously awaiting these Fulcrum Audio / Presonus monitors - I really want to hear a pair, cause I think they'll be great, based on the rest of Fulcrum's stuff.

Blue Sky and Adam and DynAudio - there are lots of great loudspeakers out there!


----------



## Dan Mott (Apr 1, 2013)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Apr 02 said:


> Ray said and even Gunther agreed:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I can agree with this. Small speakers do sound like a box. They can still be good, but compared to a lot of the bigger speakers I have heard, the bigger ones are much less boxy and more musical.

I was in a store and I listened to many different speakers and all the smaller ones had the same boxy sound, but all the bigger models didn't and they sounded less compressed. To my ears at least.


----------



## Dan Mott (Apr 1, 2013)

for those of you that are using a sub, I suggest you measure your room with REW - Room EQ Wizard and see what's really going on :D.

I used a sub and when I set it up I finally got my bass back and it was great, but when I measured my response I had a huge peak at 46Hz, drowning out any of the important lowend frequencies 60/70/100/200Hz. So the bass I was hearing wasn't what I thought it was, so I got rid of the sub and now I do not have much lowend because I use small speakers, but it was better than hearing 46Hz. Was very tiring on the ears. I even placed my sub in different spots, it was a nightmare trying to get a good response, I basically had to hipass my master out to about 48Hz or so which helped, but not for general listening. Also, I do have treatment in my room, but my room is a room and I really do not want a shit load of panels on my walls and ceiling. I'd have to cover my whole room with really thick traps. Can't be bothered with all that. 

I am planning to get a new pair for general listening. My PMCs sound horrible in my room. They do not even have EQ controls on the back which I think it's really important for any bedroom listener to have. I will never buy a speaker without those controls again.


----------



## Echoes in the Attic (Apr 2, 2013)

Ok so I looked into the Bluesky products. Looks like currently the exo2 and prodesk are in production. Mediadesk isn't but is still available some places.

So in order of satellite speaker size:
exo2 - 3"
mediadesk - 4"
Prodesk - 5"

Correct?

Prodesk are out of my price range, swetwater has them for $1800
exo2 are only $500 but 3" seems a bit small.

Mediadesk look like a decent in between at 4". Most places aren't carrying them though. I've seen them for $860: http://www.economik.com/blue-sky/mediadesk-2-1/
What are the going price for these?

cheers


----------



## rayinstirling (Apr 2, 2013)

You won't be disappointed if you get them.


----------



## Echoes in the Attic (Apr 3, 2013)

rayinstirling @ Tue Apr 02 said:


> You won't be disappointed if you get them.



If I get which ones?


----------



## germancomponist (Apr 3, 2013)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Apr 02 said:


> By the way, it's time for Gunther to stop being wrong about "treated" rooms.



Oh, I am right!   o-[][]-o o=<


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 3, 2013)

It's the beer.

Is there such a thing as Bieridee (sort of like eine Schnapsidee, which I just learned and really love!)?


----------



## guydoingmusic (Apr 3, 2013)

germancomponist @ Wed Apr 03 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Apr 02 said:
> 
> 
> > By the way, it's time for Gunther to stop being wrong about "treated" rooms.
> ...



Not if you listen to everything around 160db. The room is definitely not a factor!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 3, 2013)

Brad, Gunther likes to tell people to buy shitty speakers and "treat the room." 

This comes up every time someone asks what speakers to buy.


----------



## XT26 (Apr 4, 2013)

Can I ask a silly question, why are ported cabs considered less accurate?


----------



## Dan Mott (Apr 4, 2013)

XT26 @ Thu Apr 04 said:


> Can I ask a silly question, why are ported cabs considered less accurate?



deleted.


----------



## XT26 (Apr 4, 2013)

germancomponist @ Sun Mar 31 said:


> rayinstirling @ Sat Mar 30 said:
> 
> 
> > . .
> ...





Hi Dan Jay, this was the quote I was referring to, I hadn't heard that before so I thought I'd ask what the reasoning was behind it.


----------



## Dan Mott (Apr 4, 2013)

XT26 @ Thu Apr 04 said:


> germancomponist @ Sun Mar 31 said:
> 
> 
> > rayinstirling @ Sat Mar 30 said:
> ...




Haha. Oh dear.... FACEPALM

It's the other way around. For some reason I saw NON PORTED. 

Sealed speakers are more accurate because they have a faster transient response and less distortion.

I actually have never heard a sealed nearfield monitor. I really want to though.


----------



## XT26 (Apr 4, 2013)

thanks for clearing that up  

I'm contemplating the move to 5.1 as my next film will require it so I either mix it somewhere else or bite the bullet and get a full 5,1 system. Been looking at the Quested near fields or Adams


----------



## rayinstirling (Apr 4, 2013)

XT26 @ Thu Apr 04 said:


> Can I ask a silly question, why are ported cabs considered less accurate?


http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/t ... orted.html


----------



## jamwerks (Apr 4, 2013)

There's also a Focal 2.1 system with a small footprint.

Since cinemas, and a lot of privet homes (television, dvd) have subs, its good to be able to mix for them (imo).


----------



## mark812 (Apr 4, 2013)




----------



## rayinstirling (Apr 4, 2013)

mark812 @ Thu Apr 04 said:


>


That's one big port :lol: 
A serious amount of tuneless bass


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 4, 2013)

Bear in mind that the question of whether a given speaker is more accurate than another is independent of whether it has a port.

All things being equal, a sealed design is better, but all things aren't equal.


----------



## germancomponist (Apr 4, 2013)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Apr 04 said:


> Brad, Gunther likes to tell people to buy shitty speakers and "treat the room."
> 
> This comes up every time someone asks what speakers to buy.



Ha ha, great joke! 

I like to tell people to treat the room and then buy best speakers. 

What I said is: Not so good speakers can sound better in a well treated room than vise versa. Or in other words: The best speakers can sound horrible in a bad room... !

And yeah, this is the truth! o-[][]-o


----------



## wst3 (Apr 4, 2013)

Gunther is correct on the importance of room treatment. I would have to disagree on the part about shitty loudspeakers though - garbage out = garbage in applies here (and yes, I reversed it on purpose<G>!)

The tricky part is matching the loudspeakers to the room - especially if you have not applied corrective treatments first.

Like so many things, it's an exercise in compromise!


----------



## PMortise (Apr 4, 2013)

wst3 @ Thu Apr 04 said:


> ...The tricky part is matching the loudspeakers to the room - especially if you have not applied corrective treatments first...


Is there a "For Dummies" on this?


----------



## jlb (Apr 4, 2013)

Blue Sky

http://abluesky.com/


----------



## PMortise (Apr 4, 2013)

Thanks, but I meant one that gives more "how to" info. The thing on Blue Sky's site is really just a selling tool.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 4, 2013)

PMortise, the problem with "For Dummies" acoustics information is that it promulgates the conventional wisdom, which actually isn't wise. Every book you see will tell you to muffle the side walls where you could see the speakers in an imaginary mirror, and that's just wrong.

This is another can of worms we've debated here before.

Here's an article by my friend Dave Moulton that explains it very well. Bottom line, soak up the reverb at the front of the room, leave the side walls hard and flat, add bass trapping, diffusion at the rear if you need it...and actually it's not a bad idea to muffle reflections overhead too, but that's less important.

http://www.moultonlabs.com/more/making_ ... ound_good/


----------



## rayinstirling (Apr 4, 2013)

Here is the article that sold me on the system I use.
My satellites are more than 0.5 mtr from both rear wall and side walls. In fact I've moved them forward and back while checking the openness of the sound until I was satisfied I couldn't better it. Are there better solutions for my environment? Don't know and don't particularly care. I'm happy.

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jan05/a ... luesky.htm


----------



## PMortise (Apr 5, 2013)

Thanks for the articles, Nick & Ray. They help.

"For Dummies" = FACEPALM.

I definitely don't want to re-open a can of worms here, but like the OP I have a small room. Knowing that there is no real cure, I'm always on the lookout for ways to mitigate that. So, if there actually _is_ a comprehensive "how-to-match-loudspeakers-to-your-room", I certainly wouldn't mind giving it a go.


----------



## wst3 (Apr 5, 2013)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Apr 04 said:


> PMortise, the problem with "For Dummies" acoustics information is that it promulgates the conventional wisdom, which actually isn't wise.



Spot on! The mass of misinformation about small, critical listening spaces would probably clog a black hole! 

The problem has it's root in the fact that even the experts (a) don't agree, (b) get great results with their specific approaches, and (c) are constantly evolving their design strategies!



Nick Batzdorf said:


> Every book you see will tell you to muffle the side walls where you could see the speakers in an imaginary mirror, and that's just wrong.



Nick, Nick, Nick... it isn't "just wrong", but it certainly can be wrong. And it isn't every book, but I'll bet it is darned near every forum post, except yours of course!

The approach outlined is based, at least a little bit, on the idea of LEDE(tm) - Live End Dead End room design. And it can work. It has worked.



Nick Batzdorf said:


> Here's an article by my friend Dave Moulton that explains it very well.



Nick, Nick, Nick...

Dave Moulton is among the brightest, and most pragmatic designers of studios and loudspeaker systems out there, and he is a *BRILLIANT *writer. But the article you refer to was written by Manny LaCarrubba, his partner in crime. It is based on ideas that Dave came up with, either by himself or with Manny, but Manny wrote the article... credit where credit is due and all that.



Nick Batzdorf said:


> Bottom line, soak up the reverb at the front of the room, leave the side walls hard and flat, add bass trapping, diffusion at the rear if you need it...and actually it's not a bad idea to muffle reflections overhead too, but that's less important.



This is where I get concerned... this advise ONLY holds up with loudspeakers that meet the criteria outlined in the article. You need very wide horizontal coverage, and off-axis response needs to be uniform, it can fall of, but it must remain uniform across the spectrum. And the cross-overs??? Don't ask about cross-overs!

If you are using the typical, purchased at a big box music store loudspeakers then leaving the side walls hard and flat probably won't work for you.

Does this mean we should all give up and throw in the towel and figure it can't be done? Not at all. What it means is that you need to dig a little deeper, and UNDERSTAND why Dave and Manny opt for the loudspeaker design, and the resulting room design that they like so much. Hint - it has to do with the Haas effect.

Then you need to dig a little deeper and UNDERSTAND why Chips Davis and Russ Berger build rooms based on the LEDE(tm) approach. And dig deeper and understand why Tom Hidley designs rooms the way he does. The Haas effect plays a big role here as well, but note that in general these folks design the room and then design the loudspeakers to the room - well, Mr. Hidley has used both approaches.

Please note that while I am grossly oversimplifying, the Haas effect is a factor in all these designs - how the ear integrates sound is the key, not loudspeakers, not room geometries, but the ear-brain connection.

If you can not afford to hire an acoustician to help you design your room - and very few can - then you have to be prepared to do some self study, and some experimentation. This is why, when I'm not being a complete jerk, I urge people to buy loudspeaker stands and experiment a LOT with placement of the loudspeakers with respect to room boundaries, and their ears with respect to the loudspeakers and the boundaries. There are shortcuts, but they are equivalent to the 'overnight' success syndrome - it took the top studio designers a lot of time to develop their shortcuts!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 5, 2013)

Bill, you're right that that's Manny's article (Manny is now Dave's partner). I just found that article on Dave's site, which is worth poking around.

Now. What you're saying about that advice only holding up for ultra-wide-dispersion loudspeakers is totally wrong. Totally!

Forget about your arguments to authority (Chip Davis, Russ Berger, the Pope....). What you're saying is wrong even if Jesus says it. 

The reason is that we need the side reflections to hear the speakers properly in the room, and if you muffle the sides you're just messing up the response of the reflections. Reflections only comb-filter with the sound from the speaker if they're coming from the same angle, which is why you soak up the excess reverb the front.

You're right that LEDE works.

And guess what?

This *is* LEDE!

Now, it's true that there are no shortcuts. The room ratios are important, and so on. And if you like a room with muffled sides and muffled this and that to "tune" it for the exact position your head is in - held in place with a clamp maybe? - then fine; we've all heard rooms that style that sound great. I prefer a more natural room, but at that level it's taste.

But if you're a composer who just wants to make his standard room workable, then all you have to do is what I posted earlier.

And I know you'd agree with me if you tried it, Bill! That's the rub: people argue with this every time it comes up, yet it happens to work really well.

Just remember that we're talking about monitoring. Recording spaces are a different subject.


----------



## rayinstirling (Apr 5, 2013)

Here we go again, and it started with someone just wanting to play with music in their spare bedroom :roll:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 5, 2013)

Every time I try to get out they pull me back in!


----------



## wst3 (Apr 5, 2013)

funny, I feel the same way...


----------



## germancomponist (Apr 5, 2013)

I only trust my ears. 

And my ears are telling me that they can hear best only in a well treated room. 

But my ears are not yours. Maybe there is a difference from human to human? 

o-[][]-o o=<


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 5, 2013)

That's never been the argument!

Come on, Gunther, at least you could say the same thing every time so I can have some fun!


----------



## germancomponist (Apr 5, 2013)

We should visit together some studios, Nick?


----------



## wst3 (Apr 5, 2013)

this really isn't the place...

Nick I have tried this approach, if you want to discuss it further we can do so off line.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 5, 2013)

Okay Gunther! Next time I'm in Siegen or you're in Los Angeles.


----------



## germancomponist (Apr 5, 2013)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Apr 05 said:


> Okay Gunther! Next time I'm in Siegen or you're in Los Angeles.



In LA I think we can visit better places than in Siegen... .


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 5, 2013)

Okay, you bring the schnaps.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 5, 2013)

Bill, you're on. Do you have my phone #?


----------

