# Studio Monitors.... what to do?



## Orchus (Jul 16, 2009)

I've been thinking for a while about what studio monitors I could buy best.
The music I make is mainly symphonic metal and filmmusic,
but I do not want to have monitors only suited for that.

I haven't got the biggest budget, €500 is the maximum for me.

There are 3 models I took into consideration:
- KRK VXT 4 (though I have been told the frequency response is too limited for film music)
- KRK Rokit 6
- ESI Near 08 Experience

What do you think about these? Or do you have any other good options I should take a look at?

Thank you!


----------



## Hal (Jul 16, 2009)

if you are on budget then for less you could get the best headphone,and have a clear accurate listening.
have you thought about that ?

other wise this would get you Maudio's
Maudio CX8
MAUDIOBX8
TANNOY REVEAL 5a
or small Genelec.


----------



## hbuus (Jul 17, 2009)

I would save up some more money and then get a pair of Dynaudio BM5A or Adam A7 depending on taste.


----------



## Orchus (Jul 17, 2009)

Hal @ Fri Jul 17 said:


> if you are on budget then for less you could get the best headphone,and have a clear accurate listening.
> have you thought about that ?



Haven't thought about that, might be a good idea... But can you actually mix well on just headphones? (good ones ofcourse)

@ hbuus, I don't think it would be wise to spend that much money on good monitors for me in this situation. I live in a student flat, and my room is not really acoustically eh.. (how to say this) justified.. It would be a waste I fear...

But maybe I should go for headphones now, and I expect to leave this room in a year or two, and then I should go look again for good monitors maybe....


----------



## Herman Witkam (Jul 17, 2009)

Orchus @ Fri Jul 17 said:


> I've been thinking for a while about what studio monitors I could buy best.
> The music I make is mainly symphonic metal and filmmusic,
> but I do not want to have monitors only suited for that.
> 
> ...



Hi Fieke,

First of all - good to see another HKU-er here (I graduated about a year ago).

I think it's hard to go wrong with any of the KRK's, especially for that budget. As far as limited frequency response: You won't get the big low-end, but none of the smaller inexpensive monitors will give you that, or if they do, they will sound like a Hi-Fi system rather than studio monitors 

Headphones are not really suitable for mixing. However, you could use them to listen to the low end that you won't be able to hear on smaller speakers. So I would recommend getting a pair of Audio Technica, AKG or Beyerdynamic monitoring headphones.

An option is to listen to the speakers and headphones at Feedback in Rotterdam (or similar stores), and then to compare the pricing with ordering them from Germany (which is mostly cheaper) www.thomann.de or www.musicstore.com


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (Jul 17, 2009)

Also try to listen to the Mackie MK5 monitors. I have them as secondary monitors and although they have more coloration than my Event PS8s with an ES1 sub, they do rather well in the lows given their size (see the photos on my music website).

If you are ever close to Soest, you can drop by and check them out in my room, with some ref CDs of yours.

All the best!

Peter


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jul 17, 2009)

Adam monitors are also great. Maybe the A5?


----------



## JohnG (Jul 17, 2009)

I'm sure everyone agrees that top-quality monitors are ideal (and top quality converters, speaker cable, and amplifier).

As an alternative for someone on a budget, however, I guess I'd rather have very, very good headphones (AKG 701s or some of the best Sennheisers) than spend money on 'ok' speakers. 

To succeed this way, however, you will have to get accustomed to the shortcomings of the headphone approach. To do that, make a mix using your very good headphones, then listen to the same mix on a top-quality system (more than one if you can get access). That should show you what's missing or wrong. Once one gets accustomed to how music "really" sounds by playing back mixes on very good monitors after mixing on headphones, it is possible to adjust one's process to take into account the idiosyncrasies of the headphones. 

It is typical that one will have a hard time managing bass / low end with headphones, but the same is true (as others have pointed out) for small, inexpensive speakers.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jul 17, 2009)

I disagree with some here. IMHO headphones are NOT suitable for mixing unless you are only going to be sending your compositions out to people who only listen on headphones. They do not give you an accurate sense of imaging under normal listening environments.
Even mediocre speakers will do a better job if you know them really well.

JBL has some new small nearfields that are inexpensive and remarkably accurate for the money, app. $400 a pair. 

JBL LSR 2325P 5"


----------



## Hal (Jul 17, 2009)

Herman Witkam @ Fri Jul 17 said:


> Orchus @ Fri Jul 17 said:
> 
> 
> > I've been thinking for a while about what studio monitors I could buy best.
> ...


i am sorry but they are more then suitable..and mixing on a high end Headphones monitors is far better then mixing on *average speakers* in *untreated room* in a student flat where most probably *putting the sound up isnt much of an option anyway.*
so for me its a no brainer and almost sounds like the "only" option
then when she moves and go somwhere else and get more money and better equipmenet she could get whatever she wants.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jul 17, 2009)

Hal @ Fri Jul 17 said:


> Herman Witkam @ Fri Jul 17 said:
> 
> 
> > Orchus @ Fri Jul 17 said:
> ...



I am afraid we are going to simply have to agree to disagree here. The good thing about mixing on nearfields (not recording) is that the room does not come into play that much because you are, well, near.

As for the speakers, it is to a great degree a matter of how well you know them. One of the best engineers I ever worked with used a pair of speakers that no other engineer I know had a good word to say about, but he knew them so well that his mixes translated beautifully.


----------



## Frederick Russ (Jul 17, 2009)

For the intended purpose and not just audiophile listening, I'm going to have to go with Jay on this one. (Let's not make this a habit!) 

I'll be the first to say that I love listening to mixes through headphones to catch detail and such. I would never try sending a mix to a client however without first hearing the mix on a relatively good set of monitors. For the price range, the JBL LSR 2325P with room correction technology would be ideal to have your mix to better translate how you're hearing it to the real world. In the order of priority I think monitors cannot be overlooked first. If after getting the monitors you want to invest in a good pair of cans for late night mixing and checking detail, save up and get yourself the higher end line of Sennheiser or AKG - but first things first imo.


----------



## synthetic (Jul 17, 2009)

Spend as much as you possibly can on monitors! It's a painful check to write, but so worth it. Arguably the most important part of your studio. 

However, budget some for room treatment as well. Better to have average monitors in a treated room than great ones with bare walls. You can build your own wall panels for not much money (703 or 705 fiberglas).


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 17, 2009)

" think it's hard to go wrong with any of the KRK's, especially for that budget."

The KRK Rockits or whatever they're called aren't very good. But I really like their V8s, in fact I did a powered NFM shoot-out a few years ago (like probably ten years ago!) when I was at Recording magazine, and we - I and the two engineers I recruited - all thought the V8 was the best speaker of the bunch for working on. It wasn't the best-sounding one, but we felt it was the most honest.

And it almost cost me my job when I reported this, but the then-current JBL monitor, the LSR 28p, had some serious upper bass mud problems. I hope the updated 2325p model with its room correction is better.

Like Jay, I wouldn't be able to mix very well on headphones. However, this new plug-in may change that:

http://www.112db.com/redline/monitor/


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 17, 2009)

The first thing is accustic treatment, than the monitors! Think about it!

Best,

Gunther


----------



## Rob Elliott (Jul 17, 2009)

I have had the JBL LSR 28p for 6 years - rugged, room correction (as stated), decent flat response, etc. 

Bite the bullet - in 6 months you will forget about the additional costs - but STILL be living with the speakers (loving or hating them).

I have actually thought of late of 'upgrading' mine. First thought - what is the BEST - given my studio acoustics and type of music produced - if money had nothing to do with the decision and then I work it back to reality - finding a compromise somewhere. I know I will be 2-3 levels higher than I can afford - but happy in the long run (for another 6-10 years.)


Just my $.02


Rob


----------



## PolarBear (Jul 17, 2009)

I've been through the headphone approach, and it doesn't do your mixes really good if you're not knowing what should be there from proper monitors beforehand. Headphones are a great way to check what you did with monitors, but not vice versa. So yes, I'd get a used pair of monitors (studio condition will save you a few bucks)... you should like them though and compare a few to not shoot in the dark there. It's a delicate choice that will affect *all* your work.


----------



## Jack Weaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Hey Orchus,

I guess you're getting your money's worth regarding your original question.

My perspective of doing things in order:

- Determine the best mixing position in your room.
- Research what it takes to improve the acoustics of your control room (within budget)
- Choose from the very large number of available studio monitors (many, many are good enough once you learn them)
- Learn their response in your room via doing mixes and playing these mixes in other rooms
- then buy some headphones and learn how they relate to your monitors

.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 17, 2009)

"The first thing is accustic treatment, than the monitors! Think about it!"

I have, many times, and frankly I disagree. As long as the room isn't an absolute disaster - and it doesn't take official treatment to change that - I'll take good speakers in that room eons before crap speakers in an ideal room. Any time, any day. 100%.

Obviously the room is very important - I would never argue that! - but you can do way more damage than good with half-cocked "room treatment." Slapping a couple of pieces of foam up on the sides will quickly ruin any room, for example.

Get a good pair of monitors. If your room is too live, start by sticking some *broadband* absorbent stuff up *behind your speakers.*


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 17, 2009)

Oops, 

the best monitors can sound bad if the room`s accustic is bad. 

That`s what I have learned in my 30 years of mixing.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jul 17, 2009)

Seriously, I'm way too scared of an all-too-easy accident to use headphones regularly in the studio. Ever create an audio feedback loop by accident? One that crushes the meters of your sequencer? I did enough damage with the front row seats at AC/DC-Aerosmith in the 70s... =o >8o


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 17, 2009)

"the best monitors can sound bad if the room`s accustic is bad"

Absolutely. Acoustics are really important.

Just not more important than the speakers.


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 17, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Jul 17 said:


> "the best monitors can sound bad if the room`s accustic is bad"
> 
> Absolutely. Acoustics are really important.
> 
> Just not more important than the speakers.



Yes, you are right. Both are the same important. o/~ 

But, in a good room cheaper monitors can sound better than the best monitors in a bad room. 

0oD


----------



## Jack Weaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Experience tells me that the overarching factor in the monitoring situation is the acoustic environment of the room. 

Anecdotaly, I had a pair of Adam S2.5a's in my room. Nice speakers by most people's standards. My room was terrible acoustically. My mixes were inaccurate. 

I took great efforts to correct that situation. I sold the Adams and got Blue Sky 2.1's which are pretty normal (certainly not expensive), not exceptional by any means. Possibly two or three orders of magnitude lesser quality speakers compared to my previous Adams. My mixes now translate well between my room and others. 

So in my case it was indeed the acoustics and not the specific speakers that made the difference. YMMV.

I think there is a real reason when we read any pro audio or music magazine these days that the back pages are filled with companies that offer various acoustical supplies to improve our rooms. 
.


----------



## R. Soul (Jul 17, 2009)

IMHO if you can't afford monitors like at least Adam A7 or Dynaudio BM5A (as hbuus mentioned) then you are better off getting some highend headphones like Sennheiser HD600/650.

I have mixed at least 20 tracks on headphones alone and never have anyone mentioned that they could tell they were mixed on headphones so it can't be that bad. And I honestly believe it's pointless getting cheap monitors as they are just not accurate - unless you are willing to spend 700+ euros.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jul 17, 2009)

I would posit that the acoustics of the room play a big factor in recording in it and mixing on on room filling speakers, but less so with nearfield monitors.


----------



## ozmorphasis (Jul 17, 2009)

The anomalies in the frequency response of a less-than-perfect set of monitors are WAY milder than the anomalies in an untreated room. Just look at the graphs for a set of $400 monitors, and then look at the room analysis for an untreated small control room(any). The difference is staggering. You are right to say that you can ruin a room quickly with incorrect treatment, but why the negative assumption about the treatment when cheap DIY solutions for broadband room treatment are all over the internet now? They don't "fix" the room, but they do squeeze about $10,000 worth of linearity out of even cheap speakers if we are going to start putting a price tag on "flatness" during monitoring.

Also, when the treatment is not there, it VERY hard to "learn" your monitoring since even 1 inch of head movement creates massive shifts in spatial relationships as well as resonances and nulls. The improvements to this, creating an Reflection-free-zone (RFZ) and broadband bass trapping, cost so little when DIY'd that it is crazy not to take care of this first.

IMHO:

1.Room (treatment AND positioning of listener/speakers)
2.Monitors
3.Headphones
4.Converters/etc

O


----------



## Hal (Jul 17, 2009)

good room bad speakers,bad room good speakers..
i think i got it right she is on budget she cant treat her room and anyway she will be leaving
and she cant get the good monitors and even if she does the room will still be untreated.

so she should treat the room,some foam? auralex may be? a couple of bass traps and absorption wont coast much and then with the money left she could buy some desktop CREATIVE speakers lol

Headphones !!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 17, 2009)

"The anomalies in the frequency response of a less-than-perfect set of monitors are WAY milder than the anomalies in an untreated room"

Of course. You can have 15dB swings in a room. But your ears/brain compensate for the room and speakers don't.

"I would posit that the acoustics of the room play a big factor in recording in it and mixing on on room filling speakers, but less so with nearfield monitors."

That's less true than one might think, Jay. You can't "eliminate the room" the way people say you can; NFMs are still affected by the room (unless it's more than about 25' x 25' x 25' so the reflections are outside the 50ms Haas integration zone).


----------



## Ashermusic (Jul 17, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Jul 17 said:


> "The anomalies in the frequency response of a less-than-perfect set of monitors are WAY milder than the anomalies in an untreated room"
> 
> Of course. You can have 15dB swings in a room. But your ears/brain compensate for the room and speakers don't.
> 
> ...



I am sure that is true Nick, but I have been mixing for several years now in an untreated, although not disasterous ,room and my mixes have translated pretty well. So I guess between knowing my speakers and my room well, I have compensated.


----------



## Freesamples (Jul 17, 2009)

Orchus @ Thu Jul 16 said:


> I haven't got the biggest budget, €500 is the maximum for me.


Tascam will be the best choice for this money...


----------



## scottbuckley (Jul 17, 2009)

Consider the Mackie MR series? After alot of deliberation & research, I settled on a pair of Mackie MR5s and I couldn't be happier.

Whatever you do, don't go ESI - attractive price maybe, but inconsistent and messy performance awaits those who enter. I used a new pair recently for a job, and Ive used the older models of the Near05s in the past - not too impressed at all.

-s


----------



## Stevie (Jul 18, 2009)

The Yamaha HS80 had very good reviews for the price. 
Piece is 245€ (Thomann). I listened to them and I really liked the sound.
But since I wanted to spend more I went for some other monitors.
But I regard the HS80 as a good starting point.


----------



## Orchus (Jul 18, 2009)

Thanks for all the replies and thinking and discussing this with/for me.
I read all the replies and it doesn't really make the choice easier at the moment, for there are so many opinions...
I've discussed this matter with some other musicians I know, 
and I've decided not to go for the headphones.
If I mix on them for a long time, I simply get myself a headache.

I'm seriously thinking about saving some more money, and just wait until I have another room which I can also treat...

But in the meanwhile the lack of a good reference how my music sounds is getting pretty annoying...

I've also listened to the Mackie MR's in a music store nearby,
and I really like the sound of them, very good in the low frequencies,
but I'm afraid the punch will eventually also tire my ears...
Next to that I also really liked the sound of the VXT's, I really did prefer them over the Rokits... and for the reference for the very low sounds, I could always go and take a listen at the studios available at my school... (they are equipped with good monitors)

Conclusion... still in doubt


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 18, 2009)

Just out of interest, do you have an amp lying around? If so, you won't go wrong with a pair of Yamaha NS-10s and an inexpensive subwoofer. Then when you're ready to upgrade, you can just use them as a second reference.


----------



## ozmorphasis (Jul 18, 2009)

1.With your budget, I would spend $400 on monitors that, like Nick said, can serve as a second reference pair when you upgrade later. 

2.Then spend some time and about $200 treating your room. With the right amount of research/homework, you can do the basic essential bass traps and early reflection treatments for around $200. The panels will all be easily removable and useful in just about any space, so you can just take them with you when you get a better location.

3.If you can save up money, and can hold out, and are going to move on to a better space soon, then that changes everything.


----------



## PolarBear (Jul 18, 2009)

Again, I don't see why one couldn't get a used pair of not-so-good monitors meanwhile - the value loss is a lot smaller than with getting new hmm-so-so monitors and you could get the money back once you have saved up for the difference to good monitors. Just IMHO.

And before you get the impression that "room treatmeant" is the holy grail... please do yourself a favor and read into it thoroughly and always with the purpose of your studio in mind before starting anything on that. Chances are you'll do worse with than without while spending piles of money into something that can be altered but isn't really treatable.


----------



## Stevie (Jul 18, 2009)

Fieke, you should not *only* make your decision by this thread.
Instead you should really go out and listen to the monitors mentioned. I still recommend listening to the HS80. You will be surprised how good they sound.


----------



## Stevie (Jul 19, 2009)

No store around to check? That's a pity...
I had to face the same problem.


----------



## Orchus (Jul 19, 2009)

Another store has the M-Audio Studiophile DSM1 for sale,
and if I save some more money, perhaps I could go for them...
What I read about them is quite positive.. but ofcourse I will go and listen to them.
Anyone who ever had experience with these monitors?


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 19, 2009)

Never buy a monitor before listening!


----------



## Orchus (Jul 19, 2009)

I wasn't planning to do that... I'm not crazy... 
Or well, at least not THAT crazy...

This Saturday I'll probably go listen to a few monitors in a quite big music store..
I'll post about my findings then..


----------



## Lunatique (Jul 28, 2009)

The BM5A's are definitely better than the models you previously listed. They won't give you the lowest frequencies, but they sound great for their size, and the stereo imaging is pretty good (though won't compare to the more expensive models that Dynaudio makes). 

Regarding headphones--I'm surprised no one mentioned Redline Monitor plug-in. It's a plug-in that eliminates the extreme stereo separation of headphones by allowing cross-feed signals from both ears, and it's designed specifically to make headphones sound like speakers. Give it try--it's pretty remarkable. 

As far as comfort and headaches go, have you ever used open-air designed headphones? The are extremely comfortable and they do not have the same problems as sealed headphones. The Sennheiser open-air headphones are especially comfortable--I always forget I've got mine on since I could barely feel it on my head. The earcups are soft and comfy and do not clamp down on your head, and they sound killer (neutral, accurate, non-fatiguing). I have the Sennheiser HD555 and love it, and the other models in that series are just as good or better.


----------



## Orchus (Jul 29, 2009)

Thank you all for the help and tips you are giving me!
This afternoon I'm going install the monitors, and I'm seriously going to work on some acoustic treatment for my room.
Regarding the headphones, I currently have some good ones, Sennheiser EH 350. I guess they'll do for now.


----------



## George Caplan (Jul 29, 2009)

KRK monitors seem to be built well but always strike me as monitors made for electronic or rock/beat/trance style music. On a limited budget and for film music the Adams family of monitors seem to be good.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 29, 2009)

At the level of large studio monitors you might be able to make an argument that one monitor is better suited to rock than orchestral music. I'm not convinced, but you could make the argument.

At the level of small studio monitors like we're talking about here, forget it. As I said, KRK's V8 is a very good, unflattering speaker that lends itself to production. The Rokit whatever it's called isn't a great speaker IMO, but that is (or was?) their cheapo model. Any speaker that's made only for electronic music is one that's designed for throwing in a garbage heap.


----------



## nikolas (Jul 29, 2009)

After building my studio I can safely say that acoustic treatment is equally important! If you need any tips (if I can help anyways), post, PM, whatever.


----------



## PolarBear (Jul 29, 2009)

A good monitor and/or speaker is suited for any kind of music because it does what it is supposed to do: giving me an uncolored, hopefully unaltered representation of the waveforms I'm looking at on my screen. All other comparisons only show that people don't care enough about the real shortcomings and label those tendencies to Rock/Classic/whatever.


----------



## Lunatique (Jul 29, 2009)

PolarBear @ Wed Jul 29 said:


> A good monitor and/or speaker is suited for any kind of music because it does what it is supposed to do: giving me an uncolored, hopefully unaltered representation of the waveforms I'm looking at on my screen. All other comparisons only show that people don't care enough about the real shortcomings and label those tendencies to Rock/Classic/whatever.



Precisely. I hate it when I see people say that some monitor or headphone is better suited for certain genres of music. It's amazing to me that they don't see the fault in that logic. A neutral and accurate pair of any sound reproducing product should not lean towards any style, because it should reproduce all styles the same. The speakers/headphones are the messenger, not the message, so the messenger should tell the message exactly as what it's told to tell. If there's any "leaning" going on, the accuracy and neutrality is compromised and why the hell would anyone want that?


----------



## Orchus (Jul 29, 2009)

The KRK's are used more for techno/hiphop music, anything which needs a big low beat...
It is not that these monitors are better 'suited', but since they have some colouring on the lower end, and make the bass sound thicker...producers of this kind of music seem to like that....
And they don't seem to care about the colouring..or maybe it is because their music in the future will be played on systems that have the same kind of colouring...


----------



## Lunatique (Jul 30, 2009)

Orchus @ Wed Jul 29 said:


> And they don't seem to care about the colouring..or maybe it is because their music in the future will be played on systems that have the same kind of colouring...



Yeah, different strokes for different folks. Some people are just bass junkies and they really couldn't care less if the bass frequencies are ridiculous compared to the rest of the spectrum. I don't know if their main priority is to "listen" to the music--more like they want to feel it and shake their asses to it. It's a different set of priorities from musicians whose goal is not to put hits in dance clubs for DJ's to spin, or being blasted from the monster subwoofer in some car's trunk.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 30, 2009)

Orchus, repeating the same thing doesn't make it truer. 

Which KRKs are you talking about? The V8 doesn't have exaggerated bass! I wouldn't be saying a speaker with exaggerated bass is good. Hyped speakers are absolutely not my taste. That's why I was never a fan of the original Mackies, for example, even though they sounded good for the living room.

Lunatique, I agree that a good speaker is accurate and a bad one has an opinion. But the argument to what you're saying is that at the very high end - big studio monitors in the $10k or higher range - some speakers are designed to "disappear" more than others, and that takes away from the punch you need for pop production. But it's never absolute, just a subtle preference.


----------



## kid-surf (Jul 31, 2009)

I dig my Genelec 1032A's...well...because they were specifically designed for Kid-Surf's music, alone, and nothing else You see, Genelec is very kid that way, special order and all. (lies)

If I had my choice of one or the other: Room Treatment or a Monitor I trust, I'm choosing the monitors every time. I know I can position them (if I had to) in such a way where I can take the room 'mostly' out of the equation. Can't take the monitor out of the monitor no matter what room you put them in. (exaggerated example)



> It's a different set of priorities from musicians whose goal is not to put hits in dance clubs for DJ's to spin, or being blasted from the monster subwoofer in some car's trunk.



What's funny is that my ride 'could' sound like that, yet I'm after a more "balanced-hyped" sound - if that makes sense. When my system was installed, the installers tweaked it to sound like a dance club in my car. I then re-tweaked so that it sounded balanced, as opposed to flat (it's virtually impossible to achieve "flat" with an automobile system, and even if one could, it's not that exciting to listen to). I have three 10" 10W7 JL AUDIO subs in my ride but most of my sound comes from the Focal door speakers (btw - Focal makes studio monitors too, if we didn't now). I set it up like a 2.1 monitor set up. Driving is fun! And, no CDs, I plug in my iPhone.


----------



## kid-surf (Jul 31, 2009)

Lunatique -- Btw, thanks for the thoughts in my thread about 'director who's also a composer'. Didn't feel like bumping it, thought I'd run into you later and mention it.


----------



## Waywyn (Jul 31, 2009)

Sorry, I didn't read through all the posts, but I strongly recommend to also consider the room when buying new speakers ... I have ADAMS A5 and I am pretty happy with it, but at the same time I have a 110-116 hz bump in my room ... and this doesn't go away with new speakers ... 

I mean, I just wanna say that some things sound weird and we think about new speakers, but in the end it might be the room which hasn't been taken care of.

Just as a sidenote ... I would even go that far that it is more important to care about the room first and then care about new speakers ...


----------



## ozmorphasis (Jul 31, 2009)

kid-surf @ Fri Jul 31 said:


> If I had my choice of one or the other: Room Treatment or a Monitor I trust, I'm choosing the monitors every time. I know I can position them (if I had to) in such a way where I can take the room 'mostly' out of the equation. .



Science does not support this statement. The problems in most smallish rooms are WAY more exaggerated than the problems with most monitors. 


Positioning is very important and I consider that to be one of the key steps when sorting out the room treatment. But, you say monitors that you trust...what about a room that you trust? How can you trust a room that gives you large anomalies when you move your head 2 inches? Most rooms will have these problems until they are addressed. After they are addressed, the room will have less of these problems even though you can't make the room completely flat nor completely even as far as decay times are concerned. In any case, your monitors will lie to you regardless of their quality because the room will have extreme nulls and resonances that need to be tamed. Positioning can help avoid some of the worst problems inherent to the shape and design of the room, but with most small rooms, it's like trying walk on water...physics is not on your side.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 31, 2009)

"Science does not support this statement"

Actually it's only faith that supports your statement. The truth is that both the room and the monitors are important.

But I agree with Kid that (within reason) I'll take good monitors before a good room every time. The reason, to repeat repeat repeat myself, is that even though the frequency (and time) problems in a room can easily be 15dB in either direction, it's not at all the same thing as having speakers with a 15dB lump - not that you'll find too many speakers that bad, of course, but the point remains.

Why? Psychoacoustics. Your brain can compensate for a lot of problems, while speakers are stupid.

(As an aside, a lot of people selling acoustic treatment products make the similar mistake of assuming a test microphone is the same as the human ear.)

Again, I'm the last person to say that acoustics aren't important, because they clearly are. But if you give me a choice between crap monitors in a great room and good monitors in a room that isn't totally messed up, I'll take the monitors any day.

The subtext is that you don't have to do a lot to make a room perfectly serviceable. Making it great is another matter, but just making it workable so you can hear subtle details in your productions without straining is not a major undertaking.

And science supports all my opinions - by definition.


----------



## Lunatique (Jul 31, 2009)

The beauty of acoustic treatment is that often you don't have to spend a lot of money or have a big room to take advantage of it. DIY solutions can save you a ton of money and sound just as good--maybe even look as good as the commercial acoustic treatment products. My own studio is a testament to that.

I really can't say if I'd choose a great monitor over a great room, since my experience gives me mixed feelings about either. I have used my Klein+Hummel O 300D's in three very different rooms in the last few years. In the first room, it was a rented apartment and the shape of the room and the listening position actually wasn't bad at all, and the two closets filled with clothes acted as large bass traps. I had carpet and no acoustic treatment at all, and the flutter echoes were significant. The 300D's sounded quite good in that room since there weren't significant room modes, and flutter echoes are much easier for human ears to compensate for than the more severe problems like bass nulls or spikes. The room had a little of that, but not severe--if I walked around I can hear the bass get boomier in some places, but in my listening position it was quite ok. In general the room was decent enough that I could hear all the things that are special about the 300D's compared to the monitors I had used previously in the same room, and it was night and day.

The second room I used the 300D's in was a temporary rented apartment, and it had severe bass anomalies. My bass guitars would sound anemic in some strings/notes and then very boomy in others, and this is in my listening position. It was impossible to deal with and very agonizing. The room wasn't treated of course and also had flutter echoes, but like I said, your ears compensate for those very well. The bass problem was just intolerable though, and luckily it was temporary until my new studio was finished.

In my current room, my newly built studio, I have full blown acoustic treatment, optimal room dimensions and listening position, and everything sounds pristine. I can move around the whole room and everything sounds even--no strange nulls or spikes. The back end of the room is more live sounding since I place the mic's there, and the front end of the room (listening position) has all the first reflection points treated, so barely any flutter echo. The whole room's got superchunks up the wazoo in all the corners except on the floor, plus my storage closet's door is one giant acoustic panel, so when it's closed it's like a giant bass trap. Needless to say, no bass problems at all in the new studio. 

I think there's no reason why one has to choose between monitors or acoustic treatment. If you can only afford one at the moment, get the monitors, but save up for the treatment. You must do it if you are serious about your music in any way at all, even if only as a lover of music and not a musician. The difference it makes is totally worth it and doesn't cost all that much if you DIY. However, I will stand by my opinion that a really bad room that can't be treated (for whatever reasons) is best matched by a great pair of headphones and Redline Monitor plug-in to make it sound like a pair of speaker monitors.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 31, 2009)

Flutter echoes from the speakers are always front to back (NOT from the sides as everyone believes), and getting rid of them is easy. And just about every room is boomier in some places, especially the corners.

Really all you need is some broadband absorbent stuff at the front, bass trapping, and possibly diffusion at the rear. After that it gets exponentially more complicated, but just that basic treatment will make almost any room serviceable.

That's for monitoring in stereo - recording and surround are different things.


----------



## ozmorphasis (Jul 31, 2009)

Hmm. Nick, we seem to be running in circles on this one, and yet I'm willing to bet that we actually agree on the heart of the matter. Let me try to put it differently, because the use of terms like "crap speakers" and "crap room" are a bit too vague. 

So...

In my mind it's all about budget. 

$600= $400 monitors + $200 acoustic DIY

$1200 = $1000 monitors + $200 acoustic diy

$2000 = $1800 monitors + $200 acoustic diy

etc.

My point is that the basic treatments are very inexpensive when DIY, but actually make a more significant difference than when that $200 is put toward "better" monitors. So, get the best monitors you can afford while also doing the bare minimum treatment to get the room to behave as well as the monitors were designed to perform. Otherwise, a lot of money can be spent on monitors without coming even close to maximizing their potential.

Lastly, you are absolutely right to say that the speakers are stupid. I prefer to say that they are reactive, while our brains are adaptive. I think we are on the same page about that point. However, our brains are adapting to the total monitoring environment, therefore, again, it's about budget. Dollar for dollar, what will give our brains the least amount of "crap" to adapt to? A $600 pair of monitors with no treatment, or a $400 pair of monitors and $200 worth of basic treatment? These numbers are somewhat arbitrary, but I hope that the practical intentions of my previous suggestions is clear based on these hypothetical budgets.


----------



## Stevie (Aug 1, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jul 30 said:


> Orchus, repeating the same thing doesn't make it truer.
> 
> Which KRKs are you talking about? The V8 doesn't have exaggerated bass! I wouldn't be saying a speaker with exaggerated bass is good. Hyped speakers are absolutely not my taste. That's why I was never a fan of the original Mackies, for example, even though they sounded good for the living room.



thats exactly the reason why i dont like the genelecs. they all seem too bassy to me.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 1, 2009)

Well, it's pretty obvious what the Mackies were modeled after.

I respect Genelecs and like the sound, but to me they're hard to work on - I just don't get that hard to articulate sense that what I'm hearing is overwhelmingly right. Earlier in this thread Jack Weaver commented that his Blue Skys are nowhere near as good as the Adams he replaced (even though they translate better) but I have to say that I do get that sense from the Sky System Ones I've been using for the past several years. Of course they're not the best monitors in the world, but they're both accurate and good-sounding, which is hard to achieve.

However, I also use a pair of UREI 809As as a second reference. Even with the well integrated subwoofer, no small monitor system gives you the same kick in the chest you get from large speakers.

(I got the idea after visiting Mike Green's studio and hearing his "vintage" UREI 813s. The 809s were on eBay, and I won with a ridiculously lowball bid.)

***



> Dollar for dollar, what will give our brains the least amount of "crap" to adapt to? A $600 pair of monitors with no treatment, or a $400 pair of monitors and $200 worth of basic treatment? These numbers are somewhat arbitrary, but I hope that the practical intentions of my previous suggestions is clear based on these hypothetical budgets.



Well, the thing that makes the budgets hypothetical is that different rooms have different requirements. It's a "how long is a piece of string" question.


----------



## Udo (Aug 7, 2009)

*Re: Mixing on headphones*

There's of course the $2000 SPL Phonitor - Headphone Amplifier & Spatial Processor 

For some useful info on the subject, search soundonsound.com for 'mixing on headphones'.

The main article in the Jan '07 issue goes into quite some detail, including how to simulate the 'loudspeaker experience'. There are some other related articles.


----------

