# Subwoofers are a must



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 25, 2013)

Random post.

I almost turned in an interview with very low-level rumble. Had I not thought to listen with the volume cranked, I would have missed it and looked like an AH.

It wasn't on my big speakers, just the sub.


----------



## MacQ (Oct 25, 2013)

RTA's are a must.


----------



## Jem7 (Oct 26, 2013)

I rather like speakers big enough to not need of extra sub becuase sub makes the image a bit worse.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 26, 2013)

I have big speakers too, and the bass sounds right on them but not on my smaller sats + sub system.

The sub doesn't have to make the image worse, because it's too low to do that. A badly integrated sub does, but the Blue Sky System One's sub is seamless.

Anyway, I just had to post this because there are lots of threads from people bitching about subs. I would have looked like an asshole in front of 5.9 million radio listeners if I didn't have mine!


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 26, 2013)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Oct 26 said:


> I have big speakers too, and the bass sounds right on them but not on my smaller sats + sub system.
> 
> The sub doesn't have to make the image worse, because it's too low to do that. A badly integrated sub does, but the Blue Sky System One's sub is seamless.
> 
> Anyway, I just had to post this because there are lots of threads from people bitching about subs. I would have looked like an asshole in front of 5.9 million radio listeners if I didn't have mine!



A cool story, Nick!

That brings me to an idea: Could you pm me a short snippet from your audio as was before you had listened over your sub? I would like to test it with my system where I have no sub. Would be cool!


----------



## Dan Mott (Oct 26, 2013)

No. They are not a must. :D


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Oct 26, 2013)

Not one, not two, but 9,000 watt in the front and 9,000 in the back. I guess they can push your vertebral discs back in place. :D 

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1484131/h...nth-popalocks-bassment-big-screen-bigger-subs


----------



## korgscrew (Oct 27, 2013)

Im an audio producer for my full time job, and the very 1st think I do with any voice audio is high pass.


----------



## Dietz (Oct 27, 2013)

MacQ @ Sat Oct 26 said:


> RTA's are a must.



+1


----------



## jamwerks (Oct 27, 2013)

AH?
RTA?


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 27, 2013)

RTA's = Real Time Audio Suite, Pro Tools plugs... .


----------



## Dan Mott (Oct 27, 2013)

germancomponist @ Mon Oct 28 said:


> RTA's = Real Time Audio Suite, Pro Tools plugs... .




What? :shock: hahaha


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 27, 2013)

I also have the 2.1 Blue Sky Monitors and they are a real pleasure for years now.

But I wanted to share a trick I learned with the BX Digital Mid/Side Mastering EQ.
There's a feature called Mono Maker that can give you a really well focused low end, leaving all source material above a selected frequency range, unaffected and capable of stereo placement and widening to taste.
It's a Scope DSP plug in from the last century but the developer makes a VST version now too.
Live I use a new set of QSC-K12s and then my audio from a Scope Project gets the BX pre powered cabinets and it's just beautiful with an 8' spread.
I never liked Kick Drum, low synth bass, Contrabass, EBass in stereo as I can always detect the sample delay, even though some say it's not possible, I have always heard the slight effect it has, but needless to say that once I mono-toze the lower frequencies of all material it's awesome.
LASS Contrabass and Cello really are powerful and make my Bassist jealous, even though it's old Tull, Gino Vanelli and ELO.

If you have a good sub it's a fun to mess with, but if you don't have a sub you don't know what you're missing as this plug can make a decent set of stereo monitors really fun to work with.

http://www.brainworx-music.de/en?PHPSES ... qp1ql6nlh4


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 27, 2013)

> Im an audio producer for my full time job, and the very 1st think I do with any voice audio is high pass. Smile



That makes sense if you're cranking it out, but I'd rather not use a highpass (or the rolloff switch) if I don't need to. I've recorded voice with the same mic many times and not had any of this stuff even without a pop filter.

It's not that there's anything wrong with highpassing, just that it violates my instinct to use nothing you don't need. I don't pretend that's rational!

And RTAs are great - including the VSL one  - but I don't want to have to rely on it more than I'd want to do the old hand-on-NS10 cone trick to feel popping. I want to hear sound, not look at it!

Anyway, I'm glad I have the sub.


----------



## Jack Weaver (Oct 27, 2013)

Yeah, Blue Sky 2.1's - 2 way 6.5" speakers with their subwoof. LOVE them. Been using them for several years now. They've been my dependable babies. I've lived with them morning, noon and night. If you want your mixes to translate well these should be considered. 

Mine are shortly to be relegated to be my reference monitors as I've finally bought some new speaks. But man, if you want speakers you can trust, these are the ones you would want to consider at a reasonable price point. 

.


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 28, 2013)

Dan-Jay @ Mon Oct 28 said:


> germancomponist @ Mon Oct 28 said:
> 
> 
> > RTA's = Real Time Audio Suite, Pro Tools plugs... .
> ...



Ha ha, I thought they did a joke about "must have" Pro-Tools for professional recordings.... .


----------



## dgburns (Oct 28, 2013)

germancomponist @ Mon Oct 28 said:


> Dan-Jay @ Mon Oct 28 said:
> 
> 
> > germancomponist @ Mon Oct 28 said:
> ...



he means Real Time Analyzer ,btw :roll:


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 28, 2013)

Glad to see other happy Blue Sky users, never met or spoke to one who wasn't pleased.
I usually avoid talkiing about monitors at all in music forums as many try to convince me that no mix can be made w/o Adam or Genelecs, then the throngs of MAudio chaps justifying their 99 dollar expense claiming they don't hear a difference.

Very hard trying to converse with such low/high diversity.
Right in the middle is good enough for me, especially since I just want non coloring flat SPLs.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 28, 2013)

What I keep posting: small speakers + sub is not the same as large speakers, but both are important references.

The bass sounds overwhelmingly right on my big (12" in big cabinets) UREI monitors, and they even have quite a bit of useful response at 30Hz. They have a hit-in-chest sound that the small speakers + sub don't have, and my hunch is that the bigger box's lack of acoustic compression is what makes the sound...well, less like it's coming from a box than it does in small speakers.

But the small speakers + sub set-up reveals the imaging and low bass in a way the big speakers don't.


----------



## Conor (Oct 28, 2013)

I'm interested in the Blue Sky stuff, but it seems they no longer make anything between the 3" desktop system and the 5.1 surround system...?


----------



## gsilbers (Oct 28, 2013)

this is a post from bob katz about nearfield monitors:


Nearfield Monitors for Mastering

_I am currious why nearfields cant or shouldnt be used for mastering. Could they be used outside of the nearfield positioning?_

Nearfields were originally proposed as a way to deal with large consoles which get in the way of stand-mounted loudspeakers. But as large consoles are disappearing, this justification goes away. Project studios often put nearfields on tables, which cause serious acoustical anomalies such as resonances and comb filtering. Nearfields have often been cited as helping to reduce acoustical problems of bad rooms, but all the other problems they introduce hardly justify their use.

One problem is that nearfield monitoring is like wearing big headphones! The stereo imaging is so wide that it discourages you from making a "big" master that will translate to home systems. The second problem is that the high frequency response of speakers that are to be used as nearfields has to be tailored for such close use, so they won't bite your ear, so not just any speaker can be used as a nearfield. The third problem is that very few of the speakers designed as nearfields have adequate dynamics and low frequency extension (with some exceptions, I've seen engineers use Meyer HD-1s as nearfields, but these can sound overbright when used this close). The fourth problem is that nearfield monitoring exagerrates transients and affects your perception of the relationship of lead and solo versus rhythm. The fifth problem is that nearfield position exagerrates ambience, creating a higher ratio of direct to room sound. So nearfields are not particularly good for anything, either mixing or mastering!

Mixes and masters made on nearfields will have a great deal of trouble translating to other systems. I don't recommend nearfield monitoring for any purpose except in remote truck control rooms with extremely limited space, where they are usually not used for mixing, but to verify that the recording (tracking) is going well.

To answer your question whether speakers designed to be used as nearfields can be used as mid- or farfield speakers, I doubt it. Most speakers which people are using as nearfields have so little headroom or extension that they will sound even worse when placed in the mid or far field! But there are some exceptions, and I find a pair of Genelec 8040s or 8240s make good midfields if not played too loudly.


----------



## rayinstirling (Oct 28, 2013)

CobraTrumpet @ Mon Oct 28 said:


> I'm interested in the Blue Sky stuff, but it seems they no longer make anything between the 3" desktop system and the 5.1 surround system...?



You're right, so my set as in my avatar better keep going for a lifetime. Mind you, I am getting on a bit :(


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 29, 2013)

Bob Katz is an interesting guy!

The only thing is that what he considers problems have become a normal reference to lots of people. Are the transients exaggerated on nearfields or lacking when speakers are farther back, for example?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 29, 2013)

But the one thing I agree with him the most about is the lack of dynamic range. That's what I mean by acoustic compression.


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 29, 2013)

I underline all what Bob says.


----------



## Dan Mott (Oct 29, 2013)

So many people mix on nearfields and create good mixes.... so.....

That's just Bob Katz opinion I guess.

I mean, what does he suggest peolpe mix on? Massive 12 inch boxes?

Those of you with the bluesky systems, I urge you to measure your response. I think you'd be pretty suprised by the results. I thought everything was right until I measured. Just saying.


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 29, 2013)

Dan-Jay,

I think the most important thing is this: For all those who never did a visit in a big studio I would suggest it to do it.

Visit a session in their mixing room when the big speakers are doing their jobs and compare the sound to the sound in your studio with the nearfield monitors!

At latest after this visit for everyone will be clear what Bob is talking about.


----------



## Jack Weaver (Oct 29, 2013)

Hi Dan-Jay & Gunther,

Still love my Blue Sky's. I think lots of people get caught up in the niceties of intellectual pursuit regarding monitors. Yes, yes, yes to all those who say that you need to have speakers that have this or that. I'm sure that on many levels they are correct. 

Yet, each mixer has to have the tools that mesh with his aural concepts, acoustic environment and business realities. For me these speakers have earned their keep many times over. They replaced a big, expensive pair of Adams. Over the years I've had Altec 604e's, a couple different pairs of UREI 813's, multiple pairs of Westlake BBSM's, M&K, Adams', KRK's, a few different Genelecs - well, you get the idea. 

I don't think I've ever trusted a pair of speakers to translate as well as the Blue Sky's. I liked them the first day I heard them back in 2001 at seminar in LA, before they were actually introduced to the public. 

Yet.... even saying all this - they aren't the end-all-be-all of monitors. Just good, working monitors for a reasonable price. They do have a bit of a short coming here and there, so I've recently gotten some other monitors and relegated the Blue Sky's to 'reference' status. These new ones have a large enough woofer to not feel like you need a sub (and a couple of other nice attributes). So to the OP, you don't need a sub if your speaker can replicate enough low end on its own. Otherwise, investigate what your monitor manufacturer recommends for adding a sub. 

However, my comment stands that people can get caught up in a lot of minutia about monitors that may or may not have significance to the work at hand. 

.


----------



## Dan Mott (Oct 29, 2013)

@Gunther. Yeah, I'm pretty sure if I went into his studio I'd be blown away and my bedroom wouldn't even compare. I was just saying that people can still get a good mix on nearfields. Not the best, but pretty radio ready quality.

@Jack - Glad you are happy with them. I'd say, if you are happy then don't measure because you might find issues you don't know of. Or if you are lucky, you may have a great response. I once got a sub and I thought it was awesome, but it wasn't until I measured that I saw a massive peak at 45Hz which made me more aware as to why my ears would get so tired, or why low end thumbs would sound so bassy. So I got rid of the sub and now I do not have that issue. I'm pretty lucky in that my 3 way nearfields over here go cleanely down to 40Hz or so. I do have a peak at 80Hz, but that's just my small bedroom syndrome.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 29, 2013)

I'm the OP, Jack, and of course you're right - if you have big speakers that produce enough low bass in your room to hear what's going on, then that's better than a sub.

The thing is, I don't think I'd want to mix on the large speakers, and I know that most engineers only use the mains for checking while they're mixing. They use the mains for tracking.

What Bob Katz isn't saying is that big speakers can also lead you astray, because you hear everything larger than life.


----------



## Jack Weaver (Oct 29, 2013)

Yo Nick, my apologies for not remembering that you were the OP. This thread has been going on for several days and I've been traveling. (Is that enough reason to be excused?)

I agree with you about acoustic compression. I do also think many big monitors can lead certain types of mixers astray. By 'certain types' I don't mean a certain quality or ability of an individual. I mean those who might mix preponderantly for media that is usually replicated on smaller speakers - or earbuds. Acoustic compression is everywhere these days in playback systems and through degrading data compression schemes. 

Those people who are mixing for larger venue playback (i.e., movies or a corporate presentation venue) might be well to use larger speakers more time during the mix than smaller reference monitors. If you spend your time mixing the type of music Dave Pensado does day and night then I'd tend to thing that nearfields would be used most often. If you are John Rodd your audience for playback is more than often quite different and expects more dynamic range. But from pictures I've seen even John has Avantones. 

I'm trying to get to the best of both worlds. I've got some new midfield speaks coming that are known for accurate midrange and to some people seem to be just a bit light on the low end (even though they have just fine low end but such little distortion down there). Their range of models sound pretty much the same except for the amount of low end due to their woofer size. So large or small, they are quite similar sounding. 

The Blue Sky's will be excellent reference monitors. 

I really have no problem with Dan-Jay's comments about peaks in subwoofer response. Of course he's right about plenty of budget subs. And the same also for Gunther's observation about checking a nearfield mix on a professional studio's larger system. I just think that people need to find the right type of monitoring system for their business plan. 

.


----------



## Markus S (Oct 30, 2013)

From what I read, no, subs are no must, and can cause problems if not perfectly tuned to the main speakers.

I think the safest way is to listen to your mix on as many systems as possible. Small speakers, headphones, main speakers, whatever you got.

The low frequencies should be tracked with a spectral analyser, because even if the speakers reproduce them, you might miss them, because you need a certain distance from the speakers to hear them, sometimes a few meters.

Also very low frequencies will mix up with your room problems (40 to 100 Hz) and might be perceived wrongly.

As general rule you need to use a lot of Low Cut Filtering in your mixes, and only let through your "real bass" - anything else is unwanted.


----------



## synthetic (Oct 30, 2013)

Thom "THX" Holmann, who knows a bit about designing sound systems, recommends bass management for small rooms. In a large room you can have multiple large monitors, but in a smaller space that can cause canceling in the bass frequencies. 

Besides, playing back the nut-rattling bass from my Minimoog is hella fun. I aligned the room with an SPL meter and crossovers, and I have a second small set of monitors I check mixes with.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 30, 2013)

Markus, my opinion is that you want to lowpass unwanted low freqs and leave wanted ones. You know, an orchid is a weed in a turnip patch. 

I started this thread about a voiceover track, but in orchestral mixes the number one place to find unwanted rumble is in reverb sends. Dry concert drum rumble is great, but in reverb it can easily make moosh.

However, that's not a rule - I'm sure there are exceptions.

***
Jack, I think you know this, but I've never heard of dubbing mixes being done on anything other than theater-style speakers.


----------



## Jack Weaver (Oct 30, 2013)

Hi NB,

Some people on this forum actually mix scores for film without doing the dub mix. But yes, of course you're right about the dub mixers. 

I certainly agree about getting ugly rumble out of the reverbs, either in sends to reverbs, in the reverb patch itself or after reverb returns. I also agree with Markus about the practice about filtering a lot of tracks (happens here a lot) and using a spectral analyzer on the main output channel. 

Hmm, I seem to be generally agreeable these days. I wonder if it's a trend or an aberration? 

Actually, I like a lot of things that have been put forward in this thread. At first I saw the title and thought, 'Oh crap, do I even read this thread?' But in the main it's been good. 

.


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 30, 2013)

Another good use for 2.1 for me is to mix with the Nearfields, then listen and tweak with my 6 way IEMs.
Since I can't really mix on my QSC-K12s at home they stay in the gig bags, then when I do fire them up the Bass is right where I want it.
Again that little MonoMaker in BX Digital is a gem off and on stage.
I never figured the IEMs would be good for Bass, but the drivers from JHAudio are of the highest quality. 
That product has matured since the '95 NAMM show where Herbie Hancock demo'd them.
When I mix on them the Bass driver is so well made I actually have to cut the mix a little when I go to the Blue Skys.

Life is great when there are so many options.. :mrgreen:


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 30, 2013)

All the BX plugs are very good...., Jim.


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 31, 2013)

And here it is what you need: The *BX-CLEANSWEEP V2* 

*It is free!*

Bx-cleansweep is a new Hi-Pass and Lo-Pass filter plug-in, introducing the new “Anti Crush Technology” (originally developed by Brainworx).

Download here: http://www.plugin-alliance.com/en/plugins/detail/bx_cleansweep_v2.html

o-[][]-o


----------

