Nearfield monitors - choices, choices...

[ShergoldSnickers]

A drummer mate of mine had whittled down the choice of nearfield monitors to two models, on a combination of review, recommendation, and auditioning. The Yamaha HS50Ms and the Samson Rubicon R6as. He'd managed to cadge both pairs for a trial and then invited me round as a second pair of ears.

[b]First impressions[/b] - The Yamahas. Very detailed, clear, good dynamics, good quality bass, although with any cabinet this size, extension and quantity were a bit lacking. The top end was a tad too much at times, and I reckoned they could get fatiguing to listen to for long periods.

The Samsons - easier on the ears overall, but more coloured. The bottom mid area was indistinct compared with the Yamahas, noticeable on piano, upright bass and drums, but the treble was a smooth as silk and very natural. Bass was fairly well extended, but was not as distinct as I would have liked. The mid/bass presentation just wasn't up to the treble driver.

Despite the weaknesses of the Samsons, it was felt that they would be clear enough, and that they would be easier on the ears for long periods of listening.

[b]Round two - let's tinker a bit[/b]. Both speakers come with the facility to tailor the sound. We knocked some of the treble response off the Yamahas, and this helped a lot. There's a switch on the back for either cutting or adding 2dB. The overall sound gelled more, and cymbals still had all the detail and attack of before.

We tried siting the Samsons a bit more carefully. They were initially sitting on top of the Yamahas to raise then to ear level, and the positions reversed when listening to the Yamahas. We decoupled the Samsons by sticking big blobs of blutac under them. This helped to stop some of the cabinet vibration going through the Yamahas and reaching the table they were both sitting on. The table could be felt to be vibrating less after we did this. It helped clear some of the low mid/upper bass muddiness.

Ideally both speakers should have been placed on rigid stands. The point of a speaker diaphragm is to move air, not the cabinet. Unless the cabinet is placed on stands that are effectively coupled to the floor, which is in turn 'coupled' (nailed usually, if floorboards) to the rest of the house/studio, you will lose some energy that should be making sound. I'd normally use stands with spikes top and bottom. They dig into the floorboards, and the bottom of the cabinets (not an option in this case!), so that the cabinets are much more rigidly sited. The drivers are now pushing against the mass of your house/studio, and Newtons third law of motion means that the only thing that moves is effectively the driver diaphragm. The cabinets stay put. This usually tightens up bass presentation no end. Must try this on my bass combo some time.

So, things were still not clear cut. We loved the treble of the Samsons with its ribbon driver, had tidied up the lower mid/upper bass colouration a bit, but still preferred the bass/mid of the Yamahas. We needed a combination of the two.

[b]Conclusion[/b] - After a further battering from music we knew inside out, it was decided that the Yamahas were overall better balanced than the Samsons. The Samsons sounded like the bass and treble drivers were not properly matched, the quality of one showing the other up badly. I'm sure there was something slightly weird going on at the crossover frequency too. A shame as the treble was outstanding.

The Yamahas sounded like a coherent unit, with an even quality right through the frequency range. Highly revealing in the bass and mid, and whilst not quite up to the treble standards of the Samsons, were still excellent. The Yammies it is then.

[Kiwi]

I have a pair of the Yamaha's, they're excellent.

[ShergoldSnickers]

[quote name='Crazykiwi' post='45614' date='Aug 15 2007, 09:34 AM']I have a pair of the Yamaha's, they're excellent.[/quote]
I'll admit to being surprised at how good they were. It's a long time since I looked at nearfield stuff, and when I did previously they all sounded pretty ropey, making it difficult to take them seriously. Everyone used to rave about the Yamaha NS10s for example. Awful. Not so these ones. Kudos to Yamaha.

Anyone remember Videotone Minimax speakers? They sounded truly dire but bizarrely still had something pleasant about their general character.

[Nate]

I have a pair of the Samsons....

They work for me!

[crez5150]

[quote name='ShergoldSnickers' post='45806' date='Aug 15 2007, 01:46 PM']I'll admit to being surprised at how good they were. It's a long time since I looked at nearfield stuff, and when I did previously they all sounded pretty ropey, making it difficult to take them seriously. Everyone used to rave about the Yamaha NS10s for example. Awful. Not so these ones. Kudos to Yamaha.

Anyone remember Videotone Minimax speakers? They sounded truly dire but bizarrely still had something pleasant about their general character.[/quote]

its not necessarily how good they are but its about what engineers are used too and can reference the sound from.... its a bit like using an SM58..... by todays standards its a crap sounding mic.... but its still 'the industry standard' so to speak as the FOH engineer knows exactly how its gonna sound.... same with the NS10.... not particularly good studio speakers but most studio's had them as they knew they could get a decent mix for most applications...

[NJW]

Dynaudio BM5.

[ShergoldSnickers]

[quote name='Nate' post='45910' date='Aug 15 2007, 04:33 PM']I have a pair of the Samsons....

They work for me![/quote]

If I was left with the Samsons to work with I still wouldn't complain. They were still very impressive, but overall we preferred the Yamahas. Not by a wide margin though.

[ShergoldSnickers]

[quote name='crez5150' post='45959' date='Aug 15 2007, 05:52 PM']its not necessarily how good they are but its about what engineers are used too and can reference the sound from.... its a bit like using an SM58..... by todays standards its a crap sounding mic.... but its still 'the industry standard' so to speak as the FOH engineer knows exactly how its gonna sound.... same with the NS10.... not particularly good studio speakers but most studio's had them as they knew they could get a decent mix for most applications...[/quote]
I just can't be doing with this conservative attitude to standards in general. When I see a standard, my first instinct is to challenge it. I'm a habitual 'tinkerer' and learn by taking things apart, so this is a natural instinct on my part. It just annoys me that mediocre stuff becomes a standard. It sets the bar too low.

I used to engineer in a smallish studio, and never once used an SM58 for recording. To me it would be like trying to create a masterpiece with Asda decorating brushes and kids powder paints. You'll only get so far. Whether my recordings were any good is debatable (a short negative one probably ), but they would have been even worse if I'd used the standard gear of the time. I tried to trust my own ears and used the clearest, most balanced speakers I could find. None of the usual 'monitors' did it. I guess it's just having the courage of your convictions, but being prepared to question and doubt what you are doing and look at it again.