Studio Monitors!

[Rimskidog]

[quote name='escholl' post='515728' date='Jun 16 2009, 08:43 PM']No, that's just how they sound

They're more than just hype though, they really are very good for what they're used for, supported by actual science even! There's a reason why they became the near-field speaker of choice for so many studios -- and as mentioned, if a mix sounds good on there, it's likely to sound good anywhere. Acoustic Energy have now released a significant update on the theory which I intend to get a hold of when I've got the money.


[i]Supposedly[/i], the woofer makes a good kick mic as well, if you reverse wire the speaker up as a dynamic mic. I've heard a few different studio types mention it, but I've never tried it, so it could be complete bollox.[/quote]

NS10's are awful. That's the whole point. When they became popular it was because they were as bad as most cheap home stereo's of the day. The idea was that if you checked your mix on them and it sounded ok then 1. that's how it would sound on a crappy home stereo and 2. it would sound great on anything even marginally better (they really are that awful!) Now what happened from there was that they became pretty ubiquitous (i.e., every studio had some) and people who had regular access to them 'learned' their flaws. Put those two things together and you've got dynamite because for freelancers (like me) it was possible to walk in any studio and 'know' how a mix should sound on those nasty things.

What can you learn from that experience? Well, you can learn that even crappy speakers can be learned. For these purposes every one of the models mentioned above fit in this category. They are not flat but can be learned. The entry level reasonably flat studio monitor include Adam A7's, Dynaudio BM5a and Genelec 8030. Anything lower than that and you are going to have to work much harder to get a decent mix. Period. But (and it's a big but) if you are willing to put in 2 or 3 years of work on them eventually you'll start doing decent mixes even without anything else. Nw what are you waiting for... get to work!

And FWIW, you don't need an NS10 driver to do the subkick trick. Any speaker will do it.

[escholl]

[quote name='Rimskidog' post='517043' date='Jun 17 2009, 11:54 PM']NS10's are awful. That's the whole point. When they became popular it was because they were as bad as most cheap home stereo's of the day. The idea was that if you checked your mix on them and it sounded ok then 1. that's how it would sound on a crappy home stereo and 2. it would sound great on anything even marginally better (they really are that awful!) Now what happened from there was that they became pretty ubiquitous (i.e., every studio had some) and people who had regular access to them 'learned' their flaws. Put those two things together and you've got dynamite because for freelancers (like me) it was possible to walk in any studio and 'know' how a mix should sound on those nasty things.

What can you learn from that experience? Well, you can learn that even crappy speakers can be learned. For these purposes every one of the models mentioned above fit in this category. They are not flat but can be learned. The entry level reasonably flat studio monitor include Adam A7's, Dynaudio BM5a and Genelec 8030. Anything lower than that and you are going to have to work much harder to get a decent mix. Period. But (and it's a big but) if you are willing to put in 2 or 3 years of work on them eventually you'll start doing decent mixes even without anything else. Nw what are you waiting for... get to work!

And FWIW, you don't need an NS10 driver to do the subkick trick. Any speaker will do it.[/quote]

lol, well, from a scientific point of view, the NS10M's aren't so bad for nearfields -- certainly more than just glorified auratones. personal taste will vary, i suppose -- although the frequency response of a speaker on it's own is pretty meaningless, too many other factors.


and sure, obviously any speaker can be a mic. doesn't mean it will sound good though, and the time domain response is going to be awful. ^_^

[escholl]

[quote name='WinterMute' post='517036' date='Jun 17 2009, 11:47 PM']They cut off at 300hz, they have no tunable porting, they didn't have aligned elements, and the originals were designed to stand upright as you note, the "Studio" version had filtered tweeters and were designed to sit on their sides, but that buggered up the imaging. They all honk like a constipated goose at 2K, which is where the presence in a bass is (well, between 1K and 2.5K) and that really hurts your vocals and guitars too.

No offence but these are really average speakers that have been excellently marketed.

Oddly if you power them with a Yamaha GC 2520 (I think) amp, they sound pretty good, this was the amp they used when they designed them.

Having said all that, I have used them on many occasions and have gotten good results out of them, I just find them much harder to mix on that good (and obviously more expensive) speakers.

The KRK range is very good, the Rockets aren't all that expensive, the Tannoy Reveals are very nice, the dual concentric design give excellent imaging and time alignment. If you can find a pair of PMC TB2's on evilBay they are very good but need a decent amp.

In the end, understanding what a speaker is telling you is more important than having great speakers, good engineers will get good results from almost anything.[/quote]

Not sure what you're trying to tell me here. They didn't cut off at 300Hz they cut off around 100Hz when installed properly (IIRC) and they cut off with a less steep slope than bass reflex speakers, for that matter they're not a bass reflex design they're acoustic suspension and thus have much better time domain response in the low frequency for a box that size. Not sure what "tunable porting" is, but if you're somehow referring to the ability of the end user to physically change the port, I can't really see where there would be any advantage in a monitor having that capability, nor can I think of a single monitor with that capability.

No idea what orientation they were designed for, but based on the driver layout both versions should have been used vertical, on their side to minimize horizontal response lobing and improve the imaging. The response peaks at 2K in an inverted V shape, like I mentioned -- this doesn't hurt vox or guitar IME, it helps bring them out a bit more so you can place them better. YMMV.

Sure, they were marketed well -- so are a lot of other products. I never said they were the [i]ultimate[/i] monitor or something, simply that there were factual reasons behind their usefulness and success. Not sure why people are so vehemently trying to prove to me that they're no good -- I've used them, I've studied them, I've done this before and this is not my first day, thanks.

The Rokits have a hyped frequency response IME, agree about the Tannoys to a point and I think it probably goes without saying that the PMC's will likely be good. Not sure if you're talking to me or the OP in the last two paragraphs however.

[WinterMute]

[quote name='Rimskidog' post='517043' date='Jun 17 2009, 11:54 PM']And FWIW, you don't need an NS10 driver to do the subkick trick. Any speaker will do it.[/quote]

...but that white speaker cone makes it so much [i]cooler[/i] to use and NS10 driver...

[WinterMute]

[quote name='escholl' post='517064' date='Jun 18 2009, 12:52 AM']Not sure what you're trying to tell me here. They didn't cut off at 300Hz they cut off around 100Hz when installed properly (IIRC) and they cut off with a less steep slope than bass reflex speakers, for that matter they're not a bass reflex design they're acoustic suspension and thus have much better time domain response in the low frequency for a box that size. Not sure what "tunable porting" is, but if you're somehow referring to the ability of the end user to physically change the port, I can't really see where there would be any advantage in a monitor having that capability, nor can I think of a single monitor with that capability.

No idea what orientation they were designed for, but based on the driver layout both versions should have been used vertical, on their side to minimize horizontal response lobing and improve the imaging. The response peaks at 2K in an inverted V shape, like I mentioned -- this doesn't hurt vox or guitar IME, it helps bring them out a bit more so you can place them better. YMMV.

Sure, they were marketed well -- so are a lot of other products. I never said they were the [i]ultimate[/i] monitor or something, simply that there were factual reasons behind their usefulness and success. Not sure why people are so vehemently trying to prove to me that they're no good -- I've used them, I've studied them, I've done this before and this is not my first day, thanks.

The Rokits have a hyped frequency response IME, agree about the Tannoys to a point and I think it probably goes without saying that the PMC's will likely be good. Not sure if you're talking to me or the OP in the last two paragraphs however.[/quote]

I wasn't really trying to tell you anything, I was just carrying on a themed discussion on the merits of monitors, specifically the NS10...

The lack of ports on any speaker severely limits the usefulness of the box on the response of the speaker, a closed box design like the NS10 gets very little help from the resonant frequency of the boxes internal design, (in this case, none, it's just box) better designed monitors have an internal structure that allows the volume to resonate at low frequencies, the ports to the front or rear allow that resonance to be projected and thus support the limited low frequency response of the raw driver. Tunable ports use various methods to allow the alteration of that resonant frequency to adjust the speaker to the needs on the room. PMC do it, Tannoy used to do it in the larger monitors, Urie do it, few others.

The addition of any EQ peak in the design of a [i]monitor[/i] speaker is always a bad idea, as it forces the user to compensate and that means the user has to understand the curve and know enough about audio to avoid its effect, the 2K lift in most small box nearfields plays to the strengths of standard hifi speaker design and to small speaker systems like radios, TV and ICE. This is one of the reasons the NS10 was liked so much despite actually being quite a poor unit, a mix on NS10, when played through a standard hifi, would benefit from the enhanced presence that band brings, inducing that sense of impact that hi-fi speakers are designed to give.

The clue to the orientation is in the writing on the box, original NS10's (the famous "tissue paper over the tweeter" model) were designed to stand up like hi fi speakers. The Studio model was supposed to sit in the more bridge friendly horizontal orientation, but there was no difference in the design bar an improved tweeter that made the response flatter, as you not, the sideways orientation buggers up the imaging, which is why the dual concentric design works for imaging.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, and you can't actually buy NS10's new anymore (or can you?), but the NS10 simply isn't the best monitor for inexperienced engineers, and the OP was looking for advice.

[elros]

For cheap-ish monitors I'd recommend what I'm using myself: the new [url="http://www.mackie.com/products/mrseries/"]Mackie MR5[/url] (or its big brother, MR8). They sound quite decent, IMO.
I'd probably have bought a Genelec pair (8030 for example) if I could afford them, though.

[escholl]

[quote name='WinterMute' post='517131' date='Jun 18 2009, 08:32 AM']I wasn't really trying to tell you anything, I was just carrying on a themed discussion on the merits of monitors, specifically the NS10...

The lack of ports on any speaker severely limits the usefulness of the box on the response of the speaker, a closed box design like the NS10 gets very little help from the resonant frequency of the boxes internal design, (in this case, none, it's just box) better designed monitors have an internal structure that allows the volume to resonate at low frequencies, the ports to the front or rear allow that resonance to be projected and thus support the limited low frequency response of the raw driver. Tunable ports use various methods to allow the alteration of that resonant frequency to adjust the speaker to the needs on the room. PMC do it, Tannoy used to do it in the larger monitors, Urie do it, few others.

The addition of any EQ peak in the design of a [i]monitor[/i] speaker is always a bad idea, as it forces the user to compensate and that means the user has to understand the curve and know enough about audio to avoid its effect, the 2K lift in most small box nearfields plays to the strengths of standard hifi speaker design and to small speaker systems like radios, TV and ICE. This is one of the reasons the NS10 was liked so much despite actually being quite a poor unit, a mix on NS10, when played through a standard hifi, would benefit from the enhanced presence that band brings, inducing that sense of impact that hi-fi speakers are designed to give.

The clue to the orientation is in the writing on the box, original NS10's (the famous "tissue paper over the tweeter" model) were designed to stand up like hi fi speakers. The Studio model was supposed to sit in the more bridge friendly horizontal orientation, but there was no difference in the design bar an improved tweeter that made the response flatter, as you not, the sideways orientation buggers up the imaging, which is why the dual concentric design works for imaging.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, and you can't actually buy NS10's new anymore (or can you?), but the NS10 simply isn't the best monitor for inexperienced engineers, and the OP was looking for advice.[/quote]

Well, I'd recommend reading up a bit on the difference between [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bass_reflex"]bass reflex[/url] and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudspeaker_enclosure#Infinite_baffle"]infinite baffle[/url] designs such as [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_suspension"]acoustic suspension[/url]. It is important to note the cutoff slope beyond the tuned frequency for a bass reflex enclosure is actually twice that of a sealed box design, at 12dB per octave versus 6db for the sealed box. So, in essence, the sealed box design has a much more natural bass roll-off, however with a lower efficiency than a reflex design. Tunable ports on near-field monitors sound like nothing more than a marketing gimmick (and I still can't find a specific example), I think you'll find the resonance of a driver system is a carefully engineered thing, there would be no benefit to adjusting it to "suit a room". EQ itself has only about one valid purpose on studio monitors, and neither that nor any sort of port tuning adjustment is going to correct for poor room acoustics. There are applications where carefully changing the port tuning can be beneficial, however to my knowledge studio monitors are not one of those applications. I am interested though, so if you can find me some specific examples I would love to see.

While the response did peak at 2k it was still fairly mild and the slopes up and down from that were actually very smooth, considering. There is no such thing as a "flat" frequency response, nor is there really any need for one -- you may be surprised at some of the peaks and troughs that many "flat" monitors exhibit in anechoic space, and even more so once they are installed. As you say, it's not the speaker, it's knowing what it's telling you.

The fact is, the NS10 and the NS10 studio model should [i]both[/i] have been used vertically due to their driver layout -- hence the interesting fact. Yes, I know yamaha changed the writing, they should have known better -- sort of a case of form over function there. Dual concentric designs work better in some ways, but have their drawbacks as well -- and as with any speaker design, imaging will be heavily dependent upon the correct application of acoustic treatment within the room itself.

No, the NS10's aren't available anymore, they've been replaced with designs from Yamaha which are supposedly "carry on the tradition" of the NS10's, yet ironically have none of the features of them ^_^
Nevertheless the MSP series are still good monitors though for different reasons, however the lower HS range is harsh sounding and nothing special, really. IMO, YMMV, etc...
I never actually recommended the NS10, in fact I'm not sure there are any monitors I'd recommend for 100 pounds new, other than to look around for some used stuff. For 150, the M-Audio BX-5a's are well reviewed although I've not used them, and I was quite impressed with the passive Tannoy Reveal 6's when I used them a while back. They would probably be the one's I'd go with although they'd need an amp and are a bit out of the OP's budget.

I've got a set of M-Audio DX4's on my desk at the moment which I had given to me, no idea what they sounded like before I replaced some of the electronics, as they were thoroughly fried, however they don't sound [i]that[/i] awful, for the cheap price -- I quite like the mid and high-end response on them. They don't make those either anymore, however I'm sure the OP could likely pick some up for well under 100 pounds.

[dr.funk]

[quote name='MythSte' post='516932' date='Jun 17 2009, 09:42 PM']Ive also heard the JBL one series are good for monitoring in a simlar vein.[/quote]

Hmm if it's the Control 1s you are referring to I am not so sure, fine for everyday listening but I find their low end, or lack there of, really annoying. Still very cheap and robust

[quote name='WinterMute' post='516970' date='Jun 17 2009, 10:15 PM']On the question of monitors, true monitors are not good for actually listening to music, they are tools. Hifi speakers are coloured to make all music sound good.[/quote]

I understand what you are saying but here is an interesting article on the matter of Hifi vs Monitors

[url="http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun02/articles/monitors.asp"]One[/url]
[url="http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul02/articles/monitors2.asp"]Two[/url]

[WinterMute]

[quote name='dr.funk' post='517758' date='Jun 18 2009, 07:53 PM']I understand what you are saying but here is an interesting article on the matter of Hifi vs Monitors

[url="http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun02/articles/monitors.asp"]One[/url]
[url="http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul02/articles/monitors2.asp"]Two[/url][/quote]

Yes, I saw those articles when they were published, there's certainly more choice in the lower end of the market these days, and I must say I have mixed very successfully on a pair of KEF 105.4 Reference hi-fi speakers before I got my PMC's.

I spec Dynaudio M1 and BM5 or 6a's in the studios at the Uni, and we also have some PMC sets too. They certainly kick out some serious SPL, but we do try to teach moderation in monitoring levels for tracking and mixing.

I think it's probably a better use of your money to buy a cheaper pair of speakers in the first instance and spend some money learning how to record and mix properly, this is somewhat akin to buying a starter bass to learn on then getting lessons from a great teacher before buying some custom monster.

Good speakers (and good kit in general) is no guarantee of good recordings.

[iamapirate]

[quote name='WinterMute' post='517933' date='Jun 18 2009, 10:45 PM']Good speakers (and good kit in general) is no guarantee of good recordings.[/quote]

+1.

Still, I just love listening to high quality music the way it was recorded, which I reckon studio speakers are best for. Anyway! I'm probably going to go for the samson 4i ones.