TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- Yet Another Studio Monitor Thread. Thoughts, Please.
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

As I already stated and will do again it's very personal. Of course it will aid in perfectioning your productions further. But there are people whom can do that without a subwoofer as well. It's too bad you don't live nearby a store so you can have a listen. Safe bet would be to buy without sub. If you later feel you're missing out then buy it . Just make sure you don't spend the money on something else :P

quote:

Originally posted by Storyteller Safe bet would be to buy without sub. If you later feel you're missing out then buy it

I'll probably wind up doing that. Thanks!

quote:

Originally posted by alanzo I'm thinking the following would be a great setup: Dynaudio BM6AmkIIs (primary monitors) Mackie HR824mkIIs (secondary monitors) And headphones for close/quiet mixing Sony MDR-7506 Headphones (currently have and been using for 3 years) AKG headphones (240s or 601s) Sennheaiser 595s And all this can be yours for only $3,000 USD. Anymore thoughts on the sub vs no sub debate?

Two pairs of monitors is not necessary. And it will only split your focus and your mixes will suffer, unless you really know what you're doing.
Get either the Mackies or Dynaudios, both are great.
Definately get the AKG K240s.
Forget about the AKG K601 and Sennheiser HD595, they're hifi phones.
Only get a sub if you intend to do some heavy acoustic treatment. I don't mean a few auralex pads here and there.
I'm talking several basstraps throughout the room.

quote:

Originally posted by Eldritch Two pairs of monitors is not necessary. And it will only split your focus and your mixes will suffer, unless you really know what you're doing. Get either the Mackies or Dynaudios, both are great.

Hrmm. You may be right. After getting the Dynaudios, I may not feel a need for the Mackies.

quote:

Definately get the AKG K240s.

After the reputation they have, I think I will get these.

quote:

Forget about the Sennheiser HD595, they're hifi phones.

I still think it would help to have these even if they are hifi. Perhaps not mix on them, but just use them as another reference for mastering/over-all sound.

quote:

Only get a sub if you intend to do some heavy acoustic treatment. I don't mean a few auralex pads here and there. I'm talking several basstraps throughout the room.

Yeah, if I get a sub I would have to invest in something like this:
http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/Project2Kit/

Whereas without a sub, I would probably only need this:
http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/RoomDST36C/


Thanks for the comments, Eldritch.

quote:

Originally posted by alanzo I still think it would help to have these even if they are hifi. Perhaps not mix on them, but just use them as another reference for mastering/over-all sound.

Yeah, ok. I'd go for the HD-280 in that case. They would be very useful if you ever feel the need to record vocals or maybe do some DJing. They have incredible sound isolation.

did u try the ADAM P11 Active and the ADAM S2 Active?

quote:

Originally posted by Eldritch Yeah, ok. I'd go for the HD-280 in that case.

A good suggestion. I'll probably do that given their reputation. Thanks!

quote:

did u try the ADAM P11 Active and the ADAM S2 Active?

I haven't really thought about ADAM monitors. I haven't heard much about them, though (good or bad). I'd have to hear them before purchasing since they don't have a reputation.

Curious, does anyone have any comments about the Behringer TRUTH 2301As? I know they're certainly nothing compared to Dynaudios, but for $300, they may be adequate for what I'm looking for in a monitor which is basically something to mix on and get a feel for the track's space. Mastering would be done on a combination of the monitors and headphones.

adam monitors are really good, but translation is a potential issue. they use high quality ribbon tweeters instead of the typical dome style. these can perform way better than normal tweeters, if done right, but they do have a characteristic sound. in consideration of the fact that the majority of the speakers in the world DON'T use ribbons, you gotta weigh up the pros and cons.

behringers are ok. they provide a decent enough frequency response (range?) to do mixing on. in reality, the linearity of frequency response is not as important as most people think. room modes will be boosting and cutting frequencies like there is no tomorrow, so having your monitors within an bees dick of "perfect" is irrelevant. in that regard, learning your monitors is the main thing! but, for peace of mind, it's nice to get a pair of monitors that sound noticeably "flat...ish" lol.

HOWEVER, one thing which you cannot compensate for by "learning" your monitors, is the transient response. crap monitors have a crap transient response and theres nothing you can do about it. furthermore, if the monitor design makes too much use of porting (a technique used to boost bass), you will lose the tightness in the bass. this is why i have always maintained that you're better off buying decent 6" monitor than a cheap 8", if you are on a budget. the larger a woofer is, the less high frequency it will push on average. hence, when you buy a crap 8" woofer, there will inevitably be a poor crossover with the tweeter. also, you sacrifice the transient response because the woofer generally won't be able to move as fast as a smaller one. obviously if you're spending enough money (mackies or above), you can get decent 8" monitors in a 2 way design, i'm just saying if you're on a budget...

theres a lot of crap to weigh up really. people seem to buy monitors just on frequency response these days, which is totally retarded, especially when the low end is really a guestimate at best - no pair of monitors ACTUALLY goes down to "30hz" or "40hz" or whatever at the same level as other frequencies.

like all things, you get what you pay for!

quote:

Originally posted by Eldritch Two pairs of monitors is not necessary. And it will only split your focus and your mixes will suffer

i disagree with this.

it's all preference, but i find it alot easier to stay objective if i swap between monitors every hour or so. using one set of monitors totally destroys my ability to even tell if i'm making the song better or worse.

you dont even need "monitors". a pair of hifi speakers as a second pair will do! it helps you recognise how your mix will translate ALOT.

for the record... most pro recording studios have a few sets of monitors for this reason (nearfields and big ass 3 ways usually).

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Not terrible, but they don't give you a true representation. The HR824's are truly great monitors, but you will have to learn how they sound (as with all) and are comparitively more bass heavy than some of the other monitor speakers listed. Having said that, it is really not be too hard to adjust the 824's (with the switches on the rear) and your mixes to compensate for this. A real bonus of them is that they don't have a really narrow sweet spot, which can be a lifesaver if your room or listening position is not perfect. I know they are great monitors, the dynaudios have never floated my boat. I my previous job I've demo'd them at least a couple of hundred times for customers (and even though some of them fell in love) they never sounded as good other monitors. Forget subs. Period. I don't know why they keep coming up on monitor threads. They are a total nightmare because of the amount of set up needed to get it right and as ES said, without a properly designed treated room they are a waste of time, and even then I still don't see the point. Edit: one other thing I've noticed is that shops (like guitar centre) really push the dynaudio's at you. Why?......in my experience, the sales margin was better them.

This is right on. I own the HR824s and I tell you now, carefully consider purchasing them based on the size of your room and how far away you will be from the monitors. I made music with these things 3 feet from my head for 2 years and my music suffered as a result because I had a very distorted idea of what my music sounded like, particularly in the low end, because these monitors are so bass heavy. I'm now in a large room with a bass trap with the monitors 7-8 feet away from my head and its much better. However, I would not recommend these monitors for producing. They are amazing for mixing monitors for a DJ setup, but for producing, I would suggest something that gives you are a more real world idea of what your sound will be like. I'm kind of in the market for something like these myself and have heard the Dynaudios are good but I don't really know. Bottom line is, the HR824s can really fool your years if you are not careful.

quote:

Originally posted by alanzo I'm thinking the following would be a great setup: Dynaudio BM6AmkIIs (primary monitors) Mackie HR824mkIIs (secondary monitors) And all this can be yours for only $3,000 USD.

If you have $3000 to spend then seriously consider getting either the Focal Twin6 or for $1000 more the Klein + Hummel 0300. They are both 3-way monitors, meaning they are MUCH more accurate & translate really well.

I own Dynaudio BM6A's which i'm selling to upgrade to either of these two, they are in a completely different league than Dynaudios or Mackies. As well they should considering they cost twice as much!

quote:

Originally posted by Getafix If you have $3000 to spend then seriously consider getting either the Focal Twin6 or for $1000 more the Klein + Hummel 0300. They are both 3-way monitors, meaning they are MUCH more accurate & translate really well. I own Dynaudio BM6A's which i'm selling to upgrade to either of these two, they are in a completely different league than Dynaudios or Mackies. As well they should considering they cost twice as much!

Aren't they midfields though? Therefore not comparable with nearfields as it's like comparing a sedan to a pickup truck?

quote:

Originally posted by Getafix If you have $3000 to spend then seriously consider getting either the Focal Twin6 or for $1000 more the Klein + Hummel 0300. They are both 3-way monitors, meaning they are MUCH more accurate & translate really well. I own Dynaudio BM6A's which i'm selling to upgrade to either of these two, they are in a completely different league than Dynaudios or Mackies. As well they should considering they cost twice as much!

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/apr07/articles/focaltwin6.htm
Fairly good review. Allthough it seems like a lot of 2 way designs would in the same price range would do similarly well.

quote:

Originally posted by Fledz Aren't they midfields though? Therefore not comparable with nearfields as it's like comparing a sedan to a pickup truck?

Depends, most importantly is that you would need a bigger room, better acoustics and the listening position should be further apart from the speakers. They're produced for a very different working space (in terms of room volume/measurements). It's not your average bedroom speaker, sort of speak.

All in all you could probably get equal results from using near fields in the same price range, if your space is limited like it is for the most of us .

The original Mackie HR824s are going for $500 for a pair on eBay. For $500, that's well worth it so I'm probably going to go with those.

mixing bass on headphones is and always will be a terrible idea, headphones do not produce real bass. it is emulated bass..

quote:

Originally posted by alanzo The original Mackie HR824s are going for $500 for a pair on eBay. For $500, that's well worth it so I'm probably going to go with those.

definatly worth it.. got mine for 1.2G new

quote:

Originally posted by echosystm it's all preference, but i find it alot easier to stay objective if i swap between monitors every hour or so. using one set of monitors totally destroys my ability to even tell if i'm making the song better or worse.

same

quote:

Originally posted by mysticalninja same

Wow, that's wierd. I was going to post that I have never come across an engineer or producer that switches between monitors like very hour, and now there are 2.

Most pro engineers/producers demand their preferred monitors and will only listen usually to another set when doing a final check over the project. They mainly say that's because they chose their particular monitors because they know or have learnt how to mix and produce on them.

I don't really see the merit of switching between monitors so often if you properly know the characteristics, translation and particular sound of your chosen monitors. It would seem to indicate that one wouldn't trust their setup.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Wow, that's wierd. I was going to post that I have never come across an engineer or producer that switches between monitors like very hour, and now there are 2. Most pro engineers/producers demand their preferred monitors and will only listen usually to another set when doing a final check over the project. They mainly say that's because they chose their particular monitors because they know or have learnt how to mix and produce on them. I don't really see the merit of switching between monitors so often if you properly know the characteristics, translation and particular sound of your chosen monitors. It would seem to indicate that one wouldn't trust their setup.

The switching thing is just a habbit of mine. I know lots of guys that do it. I don't switch while I'm actually MIXING, just when i'm mucking around, arranging or testing the mix. If you listen to one set of speakers for too long, your ears adapt to it or fatigue and you lose the ability to be objective. Usually you keep your sessions not too long to avoid this. Switching monitors is akin to taking a break, so you can keep your ears "fresh" for a long time.

I know a few guys who work in different recording studios where I live. They all do this technique of switching between speakers regularly, so that they can get through the ~3+ hours of listening without getting off track.

It has everything to do with your own ears and nothing to do with the accuracy/translation of the speakers. You're looking at it from the wrong perspective.

If you look at a lot of producers studios (armin, thrillseekers, for example), you will find they often use two separate sets of monitors. They will often have one set at the computer (arranging) and another set at a mixing desk. This is the same concept - they obviously switch between the two for the different purposes.

Switching monitors is not akin to taking a break. Your ears won't just pop back into their normal listening configuration just because of a monitor change. Yes, you will hear things differently because it's a different pair of speakers but the loud sound is still there.

Taking a break is always better after long sessions than switching monitors.

When you don't need a break then yes sure, having two pairs of monitors could be an advantage but is it practical? Monitors aren't cheap but if you can afford them then go for it. This of course doesn't apply to pros like Armin and Thrillseekers because obviously that is their job and they can afford it. I'm talking more in general terms for the home studio.

quote:

Originally posted by Fledz Aren't they midfields though? Therefore not comparable with nearfields as it's like comparing a sedan to a pickup truck?

Nope not really, they're nearfields that also fall into the midfield category. Ideally you would need a fairly large room for them or an acoustically treated mid-sized room.

quote:

Originally posted by Fledz Yes, you will hear things differently because it's a different pair of speakers

this is all that is important. fatiguing and "adjusting" aren't necessarily the same thing. your brain looks for patterns, which may be more prevalent in certain frequencies than others (and hence in certain monitors more than others). if you're using the same speakers the whole time, your brain will get locked into a certain groove etc. etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Fledz Monitors aren't cheap but if you can afford them then go for it.

Like I said, they don't even need to be "monitors". I use a pair of cheap "monitors", but they might as well be hifi speakers. Hell, I would have bought hifi speakers, but I wanted to make use of the digital out on my audio interface.

event tr8's for the win.

quote:

Originally posted by mysticalninja mixing bass on headphones is and always will be a terrible idea, headphones do not produce real bass. it is emulated bass..

Im not really sure what that's supposed to mean, headphones DO produce bass frequencies, just obviously they're much lower power due to their proximity to the ear so you can only hear them and not feel them...

quote:

Originally posted by Getafix If you have $3000 to spend then seriously consider getting either the Focal Twin6 or for $1000 more the Klein + Hummel 0300. They are both 3-way monitors, meaning they are MUCH more accurate & translate really well.

Does anyone know anywhere in the UK that stocks the Focals?

quote:

Originally posted by Sanguis Mortuum Does anyone know anywhere in the UK that stocks the Focals?

http://www.inta-audio.com/pp/Studio...io_Monitor.html

http://www.soundtools.co.uk/Products/Monitors/Mid.htm

http://www.thomann.de/gb/focal_twin...artner_id=79570

quote:

Originally posted by echosystm The switching thing is just a habbit of mine. I know lots of guys that do it. I don't switch while I'm actually MIXING, just when i'm mucking around, arranging or testing the mix. If you listen to one set of speakers for too long, your ears adapt to it or fatigue and you lose the ability to be objective. Usually you keep your sessions not too long to avoid this. Switching monitors is akin to taking a break, so you can keep your ears "fresh" for a long time. I know a few guys who work in different recording studios where I live. They all do this technique of switching between speakers regularly, so that they can get through the ~3+ hours of listening without getting off track. It has everything to do with your own ears and nothing to do with the accuracy/translation of the speakers. You're looking at it from the wrong perspective. If you look at a lot of producers studios (armin, thrillseekers, for example), you will find they often use two separate sets of monitors. They will often have one set at the computer (arranging) and another set at a mixing desk. This is the same concept - they obviously switch between the two for the different purposes.

Dude, at the studios where I work, 3hr's isn't even the warm up and any engineer that can't go more than 3hr's plus staight, is going to be out of work very, very quickly. That's the whole reason you pick your speakers very carefully and learn them inside out, so you trust them and don't have to swap every hour to make sure you're not going amiss.
"Having" to switch about every to avoid "destroy(ing)" your abilty to mix defeats the ultimate point of knowing your monitors, which when properly done, gives you a constant perspective and reference (it's in the name) as to how your mix is going to end up. It sounds like you don't trust your monitors enough. But as with all things musical there is no right way, just whatever works for you.

Fledz is right about taking breaks - far more important than switching monitors that freequently.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.