|
possible upgrade from krk's to hs's (pg. 10)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Looney4Clooney
but there are studies applying the science. Katz uses 2. Many people use more than 1 in a mixing/mastering environment. It is more effective than bass traps. It just takes more work to setup but it isn't rocket science. Especially when the room is a rectangle. It is rather easy.
I still don't think you get the underlying concept to which i am talking about. IT is a practice advocated for small rectangle rooms. Rooms that cannot be controlled with bass traps. |
I do get it, but I had always believed from my own logic that a sub for stereo mixing is not necessary.
This was then confirmed by 4 very serious heavyweight mix engineers (one of whom you know) and one of the others is arguably the best engineer in the world right now.
Katz is a ninja, and I've got a lot of respect for him, but he's has also been wrong on a number of things (like the whole clock debacle for one).
I do get the concept but it;s not something I'd ever entertain. I could strap a turbine jet engine on to my mid priced car to make it go faster. Would I? no. I'd just buy a faster car. |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
the problem is not the speakers. It is the room. And in a small room , bass will be a problem. There is no speaker on the market that avoids this. It has nothing to do with stereo or 5.1 or more. Bass is not directional. Your system could be mono. And you could still benefit from 2 subs.
anyways,
So you get 2 speakers and you space them how they should be spaced. But then you notice a null at 80 hz, The amount of bass trapping is not only extremely expensive and excessive which will just look ridiculous but you would really have to resort to tuned resonators to fix this in any decent way. You could also move the speakers around but you are now comprising location to fix an issue you could fix another way and every time you move them, you are just shifting the issue.
add the sub. Because the sub can be moved without moving the speakers, you can place it in relation to a maximum or minimum axial mode with rather predictable results but this doesn't always give you the control you need.
add 2 subs in an arrangement where the phase of each will sort the nulls and peaks you originally had with some minimal trapping and you have a very simple and effective solution. The rest can be sorted with minimal Eq.
You will also get more horizontal unity as an added bonus which is really impossible any other way.
I don't see the down side other than it might be a little more work. I also think you don't see people doing this because most people do not have smaller rooms that are rectangles and if they do, chances are they are not professionals and don't really realize how bad it actually sounds in their space. |
|
|
| Evolve140 |
| I was told years ago that a sub is totally not neccesary for stereo mixing, ie, the method of mixing dance music producers use. About 5 or 6 years ago when I was buying my first pair of monitors. This guy was my go-to dude for several years when I had mixing/production questions, and is probably the best engineer I've known. So, this is what I have been telling other people since then. |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
it has absolutely nothing to do with ing imaging. The concept applies to mono , stereo ....
And most people look at the math and get dizzy. Most audio engineers are ing idiots. The guy rann mentioned is not but I do think his advice is somewhat tainted by the fact this guy builds rooms so this isn't something he would ever use. he would not introduce the condition were you would have to resort to this. THis is a method when you have a room you can't change, it is small, it is a rectangle. |
|
|
| MSZ |
| have you ever inverted the phase of resonance in your ? |
|
|
| meriter |
| quote: | Originally posted by MSZ
have you ever inverted the phase of resonance in your ? |
this is the technique I use to fit balls in there
EDIT: balls in my |
|
|
| MSZ |
| Its all about the Cock-chaining IMO. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Looney4Clooney
it has absolutely nothing to do with ing imaging. The concept applies to mono , stereo ....
And most people look at the math and get dizzy. Most audio engineers are ing idiots. The guy rann mentioned is not but I do think his advice is somewhat tainted by the fact this guy builds rooms so this isn't something he would ever use. he would not introduce the condition were you would have to resort to this. THis is a method when you have a room you can't change, it is small, it is a rectangle. |
I would think you're trolling if you weren't so well versed.
The bit you keep missing is that I couldn't give a if Mr Katz or some professor theoretically thinks that on paper two subs might be better than one.
You don't need a ing sub for stereo mixing. Period. The end.
Yes, even in a rectangular room.
I'm not saying this because I feel like it. There are very specific reasons.
The problem is your question defeats the answer; Firstly, if you're in a ty room, then why bother getting really advanced in to the minutiae of acoustic design and placement to fix it, especially if the problem is "traps are tricky" in the first place etc. Either the room is worth the effort and it's really not that hard to fix with traps and a bit of educated placement or, it's not.
Secondly, you don't need a ing sub for stereo. I'm beginning to think you don't actually understand why you don't need a sub for Stereo mixing and further than that, why it's not just redundant, but actually a bad idea.
Thirdly, adding a bass driver or two in a small, unusual space it going to cause more problems than it solves. When it comes to acoustic design, keep it simple. the less variables, the easier it is to predict and manage.
If this is about listening purposes like hifi then I get it but this crusade makes no sense at all if it's about studio monitoring. |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
again , you keep mentioning elements that do not enter the equation. Stop saying stereo. This has nothing to do with stereo mixing, mono mixing, 5.1 , 7.1
And lets get this clear, none of the research i am reading put into place involves Katz. There are plenty of AES articles supporting it. It isn't contented by anyone other than those that say it is a bad idea because in the hands of an idiot, well you get the point.
If you have a small room, the price of buying another house with a bigger too seems alot more trouble than using sound science that has been proven to work in theory and practice. It is much simpler than you make it out to be.
the sub is used to have more control over standing waves. Adding a bass driver will not add problems. It will add options. If you don't understand where your modes are , then sure , you will not get much out of it.
But take one day, do a floor plan measurement, find out exactly what is happening when and where and it is rather simple where to place them.
The odd thing is that your 2 speakers have a driver that can produce sub frequencies. Granted because they need to extend beyound what a normal sub would, certain concessions are made and you will not get idea performance. So guess what, you are already using 2 subs using sub very loosely.
Your 2 speakers are basically 3 drivers of which 1 is a sub. using it as loosely as one can use the term. And the less variables, the less you can do to change things.
yes , this isn't something for idiots. But if you know what you are doing, the practicality seems rather clear. |
|
|
| Nightshift |
if you learn it and get good results then use it, if not then toss it and use something else.
just because someone has an opinion doesnt make them any less wrong or right then the nxt guy, doesnt matter who it is.
depending on who we are diffenret things will click with us because we all hear, see and experience differnetly, so all this arguing is really pointless.
if it works for you, it works. in the end it doesnt matter what you use its how you use it.
the end.
:) |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
Given the god awful mixes i hear on this site, i have a feeling nobody has a ing clue how bad their rooms actually sound. The concept is interesting and at least worth a discussion that expands beyond skepticism that a little heavy handed.
EDM is bass music. I would of thought having a room with not just ok bass but outstanding would be something people would find interesting. You cannot get great bass with 2 speakers unless you use massive amounts of broadband bass trapping which would cost in the thousands. And even then , you are not getting rid of the issue, only decreasing it. Bass trappings don't change room modes. They don't change the fact that you will have a null , and a peak at certain locations. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Looney4Clooney
again , you keep mentioning elements that do not enter the equation. Stop saying stereo. This has nothing to do with stereo mixing, mono mixing, 5.1 , 7.1
And lets get this clear, none of the research i am reading put into place involves Katz. There are plenty of AES articles supporting it. It isn't contented by anyone other than those that say it is a bad idea because in the hands of an idiot, well you get the point.
If you have a small room, the price of buying another house with a bigger too seems alot more trouble than using sound science that has been proven to work in theory and practice. It is much simpler than you make it out to be.
the sub is used to have more control over standing waves. Adding a bass driver will not add problems. It will add options. If you don't understand where your modes are , then sure , you will not get much out of it.
But take one day, do a floor plan measurement, find out exactly what is happening when and where and it is rather simple where to place them.
The odd thing is that your 2 speakers have a driver that can produce sub frequencies. Granted because they need to extend beyound what a normal sub would, certain concessions are made and you will not get idea performance. So guess what, you are already using 2 subs using sub very loosely.
Your 2 speakers are basically 3 drivers of which 1 is a sub. using it as loosely as one can use the term. And the less variables, the less you can do to change things.
yes , this isn't something for idiots. But if you know what you are doing, the practicality seems rather clear. |
OK< so without winding you up, I've realized that you don;t understand why using a sub is bad news; the problems associated with it (as I'll explain) are tied to the format you're mixing in.
Let me preface this by saying, I do get that it's worth exploring and that on paper it way seem theoretically like a possible solution for bad room acoustics, but the limitations and negative payoffs, IMO, aren't worth the hassle and won't yield better results.
Also, I know you think the format doesn't matter, but it does, the problems with subs are inherently linked to the stereo format itself, and hence why I say of you're doing surround it's fine (but moe on that later).
Here's the reasons why you don't need and shouldn't use a sub for Stereo mixing:
1, There is no set standard for crossover points for subs or a set protocol for discrete LFE channel when used with stereo mixing setups. This means there is no standardisation from a producing point of view nor a standardisation for a reproduction environment, like a home hifi.
Why does this matter? because with no standard you're guessing what point the crossover should be set to or what frequencies the sub should handle. This means you're making adjustments to LF, relative to your own standard which will not likely align to whatever system someone will have at home or any other listening environment.
That crossover also will have a dip or a peak, depending on what you're sending to the speakers as they take care of the rest of the signal - are you sending the full spectrum to the speakers or just the mid and hi? Again, this is where there is no standard when it comes to the stereo format, and more muddying of the waters.
2, Stereo speakers create a stereo image across the frequency and the higher the frequency the more directional it gets. Bass is unidirectional but as you get closer to mid frequencies that directionality starts to matter more and more, and without that standard you're again making an arbitrary decision. True sub bass coming from a point in the room is fine but anything more than that in terms of frequency, and it sounds weird, bot to mention completely throws off your stereo image and separation (by frequency) in the overall image.
3, Also depending on how your room is setup and where you place everything , even includingdissipation factors such as temp and humidity, room materials etc, there could be arrival time differences between the sub the main speakers which throws a number of engineering/monitoring factors out the window.
4, There is so much established research and design on full spectrum stereo monitoring (i.e. having the entire frequency and stereo image reproduced from a pair of monitors) that trying to then mix and match 3 speakers meant for other purposes in what is essentially a bastardisation to achieve what the two speakers were initially designed for in the first place, just doesn't make any sense.
Again, because there is no dedicated LFE channel with the stereo medium you're just making guesses as to how to monitors and a sub would work together.
5, Finally, there simply is no need: With great pair of stereo speakers in a decent room you can perfectly reproduce the full spectrum without the need or the headache of adding a sub. Because the medium itself is 2 channels, full spectrum, you can reproduce this with two full spectrum speakers.
Trying to use a sub is just attempting to use a potentially infected bandaid over a small wound.
Fix the room, not the tried and tested speaker designs specifically matched to the format along with about 500 years of acoustic design knowledge. |
|
|
|
|
