The smaller ones are not _that_ expensive ...? I was thinking about the 2.5 A, for example.

/Dietz

No, unfortunatly. About 4 times what I spent now. I´m sure that for their quality the price is VERY good. However, I´m a poor but happy student currently.

I can't resist saying something...

In my experience, it's a bit off-the-mark to specifically worry about whether speakers are "studio monitors" or not. Maybe some of you remember my slightly embarassing post about looking for studio monitors, and suddenly becoming fixated on the idea of finding a set of Polk Audio Monitor 5s, vintage circa 1978. Well, I found them. And it's the best $75.00 I've ever spent (admittedly, you'll normally find them for US $250-ish). Now, before everybody points out what a fool I must be, let me say that (to be totally cliche) my main deduction after using these things for a couple of months is -- "they just don't make them like they used to!"

When I started looking for monitors, like everybody, I went to my local music shop and listened to a wide variety, from within my price-range, to well beyond it (no, my original range wasn't $75!). The ones I liked best, and which were vaguely within my range, were the Mackie's (I think it's HR824). I listened to Berhingers and Tapcos, Genelecs, and a very nice pair of Blue Skys (yes, they were wonderful, but too pricey for me). But the main thing I came away with from this experience was the feeling that "flat" is basically an illusion, laying somewhere between an analytic fallacy and a psychoacoustic Holy Grail. Basically, my subjective discrimination of "flat" changed, however slightly, with each new set I listened to. This left me thinking... "God, I guess I just need speakers that *sound* reasonably flat to me, and that I don't feel irritated listening to!"

So I went away, somewhat dismayed, and for no good reason started dreaming of this ancient set of Polks my parents had when I was a kid. It somehow became stuck in my head that *those* had the sound I was after (yes, this is probably getting somewhat Fruedian!). Then, lo and behold, I found some -- and in my home town, no less! Honestly, these things sound brilliant: remarkably clean, detailed soundstage, flat response, tight bass, plenty of power. I would, in all honesty, place them well above the Berhingers and not far off the Mackies (no, I'm not stupid, they are *not* Genelecs or Blue Skys!).

So, to cut an already long story short(er), it seems to me the most vital points, in order of importance, are:

1) Knowing your speakers
2) Having speakers you can listen to for hours (fatigue will affect decisions)
3) Having a "flat" response
4) Playing your masters on as many different systems as possible

The old Polks did it for me. (But by no means am I suggesting they will "do it" for anyone else!). cheers!

J.

-- ps -- It is worth note that most hi-fi speakers of today are really quite "sculpted" in sound, and not particularly flat. I guess they sell better when they hide the rough edges... don't know... Also, note that "home theatre" speakers seem to be the big offenders in this aspect (gotta make them 'splosions real scaaary!). And admittedly, Polk has become one of the worst for "juicing up" the sound... too bad.

jbm,

Sad that Polks tend to hype the sound now. I had a set of 6 car speakers from Polk 20 years ago and thay had to be the best I've ever heard. Huge magnets, too. Heavy things pulled out of my door and had to be remounted with extra support.

Clark

Hopefully the goal here is to reproduce the most accurate sonic event from an electrical signal to an acoustic wavefront. It should not matter weather a speaker fit into a label catagory of "hi fi" or "professional", it only matters on how accurately it reproduces the signal, and in the most uncolored way. The term "flat frequency" response is used way too much in describing a speaker. Ask at what db level all of these frequencies (20 to 20,000?) are flat in a particular speaker....below 100 HZ. this statement can be misleading. The Dunlavys, the Meridian, the Legacy Whisper (to name just afew) are super hi fi, but you will find them in mastering studios where accuracy (at huge dynamic ranges) is paramount. Of course there are many "colored" sounding speakers on the market, but it would be a mistake to dismiss a product just because of it being labeled "hi-fi". Because, generally this is the group dedicated to persuing "the best it can be" in sound reproduction.

Something also to remember is to do comparative mixing, such as different speakers to headphones and even commercial recordings (of similar music) vs. your mix. My ears will go through many stages of fatigue throughout the day so these "ear checks" are necessary for me. It also levels the playing field somewhat concerning the loudspeaker choice, because this process also helps you learn your speakers. I use lots of different speaker systems in my studio, most of them very cheap (God bless Radio Shack). You only need one decent pair of speakers because then most everything else can be extrapolated from there. Oh, yeah and a great set of headphones is a must.

I have been satisfied with the performance to dollar my RCA surround system provides for me. Sure, it sounds TOTALLY different than a pro setup, but you have to ask yourself what exactly do you want to do with it? I make critical mix decisions with my better speakers then do final panning with the consumer system. With what I'm doing this is fine. Plus it helps me check the stuff out in a low-end real-world setup.

So my advice is get something that You like. By following jbm's 4 steps you should be very happy.

Actually a theoreticals speaker's "flat frequency" from 20Hz to 20kHz will almost sure result in a non-flat response in-room, depending on many factors such as room size, room treatment, walls, furniture, windows, gear... Flat response from 20Hz up is only good for very big rooms (theatre size at least) because room gain in smaller will give you more bass than you expect in this range. Also what's flat at all, how do we know something is flat? Two different speakers can have two absolutely same looking flat response and still sound a lot different (this goes even that far that for the higher priced monitors manufactors select two speakers of the same kind individually to build a pair)! This is due to construction issues as the methods of recording such responses usually free-air.

PolarBear

I Peter.
I work with Blue Sky since two years.
i choose this kind of monitor before their official italian distribution.
i've a 5.1 set-up in my little studio.
the blue sky sound great. it's a good choice.
belive me

Even though some speakers say the frequency response is 30hz-30k, unless they have 9" woofer, i've never had any that have gotten anything accurate below about 60hz.

I'd rather spend the same amount of money on 2 monitors and a subwoofer than on just 2 monitors with anything less than 9" woofers.

I had Event PS 5's which claimed to go down to 50hz, and underneath around 100hz was practically inaudible.

Even with my new ADAM P11a's (7.25" woofer), which are spectacular, however the difference between them with the subwoofer and without the subwoofer is gigantic.

I would miss alot of low end meanies lurking at the bottom of the frequency pail without the sub, especially in anything besides orchestral music.

That's my two cents, I might be completely wrong and inept, but personally I've had a few problems every once and a while mixing without a sub.

Does anyone else agree?

Yeah, the Blue Skys are really nice. While I was at the AES Convention the week before last, I visited a friend who's up there remixing the entire Talking Heads catalog in surround. He first heard the Blue Skys at my house, and they now have them in Jerry Harrison's studio in Sausalito.

Two things struck me. The first is that these are the first surround mixes I've heard that I really like. While I haven't heard a lot of surround, and bearing in mind that it's easy to lose perspective because someone is your friend, I honestly think these mixes stand a good chance of revolutionizing how people approach surround mixing. They're that good.

The second is that no matter how good the speakers are, there's a huge difference between a halfway treated room (as mine is) and one that was designed properly to start with or has been treated properly. Those speakers sound good in my room, and I can hear subtle details pretty well in here, but there's just no comparison to the way the low end sounds there and in my room.

Time to start fooling around with a measurement mic and some bass traps.

If you're researching the field a bit you might know faster how to treat your room instead of just fiddling around and tune to a subjective opinion. There are some easier rules (room measurements as basis for bass traps e.g.) and some that aren't that easy, but I'd not only rely on my ear, especially on the low end side of things. From what I gathered, the room itself is at least contributing 30% of the overall sound. Micing differences is almost necessary.

Disco, I agree that small woofers can't reproduce low end really accurate. However I think that 9" woofers are hard limit for monitors, as those monitors won't reproduce the mid-tones accurately then (tweeters would have to even lower frequencies to reproduce, which in analogy to the woofers their membranes again are to small for reproducing correctly). Adding a sub at will isn't trivial either if it is about accuracy (adding a third way with change of phasing). The exceptions proove the rule...

2 ct from my side,
PolarBear

What you're saying is exactly my point, PB.

At the moment I have an ASC MIX Station set up in a modified fashion (http://www.tubetrap.com/mixstation/index.html), along with a couple of Auralex foam sheets leaning against the front window, some Auralex LENRD foam wedges in the back corners (which isn't quite right, hence my need to do some work), and a strategically-placed bookcase behind me for dispersion.

That's one step above one-size-fits-all treatment. I need some bass-trapping as well, and as you and I both say, I need to look at sweeps with a measurement mic to do it properly.

The other thing is that I've been convinced by a friend (www.moultonlabs.com) that contrary to conventional wisdom, putting absorption on the sides is not a good idea. All that does is insert a lowpass filter in your room; you only hear comb-filtering interference if the relections come from the same angle as the speakers, so the place to get rid of reverb is at the front of the room.

That's not what I have set up, but I believe it's the ideal way to do it.

While you guys are on the room tuning subject, I've often wonder how my 2 19" CRT monitors, placed right in front of me, and directly between my speakers, might tamper with my sound?... With my desk, there's really no great place to put them, but I'm sure they have an effect. But it seems to me that pretty much everybody working with software studios must be dealing with this problem. How do you guys have your monitors (displays, that is) set up? Mine are at about eye-level, and thus about the same level as my speakers, and about 8 inches closer to me than my speakers. My setup really is far from ideal, and there's not a lot I can do about it, but would it make sense to lower them, and move them back?

J.

The effect is usually that the sound seems to come from in front of the computer monitors rather than behind the speakers, in other words it removes a lot of depth. You may be able to get some of it back by leaving a small gap between the two monitors, or possibly by raising them so the sound can get underneath them, but ideally you'd mount them down and at an angle to keep them out of the way.

Thanks Nick,

I hadn't really thought about it before, so that's good to know. I'll see if I can mount them lower -- it should be possible in my setup.

cheers,

J.