@vibrato said:

Hmm...subs can be a over kill - but it really depends on the kind of music one wants to be involved with.
There are ways to set up a sub to have a seamless integration between the speakers and the sub. In this case, the main speakers dont go below a certain frequecy and the sub really takes care of things. more!.

Indeed, that is of course possible. But my main concern would be: does this setup give me a true neutral reference, so that I can be assured that my delivered mixes will sound right on every system? The main purpose for reference monitors is to hear the actual sound, without any coloring. To avoid someone's homespeakers blowing up when playing your music.

But if that's not your main purpose, then it's a different matter.
If you want that really deep bass, which reference monitors often lack, then your idea is of course very useful.

Personally I mix everything on reference speakers, and if in any doubt I always check afterwards on:
- crappy speakers
- a regular hifi system in another room
- headphones
- a consumer surround setup with overkill subwoofer-[[:)]]

I've come to learn that what sounds like "just the right amount of bass" on direct reference monitors can already sound very powerful on a consumer set, or hifi set. Especially since a lot of people "pump up the bass"-knob, or have the "loudness" switched on by default.

But again, that's important when you have to deliver mixes.
For personal experiments (including goosebumps and thrills evoked by really loooooow frequencies)... I would go your way too-[[:)]]

Cheers,

Alex

The Blue Sky System One I'm using *needs* a sub to go with the portless 6" sats, and it works really well. If you calibrate it properly (and trap bass as needed in your room) it isn't an exaggerated sound at all - it's very natural. Knowing what's happening at the low end is as important with orchestral music as it is with beat music, in my opinion. But it's also useful to turn off the sub as a reference sometimes.

Rob, it's always interesting to me how many people rave about the LSR28Ps. And I mean serious professional engineers who know what they're talking about. I just don't get it. To me those speakers have a huge, obvious flabby lump around 300 (I think it was 300, but it was squarely in the mudrange) that makes things like vocals sound very unnatural. And I almost lost my job at Recording magazine when JBL got mad at me for saying that. [:)]

Sorry to be a jerk - I don't mean to be negative, and I know from having heard your stuff that you have no problem at all mixing on them. Perhaps I'm focusing on how empty the glass is rather than on the things those speakers do well.

Anyway, they've since come out with a different model that takes its place, which I haven't heard.

@Nick Batzdorf said:

The Blue Sky System One I'm using *needs* a sub to go with the portless 6" sats, and it works really well. If you calibrate it properly (and trap bass as needed in your room) it isn't an exaggerated sound at all - it's very natural. Knowing what's happening at the low end is as important with orchestral music as it is with beat music, in my opinion. But it's also useful to turn off the sub as a reference sometimes.

Hey Nick,

First and all: I agree upon your mentioning the importance of low end in various type of music. There is of course no distinction.

As for *needing* a sub: true in your case, because your sats have a frequency responce of 80 hz-20Khz.
So they do indeed need "extra bottom".
I'm referring to full range monitor speakers like the Adams P-11 (48 Hz-35 Khz), the Mackies HR 824 (39Hz-20kHz) and other alike.
They do not need a subwoofer, whatever kind of sounds or music you mix on them.

Which doens't mean that you absolutely can't, it's a free world after all.
But it is not needed, and by adding the sub, you add a liability to the neutral character of you referencing, no?

Not in your case of course, Your System One is especially created as a matched trio.

But Mackies and Adam's can make the very air tremble, I assure you-[:)]
Although I have to admit that the 9 Hz in difference between the Adams and Mackies is noticeable, in favour of the Mackies.

When I use my Adam sub for 5.1 monitoring, the main difference I don't hear, but mostly feel. And only with very low frequency sounds, like explosions, earthquakes, Vienna's Taiko drum, the Concert Bass Drum and so on.
And that's also the purpose for which the sub was initially created: for this extra deep rumble in movie theaters.
Later on, with the coming of small satelite speakers (for pc or hifi), the sub became necessary in home systems as well.

I have an old pair of 70's speakers (Pioneer HPM-100) that can (probably)go as low as my Adam Sub 10, which is 20 Hz. One day I was playing them very loud on the 2nd floor, the soundtrack of "Dracula", track 1... When I went down to get a drink, I noticed to my surprise that all the glasses on my shelf in the living room where slowly, one by one, dancing towards the edge and tumbling down towards a shattering end...Very lemming. Maybe that's why they don't make such speakers anymore, shame though...

In the end I'd like to add that the main thing is to know your speakers.
I've known people who delivered great mixes, using a very colored, not too great sounding hifi set. But they knew the shortcomings of their speakers, and adjusted that automatically in their mix.
While others did a very weak, sloppy mix; although they had the top of the bill-monitors at their disposal...but no experience.

You can hook up 10 subs if you like, as long as you know how your resulting mix will sound on other speakers, in other rooms, with often loudness constantly on, or bass "pumped up"...

By using full range reference speakers, you know that (in theory) your mix is always safe. And that's their main purpose.

Cheers,

Alex

@Nick Batzdorf said:

The Blue Sky System One I'm using *needs* a sub to go with the portless 6" sats, and it works really well. If you calibrate it properly (and trap bass as needed in your room) it isn't an exaggerated sound at all - it's very natural. Knowing what's happening at the low end is as important with orchestral music as it is with beat music, in my opinion. But it's also useful to turn off the sub as a reference sometimes.

Rob, it's always interesting to me how many people rave about the LSR28Ps. And I mean serious professional engineers who know what they're talking about. I just don't get it. To me those speakers have a huge, obvious flabby lump around 300 (I think it was 300, but it was squarely in the mudrange) that makes things like vocals sound very unnatural. And I almost lost my job at Recording magazine when JBL got mad at me for saying that. [:)]

Sorry to be a jerk - I don't mean to be negative, and I know from having heard your stuff that you have no problem at all mixing on them. Perhaps I'm focusing on how empty the glass is rather than on the things those speakers do well.

Anyway, they've since come out with a different model that takes its place, which I haven't heard.

Good point Nick about the midrange being a little bumped on these. Now that you say it I do notice a bit about this. Otherwise I have enjoyed these for the last 5-6 years or so. I think in the next few months I am considering upgrading this monitor system.

If my budget was in the $1000-1800 range - what would be everyone's recommendation for the best monitors. I do some vocals and live recordings but but 70% is working in and around Vienna.

I am totally open to the idea of Subs as well. Since I am planning this upgrade should I now consider 5.1??? If so what would be the recommendations?

Thanks for your recommendations.


Rob

I agree with everything you're saying, Alex. The main danger is when people use standard NFMs that only go down to about 60Hz, causing them to miss things like vocal pops and piano hammer thuds.

Rob, it's actually the *mudrange* rather than the midrange. [[:)]] The muddy area is around 300Hz - the upper bass range.

I should have kept my mouth shut, because I don't mean to make you hate your speakers. [[:)]] What starts my compulsive blathering every time the subject of those speakers comes up is that the whole episode I described was very unpleasant, and it doesn't take much to conjure it up again. I had recruited two other people (both professional engineers) to do a round-up of small powered NFMs, and a couple of companies that didn't have the best speakers in our opinion were furious.

How could we criticize the work of Floyd Toole (who designed the LSR28p)?! Well, obviously he knows what he's doing, but we still had to report what we heard.

It was really ugly.

I mean the uproar was ugly, not the sound. [:)]

Totally understand Nick. If you had a budget of $1000-1800 for a new monitor system - what would be the pick? Should I be looking at 5.1 system?


Rob

I assume you don't have a power amp, right?

Well, I haven't heard the ADAMs or listened to the current crop, which includes the small ATCs. What I can say is that there seem to be a couple of categories. One would include Genelec, Dynaudio, and Macke. They all have a rather bright, precise sound, and they all sound like speakers, if that makes sense - you're always aware that the sound is coming from a box rather than being in the room. I don't really know how to put it any other way; my guess is that it has to do with their dynamic response, not their transient response or dispersion.

That is not at all to say they're bad or that they have an exaggerated high end ("bright"). Actually, I wouldn't mind having a pair, since it's very easy to hear reverbs and other details on them. A few years ago I personally liked the Dynaudios the best of the three, but then that was a few years ago and this is totally subjective. Also, the three don't sound the same - it's just a category.

The other category is speakers that don't fall into that category. [:)] I'd put your LSR28ps in this group, as well as my Blue Skys, the KRKs, and some others.

Right now I'm very happy with the Blue Sky System One. It's not necessarily the absolute best there is at any price, but it's really good. Its only flaw is a slight dip around 1.5kHz, but it's slight and easy to work around (all speakers have flaws); I have no other complaints about anything else - imaging, freq response, overall sound, fatigue inducement, etc. There aren't too many other monitors around that sound nice *and* are good to work on - it seems to be one or the other.

I don't want to say "buy this," though, because I haven't gone out and listened to what's around these days. My opinion is probably five years out of date.

Wow Nick - many thanks for all the information. Thanks


Rob

Hi there!
We bought a pair of Dynaudio Air 20 two months ago and we love them! We listened to a lot of monitors before we decided to buy the Airs and I can say that they are quite neutral, which means: no oversized bass or too shiny treble, very honest mids and we are able to look "into the mix" now so we got some very satisfying results.
Another interesting feature is: they work completely digital and are connected to the interface via AES/EBU so there's no loss on the way to the speakers. We tried the analog inputs(optional) but the digital inputs are way better.

Holger

I've used Dynaudio BM15s for 7 yeaars and never regreted this investment. I do pro mastering and mixing and these monitors are a marvelous piece of engineering. As for Genelecs, I would rank them very low and would never ever reccomend them to anyone. They sound far too good and tricks the user into thinking what he/she is listening to is good, while in fact it's far from. The top is way too open and airy, and the bottom even sounds like there is compression going on, resulting in a muddy and undefined sound in your mixes, especially the bottom end comes out poor in mixes done on the Genelecs. I say this from my experience over the years getting mixes in for mastering, and also from composing and (attempting) mixing on them. I speak of the 1032As especially, which many places are seen as industry standard monitors. My advice, dont touch them with a 10 foot pole if you want to deliver mixes that needs to work well in real life applications. Ofcourse, everyone can learn their monitoring system so well that they can work around their shortcommings, but why make it harder for yourself from the get-go? I do know quite a few composers who prefer the Gens for this very reason, that they give instant gratification when composing as things tend to sound pretty good right out the box.

One Genelec model I really dig though is the 1037 which I own a pair of. If the size of your room is moderate, these 15" inch speakers do very well in a midfield position. These might be out of your budget range though, but maybe u can find some used ones.

My advice is to go for the fantastic Adam or Dynaudio speakers. You will never regret it.

@Another User said:

they work completely digital and are connected to the interface via AES/EBU so there's no loss on the way to the speakers. We tried the analog inputs(optional) but the digital inputs are way better.

Well, that means that you like their D/A converters better than the ones on whatever's feeding the monitors.

I'm being a little picky, but the next step is tempting but false: that *any* D/A converter in a speaker is better than one at the other end of some cables due to loss on the way there. There's absolutely nothing wrong with running signals through decent wire, in my opinion, and my guess is that you could probably find better D/As on the planet that would sound still better going over good cables!

More importantly, you could probably find speakers with crap D/As in them that don't sound very good. That's just in general - I believe Roland had some speakers with built-in D/As, and I'm not dissing them at all, in fact I haven't even heard them. And there must be others.

Having said that, different cables really do have an affect on the sound. But that's a separate issue.

Well, I don't know that I'd go as far, but in all honesty I agree with those criticisms of the little Genelecs. I've found the same - they make everything sound good. And I find it hard to know what things sound like on them. I remember a session that a friend was engineering, and started EQ-ing a snare on them. Believe it or not, when he switched to the NS-10s it was immediately obvious what that snare sounded like. Before that it was really hard to tell.

But I do respect them. They're certainly not bad speakers, they just have a certain kind of sound. Again, it's very easy to hear reverbs and spaces on them, and a lot of very good engineers swear by them.

I just purchased a pair of Adam A-7's... they're superb. A small footprint, I use them in conjunction with my Macke HR824's. Highest recommendation.

My vote is for Event Studio Precision 8's. I've used them for about six months now and couldn't be happier.

you can check them out here

Found an incredible deal on the matching sub for my JBL's LSR28P's. Wow - I really love it. Nice to be able to crossover at about 100 khz (that duty is now NOT with the references.


Rob

@Rob Elliot said:

Nice to be able to crossover at about 100 khz

[:D] ... a crossover at 100 kHz will make the bats cry! [;)]

@Rob Elliot said:

Nice to be able to crossover at about 100 khz

[:D] ... a crossover at 100 kHz will make the bats cry! [;)]


OK, I'll experiment with it [:D] - Dietz - isn't THX spec'd at 80 hz crossover for subs?


Rob

Rob read agin - Khz and Hz. [[;)]]

As for crossing at 100Hz, imo this is a bit high and you should consider going down to around 70-80Hz, or you might end up mixing towards what will be a very non-representive result on normal speakers. It all depends on your monitors, room and setup ofcourse.

@Vagn Luv said:

Rob read agin - Khz and Hz. [[;)]]

As for crossing at 100Hz, imo this is a bit high and you should consider going down to around 70-80Hz, or you might end up mixing towards what will be a very non-representive result on normal speakers. It all depends on your monitors, room and setup ofcourse.

What is a "K" amongst friends??? [:O]ops:


Bats AND Dogs would die [[:|]] Have it set up at 80 hz and sounds great.


Rob