Question about studio monitoring differences...

[9000]

I know that the topic of studio monitors is a highly subjective one and has been brought up numerous times. With any amount of research and reading it seems that you can see both positive and negative reviews about each and every monitor in existence. So I guess my question is a bit more specific.

I've recently read some opinions that have knocked the "pro-sumer" sub-$500 active studio monitor category (general cheapness of parts, mass production, etc--> makes sense) and instead suggested to go the route of older (70's 80's) stereo receiver coupled with a decent pair of passive monitors (if this is the budget range you're working with--as I am). I'm tending to slide toward this approach and I know there are some folks on this board who would recommend that as they do the same thing in their setup.

I KNOW that I will have to adjust my ears to ANY monitor I choose and I know that some skill is involved in making mixes that work and I know that at some point I'll have to have a dedicated treated studio space (that's not in my dining room) to "truly" have controlled conditions. My space is very limited and my room is not the best acoustically. I KNOW MY ROOM SHOULD BE TUNED/TREATED-- I really don't need to hear much about this. I'm doing work that's overly critical... just my own and some friends' projects.

So my question is: does anyone have any opinions on the above thought? Going the route of a decent older receiver w/ some decent passives VS. some newer actives that cost less than $400 (in my case)? HERE'S WHAT I'M CURIOUS ABOUT SPECIFICALLY = any opinions on if I use a Pioneer SX-828 Receiver (early-70's) -- about 65-70 W/channel into 8 ohms with a pair of Tannoy PBM 6.5's... VS.... a pair of the newer KRK V4 II (series 2's). I've read good reviews about the original V4's as well as the series 2's. Keep in mind, I don't need loud and my space is fairly limited.

I appreciate any of your thoughts on the above concept and my specific question. And just so you know, I don't need recommendations on active monitors-- if I go that route, it will be with the V4 II's (hookup on low, low price).

Thanks! (btw, I'm using a G4, Motu 828, Tascam M-208 mixer, Tracktion, PT LE, various synths, samplers, outboard stuff---don't know if this is relevant but it seems that people end up yelling if they don't give enough info )

[mingus2112]

Not sure of the exact model, but my friend just got a pair of KRKs (powered) that he uses with his laptop and MOTU ultralite. . .they sound pretty damn good if you ask me. Funny enough. . .his old setup was an early '80s Pioneer receiver and Tannoy PBM 6.5s!!! He gave me the Tannoys, so I'm going to use them with my existing monitors (NS10s, B&W Solids)

-James

[9000]

He gave me the Tannoys, so I'm going to use them with my existing monitors (NS10s, B&W Solids)

-James

Thanks for the input. How do you like the Tannoy's? I seem to read that people either like the sound or don't (I guess that's true with pretty much EVERYTHING that's capable of emitting sound )

[mingus2112]

I haven't played with them a lot YET. To me, they're kind of like the NS10s only a little less harsh. I'm thinking they may be good to get a mix on FIRST, then tweek in on my NS10s. I'll let you know how it goes. As for you, I would hold onto them. If you get the KRKs, it's still good to have multiple speakers.

-James

[philbo]

Depends... Most '70s stereo speakers sound pretty scooped to me (like a graphic EQ set to a big smiley ). There are notable exceptions: (Magnaplanar, the big Klipsh'es) but generally I think most home stereo speakers from that era would not be suitable for use as the sole monitors in a studio. OTOH, I've always liked the accuracy of Tannoys, though I haven't heard your particular model.

I do think that 65W/Channel is underpowering them, unless you are in the habit of monitoring very quietly. Double (maybe triple) that number, and you'd then have the headroom needed to listen to uncompressed music accurately.

[Professor]

I'm one of those guys who advocates the cheap (though not necessarily old) amp with passive speakers over powered setups in those low-budget systems. My reasoning for it is mostly in the area of upgrades with sound-quality as a secondary benefit.
It's been my experience that most musicians seem to have spare amps hanging around or know where they can get them pretty cheap. Mom & dad's old hi-fi system, an old live sound amp, or something available for cheap from a thrift store, garage sale or pawn shop. Put simply, it is really easy even if you don't have a spare amp around to go out and buy a good $400-800 amplifier for $50-75 and maybe even less if you give yourself enough time. By contrast, if you are looking at a new set of powered speakers in the sub-$500 range, you are not likely to find more than about $100-200 worth of amplifier for which you'll have to pay $100-200.
Now what the hell does that mean anyway? Well, the parts of an amplifier that matter, the power supply, the size and capacity of the main transformer, the number and type of the output devices, the output power ratings, etc. are all going to be that of a higher-quality, more expensive unit than you'd find in your typical, cheap, MI-market, powered speaker.
And you may get some BONUS features from a hi-fi receiver like the ability to switch between multiple sources and maybe between A & B speaker outputs.
Also, I don't necessarily mean for you to buy the cheapest or oldest amp you can find. Actually I mean to advocate for the newest, most poserful, and cleanest amp you can find. A 1970s Pioneer may well be a nice amp, but might have some quirks or quality issues that make it worth less than an early 90s Pioneer or Sony or Denon or Adcom or Rotel, or in the pro realm Crown, QSC, or even Alesis (those little RA-100 amps were great for this sort of thing).

Either way you slice it, if you can get lots of amp for a little money, it leaves room for getting much more speaker for your money. And here I recommend checking into the local hi-fi store more than into the local music shop. The music shop will mostly sell you powered speakers and speakers built to meet your price point. Hi-fi stores will carry speakers built for sound-quality (and somewhat for look) that come from companies who build much more expensive and higher-quality products so their R&D filters down to their lower lines. Companies like JBL and Infinity in some stores, B&W, Dynaudio, Tannoy in others, or more esoteric names like Focal, Linn, Sonus Faber. And here also, keep an open mind towards used gear. Many home hi-fi stores have adopted a trade-in policy where buyers can trade up their speakers within one year at full or near-full purchase price towards a speaker of about double the price. (That means I spend $500 this year for a $500 pair, then $500 next year for a $1000 pair, then a $1000 the next year for a $2k pair.) For you that means used speakers for about 1/2 price that are only about a year old, or the ability to take advantage of the upgrade plan yourself.

And of course, upgrading is where this really starts to make sense.
Eventually you will want to upgrade. When you do, you'll be able to upgrade just your speakers or your amp without the need to do both. And it should be obvious that if 100% of your upgrade budget can be put towards speakers then you'll end up with better speakers than if you have to split and do both speakers and amps.

-Jeremy

[8th_note]

I've gone the route of passive hi-fi speakers plus an outboard amp and I'm very satisfied with my monitoring rig. I was an audiophile before I took up recording so I was pretty familiar with stereo gear.

For monitors I got a pair of Polk Audio Rti 38 bookshelf speakers because they received a recommendation in Stereophile magazine - a source I trust. I picked up an Onkyo integrated amp on ebay because I already had one of their integrated amps and liked the sound.

I used this system for about a year and then I added a Mirage 10" subwoofer. The sub has made a huge difference. I don't know why so many people are against subs. You can adjust the volume, crossover, and placement to get exactly the sound you want. When tuned properly a sub should not be noticable.

I've had two different people with recording rigs using active monitors (I think one was KRK and the other Mackie) comment on how good my monitoring rig sounds. In both cases they made comments to the effect, "wow, this is really clear and detailed." My mixes translate well and have improved since adding the sub. I can nail the bass on the first go 'round now.

Another nice aspect to this is that I have a CD player hooked up through the integrated amp and I can A/B my mixes against reference CDs very efficiently. I can match volume on the two sources and really hone in on the sound differences between them.

[9000]

I guess one of my biggest questions IS about how mixes translate for people working with this type of setup. Obviously you have to know your monitors/amp just as with every monitoring setup, and an ear for getting sounds to sit well together never hurts ( ). If using a hi-fi amp or even hi-fi monitors for that matter will have you listening to a big SMILEY face EQ curve, how come I hear a lot of people saying that their mixes translate pretty well? Is it because what they're monitoring on is closer to what a "consumer" will listen on, rather than a pair of "STUDIO MONITORS"?

[8th_note]

If using a hi-fi amp or even hi-fi monitors for that matter will have you listening to a big SMILEY face EQ curve, how come I hear a lot of people saying that their mixes translate pretty well?

Don't assume that modern hi-fi speakers are any less accurate than "studio monitors". My Polks are very flat which is one of the reasons I got them. They don't have a boost in the midbase - they just roll off at about 60 hz. They also are quite flat in the upper mids and highs.

If you try to go with vintage speakers you will have a greater chance of getting a smiley face frequency response. That's why I would not recommend going this route unless you have good information on the particular speakers you are looking to buy. Modern speakers have gotten better and the name brands have a flatter frequency response than their older bretheren.

For example, on the Stereophile website they have a review of a very low cost Infinity bookshelf speaker. Robert Reina, the reviewer, gives a very thorough overview and really likes this speaker. I trust this kind of review much more than a "studio monitor" review I read in EQ or Recording. Here's the link if you want to check it out. Stereophile Infinity Review

I think your chances are better of getting high quailty sound from a consumer bookshelf speaker from Infinity or Polk as opposed to an active "studio monitor" that you get at Guitar Center.

On ebay you can pick up Polk bookshelf speakers at a pretty reasonable cost. Try something like a 5 Jr or an Rti 38 and see what you think. Or you could get a pair of the Infinity Primus 150s reviewed in Stereophile. Either way you're spending very little dough and you are going to get speakers that are pretty darn good.

I've been an audiophile for over 30 years and I consider myself to be a pretty good judge of sound reproduction. Before I put together my monitoring setup I went to Guitar Center and listened to several pairs of active monitors. I was totally unimpressed. Some were better than others but there was nothing that jumped out at me with good sound. My Polk Rti 38s sound much better to me than any of those monitors. Granted, I haven't heard them side by side but after listening to half a dozen different monitors that day I walked out of there thinking, "hey, I can do way better than this."

[9000]

I think your chances are better of getting high quailty sound from a consumer bookshelf speaker from Infinity or Polk as opposed to an active "studio monitor" that you get at Guitar Center.

...high quality sound that will enable more accurate, or better, mixing decisions, correct?

[seaneldon]

KRK RP5s. Small. Sound good. Easy to get used to. Easy to lug around. Powered. Warranty. $300 for a pair brand new. No brainer.

[9000]

No brainer.

Not for me, but thanks for the input.

[8th_note]

...high quality sound that will enable more accurate, or better, mixing decisions, correct?

Exactly. There is nothing magic about speakers that are called monitors. One of the main things that monitor speakers are designed for is wide dispersion at close listening distance but most high quality bookshelf speakers have the same characteristic.

So if a "studio monitor" and a hi-fi speaker are doing basically the same job, what makes a good mixing speaker? In my view it is the same thing you look for in any speaker that plays music, i.e., flat frequency response, realism (does a acoustic guitar sound like an acoustic guitar?), articulation (can you hear the separate instruments or does it sound like mush?), and depth (if you place the speakers and yourself in the correct position can you almost literally see into the soundstage?).

I'm going to carry this one step further. Why do mastering engineers generally use high-end hi-fi speakers and not NS-10s? A serious ME may have speakers that cost over 20 grand per pair. Why would they spend this kind of money? I would propose that we all would do this if we could afford it. Wouldn't it make sense to mix on such a system?

The more hi-fi my monitoring setup is, the more I can hear from my mix. The more I can hear from my mix, the better job I can do with adusting eq, compression, reverb, you name it.

I guess to summarize, I think that we get hung up on gear that purports to be built specifically for a given task. In the case of monitors I suspect that we're paying quite a premium for speakers that don't sound as good but are branded and marketed to our little recording world.

Sorry for the longwinded diatribe. Geez, what got me started on this anyway?

[9000]

So if a "studio monitor" and a hi-fi speaker are doing basically the same job, what makes a good mixing speaker? In my view it is the same thing you look for in any speaker that plays music, i.e., flat frequency response, realism (does a acoustic guitar sound like an acoustic guitar?), articulation (can you hear the separate instruments or does it sound like mush?), and depth (if you place the speakers and yourself in the correct position can you almost literally see into the soundstage?).

But on the flip side, one thing that I don't want (and I'd assume most mixing wouldn't want), is a speaker/monitor that tends to sound good no matter what is being played through it. I've heard the argument that because hi-fi speakers are meant to be listened to and enjoyed in one's home, they will tend to make all/most material sound good since that's the point of listening to music in that environment.

Funny thing, I went to a nearby Guitar Center a while back and brought with me a professionally done CD that I'm familiar with, as well as a CD of a few things that I did. But the CD of MY STUFF consisted of a few poorly mixed and overall muddy, dark tracks that I put together roughly on some headphones--they weren't done and I hated how they sounded overall. So I wanted to see how they sounded on the monitors lined up at GC. I played the commercially done CD, sounded good in some, better in others, bad in others, whatever. Then I put my CD in--and at that time a sales rep had come in--and I begun switching monitors. Keep in mind, I'm trying to see what monitors make my mixes sound like what they were = bad and muddy. I got to a certain pair of popular actives (can't remember which ones ) that i know a lot of people use... A LOT... and my mix sounded nice (I know more factors are at play than just the monitor). In fact, the sales rep used that to try and sell me those more expensive monitors...as opposed to another model that seemed closer to my actual mix. He bascially said "see, those are way darker...you don't want those". Maybe I should go down to a hi-fi store and do the same test there. ?

Bottom line = I was looking for thoughts on the two approaches (stated earlier) and thus far I'm happy with what you all have said. Thanks!

[8th_note]

I've heard the argument that because hi-fi speakers are meant to be listened to and enjoyed in one's home, they will tend to make all/most material sound good since that's the point of listening to music in that environment.

That is a complete fallacy, IMO. Poor hi-fi speakers make everthing sound lousy. Good speakers make crappy stuff sound crappy and good stuff sound good. The thing that trips up novices is that crappy recordings sound better on great speakers than on shitty speakers. Duh. As you move up to better and better speakers the range you hear between good recordings and crappy recordings grows larger. That pair of monitors you listened to that made your mix sound better just happened to have a frequency response that complimented your muddy mix. On a good mix they would be too bright.

Maybe I should go down to a hi-fi store and do the same test there. ?

That's a great idea. See if you can hit one or two high end stores. Try to go during a slow time. Tell the salesman that you're looking for bookshelf speakers for your recording setup but you want to reference your ears to a couple of their nicest souding systems before listening to the smaller models. Hopefully you can find a place that has a dedicated stereo system for listening to music - not a home theater.