Dutch & Dutch 8Cs

[svart-hvitt]

Never mind the orange light. Why do you choose to use studio monitors at home? Do you sit in the sweet spot and listen alone 3-6 feet away from them? If so, I understand.

What is, measurably, the difference between «studio monitors» and home speakers?

 

[fredoamigo]

for me the concern for light is not very important.
the question that I still don't have an answer to and that always poses me a little problem is this one .

""

4 kgs is a big weight loss cure for an hp this size? Where are the lost kgs?



are the rear woofers that are changed, I guess? for what reason? this statement deserves clarification ?

""

 

[Dialectic]

I am afraid you were misled by another audio pundit.
I wrote that majority of speakers in studios are "powered" , that means with amps built-in and passive speaker level signal crossovers in the speakers AFTER the amps. That's what "powered monitors" are. Mr Robjohns in your quoted article offers an incorrect definition of "powered monitors" and "active" saying:
"Active speakers come in two forms: true 'active' monitors, which have a separate amplifier for each driver, and 'powered' monitors, which have a single amplifier built into the cabinet, feeding both drivers via a normal passive crossover."
In fact studio monitors usually employ bi-amping and tri-amping (something he apparently is confused about ) with passive crossovers. "Active"also means something different. "Passive/active" relates to filters (crossover networks). If they use an outside power source to operate, typically 5-15 V, they are active line level signal devices. If they work on the line level signal or speaker level signal without own power supply they are passive. Nothing to do with the amps built into speakers or not . Active crossovers can be discrete electronics based ( I use those) or DSP based. I discontinued using the latter due to additional a/d/a steps beyond my control. EQ can be added to active circuits both in discrete and DSP versions (easier and cheaper). Active XO can be built into speakers before amps (in-line) or they can be built in-line into separate amplifiers before their power output modules, away from the speakers.
And to make things more complicated there are also PLLXO-- passive line level crossovers, non powered filters operating at line level voltages (inductor based). I use them in my designs too. I use a mixture of PLLXO plus active in-line crossovers in the separate amps and passive crossovers at the speaker-- all in one system. Whatever works best.
Oh yes, I also use a mechanical crossover in one system. I love it. It's a midwoofer that institutes a bandpass filter with
its mechanical construction. This one gives the clearest sound. It's supplemented with a first order passive speaker level XO
(one cap) midtweeter. Subs for this one have a passive or active line level (depending on application) Low Pass filter.
In professional work nobody has time/money for such games. The equipment has to be good quality, reliable, easily operated and serviceable and last but not least sensibly priced. It's got to pay for itself. So powered monitors of dependable brands
it usually is. If somebody can hear 0.5 dB SPL differences good for him.

This is almost entirely wrong. Most recording and mastering studios now use analog active speakers--i.e., speakers using line-level analog crossovers. Some recording and mastering studios are switching to digital active speakers like the Kiis, D&Ds, and certain JBL and Genelec models. The era of NS-10Ms is behind us.

In the rarefied elite segment of mastering studios, many engineers use passive audiophile speakers and amps. Why? Probably because their clients are impressed by the appearance and the expense.

 

[Dialectic]

for me the concern for light is not very important.
the question that I still don't have an answer to and that always poses me a little problem is this one .

""
""

I don't have an answer and am hoping that D&D posts here about it.

I'm also curious about gain. I find I'm having to run the new speakers at much higher levels through the AES inputs to achieve the same output levels as with the previous pair.

To be clear, I'm not concerned. Just curious.

 

[pirad]

What is, measurably, the difference between «studio monitors» and home speakers?

Studio monitors are meant to deliver close facsimile of the original recording with minimal input from your listening environment. Acoustic treatment
and/or near field listening are advised. Especially in cramped/non-studio locations the latter is common (eg. OB vans). The goal is easiest achieved while
concentrating on on-axis performance, where the creative decisions are made.
Home listening is usually compromised by circumstances. "False" local reflections are unavoidable. The room colors the sound. Many people listen. What counts is the sound field in a much bigger area. How "live" it is , how much it imitates a concert performance. Less importance to on-axis experience, more to big listening areas. I have poor idea how to measure all that. Dr. Toole would probably castigate me . All I know is that sometimes a lie can be more beautiful than the truth. And that studio monitors sound to me "dryly true" at home. This is of course "De gustibus..." etc etc.

 

[pirad]

This is almost entirely wrong. Most recording and mastering studios now use analog active speakers--i.e., speakers using line-level analog crossovers. Some recording and mastering studios are switching to digital active speakers like the Kiis, D&Ds, and certain JBL and Genelec models. The era of NS-10Ms is behind us.

In the rarefied elite segment of mastering studios, many engineers use passive audiophile speakers and amps. Why? Probably because their clients are impressed by the appearance and the expense.

"Almost / most / some "--can you give the figures? Probably not, me neither. I haven't seen an inflation of passive studio speakers on the secondary market though. They are still being amortized. I have nothing against analog active, I use it. I have this thing with DSP. But I also dislike cars with a lot of electronics , so I am weird.

 

[pirad]

[QUOTE="
In the rarefied elite segment of mastering studios, many engineers use passive audiophile speakers and amps. Why? Probably because their clients are impressed by the appearance and the expense.[/QUOTE]

Or maybe in the rooms where clients make approval decisions the mid-field "home" speakers sound better than near-field studio monitors ?

 

[Dialectic]

Or maybe in the rooms where clients make approval decisions the mid-field "home" speakers sound better than near-field studio monitors ?

"Better" perhaps in the sense of more distortion or coloration.

 

[Cosmik]

...studio monitors sound to me "dryly true" at home. This is of course "De gustibus..." etc etc.

And also expectation bias - I know because I suffer from it like everyone else. I think that 'negative expectation bias' is a much stronger, more reliable force than the positive version. For me, the 8C plastic appearance is a bit off-putting and I would have to overcome it with some serious mental exercise before I could enjoy them.

Show me something like this and I'm going to buy into the sound a lot quicker, I think:

 

[Dialectic]

And also expectation bias - I know because I suffer from it like everyone else. I think that 'negative expectation bias' is a much stronger, more reliable force than the positive version. For me, the 8C plastic appearance is a bit off-putting and I would have to overcome it with some serious mental exercise before I could enjoy them.

Show me something like this and I'm going to buy into the sound a lot quicker, I think:

What about something like this?

 

[oivavoi]

What about something like this?

When I see such things I always get the sense that they are sentient robots which are about to attack me.

 

[Dialectic]

When I see the big Wilsons, I'm reminded of the human centipede movies.

I like the way the D&Ds look, even more than I like the appearance of the Kiis. Simple, no nonsense.

 

[pirad]

98.72% of recording and mastering studios. Seriously, an overhwelming majority of them use ATC and PMC analog actives. Your assertion that studios tend to biamp and triamp passive speakers is wrong.

Agreed about your being weird.

I am particular about ATC, less about PMC. Which models you would point to as the overwhelming majority?

 

[Frank Dernie]

I had a listen to the original WAMMs which were for sale used in the mid 1990s. Maybe I was expecting more but apart from the bass power I found them uninspiring and they are astonishingly big and ugly.

This shows the plethora of drive units

This is what the ones I heard looked like

The new ones aren't more attractive imo.

 

[Thomas savage]

When I see such things I always get the sense that they are sentient robots which are about to attack me.

They attack in pairs , your wallet will be dealt a fatal blow and your ears won’t be any happier for it..., your ego might thank you though

 

[Cosmik]

What about something like this?

I really hate that brand's appearance!

 

[pirad]

 

[Sal1950]

A nice stain and finish is all they need.

 

[oivavoi]

My most recent photographic work of art: "Temporary listening attic, featuring Dutch speakers and listening chair, no. 1"

 

[oivavoi]

Now playing: "Avant folk" by Frode Haltli, who's probably the coolest accordionist in existence.

Sounds pretty awesome on the Dutchmen.