Most linear near field studio monitors?

[TimVG]

So, I've had the opportunity to try the new Genelecs with the tweeter in the middle, Amphion One 18, PSi 17 and the Neumann KH310.

The Neumann KH310 are amazing, super linear, crazy low end and very smooth high end however, from a mixing perspective, it's really hard to identify the mid range and treble on these speakers and the low end seems to be somewhat overemphasized but I'd love to use them as a second pair listening setup, not for referencing though.

The new Genelecs are surprisingly linear as well with great mid range, not as overemphasized as the KH310 but really very wide low end range and good treble representation but the high end is really harsh and on longer mixing sessions would make me tame it / take out it when it wouldn't be necessary.

Just as the KH310s, the PSi A17 have an amazing listening experience but the low mids acuatically are hanging out like beer belly, they do sound nice from a listeners perspective, giving you a "warm" sound but to my ears not really linear. The lows are great, not as huge as on the KH310s but rather correct like the Genelecs and not overemphasized so actually translate well. Sadly, I really had a hard time pointing out the treble and could barely hear the high end. Great speaker for listening in my opinion or as a second referencing monitor such as the KH310 but not really for making critical decisions in the treble and high end. I actually expected the PSi 17a to sound completely different.

One big problem the PSis have, is the transient response, compared to the KH310, Genelecs and Amphions, I find it really dampened and not as responsive, very mushy.

I originally thought I'd prefer the PSis or the KH310s given all the reviews but to my surprise, the Amphion One 18s hit the mark. They have an incredible transient response, amazing mid, treble and high end extension where I'm able to exactly pin point Instruments' frequency representation. They don't have the same amazing low end representation as the KH310, Genelecs or PSi A17 but translate amazingly well in anything above. You also can't make them as loud as all the others but they are nearfield monitors and shouldn't be cranked that much I feel. But for it's size, they also have a surprisingly good low end. The high end also while being very present is smooth as hell and won't fatigue.

Compared to all the other speakers, the Amphion One 18s have the most transparent sonic representation without having any coloration or dampened area. If the Amphions hadn't been available, I probably would've picked the genelecs and dampened the tweeter a bit.

All of them had a great stereo image and widness.

But I do understand why the Amphions are so hyped, they have an amazing translation, impeccable transient response and would be a step up from my ProAc SM 100. Which have a little bit of a 100 - 150 Hz hump and 10k bump but as the Amphions also translated amazingly well and give a very transparent sonic representation.

I am first and foremost a mixing engineer and have honed that craft at an early age for the past 20 years which means I'm usually pushing untreated sources heavily into an area where they shine vs working on already finished tracks. In that regard, low mids, mid range, treble and high end are the most important frequency areas while making sure that the low end is as fat as possible without feeling out of place with the rest.

No offence, but that's really not a good way to compare speakers (going from the attached photo). For a proper comparison each model needs to be in the same physical place. Each model would also need some sort of low range compensation below the transition of the room into the modal range. The Amphions are pretty decent in terms of objective behaviour, nothing really SOTA - but what they do very well is vertical integration of drive units, indeed almost like a point source. If their sound pleases you, all the better. Quite expensive for what you're getting though.

 

[aac]

This is about the only thing I don't like about mine. They're a little... soft? I guess, in the midrange. Super detailed, but I think a slight hump around 1.5-2k (like maybe a dB) could make them sound a little more "real" there. In fact, I'm going to try that and report back.

Update: Yep! This did it. 1dB at a Q of 0.5 at 2k, the "softness" disappears.

If a low distortion linear speaker is "soft", is it a speaker that is soft or the record?
Shouldn't we judge it the other way around? Or if a few linear speakers sound different and one is the soft one is not - find the cause?

 

[dfuller]

If a low distortion linear speaker is "soft", is it a speaker that is soft or the record?
Shouldn't we judge it the other way around? Or if a few linear speakers sound different and one is the soft one is not - find the cause?

It happens across records, and it's not something that shows up on a spin - but I definitely did notice it. It has always taken me a little longer than strictly necessary to dial in midrange stuff on them. With that EQ filter, it goes away.

 

[spankjam]

No offence, but that's really not a good way to compare speakers (going from the attached photo). For a proper comparison each model needs to be in the same physical place. Each model would also need some sort of low range compensation below the transition of the room into the modal range. The Amphions are pretty decent in terms of objective behaviour, nothing really SOTA - but what they do very well is vertical integration of drive units, indeed almost like a point source. If their sound pleases you, all the better. Quite expensive for what you're getting though.

That was just a posing photo, they were all taken down and placed at the desk for listening don't worry I sat there first and selected the ones worth listening to roughly in the beginning.

 

[spankjam]

If a low distortion linear speaker is "soft", is it a speaker that is soft or the record?
Shouldn't we judge it the other way around? Or if a few linear speakers sound different and one is the soft one is not - find the cause?

It's not based on a record, I've been listening on monitors critically for the past 20 years and I can tell when something is a speaker characteristic or a record sonic imprint.

 

[spankjam]

Yes I’m sure. A bump at 500hz might be revealing of some low mid mud. But the Amphions are more revealing across the frequency range. The One 15s will let you know if your hats are too piercing. The KH120s not so much.

Are you a mixer by any chance?
I’m not sure what your last sentence was supposed to mean, but the difference between raw stems and a final mix is usually night and day.

I noticed that they are a bit less revealing on the low mids side but that's an area when you are producing / mixing records which you shouldn't touch unless it is an obvious issue. Usually you leave the mid range be and add treble / high end and figure out the lows.

 

[lowkeyoperations]

^i cut sh!t loads out of the low mids. But then I mainly produce dub techno and house. The frequencies between 100-500 are usually the worst for congestion.

 

[dfuller]

^i cut sh!t loads out of the low mids. But then I mainly produce dub techno and house. The frequencies between 100-500 are usually the worst for congestion.

I work on rock and metal primarily, and... yeah. There's a lot of woofy muddy junk between about 200-500.

 

[spankjam]

I work on rock and metal primarily, and... yeah. There's a lot of woofy muddy junk between about 200-500.

Yeah that's standard and not bad on the Amphions, you can hear it out also excellent just not as emphasized as on the PSis, which I find artificial and overpronounced. From the bunch of them, I found these to be sonically linear: Amphions, (new) Genelecs and KH310s. I was just surprised how colored the PSis sounded.

 

[Weeb Labs]

No offence, but that's really not a good way to compare speakers (going from the attached photo). For a proper comparison each model needs to be in the same physical place. Each model would also need some sort of low range compensation below the transition of the room into the modal range. The Amphions are pretty decent in terms of objective behaviour, nothing really SOTA - but what they do very well is vertical integration of drive units, indeed almost like a point source. If their sound pleases you, all the better. Quite expensive for what you're getting though.

There is also the issue of sighted comparisons. Audio engineers are just as susceptible as the rest of us.

 

[spankjam]

There is also the issue of sighted comparisons. Audio engineers are just as susceptible as the rest of us.

I took them off and put them on the same position on a demo desk with acoustic treatment because from that position I simply got a rough idea of liking it or not to pick speakers to demo.

 

[krabapple]

Lots of anecdotes, not enough science.

 

[spankjam]

Lots of anecdotes, not enough science.

No science or graph of linearity will tell you what they sound like, on paper they should be all very close but when listening on them, they're very far apart.

 

[lowkeyoperations]

Lots of anecdotes, not enough science.

Got any science to tell us which Nearfield monitors enable us to produce music that translates best across other playback systems?

The High End Nearfield Test thread at GS at least uses the same studio to test run a broad range of monitors for that same purpose.

What scientific measurements do you have that will tell us which monitor most clearly highlights changes on a compressor?

Alas, the only measurement tool i know of for such a test are my ears.

 

[krabapple]

Either of you got anything other than anecdotes?


The wide range of audio quality we experience from recordings is hardly a testament to the reliance on 'my ears' over data acquired from using scientific methods. Dr. Toole aptly calls it the result of a 'Circle of Confusion'.

 

[Frgirard]

Either of you got anything other than anecdotes?


The wide range of audio quality we experience from recordings is hardly a testament to the reliance on 'my ears' over data acquired from using scientific methods. Dr. Toole aptly calls it the result of a 'Circle of Confusion'.

Science where ? This word used adnoseum by the pseudo objectivists: the circle of confusion.
When i run I measure the distance, the time and my cardiac frequency. I don't do science.
The speakers measurements and the listening share à common domain but the one do not said about the two and vice versa.
No audiophile in his living room have a decent reproduction of the bass with a high decay> 400 ms and yet how many are self-satisfied.

Measures, measurements, measurements... 3.14159

 

[Weeb Labs]

What scientific measurements do you have that will tell us which monitor most clearly highlights changes on a compressor?

Haven't you ever found yourself unknowingly adjusting a bypassed setting for an extended period of time, all the while being certain that it was producing a significant effect? I certainly have and I know of no audio engineer who hasn't experienced this phenomenon at some point. Consider that if those are only the occasions on which we became aware of it, how much more often must it actually be occurring without our knowledge?

When a perceived quality fails to appear in measurements, the first course of action should be to determine whether it exists independently of the listener at all, rather than simply concluding that the measurements must somehow be incomplete. The human auditory system is very easily steered.

 

[krabapple]

Science where ? This word used adnoseum by the pseudo objectivists: the circle of confusion.
When i run I measure the distance, the time and my cardiac frequency. I don't do science.
The speakers measurements and the listening share à common domain but the one do not said about the two and vice versa.
No audiophile in his living room have a decent reproduction of the bass with a high decay> 400 ms and yet how many are self-satisfied.

Measures, measurements, measurements... 3.14159

Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with Toole's meaning of 'Circle of Confusion', before creating one of your own.

 

[pseudoid]

Science where ? This word used adnoseum by the pseudo objectivists: the circle of confusion.

Are you making fun of my nose?

Hey there, @spankjam,
I am guessing your next question may just be "What happens when I put this ruler flat linearity inside of my otherwise non-linear room?"
Am I close?

 

[lowkeyoperations]

The people who are wanting more science provide none?

Which monitor translates best?

Point to the science that gives a better answer than the Highend Nearfield Test thread at GS. In the absence of any scientific information people are going to have to use their ears in the mean time.