Audiophile vs Pro Speakers

[watchnerd]

Kitchen build:

View attachment 9512 View attachment 9513 View attachment 9514 View attachment 9515 View attachment 9517 View attachment 9518

Last pic is at the tuning phase. Horn and parts of the inside of panels constrained layer damped with the 1st product shown, here: http://www.wurth.co.nz/cat/files/assets/downloads/page0198.pdf .
The horns respond with a very low-level dull thunk when tapped. The table has been removed and the 32Hz port tuning works well

Altec: 416-8B, 8o2-8D compression driver, 511B horn.

I have some JBL 2404H compression drivers that I haven't added. Probably won't.

SS bi-amped, 50W top and 100W bottom per side, digital active crossover(@500Hz) and equaliser.

What's stuffed into the ports?

Socks?

Scottish kilts?

Exotic banana hammocks?

 

[Wombat]

Air.

 

[c1ferrari]

What sort of studio monitor? Newell & Holland identify at least three classes, each with their own requirements.

-recording monitor
-mix monitor
-mastering monitor

Hi,

Can you summarize what Newell & Holland had written wrt the requirements of recording monitors, mix monitors, and mastering monitors?

 

[jhaider]

What sort of studio monitor? Newell & Holland identify at least three classes, each with their own requirements.

-recording monitor
-mix monitor
-mastering monitor

I am unfamiliar with Newell & Holland. Does the distinction have to do with SPL needed?

Regardless, in any of those classes, is a speaker with flat and smooth on axis frequency response, smooth off axis frequency response, and minimal resonances a suboptimal choice?

 

[watchnerd]

I am unfamiliar with Newell & Holland. Does the distinction have to do with SPL needed?

Regardless, in any of those classes, is a speaker with flat and smooth on axis frequency response, smooth off axis frequency response, and minimal resonances a suboptimal choice?

I don't know about Newell & Holland, but the classifications are well known.

Mixing monitors need to excel nearfield, designed to be used with a DAW or on top of a mixing console bridge. Full range response is a bit less important than good 'translation' and detail to dig into the mix. SPLs are modest (but not low) given the proximity.

Mastering monitors are usually mid- to far-field (depending on genre) and are more likely to be full range and capable of high SPLs.

 

[oivavoi]

I don't know about Newell & Holland, but the classifications are well known.

Mixing monitors need to excel nearfield, designed to be used with a DAW or on top of a mixing console bridge. Full range response is a bit less important than good 'translation' and detail to dig into the mix. SPLs are modest (but not low) given the proximity.

Mastering monitors are usually mid- to far-field (depending on genre) and are more likely to be full range and capable of high SPLs.

Agreed. The question is a) how high you need them to play (more distance means more SPL), b) a what distance the signal from the drivers sums perfectly.

For home use, I would assume midfield monitors to be the ideal. Unfortunately, the good ones are usually quite a bit more expensive than the good near-field monitors. Perhaps it has to do with economies of scale.

 

[c1ferrari]

Mastering monitors are usually mid- to far-field (depending on genre) and are more likely to be full range and capable of high SPLs.

How is genre pertinent?

 

[c1ferrari]

b) a what distance the signal from the drivers sums perfectly.

Is there a formula which calculates this distance?

 

[j_j]

Is there a formula which calculates this distance?

There are formulae that attempt to do so. Physics and the mechanics of driver construction rather confound this.

 

[c1ferrari]

Yes, I would imagine so; moreover, I would consider the space in which the acoustic information
arrives perfectly, at a unique time, to be rather confined. Is this measurable? If so, what is it called?

 

[watchnerd]

How is genre pertinent?

Dynamic range requirements vary by genre, classical having higher dynamic range than pop (generally), and cinema being the highest, plus potentially LFE.

Every classical / cinema soundstage studio I've been has the mastering monitors at a farther distance.

 

[oivavoi]

Every classical / cinema soundstage studio I've been has the mastering monitors at a farther distance.

That's interesting. It aligns with my own listening habits btw: For modern studio music, I tend to like to sit in the near-field. I like the pinpointing and razor sharp imaging it allows. For classical, I tend to enjoy sitting somewhat further back, which gives me a more holographic but also more diffuse sound field. Perhaps I'm subsconsciously imitating the way they were mastered to sound the best. Or I might just enjoy more room reflections with classical.

 

[oivavoi]

There are formulae that attempt to do so. Physics and the mechanics of driver construction rather confound this.

Some manufacturers of studio monitors provide advice on the ideal listening distance for their different models. IMO hifi manufacturers should start doing that too.

 

[Purité Audio]

Genelec publish their’s,
https://www.genelec.com/sites/defau...itors/Catalogues/monitor_setup_guide_2017.pdf

Keith

 

[c1ferrari]

It aligns with my own listening habits btw: For modern studio music, I tend to like to sit in the near-field. I like the pinpointing and razor sharp imaging it allows. For classical, I tend to enjoy sitting somewhat further back, which gives me a more holographic but also more diffuse sound field.

Interesting that you adjust your listening position. I tend to sit/stand and listen to music from the same location and modulate the volume to optimize critical listening. Of course, I also listen to music at higher spl and eschew critical listening -- very satisfying!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Agreed. The question is a) how high you need them to play (more distance means more SPL), b) a what distance the signal from the drivers sums perfectly.

For home use, I would assume midfield monitors to be the ideal. Unfortunately, the good ones are usually quite a bit more expensive than the good near-field monitors. Perhaps it has to do with economies of scale.

You don’t necessarily need midfield monitors unless you have a very large room and want your seeet spot pretty far from the speakers. Good nearfield monitors are fine 10-12 feet from the listening position. Hell, these dirt cheap JBL 395s I’m listening to have some if the best off axis response I’ve heard, and image beautifully from 7-8 ft away.

 

[watchnerd]

You don’t necessarily need midfield monitors unless you have a very large room and want your seeet spot pretty far from the speakers. Good nearfield monitors are fine 10-12 feet from the listening position. Hell, these dirt cheap JBL 395s I’m listening to have some if the best off axis response I’ve heard, and image beautifully from 7-8 ft away.

Depends on how much bass you need.

My Dynaudio LYD 5s have a shocking amount of bass for a 5" active monitor when I'm listening at the desk and within 3-4' feet (true nearfield), although I can see the woofers working on EDM from the likes of Daft Punk and Massive Attack. The boundary effect helps a lot, making it very somatic.

But 12 feet away, I'd want the matching sub for that genre.

For acoustic guitar, though, it doesn't matter.

 

[watchnerd]

IMO hifi manufacturers should start doing that too.

That's horrible advice for a big ticket luxury good maker, who likes to have a good, better, best options on the sales ladder. That would imply that, in smaller rooms, the smaller, cheaper speaker is the better choice, or that the 'entry level speaker' isn't a good 'starter speaker' to upgrade from once its limitations are (quickly) realized.

It's almost like you're saying there are acoustic engineering compromises that have to be taken into account...

 

[c1ferrari]

Good nearfield monitors are fine 10-12 feet from the listening position.

Tim,

At what SPL w/o objectional distortion (room not withstanding)?

 

[fas42]

You don’t necessarily need midfield monitors unless you have a very large room and want your seeet spot pretty far from the speakers. Good nearfield monitors are fine 10-12 feet from the listening position. Hell, these dirt cheap JBL 395s I’m listening to have some if the best off axis response I’ve heard, and image beautifully from 7-8 ft away.

Looks like you're starting to get the idea of what can be achieved, ...

Now, just expand one's vision a tiny bit further - don't scare yourself now, be gentle!! - and maybe, just maybe ...