I really thought the voice was not well recorded. I don't get the feeling we are hearing as nice a voice as she has. All a matter of taste of course. Doubling or delay might have helped, but reverb didn't seem called for to me either. But I'm a lousy mixer.
Thank you for your contribution. To be clear, my interest is not in supporting the idea that "checking on 'bad' monitors is good practice". What I want to know is, in objective terms, what are the values in a loudspeaker that contribute to translation. The overlap is that some believe a 'bad' speaker is good for this task. Like you said, there's some truth to it.
Amir's measurement very closely mirrors that contained in the link you posted and my own in-room measurement at sub 86dB listening levels. You are free to propagate rumors but that is the diametrically opposite reason of why I sent this speaker in. For what it's worth, I think that 'rumor' is totally unfounded and I haven't heard it in my travels. On the contrary, like others have said here, mastering engineers tend to use full-range speakers exclusively and more in midfield.@amirm is it possible in klippel to export the impulse response so all can hear how the master equipment for professionals sound with a IR loader ?. Because rumors tell that you are only a professional mastering engenier if you hear and check your song on avatone and yamaha NS 10.
I find a better FR of this avatone. maybe somebody is broken on your version or it is too loud for this speaker. dont forget when you measure 1 speaker at 90 db on a real world stereo setup it is 96 db loud then. https://www.skippyweb.eu/2021/11/avantone-pro-mixcubes/
These are interesting but not meant to compete with the mixcube/auratone style speaker. They are specifically full-range and meant to be your main mixing tools. He also makes bigger speakers that are unavailable in the US. Actually I'm keen for someone to send these in. They are reported to have very narrow directivity. Perhaps as narrow as the avantone but their frequency response extends higher and maybe has less of a comb-filtered effect.
What do you mean "randomly rubbish"? Besides the frequency response, what else is rubbish? Do you see no value in this speaker whatsoever? Have you ever used one? Do you see that it has mostly low distortion, fairly smooth directivity and good step response? I'm here to talk metrics not opinions so if you can debate me on the technical merits of the speaker, I will respond. If you continue to use subjective terms to trash the speaker then I'm going to ignore you.
I listed potential reasons a few posts up.
I agree with most of what you're saying other than that the mixcube is 'bad' and that it's high-distortion. It may be less useful in some scenarios and for people who are purely concerned with listening pleasure but, in my work, I have found it exceedingly useful. For distortion, at lower listening levels that experienced engineers recommend (well below 86dB C-weighted, slow response), this speaker mostly meets the same broadcast standard that Genelec uses so it is not high distortion. But, to be sure, it doesn't actually meet that standard (GRADE) entirely. The usefulness of this speaker is not entirely placebo, which the measurements show. It has numerous qualities which contrast typical full-range ported systems which are enough to at least serve as the sanity check you describe but potentially much more.
He started off wanting to be a guitar virtuoso. He went to Berklee in Boston with the sole intention of becoming the world's greatest guitarist. At some point, he realized the futility of that, perhaps the lack of metrical definition, and switched his focus.
Bass response is nearly non-existent. FR is rubbish or there is no sense in the world. Resonances are a bad thing for speakers to have. A whole string of them is not a plus no matter the step response. This has symmetrical directivity, but that isn't a good directivity plot. The opinion cars have no bass modal boundaries is another misconception that is too wrong to let pass. Transient response and FR are intertwined. You don't get good transient response with the FR this speaker has. Don't mistake step response for something else please. I am glad you sent it in, but it is a wrong headed speaker design. There is clearly a market for it unfortunately.
I never said that it was - other people have said that. Software, again, cannot account for all the properties of this speaker. Use software to change directivity, diffraction, off-axis response, distortion characteristics, etc. Software is not the better solution - software is good for some things but not everything. You cannot totally emulate a loudspeaker with software alone. IK Multimedia has tried this in their most recent Precision line and the review I saw said it had mixed results. Of course it did - software can't do everything!
Software cannot do everything, but a speaker this horrid has value?
I agree that the particular argument you refute is unsound. What I dispute is that simple filtering can produce all the useful qualities of speaker like this. Also, regarding 'translation', many mix engineers dispute that an "ideal" speaker (which you define as simply anechoically flat and full range but I think other qualities are perhaps even more important) helps produce the best translation. This is just Ryu vs Ryu - a stalemate is inevitable, all things being equal. What remains undefined is "What are the qualities that contribute most to 'translation' in a loudspeaker when it is used in the nearfield, what are their relative weighting and order, and can that be summed up into a single 'translation score' as Olive and Tool have done for 'preference'?
Ok, the FR is non-flat. So what? Does a flat FR guarantee translation? For some it does not. Ok, resonance is not good. Perhaps you are right there. It is true for far field and maybe also applies to nearfield. Symmetrical directivity is a plus, some people say it's particularly advantageous in the nearfield. This is something for which software can't correct. Cars, compared to rooms, certainly have less modal ringing below 80Hz than rooms of normal construction. I have shown (look at 'perfect decay' but I will try to post the image here.) that a plywood room will exhibit virtually perfect decay. When you hear a car roll by with a subwoofer banging, all that you hear is not ringing in the car. Are there modes in a car, of course, but not like in rooms and that is exactly one reason why using a speaker like this is useful: its sufficiently different as to give you a new perspective.
You might be right - this speaker is perhaps not ideal for its intended purpose. That said, despite being as 'flawed' as it is, it is still useful to some people. We have to know which objective components are the most useful for 'translation' and which are the least and prioritize accordingly. Ok, I think that perhaps the resonances have no validity. We would have to compare speakers with resonances and those without in the nearfield and ultimately conduct tests to find which mixes translate the best. Hypotheses are good but are not theories. Translation and preference are not the same thing. This is a speaker with useful qualities and not-useful qualities but, overall I do not take it to be rubbish. At least, at this point, I would not throw it away. Rubbish is literally trash, this speaker has proven itself useful to many people. My only question is as to exactly why.
Yeah, I mean, people like them because they find them useful - and not just unsuccessful fools. Maybe the mixcube is not of the same caliber as the original Auratones. I hope someone can send one of those in or even the newer available versions.
Single wideband driver in sealed box with no filters is the easiest way to have good transients.
Focusrite has inexplicably discontinued a number of their prized products including Liquid Channel. This was before my time but I am aware of their controversial decisions.
I know that song. Brazil has some amazing music. You mixed this on your TV? lol it really does translate. This is a good mix. I'm tempted to pipe audio into my UHD monitor to try and mix on it.
In his quote, he didn't use the word 'bad' did he? This is ASR, can we please use more specific technical language to debate precise points? 'Bad', 'crap', 'vampires' are the vocabulary I expect to find on other sites and are fundamentally undebatable terms, being entirely subjective and opinion-based or at least a conception unique to the person who speaks them. Here, we coalesce around a set of data points. Empirical evidence is best used to bolster concrete facts. After all, Bad was a great album.
