• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Avantone Pro MixCube Monitor Review

Rate this speaker:

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 169 83.3%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 15 7.4%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther)

    Votes: 4 2.0%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 15 7.4%

  • Total voters
    203

Hexspa

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2022
Messages
310
Likes
202
Translating what part into which? I get your argument, I think, but I also acknowledge the need for a more basic, as to say, monitor. As MPEG shows, masking is a strong instance in audio. With the hearing test given above me thinks that masking might prevent me from hearing the time delay. Same may be true for other effects, that may get masked with clean equipment, but would show up in, ironically, less perfect environments. The less good in 'objective' terms, the more 'revealing' as our high-end friends would confirm in their intricate lingo ;)

You don't want an x-ray picture of your mix heard by unbidden audience, while you allegedly polished it to a glaring shine in your studio.

But, again your argument. There are limited ways to make a good speaker. As to make a bad one the choices are infinite. What kind of a decision would it be to select this one?
Yes, forgive me I assumed you read this whole thread; it’s understandable if something wasn’t clear. The reason to have an ATC is to do professional audio work. “Translation” is an objectively-undefined property of an audio work’s mix or of loudspeakers’ ability to help a mixer create such a mix. Typically people will say, “I can’t make my mixes ‘translate’ on such-and-such monitors.” In this thread, I attempted to bait some people into researching this for me but to no avail: Toole-ian research into defining this property may never happen.
 

RobL

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 4, 2021
Messages
925
Likes
1,509
Yes, forgive me I assumed you read this whole thread; it’s understandable if something wasn’t clear. The reason to have an ATC is to do professional audio work. “Translation” is an objectively-undefined property of an audio work’s mix or of loudspeakers’ ability to help a mixer create such a mix. Typically people will say, “I can’t make my mixes ‘translate’ on such-and-such monitors.” In this thread, I attempted to bait some people into researching this for me but to no avail: Toole-ian research into defining this property may never happen.
I’m not sure such research is necessary? Even those who find mix cubes useful generally attribute this to an objective property that their other monitors are less proficient at (ie. less stored bass energy, lower group delay, enhanced mid range etc.). I think they are probably useful to many people, but aren’t creating a category that is in any way mysterious. There are probably just as many successful professionals who don’t use them and have found other ways of translating their work.
 

dasdoing

Major Contributor
Joined
May 20, 2020
Messages
4,208
Likes
2,673
Location
Salvador-Bahia-Brasil
If you had closed monitors designed exclusivly to be used with subwoofers you could make them start to roll off at 100Hz. you could than just start the mix with the subwoofer off. many mixing subwoofers have a foot-switch exactly for this.
 

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,739
Likes
16,169
If you had closed monitors designed exclusivly to be used with subwoofers you could make them start to roll off at 100Hz. you could than just start the mix with the subwoofer off. many mixing subwoofers have a foot-switch exactly for this.
Also some Focal 3-way monitors have similar:

In 3-way mode, the monitor has a frequency response of 35Hz to 40kHz (+/- 3dB) and 40Hz to 20kHz (+/- 1dB). In 2-way mode, only the 5-inch woofer and the tweeter are activated. The 2-way monitor speaker has a frequency response of 90Hz to 20kHz (+/- 3 dB) and is very efficient for checking the transfer quality of mixes carried out using systems with a limited bass range frequency response. These modes are controlled using a footswitch

Source: https://www.focal.com/sites/www.focal.fr/files/shared/catalog/document/notice_trio6be_web_0.pdf
 

dasdoing

Major Contributor
Joined
May 20, 2020
Messages
4,208
Likes
2,673
Location
Salvador-Bahia-Brasil
Also some Focal 3-way monitors have similar:

In 3-way mode, the monitor has a frequency response of 35Hz to 40kHz (+/- 3dB) and 40Hz to 20kHz (+/- 1dB). In 2-way mode, only the 5-inch woofer and the tweeter are activated. The 2-way monitor speaker has a frequency response of 90Hz to 20kHz (+/- 3 dB) and is very efficient for checking the transfer quality of mixes carried out using systems with a limited bass range frequency response. These modes are controlled using a footswitch

Source: https://www.focal.com/sites/www.focal.fr/files/shared/catalog/document/notice_trio6be_web_0.pdf

there you have it. nice solution
 

stevenswall

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 10, 2019
Messages
1,366
Likes
1,075
Location
Orem, UT
As mentioned by others, Avatone are a sort of "reference low-fidelity confidence monitor." That's their purpose in life. It's a reliable and consistent device for producers and engineers to evaluate what their work is liable to sound like on the crappy speakers built into your TV set or the original equipment, lowball factory speakers in your car.

Having bass limited speakers for that purpose makes sense if you can't use a filter to do that. Getting a random assortment of resonances and peaks in the frequency response and then compensating for those doesn't seem like a good plan since other tinny sounding drivers in soundbars and computers and TVs aren't going to have the same arrangement of peaks and dips.
 

Hexspa

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2022
Messages
310
Likes
202
I’m not sure such research is necessary? Even those who find mix cubes useful generally attribute this to an objective property that their other monitors are less proficient at (ie. less stored bass energy, lower group delay, enhanced mid range etc.). I think they are probably useful to many people, but aren’t creating a category that is in any way mysterious. There are probably just as many successful professionals who don’t use them and have found other ways of translating their work.
Yes but then we’re back at individual loudspeaker preference which Toole showed was not individual, but broadly applicable, over 80% of the time. In other words, we have a preference score that’s shorthand for what people ‘like’ which is reflected in how the measurements ‘look’.

However, it seems to me that “audio engineers” (pro to hobbyist) say with regularity that X Monitor ‘translates’ better or they ‘can’t mix with X Monitor because of Y Pejorative. This is despite X Monitor receiving a high Harman Preference Score (or whatever the official name for it is). So that got me thinking: does ‘Harman Preference’ indicate a monitor is good for mixing given that nearfield listening - and mixing in particular - is not what the Preference Score is aimed toward?

Are they just blaming their tools? Is it due to hearing damage? Toole noted that hearing loss diminishes discrimination in loudspeaker quality. Mob mentality? Hate of curves on graphs (they want to use only monitors that aren’t measured)?

Saying that an individual mixer, as a matter if course, needs to fill in holes in their main speakers via more and different speakers shows that their main speakers are deficient - even with processing like filtering etc. I’m saying let’s assume they’re honest and skilled and ask, “Does an ideal *mixing nearfield* need a ‘mid push’ or other characteristics which differ from standard ‘Harman Preferred’ ones? If auxiliary speakers are needed then the Preference Score is incomplete or inapplicable to mixing.

So, does ‘Harman Preference’ apply to mixing or not? If not, can we find out what set of characteristics does? Or is it all just ‘personal preference’ in which case the Harman stuff doesn’t apply at all?

I think too many mixers say that high Harman Preference speakers “don’t translate” to immediately dismiss their claims. If it’s true then it’s almost disingenuous to rate a nearfield monitor with a Preference Rating at all since it doesn’t wholly apply. I mean, Amir does mention it but maybe it would be better to know if and to what degree the Preference score applies than to kind of just say, “Not everything applies.” That’s vague and I understand science to be a tool for examining vague things and this website has the word science in the name so here I am asking for a scientist to do my bidding :)

I’m about to fall asleep so if this is incoherent please ask me again tomorrow; it makes sense to me right now. The out I’ll leave is that the Preference score is only about 86% applicable and even 14% of nearfield users is a lot given the thousands of people in audio. It could be the Preference score applies, I’m just inclined to notice where it didn’t.
 
Last edited:

Hexspa

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2022
Messages
310
Likes
202
If you had closed monitors designed exclusivly to be used with subwoofers you could make them start to roll off at 100Hz. you could than just start the mix with the subwoofer off. many mixing subwoofers have a foot-switch exactly for this.
I definitely have my subwoofer on a switch but not with the exact arrangement you’re outlining. Having the subwoofer independently switchable is great even for playing it in isolation just like you described the mains.

I mean, nobody is saying you can’t use a mixcube with a sub but I doubt anyone does it. You’re not saying that, I know; you’re saying use something like a high passed NS-10 then kick the sub in later. No matter, I agree that a separable sub is the best solution with the only downsides being you lose I/O or forget to turn it on.
 

tomtoo

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 20, 2019
Messages
3,607
Likes
4,514
Location
Germany
Also some Focal 3-way monitors have similar:

In 3-way mode, the monitor has a frequency response of 35Hz to 40kHz (+/- 3dB) and 40Hz to 20kHz (+/- 1dB). In 2-way mode, only the 5-inch woofer and the tweeter are activated. The 2-way monitor speaker has a frequency response of 90Hz to 20kHz (+/- 3 dB) and is very efficient for checking the transfer quality of mixes carried out using systems with a limited bass range frequency response. These modes are controlled using a footswitch

Source: https://www.focal.com/sites/www.focal.fr/files/shared/catalog/document/notice_trio6be_web_0.pdf

They have this too. To be honest i not see what it is good for? Just two settings on the master eq?
 

dfuller

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 26, 2020
Messages
3,335
Likes
5,050
Also some Focal 3-way monitors have similar:

In 3-way mode, the monitor has a frequency response of 35Hz to 40kHz (+/- 3dB) and 40Hz to 20kHz (+/- 1dB). In 2-way mode, only the 5-inch woofer and the tweeter are activated. The 2-way monitor speaker has a frequency response of 90Hz to 20kHz (+/- 3 dB) and is very efficient for checking the transfer quality of mixes carried out using systems with a limited bass range frequency response. These modes are controlled using a footswitch

Source: https://www.focal.com/sites/www.focal.fr/files/shared/catalog/document/notice_trio6be_web_0.pdf
Barefoot does a similar thing with their MEME thing.
 

Sancus

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 30, 2018
Messages
2,923
Likes
7,616
Location
Canada
I think too many mixers say that high Harman Preference speakers “don’t translate” to immediately dismiss their claims. If it’s true then it’s almost disingenuous to rate a nearfield monitor with a Preference Rating at all since it doesn’t wholly apply.
Why does the use of monitors with various strange attributes imply there's anything wrong with the way monitors are evaluated?

People using NS-10s and Mixcubes sure aren't using them because they sound good or make music sound the way it's supposed to. Quite the opposite, really. Could the same thing be accomplished just with EQ without changing out your monitors? Yeah, probably, that's why Focal and Barefoot are adding that functionality.

But people are going to continue using what they learned to use. Regardless of the objective utility of that tool or not. It's much more important to use the tools you're used to than to use the "best" tools if you're trying to get work done efficiently.
 

bennybbbx

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 27, 2020
Messages
691
Likes
124
Location
germany
here is video that show group delay in bass range of a closed speaker , open speaker and transmission line. the closed speaker is best . transmission line worst. the open speaker have at 90 hz near 0 and reach 10 ms at 75 hz and lower which is very much. video is german and can with subtitle have texts in english.

at 12:00 you can see . maybe there are better or worser speaker . i think it is important to see group delay too. I can not hear so good ITD as this scientists tell but i hear enough timing problems in speakers. I measure headphones and i notice that In ear sound better as over ear in clarity and bass. in ear have smaller group delay in Bass as over ear

The normal human threshold for detection of an ITD is up to a time difference of 10μs (microseconds). Studies by Gabriel, Koehnke, & Colburn (1992), Häusler, Colburn, & Marr (1983) and Kinkel, Kollmeier, & Holube (1991)(cited by Moore, 1996) have shown that there can be great differences between individuals regarding binaural performance. It was found that unilateral or asymmetric hearing losses can increase the threshold of ITD detection in patients. This was also found to apply to individuals with symmetrical hearing losses when detecting ITDs in narrowband signals. However, ITD thresholds seem to be normal for those with symmetrical losses when listening to broadband sounds.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,521
Likes
37,050
This group delay business is way out of hand in this thread if you ask me. All for the worst measuring speaker yet to be tested on ASR. WOW! Seems we've had some threads about group delay here and lots of posts would fit in those. Good info that just seems odd the obsessing about this for a terrible speaker. Even if it somehow has the worlds greatest group delay results it is a terrible speaker full of flaws.
 

fineMen

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 31, 2021
Messages
1,504
Likes
679
Yes but then we’re back at individual loudspeaker preference which Toole showed was not individual, but broadly applicable, ...
... but with the premise that the speaker is due to be hi-fi, so that it checks all the marks: big deep bass and airy performance and so forth. Hence Toole's most 'revealing' test material, all from then current studio production anyway, is a quite polished hi-fi-ish record, "Fast Car" by some mid 80s chanteuse namely. I'm old enough to remember its appearance. I instantaneously didn't think too well of its overly sparse, clean sound ... and not the least the music didn't touch me at all. It appeared to me as suffocated, strangled even despite its wide bandwith, huhhh ... still shivering. I liked Alan Parson's "I Robot" better ...

What the new standard does is to define as standard what could be found 'on average' back then ( just because the circle of confusion). A good move to be quite clear about this. But an arbitrary speaker in an arbitrary TV set or a 'basic' monitor is something else.
 
Last edited:
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,384
Location
Seattle Area
This group delay business is way out of hand in this thread if you ask me.
Indeed. A bit of conversation was fine but let's stop the deep dive here.
 

VenVile

Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2020
Messages
12
Likes
17
Why don't you play the track directly on the car radio or kitchen bluetooth speaker? Why do you need that speaker to emulate crappy sound?
Because you have to leave your studio to do so. As a producer and engineer, I can say that these speakers (and others like it, commonly referred to as grot boxes) are extremely useful. They really help you focus in your mix, on the mid range, and help balance all those mid range and mono elements in a mix (kicks, snares and vocals).

Ideally, they're not meant to be used in stereo (although many people use them that way), but in a mono, single-speaker setting. That helps in picking up stereo cancellation issues in a *poor* mix.

Lastly, the single-driver removes crossovers and the issues caused by poor crossover designs, in general. They're really invaluable tools, and when you learn to mix in them, it can speed up your mixing process and results considerably, and time is money, especially when you're doing this professionally.

So, I get that many of you hear don't see the point of these, or can't appreciate their value, but you're not the target consumer for these.

Audio engineers and producers who have these grot boxes (there are others) consider them as very strong tools in their arsenal.

Again; no one wants to be running back and forth to the car, or messing with dingles and Bluetooth speakers when they're dialing in a mix; it's counterintuitive. Also, BT speakers are more hi-fi and are pushed to try to sound as pleasing as possible, under terrible budgets and terrible designs; these are the antithesis to that. Love 'em.
 

Hexspa

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2022
Messages
310
Likes
202
Why does the use of monitors with various strange attributes imply there's anything wrong with the way monitors are evaluated?

People using NS-10s and Mixcubes sure aren't using them because they sound good or make music sound the way it's supposed to. Quite the opposite, really. Could the same thing be accomplished just with EQ without changing out your monitors? Yeah, probably, that's why Focal and Barefoot are adding that functionality.

But people are going to continue using what they learned to use. Regardless of the objective utility of that tool or not. It's much more important to use the tools you're used to than to use the "best" tools if you're trying to get work done efficiently.
You're saying three different things here:

Monitors with "strange attributes" doesn't imply a flaw in monitor evaluation per-se but that maybe the current methods are insufficient for nearfield mixing. How can you deny this? Some mixers literally say they have a hard time using flat speakers. So, maybe there's an objective way to describe speakers that are more useful for mixing. Otherwise, with the status quo, you have farfield Harman which is comprehensive but perhaps less applicable or you have word of mouth/listen for yourself which are inherently flawed unless controls like Harman implemented are there. There are no "strange attributes" referred to in my statements. A mid push maybe but I'm also interested in the hierarchy of importance for speaker traits and how they might differ from what's available.

I know why people use those speakers because I am one of those people. Further, "those people" are not one homogenous mass - they have peculiarities about their workflow.

Yes, right. People get stuck in their ways. That has no bearing on new generations of people getting into the craft.

Mainly what I hear you saying is, "Let sleeping dogs lie," and I'm saying, "Wake the dogs and let's explore the possibilities of better ways." If you're not interested then don't contribute. If you wish to apply critical thinking, please do it in the service of solutions rather that total negation. You haven't pushed me off my idea and probably won't with these kinds of arguments so maybe just stop trying or at least contribute to the cause. Thanks.

Bottom line: there's a discrepancy between preference and usefulness and some overlap. If this were not so, Amir would've not said, "I can't recommend this for any purpose." It's because he's not a mix engineer. Some of the best mixers, like the guy in Noisia (sorry, not to up on them) has both the 'subjective best' speaker in the ATC 110 and the 'worst' in the mixcube. Barefoot and Focal, as you mention, also recognize value in this "rubbish". So, let's have an open exchange of ideas and quantify what makes these useful. So far we have suspicions but no tangible data. I get that there is precedent and inertia (not to mention proprietary research like Barefoot MEME and IK Multimedia modelling DSP) - it's not news. Let's just consider that - maybe - 'translation/professional usefulness/secondary reference' is different from 'preference' (it obviously is or else nobody would pooh pooh this speaker's sound and say "yuck" and "bad") and can be quantified not just dismiss it out of hand. Or, go ahead but that will just be you ringing the Marine Bell.
 
Last edited:

MaxwellsEq

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
1,627
Likes
2,424
So, I get that many of you hear don't see the point of these, or can't appreciate their value, but you're not the target consumer for these.

Audio engineers and producers who have these grot boxes (there are others) consider them as very strong tools in their arsenal
This is correct. They are not meant to be compared with domestic HiFi. They one of the the many tools used in a studio to get to the best mix with as few flaws as possible as quickly as possible.
 

Hexspa

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2022
Messages
310
Likes
202
... but with the premise that the speaker is due to be hi-fi, so that it checks all the marks: big deep bass and airy performance and so forth. Hence Toole's most 'revealing' test material, all from then current studio production anyway, is a quite polished hi-fi-ish record, "Fast Car" by some mid 80s chanteuse namely. I'm old enough to remember its appearance. I instantaneously didn't think too well of its overly sparse, clean sound ... and not the least the music didn't touch me at all. It appeared to me as suffocated, strangled even despite its wide bandwith, huhhh ... still shivering. I liked Alan Parson's "I Robot" better ...

What the new standard does is to define as standard what could be found 'on average' back then ( just because the circle of confusion). A good move to be quite clear about this. But an arbitrary speaker in an arbitrary TV set or a 'basic' monitor is something else.
So, if I'm hearing you correctly then right: the existing harman tests are for what amounts to hi-fi. And, for that purpose it seems very good.

What is this "new standard" you speak of?
 
Top Bottom