• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). There are daily reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Best Speakers (Studio Monitors) to Hear Reverb

Frgirard

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 2, 2021
Messages
1,677
Likes
958
Monitoring for me is about two things, reproduce signals with fairly limited coloration, but also deliver music to my ears in a way that makes sense. I need a balance of both to do good work.

A monitor that is neutral but doesn't recreate music in a way that makes sense to the user, is a useless tool. People here are wayyy to limited in what they think a good monitor is. Reality is if you can deliver good work it doesn't really matter you use. Now that's a real fact.
The dichotomy monitor vs hifi is a myth without fact.

A monitor brand must be have a Impeccable after-sales service. Theoretical with the finishing is the two big differences.
 

dasdoing

Major Contributor
Joined
May 20, 2020
Messages
2,719
Likes
1,511
Location
Salvador-Bahia-Brasil
I think I can guess the reason for this, if you move around a lot I guess it's the off axis drop off (usually in the HF range) where the lack of detail once you move from the MLP makes you have a sense of rapidly changing spatial clues and hence "nail the center" easier, while the more even off axis response of the waveguide speakers don't provide you this HF roll off early off-axis.

I think you are into something here. this behaviour can fake you into thinking the non guided speaker has a clearer center.
personaly I hate when you are forced to put your head into a vise lol. with my KRK Rokit 8 I couldn't even do the Janet Jackson head move without afecting the sound. with my new horn mid/treble speakers the sound does not change radicly before the center breaks up off-center
 

dfuller

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 26, 2020
Messages
2,223
Likes
3,138
So IMO those claim of hearing more reverb in ATC I would say that's for sure given their boosted mids and the subjective feeling might very well be honest if compare side by side,
Most 3 way ATCs are vaguely V-shaped in their response, not mid boosted. It's the 2 ways that are.
 

goat76

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2021
Messages
339
Likes
288
Do some of you think that all speakers from ATC have boosted midrange based on Amir’s measurements of the old SMC19 v1?
I can't see that in the measurements of their other speakers.


ATC SCM7:
214ASCM7fig4.jpg


ATC SCM11:


1209ATCfig4.jpg


ATC SCM100SE:

619atc.response.jpg


ATC SCM150:
index.php



ATC SCM70:


1000atc.4.jpg
 

YSC

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
2,177
Likes
1,608
Most 3 way ATCs are vaguely V-shaped in their response, not mid boosted. It's the 2 ways that are.
ah ~ ok, that's my bad for assuming that the old one is kind of the ATC house sound which I expected should be consistent for say the B&W, Adams or the Dynaudios throughout their range. it can then be due to internal resonance/echo/ uneven off axis response creating that sense then
 

More Dynamics Please

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 18, 2020
Messages
562
Likes
716
Location
USA
Though I don't believe Toole mentioned it when describing audio's Circle of Confusion, subjectively describing perceived speaker sound with various adjectives and adverbs that have different meanings to different people certainly adds to the confusion.
 

YSC

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
2,177
Likes
1,608
Though I don't believe Toole mentioned it when describing audio's Circle of Confusion, subjectively describing perceived speaker sound with various adjectives and adverbs that have different meanings to different people certainly adds to the confusion.
That's very true, and the effect of adaptation is very real, I would say more than any parameters on first occasion for most if not all people
 

dasdoing

Major Contributor
Joined
May 20, 2020
Messages
2,719
Likes
1,511
Location
Salvador-Bahia-Brasil
I don't find it counterintuitive, but just to underline this: I just moved up two floors in the same building. my listening room is basicly the same (ceiling a little lower though). my room in the 3rd floor had a lot of absorbtion, but since I am now starting from scratch I will take my time intrducing the absorbtion slowly. last two days I listened to my speakers in the bare room (after 10 years or so with treated rooms, 2 years in this building). The room actualy seams smaller without the treatment. and the ambience in the recording is strange...it is somehow like I am hearing into this virtual room from the outside. and yea, it is hard to tell what ambience I am hearing, my room, or the room in the recording

I posted a little follow up after creating a simple no-reflection zone here: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...anechoic-chamber-a-report.30274/#post-1063927

it is very obvious all the notion of reverb in the recording depends on removing destrutive reflections
 

YSC

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
2,177
Likes
1,608
I don't find it counterintuitive, but just to underline this: I just moved up two floors in the same building. my listening room is basicly the same (ceiling a little lower though). my room in the 3rd floor had a lot of absorbtion, but since I am now starting from scratch I will take my time intrducing the absorbtion slowly. last two days I listened to my speakers in the bare room (after 10 years or so with treated rooms, 2 years in this building). The room actualy seams smaller without the treatment. and the ambience in the recording is strange...it is somehow like I am hearing into this virtual room from the outside. and yea, it is hard to tell what ambience I am hearing, my room, or the room in the recording
in your case I guess it's the combined room in the recording together with your room with less treatment and thus reflecting back more. And in my guess adaptation plays a big role in perception, and hence all those "this speaker tuning works absolutely best for me and no other will ever make me happier" myth or even the running in myth comes from
 

Duke

Major Contributor
Manufacturer
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 22, 2016
Messages
1,016
Likes
2,387
Location
Princeton, Texas
I posted a little follow up after creating a simple no-reflection zone here: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...anechoic-chamber-a-report.30274/#post-1063927

it is very obvious all the notion of reverb in the recording depends on removing destrutive reflections

At the risk of oversimplifying...

My understanding is that the earliest reflections are the ones which make the strongest contribution to the "small room signature" of the playback room, while substantially later-arriving reflections make the strongest contribution of the "venue spatial signature" on the recording (assuming their spectral balance is good), this because the later reflections are effective carriers of the reverberation tails on the recording. By removing the early reflections but still allowing later-arriving ones with your reflection-free-zone setup, imo you are tipping the spatial perception away from "small room signature", so that the "venue spatial signature" can dominate.
 

mightycicadalord

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 10, 2021
Messages
542
Likes
514
Wish I had enough material to try that no reflection zone, actually I might if I break a few done and split some 4inch into 2 inch.
 

dasdoing

Major Contributor
Joined
May 20, 2020
Messages
2,719
Likes
1,511
Location
Salvador-Bahia-Brasil
2 inch won’t be a broadband absorber anymore though

it's enough for first reflection points IF placed with a gap. my side panels are 2,5 inch with 5 inch gap. I once meassured this. 5 inch material directly on the wall was not so good. 5 inch with 5 inch gap didn't do more than 2,5 inch with 5 inch gap.
we are not treating (LF) modes here. we are just bringing the ETC down


At the risk of oversimplifying...

My understanding is that the earliest reflections are the ones which make the strongest contribution to the "small room signature" of the playback room, while substantially later-arriving reflections make the strongest contribution of the "venue spatial signature" on the recording (assuming their spectral balance is good), this because the later reflections are effective carriers of the reverberation tails on the recording. By removing the early reflections but still allowing later-arriving ones with your reflection-free-zone setup, imo you are tipping the spatial perception away from "small room signature", so that the "venue spatial signature" can dominate.

that's probably more or less it.
in my old room I even had material at the ceiling and the backwall. this time I think I go with this zone and use the rest of the material in the corners to treat modes only
 

ferrellms

Active Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2019
Messages
168
Likes
155
I think sadly the whole point of my question keeps getting missed. It's simple really. I was merely asking people's opinions on which speakers they felt represented the subtle details of reverb the best. I have had dozens of speakers over the years. All in a very well treated room, and there is a big difference in the presentation of reverbs, speaker to speaker.
Best I've heard at delineating reverb and space - Genelecs in the near field in a treated room with room correction. Flat, time coherent direct sound, smooth off-axis response, early reflections minimized, high ratio of direct to reflected sound, well-tamed and smooth room reverberation and decay - not sure how to do any better (any room/monitor system with similar characteristics would also be excellent.)
 
Last edited:

ZolaIII

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
2,182
Likes
1,237
The NS10M and alikes. Impulse response in the vocal range on sealed wofer is at worst 6.5 ms and about 3.5 in lows and highs and it has a boost trough entire vocal range but vocals don't sound in front or distanced and it doesn't add any (see waterfall plots).
 

ferrellms

Active Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2019
Messages
168
Likes
155
it's enough for first reflection points IF placed with a gap. my side panels are 2,5 inch with 5 inch gap. I once meassured this. 5 inch material directly on the wall was not so good. 5 inch with 5 inch gap didn't do more than 2,5 inch with 5 inch gap.
we are not treating (LF) modes here. we are just bringing the ETC down




that's probably more or less it.
in my old room I even had material at the ceiling and the backwall. this time I think I go with this zone and use the rest of the material in the corners to treat modes only
Search the internet on "LEDE" room design - extremely expensive if done to the max but you can get part way there without too much money.
 

dasdoing

Major Contributor
Joined
May 20, 2020
Messages
2,719
Likes
1,511
Location
Salvador-Bahia-Brasil
Search the internet on "LEDE" room design - extremely expensive if done to the max but you can get part way there without too much money.

not practical for a small room like mine. I have built a reflection free zone in the horizontal plane on the listening height (to floor), while the upper side of the walls, celing and floor are naked. Aditionally the standard corner fill. ETC looks very good, and decay of the bass modes is significantly reduced. Most material is at the backwall cause the first mode in small rooms is terrible (that's why LEDE wont work)
 

CJH

Member
Joined
May 31, 2019
Messages
50
Likes
15
not practical for a small room like mine. I have built a reflection free zone in the horizontal plane on the listening height (to floor), while the upper side of the walls, celing and floor are naked. Aditionally the standard corner fill. ETC looks very good, and decay of the bass modes is significantly reduced. Most material is at the backwall cause the first mode in small rooms is terrible (that's why LEDE wont work)
Start with the basics. In order to hear low level reverberation and decay that is in the recording you need a very flat frequency response. Boosts in the midrange and or bass will coverup the low level high frequency and/or midrange reverberation that is on the recording. Listen to some acapella choral recordings. You should hear recorded decay in both the mids and highs at the same time. Also helps a bit if speakers are time coherent. Start with the bass by reducing room modes with EQ, then work with EQ towards a flat frequency response. Takes a lot of time but once you hear what you want, you'll know it's worth it.
A good candidate in response to the title of this thread might be the Philharmonic BMR/Tower (though not a studio monitor).
CJH
 
Last edited:

dasdoing

Major Contributor
Joined
May 20, 2020
Messages
2,719
Likes
1,511
Location
Salvador-Bahia-Brasil
Start with the basics. In order to hear low level reverberation and decay that is in the recording you need a very flat frequency response. Boosts in the midrange and or bass will coverup the low level high frequency and/or midrange reverberation that is on the recording. Listen to some acapella choral recordings. You should hear recorded decay in both the mids and highs at the same time. Also helps a bit if speakers are time coherent. Start with the bass by reducing room modes with EQ, then work with EQ towards a flat frequency response. Takes a lot of time but once you hear what you want, you'll know it's worth it.
A good candidate in response to the title of this thread might be the Philharmonic BMR/Tower (though not a studio monitor).
CJH

it is actualy a myth that room treatment targets FR. it will have an effect on it, but will never flat it out (much less in a small room like mine. the first mode has an insane boost to it). you target the ringing/decay/resconances or whatever you want to call it. once you look good in the time domain, EQ can efectivly flat out the FR.
 

Tangband

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
1,664
Likes
1,502
Location
Sweden
Just curious to get opinions of what you all think are some of the best speakers / studio monitors to hear vocal reverbs and delays (FX) on...? I am sure I will get flamed for this, but IMHO Genelec's like the 8351B are some of the worst. They are VERY dry sounding. The best I have heard is probably ATC. Would love more opinions!
Agree, but much of that dryness goes away as soon you feed the Genelecs SAM monitors with a good, digital signal .

Perceived audio fidelity is very subjective- if a loudspeaker have multiple resonanses in the cabinet one might like that , a ” bigger ” more spacious sound . Im not saying at all that ATC should have resonating boxes , but what Im saying is that the ” dryness” or lack of it can depend om many things - the room, the acoustical treatment , the digital source , colorations in loudspeakers can be perceived as ” better sounding ” , and more….
 
Top Bottom