Most common studio monitor for mixing and mastering?

[RobL]

Just working my way through Toole’s book and one thing he mentioned struck me. He has no qualms about tone controls and thinks they should be more common as he feels no single speaker will be flattering to every program material encountered because of the variations in producers subject preferences. Also many producers mix on sub par monitors like the NS-10M. So if this is the case, why seek out laser flat speakers for playback? Chances are the mix I’m listening to was created on a ...or maybe a . If so, I will need to tweak the playback to hear what was intended anyway. And how do I know? It ends up a subjective experience anyway, right?

Has anyone logged what the most popular monitors the bigger studios use? I’m sure many more are using flat monitors now as Toole’s and others research becomes more well known and accepted, but I listen to a lot of older material that I’m damn sure wasn’t...

 

[napilopez]

Just working my way through Toole’s book and one thing he mentioned struck me. He has no qualms about tone controls and thinks they should be more common as he feels no single speaker will be flattering to every program material encountered because of the variations in producers subject preferences. Also many producers mix on sub par monitors like the NS-10M. So if this is the case, why seek out laser flat speakers for playback? Chances are the mix I’m listening to was created on a ...or maybe a . If so, I will need to tweak the playback to hear what was intended anyway. And how do I know? It ends up a subjective experience anyway, right?

Has anyone logged what the most popular monitors the bigger studios use? I’m sure many more are using flat monitors now as Toole’s and others research becomes more well known and accepted, but I listen to a lot of older material that I’m damn sure wasn’t...

I think it's an issue of proportions. Tone controls are great but if I had to guess I'd say the adjustments needed are probably more in the range of like +/- 2dB, and likey less in the treble than in the bass. Tone controls also affect the general contour of the frequency response, while speakers can vary way more than +/- 2dB within different parts of their frequency response, in addition to overall contour.

There's also the matter of the standards we want to strive for. If everyone used flat speakers with good directivity, there'd be much less of a 'circle of confusion' as Toole calls it, and music would sound a lot more consistent from listening room to listening room. Of course, there'd still be variation based on the room, but much less than there is right now.

In any case, while yes, some producers use godawful speakers like the NS-10M's, I do think it's a safe assumption that studio monitors tend towards flat on axis much more often than hi-fi speakers traditionally have.

I don't know what the most popular studio monitors are, but I can say confidently that speakers from JBL, Genelec, Neumann, Focal, Adam, PSI Audio, Dynaudio, HEDD, ME Geithan, Mackie, Barefoot Audio, KRK, M-Audio, Amphion, etc all tend towards what I'd consider 'flat-ish'.' Compare the average speaker measured by Sound & Recording (a publication that focuses on studio monitors) to the average speaker measured by Soundstage Network or Stereophile, and the difference is obvious.

 

[dfuller]

Common brands in major studios include, but are not limited to, the following:
- ATC (generally very large soffit-mounted actives e.g. SCM100ASL but also smaller standmount speakers e.g. SCM25ASL or SCM20ASL)
- Dynaudio (standmounts and soffits)
- Focal (standmounts, maybe the Trio11s could be soffited?)
- Neumann (standmounts e.g. KH120 and soffits e.g. kh420)
- Yamaha* (standmounts)
- Genelec (standmounts e.g 8030C or 1032C and soffits e.g 1238a)
- Auratone* (standmount only)
- Barefoot (standmounts, but generally very large ones e.g. MM27)
- ProAc
- PMC (very large towers generally but also smaller standmounts like the result6 and twotwo line)
*Not primary monitors, used as "translation checks"

Most of these (though not all) have the goal of being flat on-axis. ATC quotes their on-axis response to be +/-2dB, Focal +/-3dB, Barefoot and Neumann generally +/- 1dB - you get the idea.

So if this is the case, why seek out laser flat speakers for playback?

Because the idea is to not have the speakers inject their own character. The goal is for the speaker to "get out of the way" so to speak.

JBL, Genelec, Neumann, Focal, Adam, PS Audio, Dynaudio, HEDD, ME Geithan, Mackie, Barefoot Audio, KRK, M-Audio, Amphion, etc all tend towards what I'd consider 'flat-ish'.' Compare the average speaker measured by Sound & Recording (a publication that focuses on studio monitors) to the average speaker measured by Soundstage Network or Stereophile, and the difference is obvious.

I have to assume you meant PSI Audio and not PS Audio, lol.

 

[napilopez]

I have to assume you meant PSI Audio and not PS Audio, lol.

Haha yes of course, fixing

 

[ernestcarl]

At home, I almost never touch the HF shelving. But the bass shelving I do change occasionally sometimes due to source material variances. Some songs just sound better with more added bass -- and the suspicion is they were mixed/mastered in small speakers with no sub(s) -- probably an NS10.

 

[thewas]

Some songs just sound better with more added bass -- and the suspicion is they were mixed/mastered in small speakers with no sub(s) -- probably an NS10.

Quite the opposite is true, when mixing/mastering with bass-shy loudspeakers you tend to make a too bass heavy mix, I guess many of the old recordings were rather mixed with some large monitors of those times but without room correction, that's why they are quite bass shy.

 

[ernestcarl]

Quite the opposite is true, when mixing/mastering with bass-shy loudspeakers you tend to make a too bass heavy mix, I guess many of the old recordings were rather mixed with some large monitors of those times but without room correction, that's why they are quite bass shy.

Interesting. I didn't know that... but I've seen a few videos where mixing engineers in YT were trying out room correction software apparently for the "first time" and being "shocked" or surprised with the unflattering before correction results. I mean, there's a lot of room treatment, but apparently some had never actually taken the effort to flatten the transfer function in their listening seat.

*One was using an NS10 and decided to go on using his speakers without DRC because he was already used to the sound.

 

[RobL]

Because the idea is to not have the speakers inject their own character. The goal is for the speaker to "get out of the way" so to speak.

Yes, this is a reasonable goal for sure but if taking Toole’s statements to heart, is your flat playback speaker more “out of the way” than my “frown face” speaker if the music was mixed on a “smiley face” speaker? I know this is a bit reductio ad absurdum but the argument maybe adds a tiny bit of validity to the subjective crowd and their disdain for the unwavering pure-science based approach to audio playback apparatus? Toole speaks quite a bit about the value of subjective opinions as well as objective data. If I must tweak my flat genelec speaker for the varied material anyway, is it really superior to my friends tweaked( in a different direction) b&w?

 

[richard12511]

is your flat playback speaker more “out of the way” than my “frown face” speaker if the music was mixed on a “smiley face” speaker?

Yes, but only on average.

Some will be mixed with too much treble, some with too much bass, some with too little bass, too much mids, too little mids. Because most studio monitors aim for a flat response, and because of the "wisdom of the crowd", a flat speaker will on average give you the sound that is closest to what the mix/master engineer heard.

A separate and somewhat related benefit is that of preference. Toole's experiments show that the vast majority of people simply prefer neutral speakers under blind test conditions. These preferences were very consistent and over a variety of content from different studios.

 

[RobL]

Yes, but only on average.


A separate and somewhat related benefit is that of preference. Toole's experiments show that the vast majority of people simply prefer neutral speakers under blind test conditions. These preferences were very consistent and over a variety of content from different studios.

That’s true apparently, though I’m not that far into the book yet
Preference itself speaks to subjectivism though, doesn’t it? Reading through chapter 4 Toole shows how untrained listeners tweaked the tone controls of a speaker to find a satisfying spectral balance. Of course it was dependent on playback level how much they changed the controls and they did change them differently for each level...and this was on a flat speaker!

 

[restorer-john]

It seems to be somewhat fashionable to deride the NS-10M on this site. I find it tiresome. When you've designed a speaker that has sold untold millions and is used all over the world for 40 years, I might listen to you.

The speaker was produced for many decades for a reason. It was consistent, reliable, relatively inexpensive and enabled like for like comparisons to be made in various locations around the world. It also does a lot right.

Nobody ever claimed it was a world beater, least of all Yamaha. They, after all, produced the reference NS-1000M for over 35 years too.

 

[MZKM]

Sorted by most used by artists popularity:
https://equipboard.com/c/active-passive-monitors

 

[restorer-john]

Sorted by most used by artists:

 

[RobL]

It seems to be somewhat fashionable to deride the NS-10M on this site. I find it tiresome. When you've designed a speaker that has sold untold millions and is used all over the world for 40 years, I might listen to you.

The speaker was produced for many decades for a reason. It was consistent, reliable, relatively inexpensive and enabled like for like comparisons to be made in various locations around the world. It also does a lot right.

Nobody ever claimed it was a world beater, least of all Yamaha. They, after all, produced the reference NS-1000M for over 35 years too.

No offense intended, you’re correct.
Me calling the NS-10M “sub par” was uncalled for. I actually have never heard one. I know it’s highly regarded by many people, a lot of them in the music biz. What I meant by sub par was that it has an imperfect frequency response, judging by the golden standard of “flatness”. It was used as an example by Toole, that is why I brought it up. I know that it is still used extensively to mix on and that speaks to the point I am trying to make. Should “frequency response” be a disqualifying criteria for speaker selection, ahead of subjective opinion? At a certain point perhaps, but I see many speakers denigrated here on that criteria, maybe unjustly?

 

[restorer-john]

Should “frequency response” be a disqualifying criteria for speaker selection, ahead of subjective opinion? At a certain point perhaps, but I see many speakers denigrated here on that criteria, maybe unjustly?

Absolutely unjustly denigrated if you ask me. Seems to be a sport around here.

People these days want turnkey solutions and recommendations from people they believe know more than they do. It's all a replacement for self study, learning, knowledge and personal experience.

Amir's measurements are very valuable, but the commentary, pile-ons and constant Harman this, and Toole that, are infuriatingly boring. At some point people need to climb out from behind their computer screens and go to proper HiFi stores and listen to a large range of speakers. There is no substitute for that. Get in the car, make some appointments, take some music, listen to, and buy some speakers. Maybe there's not a HiFi store on every corner like I grew up with- that's sad, but there's still some around. Find them and make the long suffering owner some money by buying from him- not that online juggernaught.

I sold (not enough) of the entire range of Yamaha, from the NS-5Xs right up to the NS-1000X, the NS-1000Ms etc. All their Japanese made speakers in the early 1990s. They were expensive, but excellent and stand the test of time (I still own several pairs of various Yamahas). The NS-10Ms have no bass to speak of, but they do mids really well. Yamaha always does midrange better than just about anyone else IME.

 

[dfuller]

Having actually used the NS10s, they are sub-par - listening for extended periods of time on them sucks and they're midrangey to a fault. That does not, however, mean they aren't useful, because they certainly do have a use. Most musical information is in that range, and that means most of your critical balancing should sound "right" on them. They're also a reasonably good tool for checking what a mix will sound like on perhaps less-than-amazing speakers. They're also everywhere, and they are remarkably consistent little grotboxes.

As far as "data only tells you so much", that is accurate IME. I know for a fact that the Adams I've heard (and owned, for that matter) were straight up junk and were damn near impossible to use as monitors because the AMT doesn't sound anything like dome or ring radiator tweeters of any sort.

 

[Jim Matthews]

The NS10 were hard to kill, if overdriven and sibilant if the mix was too "hot". Reliable and revelatory are assets, when you're billing by the hour.

I listened to a set for 20 minutes, at home. That was about all I could stand.

 

[Doodski]

I retailed the NS-10M for several years comparing to ~40-60 different bookshelf models dependant on the season and they sold like hotcakes to the mixing types and peeps that needed the globally available standard. Yes, they are mid-rangy although listening to them for awhile makes everything else sound bland and flat. I have never been a big fan of them because I like lotsa top end and tight deep thumpy bass but there are many peeps out there that want what the NS-10M offers and for that they do it well. The NS-10M is not a horrible speaker; they just sound different and for some peeps that's their preference.

 

[thewas]

The problem of the NS-10 was that it was designed with a wrong target, which later its designer admitted to Toole, see here https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...wered-monitor-review.10967/page-2#post-308443

 

[ernestcarl]

View attachment 124882

Which website is this?

ah... duh. found it.