Recommended Pro Studio Monitors?

[TheZebraKilledDarwin]

Citation of what?

 

[staticV3]

Citation of what?

The NS10 having superior transient response, resulting in revealing reproduction of audio.

 

[TheZebraKilledDarwin]

Ah, sure. Maybe I have these measurements somewhere...

 

[TheZebraKilledDarwin]

The frequency response can be copied by a lot of speakers. Same with Auratones. But not how fast they are.
They don't sound pleasant, but it's a pleasure to work with them, because they amplify any harshness and problems (imaging is amazing too, because of the transient behavior).

 

[Blake Klondike]

My experience is sort of the opposite, when the monitors are good enough, you only correction in the bass. When they're not, full range compensation still can't fix that.

i would second this perspective. if your claves aren't cutting the way you want them to, that's a problem you can solve, but it is a minor issue compared to whether or not the bass is completely out of control, and is wrecking your tracks. i had this problem with my first album 25 years ago, because i was mixing on $49 home stereo speakers. i haven't read the entire discussion so apologies if this is off-track

 

[Blake Klondike]

Reference checks through different speakers is a must for the most part.

i'm sure everybody knows that john fogerty's last stop when mixing and mastering was a set of pickup truck speakers mounted on a sheet of plywood, because he felt like that was where most people would be listening.

 

[kyuu]

The frequency response can be copied by a lot of speakers. Same with Auratones. But not how fast they are.
They don't sound pleasant, but it's a pleasure to work with them, because they amplify any harshness and problems (imaging is amazing too, because of the transient behavior).

All that waterfall reveals is that the NS10 is really clean in the bass frequencies because it makes almost no sound down there.

 

[staticV3]

No the NS10 definitely has quick decay, even irrespective of its bass roll-off, but so does any other sealed and competently designed monitor

Erin's Klippel measurements do put a damper on things though: https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/yamaha_ns10m_studio/

 

[kyuu]

No the NS10 definitely has quick decay, even irrespective of its bass roll-off, but so does any other sealed and competently designed monitor

Right, which is why the deficient bass response is the only thing of note.

Edit: For example, here is my Adam D3V:

If we chopped off everything below 100Hz or so to mimic the NS10, doesn't seem like much daylight there. And these aren't even sealed.

 

[AA63]

Before spending a dime - (because as others have said) - the Focals should translate well enough when listening in the nearfield...

There are dozens of reasons why mixes "don't translate" - most of them are between your ears (LOL).

The basic physical steps I would take are

1) Remove the room from the equation by checking your mixes on good headphones (and then other types of headphones/pods etc). You will most likely hear things that will need adjustment. The type of adjustments will be important to note. Is it tonality, balance, compression/limiting, all of the above? Frame of mind is also important - when mixing, you are (consciously or not) focusing on individual items rather than as a listener would listen.

If you've found that yes you are hearing many things that need adjustment in your headphones...

2) Start measuring and clean up your room with your existing setup - you most likely have reflections and bass issues that are effecting your decisions.

3) Rinse and repeat.

Or, you could go shotgun, try a whack of different speakers and hope for a good result. Most monitors at half of what you are proposing to spend are serviceable. Mixing is more knowledge/technique than physical items - as clearly documented by the vast number of good mixes done (primarily) on god-awful speakers.

There is something to be said for the synergy of speakers/room but I tend to lean more towards the speakers/person synergy, we all hear things differently so the case may be that you just don't "get along" well with the Focals - but - before dropping 10k, get your room in order, then try picking up some second hand boxes that are different than the Shapes - for example some JBL 308s, ProAC 100s (or others that have been suggested) to see if they get you to a better result.

 

[TheZebraKilledDarwin]

All that waterfall reveals is that the NS10 is really clean in the bass frequencies because it makes almost no sound down there.

No sound down there? Even Auratones give enough feedback for the bass region and only the subbass needs an extra check. The absolutely fascinating thing is, that these speakers reveal, if the bass down below is not right, or if its perfect, even if you can't hear it directly (everything is reflected in the midrange and they show the crucial midrange (frequency and time domain) probably like no other speaker).

 

[LTig]

No the NS10 definitely has quick decay, even irrespective of its bass roll-off, but so does any other sealed and competently designed monitor

Yep, just look at the K&H O198. And it's also cleaner in the mids than the NS10.

 

[Floyd Toole]

The frequency response of Auratones and NS10s is veeery helpful, but the way more important aspect is their fantastic transient response. It's that combination why they brutally reveal any weaknesses.

Sorry, but I really must jump in here with a technical fact. Loudspeaker transducers are minimum-phase devices, meaning that the transient response - the time-domain behaviour - is predictable from the frequency response. The Auratones are single transducers. They have resonances, and misbehave (ring) in the time domain. The transient response is definitely not "fantastic".

This also applies at the bass cutoff of the NS-10M, where the shape of the "knee" and the slope of the rolloff determine the transient response - it is an engineering decision. In all such devices, equalization can modify both the frequency response and transient response behaviour. Finally, of course the listening room resonances and boundary effects are superimposed and these are not standardized. There is enormous folklore associated with these products, and much of it is fantasy.

If these frequency responses are useful to a mixer, simply equalize a well-designed timbrally neutral, technically accurate, loudspeaker to have the same frequency response. No need to clutter control rooms with numerous little loudspeakers, white cones or not. A return to accurate reproduction is an icon press away.

 

[AA63]

"There is enormous folklore associated with these products, and much of it is fantasy."

Preach.

 

[Oboreal]

The paper quoted by TheZebraKilledDarwin is interresting to read fully NS 10M

Sorry, but I really must jump in here with a technical fact. Loudspeaker transducers are minimum-phase devices, meaning that the transient response - the time-domain behaviour - is predictable from the frequency response.

Knowing some of your work, which I find extremely interesting, I would be inclined to rely on your expertise. However, when looking at the anechoic measurements presented in this brief analysis by Newell, it seems that things are not so clear-cut. Several loudspeakers indeed show nonlinearities that translate only weakly in the time domain, while others that appear to have some few irregularities in their frequency response actually exhibit pronounced resonances (often linked to bass‑reflex design, though not exclusively, from what I can see). I guess that cabinet and designs (sealed vs bassreflex) play a major rôle ?

I think it’s important to point out that I’m not an advocate of using the NS‑10s for mixing, given their poor linearity and the fact that the lack of low end and the excess of upper‑midrange can lead to “scooped” mixes — especially in genres where the bass extends very low (metal, hip‑hop, electronic music). This is even more relevant today, when most consumer speakers and headphones tend to have the opposite signature, with an exaggerated low end and a recessed midrange.

 

[Floyd Toole]

The paper quoted by TheZebraKilledDarwin is interresting to read fully NS 10M



Knowing some of your work, which I find extremely interesting, I would be inclined to rely on your expertise. However, when looking at the anechoic measurements presented in this brief analysis by Newell, it seems that things are not so clear-cut. Several loudspeakers indeed show nonlinearities that translate only weakly in the time domain, while others that appear to have some few irregularities in their frequency response actually exhibit pronounced resonances (often linked to bass‑reflex design, though not exclusively, from what I can see). I guess that cabinet and designs (sealed vs bassreflex) play a major rôle ?

I think it’s important to point out that I’m not an advocate of using the NS‑10s for mixing, given their poor linearity and the fact that the lack of low end and the excess of upper‑midrange can lead to “scooped” mixes — especially in genres where the bass extends very low (metal, hip‑hop, electronic music). This is even more relevant today, when most consumer speakers and headphones tend to have the opposite signature, with an exaggerated low end and a recessed midrange.

I know Philip Newell personally, and we have discussed this set of data. From my perspective, having been involved in the low frequency calibration of a few anechoic chambers, it is an imperfect process. I know from hard experience that errors will occur depending on the design of the loudspeaker: multiple woofers, ports and their placement, the precision of placement in the chamber. Why? because anechoic chambers are not anechoic below the cutoff frequency that depends on the length of the wedges, often about 1 m resulting in standing waves developing below about 100 Hz. The only way to accurately measure low frequency performance is on a tall tower outdoors or on a large parking lot (ground plane). Such measurements are used to calibrate chambers. I discuss this in my book. This is how these measurements should have been made to avoid the possibility of errors. I know a consumer manufacturer who has a tower for absolutely determining the performance of his woofers and subwoofers. It can be done correctly. Nowadays the Klippel NFS does it immaculately.

As I said, the bass performance of loudspeakers in the amplitude and time domain is predictable during the design process. Closed box systems are simple, and the smooth falloff is typical. If the "knee" frequency is around 100 Hz he bass is sometimes described as "tight", mainly because the fundamental frequencies are attenuated - the bass is emasculated. It avoids energizing listening room modes which are a distraction. This problem can be avoided but most people don't bother, or don't know how to do so (Chapters 13 and 14 in my book explain). The following figure is in my book. It shows the original NS-10M, a consumer product designed to be placed close to a wall for bass enhancement, but incorrectly designed to deliver flat sound power (It was not successful in the marketplace). When pros decided it was useful, Yamaha modified the design, making it more durable and turning it into an Auratone with more bass. The designers visited me when I was at the. NRCC. In contrast, the NS1000M was an excellent piece of engineering at the time - a very neutral loudspeaker with bass.

Finally, it needs to be said that in spite of what our brains are telling us, evidence from several serious investigations indicate that listeners respond more to the amplitude response than the time domain ringing. This has been shown in gross ringing in high Q room modes. The resonances discussed here are low Q and they turn out to be the ones humans are most sensitive to. This is discussed in detail in JAES papers and my books. We can detect an amplitude change of less than 0.5 dB in a Q=1 resonance, for which there is barely discernible ringing. Small broadband level adjustments are easily heard and have virtually no time domain effects.

So, when bass reflex loudspeakers are criticized for "inferior" time domain behaviour, one must balance a few issues. Is it better to hear lower bass vs. not hearing it? Is it the energized room resonances being responded to rather than the inherent altered woofer performance? Is "tight" bass a virtue when it eliminates frequencies that are in the original sound? It is art, so if tight bass is desired in a recording simply modify the spectrum (high-pass) of the signal from the kick drum, or boost 80 Hz or so. No need to employ a special little loudspeaker with a white woofer.

As for bass response in monitoring, we know how to get very close to neutral using loudspeakers in rooms (Chapters 13 and 14) and in headphones (Chapter 15).

Methinks, we sometimes focus on the wrong issues. I think I might be getting grumpy in my old age.

 

[andyc56]

As for bass response in monitoring, we know how to get very close to neutral using loudspeakers in rooms (Chapters 13 and 14) and in headphones (Chapter 15).

Methinks, we sometimes focus on the wrong issues. I think I might be getting grumpy in my old age.

I definitely am!

After reading posts such as the ones to which you're responding, I'm always reminded of a quote I love from an essay by jazz bassist, composer and bandleader Charles Mingus. In it, he complains about some unnamed players on the jazz scene at the time. These players believed what they were playing was new and innovative, not realizing that their ideas and methods had already been thoroughly explored by earlier players. It's kind of like the musical counterpart of the Dunning-Kruger effect I guess.

The "money quote" I'm referring to from the essay is this:

It's as if people came to Manhattan and acted like it was still full of trees and grass and Indians instead of concrete and tall buildings.

The essay is What is a Jazz Composer?. It's also the liner notes from his album Let My Children Hear Music.

Thank you for your many contributions here.

 

[rf1938]

It's always a dilemma in choosing how to monitor audio these days because of the great variety of playback devices. I produce video and often, because of budgetary constraints, end up doing the mix. I use nearfield JBLs, have a subwoofer with a foot switch, and a set of small Bose computer speakers. Between all these options I try to find something that sounds OK across this range. The excellent studio where I do finishing where budget allows use Genelecs in an beautiful treated room - unlikely anything will ever sound remotely like this at home, in a car, or, God help us, on a phone. I'd think your Focals are very lilkely just fine, and any problems sending a mix to a phone has more to do with the phone than your Focals. Its great to hear excellent sound while you're mixing, but you may be the last person to ever hear it that way.

 

[MusicEnthusiast101]

Forgot my old login details, so had to make a new account to reply.

I ended up going with the Kali Audio IN-8 v2 and I semi-regret it. First off, they beat my previous pair of Focal Shape 65 by a mile. The stereo is much much better. However, they lack bass. Even with the bass boosted, the bass is too weak. I always use my iMac speakers for reference and they are a great reference for mix translation, so much so that I sometimes do some mixing or mastering partly on them. But the lack of bass is why I always need to mix the bass extra quiet to avoid it blaring on other systems, which is a huge downside because the bass just feels weak on the Kalis when I do this but just right on other systems. I am mixing blindly in that regard. Also, the high end is too dull / subdued / smooth or soft. Spikey hi hats or cutting snares sound buttery smooth on the Kalis but immediately jump out at me on my mac, phone or in my car but even when turning up the volume on the Kalis, the high end is just too forgiving. Overall my mixes translate much better. But he lack of bass and soft high end are at least in my book a big downside. I know pro engineers use these but I also discovered that it's almost always in combination with a hardware speaker calibration system, which adds lots of latency. That is of course a great way to get the most out of these but for the creative stage of making music, adding huge amounts of latency is a no-go. Does not matter if the speakers sound amazingly neutral if the latency prevents you from feeling the music when playing.

So, I am back to square one, minus the Kali IN8 v2s as option. Although, I've learned that cheaper speakers can trump more expensive speakers. So, I actually think I'll downsize my budget to 3.000$ / 2.550€.

Speakers I've shortlisted so far:
Fluid Audio Image 2
Adam A7V
Genelec 8330A
Amphion One15 (I read a lot of positive reviews about the translation of these, they might be better than the One18 and Two18 afaik)
Kali Audio SM-5

Any experience working with these monitors?

 

[berjine]

I know pro engineers use these but I also discovered that it's almost always in combination with a hardware speaker calibration system, which adds lots of latency.

Calibration can add significant latency when you want to correct also the phase, but you can do basic correction (room modes and sound signature) without latency (just a few ms, nothing problematic)

In your situation I'd get a measurement microphone (UMIK-1 for example) to try basic room correction (a simple parametric EQ on your master is enough for this) before selling the Kalis

This is something that you will need anyway, unless you buy a dedicated calibration system like Genelec GLM for example