Studio monitor tradeoffs - questions for music mixers

[Kyle_PL]

This 8381A + subwoofers?

 

[Hexspa]

I do NOT mix music but have been reading about some studio monitors recently and have some questions for those who actually do mix music and have experience with studio monitors.

In particular, I was reading about the Barefoot Footprint01 and Footprint03 monitors. (These are just examples though, I'm not looking for opinions on them as I won't be buying them.) The Footprint01 monitors have an F3 of 36Hz which from what I can tell is quite good for studio monitors. However, one of the comments stated that it was really hard to mix bass well without having separate subs, so he was crossing over to subs and not utilizing that benefit anyways. Max SPL is not stated for these on Sweetwater's product page.

The Footprint03 monitors have an F3 of 45Hz which isn't horrible. Max SPL is 101db (presumably at 1m). I see some Neumann's and Genelec's with max SPL of greater than 110db.

1. So, how important is LOW frequency response to you? Especially something like 36hz vs 45Hz and what is the highest F3 you would find acceptable?
2. How important is max SPL to you and what is a minimum you would find acceptable?
3. Thinking of Hoffman's Iron law, something has to give. Is the size of the monitor much of a constraint (I'm not talking huge, but say 0.50 cubic feet vs 1.0 cubic feet) or are you okay with big if that is what is needed to get the low frequency and SPL requirements?
4. Do you prefer studio monitors to have wide directivity, more narrow directivity, or indifferent as long as it is smooth and controlled directivity?

1. It's absolutely essential to monitor as low as possible because gremlins don't care about your F3. 32 Hz is what I'd call "the standard" but go to 16 Hz if possible! Headphones and IEMs can substitute for subwoofers, more or less, especially if your room is untreated or you don't have multiple subs.

2. Depends on your listening distance. For nearfield monitoring in a domestic-sized room, 73 dB at the listening position is fine. Personally, I monitor lower and then check at that level or higher for subs and very high frequencies. Most of the time, I'm at around 60 dB. There's a Sound on Sound article called Monitor Wizard. On page 3, you'll find a chart which factors in the psychoacoustic effect of reflections, which I find holds even in a well-absorbed space.

3. Size doesn't inherently matter, though it's related to low frequency performance in ways I don't understand. Only consider size if you have a specific fit constraint. Otherwise, let the designer pick the size, you pick the specs you want, and just make room for the box.

4. I'm indifferent to directivity in and of itself, but I like how the KH80 and point source monitors don't make me worry about how high or low I am off axis. That said, if I know a ceiling bounce is particularly worrisome, I'll factor that into my acoustic treatment efforts and prioritize absorption on that reflection point. To clarify, better monitors tend to have more controlled directivity, so naturally I prefer that.

 

[dfuller]

3. Size doesn't inherently matter, though it's related to low frequency performance in ways I don't understand. Only consider size if you have a specific fit constraint. Otherwise, let the designer pick the size, you pick the specs you want, and just make room for the box.

Basically - Hoffman's Iron Law made practical. Bigger cabinet size (and larger driver) equals more LFX and LF SPL.

 

[Skyhouse]

I do NOT mix music but have been reading about some studio monitors recently and have some questions for those who actually do mix music and have experience with studio monitors.

In particular, I was reading about the Barefoot Footprint01 and Footprint03 monitors. (These are just examples though, I'm not looking for opinions on them as I won't be buying them.) The Footprint01 monitors have an F3 of 36Hz which from what I can tell is quite good for studio monitors. However, one of the comments stated that it was really hard to mix bass well without having separate subs, so he was crossing over to subs and not utilizing that benefit anyways. Max SPL is not stated for these on Sweetwater's product page.

The Footprint03 monitors have an F3 of 45Hz which isn't horrible. Max SPL is 101db (presumably at 1m). I see some Neumann's and Genelec's with max SPL of greater than 110db.

1. So, how important is LOW frequency response to you? Especially something like 36hz vs 45Hz and what is the highest F3 you would find acceptable?
2. How important is max SPL to you and what is a minimum you would find acceptable?
3. Thinking of Hoffman's Iron law, something has to give. Is the size of the monitor much of a constraint (I'm not talking huge, but say 0.50 cubic feet vs 1.0 cubic feet) or are you okay with big if that is what is needed to get the low frequency and SPL requirements?
4. Do you prefer studio monitors to have wide directivity, more narrow directivity, or indifferent as long as it is smooth and controlled directivity?

Basically, for an all-purpose studio monitor, you always want more of everything.

1. Lows are the biggest place where people tend to find surprises, just because they are the hardest and most-expensive to reproduce accurately. A LOT of speakers use various design gimmicks to increase the apparent low-end volume at the expense of accuracy. This includes a lot of affordable and mid-priced studio monitors. Some of the most-popular studio monitors are little sealed-port designs like auratones or Yamaha NS-10s that have basically no low-end, but a very tight and accurate lower-midrange. I personally have never gotten along well with ported studio monitors (although I am just fine listening to ported speakers for enjoyment). Other engineers do great work on various ported systems, so YMMV.

2. SPL before distortion is crucial if you are working as a tracking engineer. I need to be able to hear an uncompressed kick drum coming in at -18dBFS peak level, maybe -30db average, and tell whether I am capturing a squeaky pedal or a loose lug nut (maybe -60dBFS), so I need those speakers to be accurate down to kick drum frequencies and loud enough to blow up your eardrums if I suddenly switched on a Katy Perry tune on Spotify. By the time it's mixed and mastered and ready for playback on iPhone speakers, the SPL of my monitors is MASSIVE overkill, but I need to hear what's going on DEEP inside those sounds, all the way from the get-go, when we are capturing teeny-tiny little signals down at like -12~18db PEAK. I monitor at very low volume. Like, below conversation-level, but I need a system whose headroom is accurate at hearing-damage levels, because I am monitoring captures that are tracked with tons of headroom.

3. I had to look up Hoffman's Iron Law. I use Barefoot Micromain 26 as my primary studio monitor, and they are not huge speakers, but still have great low-end. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

4. Wider is obvs better, all else being equal. I care most about what I am hearing, in the "sweet spot", but I also prefer for it to sound good to the people on the listening couch behind me, etc. But if I had to sacrifice anything, I would happily sacrifice dispersion.


I know it kinda sucks to hear "everything is most important" when you're trying to get started on a budget. If I had to start over with the cheapest possible system I could...I guess I would look for a used auratone, or one of the active ones, or even a Tivoli Audio PAL, plus a pair of the best headphones you can get. (Andrew Scheps supposedly mostly mixes on Sony 7506s, although he also has very good speakers to check on...)

I would avoid the mushy middle, and save up for big, meaningful upgrades.