[Jason]

At the risk of starting a flame war... I am what is probably an
"advanced amateur," albeit not a pro in this business, but, I also
think, not a total idiot. I have studied/read/lurked a lot the past few
years to put together a modest field recording setup that works well
without breaking the bank.

My wife writes music (mostly small chamber pieces and choral
compositions that are larger). It is performed locally, and I record the
performances. Some might say the recordings are "documentary," and
that's not a bad characterization, but I would like to go a bit beyond
that by doing a decent job processing the recordings. I hand out copies
to the performers and give them away to interested audience members.

I well understand that I need decent monitors to supplant the poor setup
I'm using. I also understand that room acoustics are critical and am
prepared to improve the room where I edit. Given those improvements (and
their cost), what should I look for in monitors that fit my medium
budget ($500-$1000?)? It seems as if amplified monitors might be more
cost-effective than buying an external amp. I welcome suggestions, even
of the "you're-out-of-your-mind-for-considering-this" sort (those are
sometimes valuable in their own right if just to set/clobber my
expectations).

So, can someone recommend decent monitors? I am much put off by specs
and the "clearer than blinding daylight!" claims I see when I hunt on
the Web.

Thanks,
Jason

--
reverse my name in email address

[news to me]

Best advice any of us can give you is to listen to what you are going to
buy. Take your favorite recording, something you know inside and out and
listen to it - really listen to it - know it inside and out. Then go out
and listen to that recording on the speakers you are looking at. How do
they sound? How is the bottom reproduced? Is it hyped? How's the top?
Brittle? Smooth? Mids honky or not? It's time consuming, but it's the only
way to really know what your getting before you get home and become
disappointed in what you bought.

At the end of the day, you have to be comfortable with what your listening
to as being representative of what YOU want. That's why there are so many
different speakers out there.

Hope that helps even though I never mentioned a speaker by name.


"Jason" wrote in message
.. .
At the risk of starting a flame war... I am what is probably an
"advanced amateur," albeit not a pro in this business, but, I also
think, not a total idiot. I have studied/read/lurked a lot the past few
years to put together a modest field recording setup that works well
without breaking the bank.

My wife writes music (mostly small chamber pieces and choral
compositions that are larger). It is performed locally, and I record the
performances. Some might say the recordings are "documentary," and
that's not a bad characterization, but I would like to go a bit beyond
that by doing a decent job processing the recordings. I hand out copies
to the performers and give them away to interested audience members.

I well understand that I need decent monitors to supplant the poor setup
I'm using. I also understand that room acoustics are critical and am
prepared to improve the room where I edit. Given those improvements (and
their cost), what should I look for in monitors that fit my medium
budget ($500-$1000?)? It seems as if amplified monitors might be more
cost-effective than buying an external amp. I welcome suggestions, even
of the "you're-out-of-your-mind-for-considering-this" sort (those are
sometimes valuable in their own right if just to set/clobber my
expectations).

So, can someone recommend decent monitors? I am much put off by specs
and the "clearer than blinding daylight!" claims I see when I hunt on
the Web.

Thanks,
Jason

--
reverse my name in email address

[hank alrich]

Jason wrote:

I well understand that I need decent monitors to supplant the poor setup
I'm using. I also understand that room acoustics are critical and am
prepared to improve the room where I edit. Given those improvements (and
their cost), what should I look for in monitors that fit my medium
budget ($500-$1000?)? It seems as if amplified monitors might be more
cost-effective than buying an external amp. I welcome suggestions, even
of the "you're-out-of-your-mind-for-considering-this" sort (those are
sometimes valuable in their own right if just to set/clobber my
expectations).

news to me has nailed the reality of monitor shopping, that one must try
speakers for oneself. Monitor choice turns out to be heavily influenced
by personal preference and specs won't tell you how a speaker sounds.

I've been getting used to a pair of Geneled 8040A's the past few days,
coming from Tannoy NFM8's + Halfer P3000. The Genelecs are far more
revealing of detail and have startling low end extension for a small
speaker. I've been playing lots of different CD's through them and
listening to mixes I've done over the past several years via the Tannoys
and JBL 4315's. The 8040A's are just above your budget range. They seem
to me, so far, to be quite good for what they cost.

That I might like them means nothing to anyone else.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Nov 24, 3:43 pm, "news to me" wrote:
Best advice any of us can give you is to listen to what you are going to
buy. Take your favorite recording, something you know inside and out and
listen to it - really listen to it - know it inside and out. Then go out
and listen to that recording on the speakers you are looking at. How do
they sound? How is the bottom reproduced? Is it hyped? How's the top?
Brittle? Smooth? Mids honky or not? It's time consuming, but it's the only
way to really know what your getting before you get home and become
disappointed in what you bought.

At the end of the day, you have to be comfortable with what your listening
to as being representative of what YOU want. That's why there are so many
different speakers out there.

Hope that helps even though I never mentioned a speaker by name.

"Jason" wrote in message

.. .

At the risk of starting a flame war... I am what is probably an
"advanced amateur," albeit not a pro in this business, but, I also
think, not a total idiot. I have studied/read/lurked a lot the past few
years to put together a modest field recording setup that works well
without breaking the bank.

My wife writes music (mostly small chamber pieces and choral
compositions that are larger). It is performed locally, and I record the
performances. Some might say the recordings are "documentary," and
that's not a bad characterization, but I would like to go a bit beyond
that by doing a decent job processing the recordings. I hand out copies
to the performers and give them away to interested audience members.

I well understand that I need decent monitors to supplant the poor setup
I'm using. I also understand that room acoustics are critical and am
prepared to improve the room where I edit. Given those improvements (and
their cost), what should I look for in monitors that fit my medium
budget ($500-$1000?)? It seems as if amplified monitors might be more
cost-effective than buying an external amp. I welcome suggestions, even
of the "you're-out-of-your-mind-for-considering-this" sort (those are
sometimes valuable in their own right if just to set/clobber my
expectations).

So, can someone recommend decent monitors? I am much put off by specs
and the "clearer than blinding daylight!" claims I see when I hunt on
the Web.

Thanks,
Jason

--
reverse my name in email address

I am using a new pair of active studio monitors to work with my
laptop.My first impression comparing them to an ESL pair is the
expected 'box resonance'and lacking in midrange and with bass
prominence.This was my problem as we tend to adjust to a sound source
if it is listened to long enough and think it is OK.
I like to use a slow 20 to 20khz frequency sweep to test speakers/
headphones.This shows the peaks and dips of the speakers and room
resonance.It certainly produced a pronounced mid-range peak in the
ESL's.The monitors however were fairly flat and so were the ATH-M50
headphones.Neutrality is what the monitors are designed for so, I
suggest you test a series of monitors in a very quiet acoustically
absorbent room if that is possible,with music that you know well and a
CD with a frequency sweep.

[drichard]

Hi Jason,

I decided I wanted a pair of inexpensive powered monitors, and ended
up buying Event Tuned Reference TR8's. I'm pleased with them. They are
in your price range, and I suggest that as part of your evaluation you
might give them a listen.

Dean

On Nov 23, 10:43 pm, "news to me" wrote:
Best advice any of us can give you is to listen to what you are going to
buy. Take your favorite recording, something you know inside and out and
listen to it - really listen to it - know it inside and out. Then go out
and listen to that recording on the speakers you are looking at. How do
they sound? How is the bottom reproduced? Is it hyped? How's the top?
Brittle? Smooth? Mids honky or not? It's time consuming, but it's the only
way to really know what your getting before you get home and become
disappointed in what you bought.

At the end of the day, you have to be comfortable with what your listening
to as being representative of what YOU want. That's why there are so many
different speakers out there.

Hope that helps even though I never mentioned a speaker by name.

"Jason" wrote in message

.. .



At the risk of starting a flame war... I am what is probably an
"advanced amateur," albeit not a pro in this business, but, I also
think, not a total idiot. I have studied/read/lurked a lot the past few
years to put together a modest field recording setup that works well
without breaking the bank.

My wife writes music (mostly small chamber pieces and choral
compositions that are larger). It is performed locally, and I record the
performances. Some might say the recordings are "documentary," and
that's not a bad characterization, but I would like to go a bit beyond
that by doing a decent job processing the recordings. I hand out copies
to the performers and give them away to interested audience members.

I well understand that I need decent monitors to supplant the poor setup
I'm using. I also understand that room acoustics are critical and am
prepared to improve the room where I edit. Given those improvements (and
their cost), what should I look for in monitors that fit my medium
budget ($500-$1000?)? It seems as if amplified monitors might be more
cost-effective than buying an external amp. I welcome suggestions, even
of the "you're-out-of-your-mind-for-considering-this" sort (those are
sometimes valuable in their own right if just to set/clobber my
expectations).

So, can someone recommend decent monitors? I am much put off by specs
and the "clearer than blinding daylight!" claims I see when I hunt on
the Web.

Thanks,
Jason

--
reverse my name in email address- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

Jason wrote:

[chamber music]

I well understand that I need decent monitors to supplant the poor
setup I'm using.

You need to look at the total package. Get a CD with I Musici and bring it
along when you shop, they tend to be well recorded and their instruments are
cremonese, and very smooth sounding.

I also understand that room acoustics are critical
and am prepared to improve the room where I edit.

It doesn' have to look "acoustically regulated" to so be, ordinary furniture
items wisely placed goes a long way. Bookshelves with books have excellent
properties.

Given those
improvements (and their cost), what should I look for in monitors
that fit my medium budget ($500-$1000?)? It seems as if amplified
monitors might be more cost-effective than buying an external amp. I
welcome suggestions, even of the
"you're-out-of-your-mind-for-considering-this" sort (those are
sometimes valuable in their own right if just to set/clobber my
expectations).

KEF has always had excellent mileage for me and for my budget.

So, can someone recommend decent monitors? I am much put off by specs
and the "clearer than blinding daylight!" claims I see when I hunt on
the Web.

Nobody can say buy this, it is with monitors as with shoes .... they're
personalized items. I tend to like things that do not have metal membranes
higher than things that have, at least when we talk about normal open face
loudspeakers..

Thanks,
Jason


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[William Sommerwerck]

I'm bothered when someone implies that they don't care for the "documentary"
quality of their recordings. There's something wrong with that?

Particularly with "classical" music, you _don't_ want a "polished"
recording. Most commercial recordings are so over-processed that they no
longer bear much resemblance to live sound. And that's what you want, isn't
it -- "the closest approach to the original sound"?

To put it another way -- sticking a microphone on each instrument (or group
of instruments or performers), then mixing the tracks to produce something
"good sounding" might be the way major labels do it, but it's not the way to
get natural sound that accurately reflects the original performance.

Why do you assume that your current setup -- which you haven't described --
is "poor"? (I doubt it is.) And why do you think that "processing" the
recording is going to improve the sound?

Forget, for the moment, about fancy monitor speakers. Instead, get a pair of
high-quality cardioid or figure-8 condenser mics (if you don't already have
them), and find a room with good acoustics (for the chamber pieces).

Now comes the difficult part. Instead of depending on signal processing to
make things "right" (ie, wrong), you'll need to start experimenting to find
the best position for the performers (within the room and with respect to
each other) and the correct mic pattern and setup (I'm a great believer in
variable-pattern mics and Blumlein miking).

You'll probably find that the sound is more reverberant than you want, and
will have to place the mics closer to the peformers than you expected. This,
in turn, can lead to balance problems which will tempt you to multi-miking.
But don't give in to the Dark Side of recording technology.

About 25 years ago, I recorded the premiere of Elam Ray Sprenkle's setting
of Emily Dickinson poems. The composer said he thought the recording sounded
better than the live performance! (I think that's a little nutty, but it
wasn't a bad recording.) Anyhow, that recording -- which included choir and
instruments -- was made with a single pair of mics sitting about 7' above
the floor. (I've been trying to find it. That performance was much better
than the version later released on Crystal.)

As for monitoring... I would recommend an extremely high-quality pair of
headphones, such as Sennheiser dynamics, or STAX electrostatics.

There are several major advantages to headphones...

1. They're easy to carry.
2. You don't need to find a place to set them up.
3. The sound of headphones is independent of room acoustics.
4. The overall sound quality will be superior to speakers in the same price
range.
5. You will be able to hear more of what is actually going on in the
recording.
6. You can play them as loud as you like without disturbing the musicians.

The disadvantage of headphones is that they present an exaggerated, overly
spacious image, particularly with single-point recordings. I never found
this a problem; I simply adjusted the mic setup to sound overly spacious!

[Beauchampy[_2_]]

drichard wrote:
Hi Jason,

I decided I wanted a pair of inexpensive powered monitors, and ended
up buying Event Tuned Reference TR8's. I'm pleased with them. They are
in your price range, and I suggest that as part of your evaluation you
might give them a listen.

Dean

Sorry Dean, but I can't reccommend these monitors. Found these speakers
to have very little definition in the low end and they always caused me
to under compress some things (rap vocals in one case), wasn't happy
until I bought a pair of Mackie HR824s which are fantastic "bang for buck".



On Nov 23, 10:43 pm, "news to me" wrote:
Best advice any of us can give you is to listen to what you are going to
buy. Take your favorite recording, something you know inside and out and
listen to it - really listen to it - know it inside and out. Then go out
and listen to that recording on the speakers you are looking at. How do
they sound? How is the bottom reproduced? Is it hyped? How's the top?
Brittle? Smooth? Mids honky or not? It's time consuming, but it's the only
way to really know what your getting before you get home and become
disappointed in what you bought.

At the end of the day, you have to be comfortable with what your listening
to as being representative of what YOU want. That's why there are so many
different speakers out there.

Hope that helps even though I never mentioned a speaker by name.

"Jason" wrote in message

.. .



At the risk of starting a flame war... I am what is probably an
"advanced amateur," albeit not a pro in this business, but, I also
think, not a total idiot. I have studied/read/lurked a lot the past few
years to put together a modest field recording setup that works well
without breaking the bank.
My wife writes music (mostly small chamber pieces and choral
compositions that are larger). It is performed locally, and I record the
performances. Some might say the recordings are "documentary," and
that's not a bad characterization, but I would like to go a bit beyond
that by doing a decent job processing the recordings. I hand out copies
to the performers and give them away to interested audience members.
I well understand that I need decent monitors to supplant the poor setup
I'm using. I also understand that room acoustics are critical and am
prepared to improve the room where I edit. Given those improvements (and
their cost), what should I look for in monitors that fit my medium
budget ($500-$1000?)? It seems as if amplified monitors might be more
cost-effective than buying an external amp. I welcome suggestions, even
of the "you're-out-of-your-mind-for-considering-this" sort (those are
sometimes valuable in their own right if just to set/clobber my
expectations).
So, can someone recommend decent monitors? I am much put off by specs
and the "clearer than blinding daylight!" claims I see when I hunt on
the Web.
Thanks,
Jason
--
reverse my name in email address- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

[drichard]

We'll just have to agree to disagree. The Mackie's are not my cup of
tea, and cost more than twice as much.

On Nov 24, 3:50 pm, Beauchampy wrote:
drichard wrote:
Hi Jason,

I decided I wanted a pair of inexpensive powered monitors, and ended
up buying Event Tuned Reference TR8's. I'm pleased with them. They are
in your price range, and I suggest that as part of your evaluation you
might give them a listen.

Dean

Sorry Dean, but I can't reccommend these monitors. Found these speakers
to have very little definition in the low end and they always caused me
to under compress some things (rap vocals in one case), wasn't happy
until I bought a pair of Mackie HR824s which are fantastic "bang for buck".





On Nov 23, 10:43 pm, "news to me" wrote:
Best advice any of us can give you is to listen to what you are going to
buy. Take your favorite recording, something you know inside and out and
listen to it - really listen to it - know it inside and out. Then go out
and listen to that recording on the speakers you are looking at. How do
they sound? How is the bottom reproduced? Is it hyped? How's the top?
Brittle? Smooth? Mids honky or not? It's time consuming, but it's the only
way to really know what your getting before you get home and become
disappointed in what you bought.

At the end of the day, you have to be comfortable with what your listening
to as being representative of what YOU want. That's why there are so many
different speakers out there.

Hope that helps even though I never mentioned a speaker by name.

"Jason" wrote in message

...

At the risk of starting a flame war... I am what is probably an
"advanced amateur," albeit not a pro in this business, but, I also
think, not a total idiot. I have studied/read/lurked a lot the past few
years to put together a modest field recording setup that works well
without breaking the bank.
My wife writes music (mostly small chamber pieces and choral
compositions that are larger). It is performed locally, and I record the
performances. Some might say the recordings are "documentary," and
that's not a bad characterization, but I would like to go a bit beyond
that by doing a decent job processing the recordings. I hand out copies
to the performers and give them away to interested audience members.
I well understand that I need decent monitors to supplant the poor setup
I'm using. I also understand that room acoustics are critical and am
prepared to improve the room where I edit. Given those improvements (and
their cost), what should I look for in monitors that fit my medium
budget ($500-$1000?)? It seems as if amplified monitors might be more
cost-effective than buying an external amp. I welcome suggestions, even
of the "you're-out-of-your-mind-for-considering-this" sort (those are
sometimes valuable in their own right if just to set/clobber my
expectations).
So, can someone recommend decent monitors? I am much put off by specs
and the "clearer than blinding daylight!" claims I see when I hunt on
the Web.
Thanks,
Jason
--
reverse my name in email address- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

[Bob Howes]

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
...
Jason wrote:

[chamber music]

I well understand that I need decent monitors to supplant the poor
setup I'm using.

You need to look at the total package. Get a CD with I Musici and bring it
along when you shop, they tend to be well recorded and their instruments
are cremonese, and very smooth sounding.

snip

I have to agree with Peter that I Musici recordings would be a pretty good
test for auditioning monitors.

However, one comment on the process of selecting monitors by ear: don't
necessarily go for the speakers that sound "nicest" to you. The purpose of
hi-fi speakers is to make music sound good; the purpose of monitors is to
give you an accurate representation of what you are recording, warts and
all. You need to be able to hear faults in acoustics, mic placement or
technique, not have them covered up by forgiving speakers. The goal is to
produce a recording that will reproduce well on a wide variety of speakers
and in a wide variety of listening conditions, not just on the monitors
you've chosen.

Bob

[Jason]

In article ,
says...
I'm bothered when someone implies that they don't care for the "documentary"
quality of their recordings. There's something wrong with that?

Nothing wrong at all! I didn't mean to disparage "documentary"
recordingns, just to distinguish them from a polished, studio job. Many
of the recordings have been made in various spaces at the local state
university and nearby churches. They range from rehearsal rooms to a
couple of auditoriums and big, echoy sanctuary halls. They share a
common trait: rather poor acoustics and a menagerie of noise sources.
The auditoriums are 40-year old state-issue multipurpose designs that
seat 300-500 and, as mentioned, abound in HVAC noise as well as other
weird things that I see in Audition's spectral display, including a lot
at very high frequencies. Security devices? Almost all the recordings
are live before a noisy audience...


Particularly with "classical" music, you _don't_ want a "polished"
recording. Most commercial recordings are so over-processed that they no
longer bear much resemblance to live sound. And that's what you want, isn't
it -- "the closest approach to the original sound"?

Indeed. The processing I do after the fact has mostly to do with trying
to eliminate the most obvious, obnoxious noise without clobbering the
music. I use Audition's noise reduction algorithms and some EQ
adjustments to, for example, suppress very low-freq rumbles that emanate
from the buildings. The FFT filters are a bear to tame, but are very
effective and seem to pass the neglibible-clobbering test.


Forget, for the moment, about fancy monitor speakers. Instead, get a pair of
high-quality cardioid or figure-8 condenser mics (if you don't already have
them), and find a room with good acoustics (for the chamber pieces).

I use either an NT-4 or LSD2 stereo mic. Just one. I've experimented
with x-y and m-s configurations. As I mentioned, most of the recordings
are of performances so picking a good location isn't usually an option.

Now comes the difficult part. Instead of depending on signal processing to
make things "right" (ie, wrong), you'll need to start experimenting to find
the best position for the performers (within the room and with respect to
each other) and the correct mic pattern and setup (I'm a great believer in
variable-pattern mics and Blumlein miking).

What I usually cannot do is exert much influence over mic placement.
That's something to work on, because I've found that small changes in
mic position can yield large sonic differences.


You'll probably find that the sound is more reverberant than you want...

That's certainly been my experience, hence my eagerness to insinuate the
mics closer to the performers without upsetting them.

As for monitoring... I would recommend an extremely high-quality pair of
headphones, such as Sennheiser dynamics, or STAX electrostatics.

Hmm. I have a pair of STAX electrostatics. I love them. I've played many
of the instruments I'm now recording so I have a good feeling for what
they should sound like. The STAX 'phones come closer to matching what
I've heard in person behind the cello/piano/clarinet/drums than anything
else. I haven't used them in this application yet because so many folks
say that you need the interaction from the two channels to accurately
gauge how playback will sound on speakers vs headphones.


There are several major advantages to headphones...

1. They're easy to carry.
2. You don't need to find a place to set them up.
3. The sound of headphones is independent of room acoustics.
4. The overall sound quality will be superior to speakers in the same price
range.

I think I'll give STAX a try. Thanks very much for your considered
response!

Jason

--
reverse my name in email address

[Scott Dorsey]

drichard wrote:
We'll just have to agree to disagree. The Mackie's are not my cup of
tea, and cost more than twice as much.

There are a lot of other choices out there besides just the Mackies and
Events. Hell, I'd take an old pair of Paradigm Mini Mk IIIs over either
one, and those are nothing to write home about. But I could mix on either
one if I had to.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Jason" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
says...

Nothing wrong at all! I didn't mean to disparage "documentary"
recordingns, just to distinguish them from a polished, studio job.

Just don't polish them too much!


I use either an NT-4 or LSD2 stereo mic. Just one. I've experimented
with XY and MS configurations. As I mentioned, most of the recordings
are of performances, so picking a good location isn't usually an option.

THE greatest problem in making a good recording.


What I usually cannot do is exert much influence over mic placement.
That's something to work on, because I've found that small changes
in mic position can yield large sonic differences.

If you can borrow a pair of figure-8 mics (ribbon or condensor), you'll find
that, starting with a Blumlein setup, then twisting one or both mics, you
can make useful changes in balance and imaging. Figure 8's also do a better
job of suppressing room reverb.


As for monitoring... I would recommend an extremely high-quality pair
of headphones, such as Sennheiser dynamics, or STAX electrostatics.

Hmm. I have a pair of STAX electrostatics. I love them. I've played many
of the instruments I'm now recording so I have a good feeling for what
they should sound like. The STAX 'phones come closer to matching what
I've heard in person behind the cello/piano/clarinet/drums than anything
else. I haven't used them in this application yet because so many folks
say that you need the interaction from the two channels to accurately
gauge how playback will sound on speakers vs headphones.

In theory, a bit of experimentation -- comparing the live sound, and the
recorded sound over speakers and the STAXes, should enable you to
"calibrate" your hearing, to translate the headphone sound to what you will
hear over speakers.


There are several major advantages to headphones...

1. They're easy to carry.
2. You don't need to find a place to set them up.
3. The sound of headphones is independent of room acoustics.
4. The overall sound quality will be superior to speakers in the same
price
range.

I think I'll give STAX a try. Thanks very much for your considered
response!

And thank you for an intelligent evaluation of it. Keep us posted, and let
us know what you learn, and what you decide.

[Jason]

In article ,
says...
If you can borrow a pair of figure-8 mics (ribbon or condensor), you'll find
that, starting with a Blumlein setup, then twisting one or both mics, you
can make useful changes in balance and imaging. Figure 8's also do a better
job of suppressing room reverb.

The LSD2 capsules can be switch to figure-8 mode. I've only used it with
one of them that way for m-s. I've come across many Blumlein advocates
in this group so I'll give it a try. "...suppressing room reverb" sounds
like a great idea!

Jason
--
reverse my name in email address