This afternoon, two friends and myself did an informal shootout between
these three passive monitors in my studio. We played a large variety of
music through these monitors including classical chamber music, jazz piano
trio w/vocalist, jazz vibraphone trio, techno, and pop songs. Most of the
material is stuff that each one of us had composed and mixed ourselves, so
we were intimately familar with what the material should sound like through
any given set of speakers.

Third Place: Tannoy Reveal. Many people like these monitors and it's easy
to see why. Everything seems to sound pretty good on them. That's actually
part of the problem with these speakers. They were the darkest sounding of
the three and the midrange seems to be "compressed". One of the test CDs
was a piano disc in which the midrange eq varied wildly. Where we should
have been able to detect a change in the midrange eq, the differences were
minimized and sounded almost exactly the same on every song. This is a
detail that you should be able to hear on speakers in this price range. How
could someone correct this problem if they were not able to hear it? In
general, vocals and brass seemed to disappear or sit further back in the mix
than where they really are. This was especially interesting because we
would have never guessed that there was a mdirange dip just by casually
listening to the speaker. One positive, the fundamental tone of the bass
was very clear and tight, almost as if slight compression was applied to the
bass part. If I had to transcribe a bass solo using one of the speakers we
tried today, this would be it. In terms of its clarity, it was almost as if
the bass part was transposed up an octave.

Second Place: Tannoy PBM 6.5 II. At first listen, they seem to be less
rich sounding than the Reveals, but the overall frequency balance was more
accurate overall. The bass was more subdued than the Reveals, but this may
be the reason why the mids were more open and didn't hide the vocals. This
speaker has a more pronounced top end as well. I'd be curious to hear how
they stack up against the current replacement for this speaker, the Tannoy
Proto-J, which sell for only $200/pair. Although they look almost
identical, the
drivers for the two speakers are not the same. If anyone has compared the
PBMs and the Proto-Js, please let me know your thoughts on how they stack up
against each other.

First Place: Event 20/20 (v1). The midrange of this speaker is truly
spectacular. It was almost like going to 3-D compared to the other two
speakers. The details were very easy to hear and they sounded very
"uncompressed", particularly when compared to the Reveals. One of the
songs, a vibraphone track had a LOT more dynamics apparent compared to the
other speakers. The top end on this speaker is perhaps slightly hyped, but
very pleasant to listen to. They weren't hyped to the extent that the KRK V
series are, however. The low bass on this speaker seems to extend below
the range of the Reveals, but it sounds flabbier. The fundamental wasn't as
clearly pronounced. The consenus was that it is better to be able to hear
lower frequencies, even if they're looser because at least you would know
that they exist and need adjustment.

We'd like to compare the unpowered Event 20/20 with the new powered Event
TRS6. Although we auditioned the TR6 at Guitar Center and liked them very
much for their gorgeous midrange and tight bass, they did not have any
unpowered monitors connected at any of the 4 GC stores we went to for
comparison. Further,
none of them had Tannoy Reveals, although the SoCal Tannoy distrubutor said
that GC carried their product! It's hard to make a final decision when you
can't A/B speakers you like the most. If the TRS6 speaker has the bass
clarity of the Reveal with the midrange and top of the 20/20, they have a
combination
that can't be beat in their price range ($400/pair). When and if we get to
the bottom of this puzzlement, I'll pass the information along.

Cheers,
Jonas

"jonas aras"
Second Place: Tannoy PBM 6.5 II. At first listen, they seem to be less rich
sounding than the Reveals, but the overall frequency balance was more
accurate overall.

Ummm - I worked with those puppies in a well designed, tuned studio every
day for the better of 3 years Jonas. You didn't notice a bit notch in the
midrange that Tannoy thought made them "less fatiguing" to listen to all day?

The bass was more subdued than the Reveals, but this may
be the reason why the mids were more open and didn't hide the vocals.

In other words, they do have better low end extension than the PBM 6.5's,
yes? Look, if you think that hearing the low end extension makes it harder to
hear the middle, your room is likely very poorly tuned. Furthermore you're not
used to listening to full frequency program when you judge the overall balance
of the frequency spectrum. Look I've been there and no way around it, it's an
acquired skill and an enviroment that you have to get used to.

In a poorly tuned room where low end reproduction clouds the program, any
listening test results are less than optimal or emprical.

First Place: Event 20/20 (v1).

Your new "Mastering" speakers choice? Dude! At least _consider_ a pair of
active bi-amped Dynaudio BM6A's! I know a guy with 8 pairs of them, $1420 a
pair till they're gone. If you're gonna be "Mastering", buy some decent tools!

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

Where could I find 'em? I've been to Guitar Center, Sam Ash, and West LA
Music, and I seem to run into the same 4 or 5 monitors everywhere. It's
actually a bit frustrating.


"Rick Hollett" wrote in message
...
How would you rate the Blue Sky system w/12"sub? I find a clear balance
across the spectrum and all the mixes do translate well. FWIW

Rick Hollett
Record Time Productions
"WillStG" wrote in message
...
"jonas aras"
Second Place: Tannoy PBM 6.5 II. At first listen, they seem to be
less
rich
sounding than the Reveals, but the overall frequency balance was more
accurate overall.

Ummm - I worked with those puppies in a well designed, tuned studio
every
day for the better of 3 years Jonas. You didn't notice a bit notch in
the
midrange that Tannoy thought made them "less fatiguing" to listen to all
day?

The bass was more subdued than the Reveals, but this may
be the reason why the mids were more open and didn't hide the vocals.

In other words, they do have better low end extension than the PBM
6.5's,
yes? Look, if you think that hearing the low end extension makes it
harder to
hear the middle, your room is likely very poorly tuned. Furthermore
you're not
used to listening to full frequency program when you judge the overall
balance
of the frequency spectrum. Look I've been there and no way around it,
it's an
acquired skill and an enviroment that you have to get used to.

In a poorly tuned room where low end reproduction clouds the
program,
any
listening test results are less than optimal or emprical.

First Place: Event 20/20 (v1).

Your new "Mastering" speakers choice? Dude! At least _consider_ a
pair
of
active bi-amped Dynaudio BM6A's! I know a guy with 8 pairs of them,
$1420
a
pair till they're gone. If you're gonna be "Mastering", buy some decent
tools!

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

"WillStG" wrote in message
...

Ummm - I worked with those puppies in a well designed, tuned studio
every
day for the better of 3 years Jonas. You didn't notice a bit notch in the
midrange that Tannoy thought made them "less fatiguing" to listen to all
day?


Will's right, Jonas. I still have a pair and use them as a as a low
resolution reference speaker. There is a hole there - you can work around
it, but only if you know that it exists.

--
Dave Martin
Java Jive Studio
Nashville, TN
www.javajivestudio.com

Second Place: Tannoy PBM 6.5 II.

I have listened to familiar instruments through these at friends' houses &
found them totally lacking any sense of three dimensional depth. Less useful to
my way of working than NS10s, but possibly good as a worst case reality check
to see how something translates to a really crappy home stereo. I've never
liked these speakers.

First Place: Event 20/20 (v1).

I did a CD of extremely dynamic bass heavy music (bagpipes, snare drums, bass
drum) at a studio with these. The low end was HUGELY exaggerated, which was
tons of fun for tracking, but nowhere near accurate enough for mixing. Not
balanced or three dimensional enough for me to do realistic serious work on.
Two subsequent CDs with the same band, tracked & mixed on my KEF 103.2s ended
up with NO corrective EQ in mastering at Bernie Grundman's, so I believe I can
trust them.
Scott Fraser

"Rick Hollett"

How would you rate the Blue Sky system w/12"sub? I find a clear balance
across the spectrum and all the mixes do translate well. FWIW

Never A/B'ed them, and only heard them in a music store, but they sound
pleasant. But sounding pleasant probably means "flattering", which isn't good
when what you really want is the truth, and as much of it as you can get.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

1. You infer several things about my room that aren't true. The room is
asymetrical in shape and I've judiciously used some Auralex. One of the
other reviewers is a well respected chamber music performer/composer who has
an ear for rooms that would make Keith Jarrett blush, and he did not note
anything out of the ordinary.

2. The Reveals do have better bass extension than the PBMs and upon casual
listening they also seemed flatter thanthe PBMs until I noticed the vocals
and brass on a couple of CDs being 3-5 dBA softer than on any other speaker
(ghetto blaster and car stereo included) and the fact the midrange is
certainly homogenized to make it all sound the same. The PBMs, which I'm
sure have a dip as well, at least didn't cover up these instruments and
allowed us to hear that there were eq differences in this range. The mids
on the Reveals aren't the greatest. Given a choice between the PBMs and the
Reveals, I'd go with the PBMs, in spite of their shortcomings. They're less
messed up.

3. I'd love to send you a copy of a project that was completed using
nothing but the PBMs and very poor source material. If you think that I'm
deaf, then so be it.

"WillStG" wrote in message
...
"jonas aras"
Second Place: Tannoy PBM 6.5 II. At first listen, they seem to be less
rich
sounding than the Reveals, but the overall frequency balance was more
accurate overall.

Ummm - I worked with those puppies in a well designed, tuned studio
every
day for the better of 3 years Jonas. You didn't notice a bit notch in the
midrange that Tannoy thought made them "less fatiguing" to listen to all
day?

The bass was more subdued than the Reveals, but this may
be the reason why the mids were more open and didn't hide the vocals.

In other words, they do have better low end extension than the PBM
6.5's,
yes? Look, if you think that hearing the low end extension makes it
harder to
hear the middle, your room is likely very poorly tuned. Furthermore
you're not
used to listening to full frequency program when you judge the overall
balance
of the frequency spectrum. Look I've been there and no way around it,
it's an
acquired skill and an enviroment that you have to get used to.

In a poorly tuned room where low end reproduction clouds the program,
any
listening test results are less than optimal or emprical.

First Place: Event 20/20 (v1).

Your new "Mastering" speakers choice? Dude! At least _consider_ a pair
of
active bi-amped Dynaudio BM6A's! I know a guy with 8 pairs of them, $1420
a
pair till they're gone. If you're gonna be "Mastering", buy some decent
tools!

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

"jonas aras"
1. You infer several things about my room that aren't true. The room is
asymetrical in shape and I've judiciously used some Auralex. One of the other
reviewers is a well respected chamber music performer/composer who has an ear
for rooms that would make Keith Jarrett blush, and he did not note anything out
of the ordinary.

You yourself Jonas, speculated that it was the greater bass extension of
the Reveals that made it more difficult to hear the middle frequencies. If
this is indeed the case it is likely your room, "Auralex'ed" or not, is the
reason why. And there is quite arguably more to a good room than Assymetry and
some Auralex glued to the walls.

2. The Reveals do have better bass extension than the PBMs and upon casual
listening they also seemed flatter thanthe PBMs until I noticed the vocals and
brass on a couple of CDs being 3-5 dBA softer than on any other speaker (ghetto
blaster and car stereo included) and the fact the midrange is certainly
homogenized to make it all sound the same.

Perhaps the problem is that you are used to "hyped" midrange, and not what
good, flat reference speakers sound like? Have you ever worked for an extended
period of time on speakers that cost greater than $1300 in a room tuned or
designed by a competent Professional?

The PBMs, which I'm sure have a dip as well, at least didn't cover up these
instruments and allowed us to hear that there were eq differences in this
range. The mids on the Reveals aren't the greatest. Given a choice between
the PBMs and the Reveals, I'd go with the PBMs, in spite of their shortcomings.
They're less messed up.
3. I'd love to send you a copy of a project that was completed using
nothing but the PBMs and very poor source material. If you think that I'm
deaf, then so be it.

Again, it ain't about your talent or ears, it's about your thinking and
approach Jonas. I have not suggested you are deaf, just you are applying the
wrong audio paradigm for your situation. Look, Mixers quite often have your
approach, for example NS10's were quite popular because the middle range is
_all_ they can reproduce, this gives guys a chance to hear their mixes with the
area of critical focus in stark relief without any extend top or lows to
distract them. You can also watch for the speaker cone to extrude, that's how
guys know their is too much bass on those puppies, they use their eyes as well
as ears. This is fine for mixing. But when those mixes are sent out for
"Mastering", the engineer is expected to take care of the subtler things that
were missed by the Mixer. The Mastering guy *must* neccessarily be used to
listening full frequency program on a routine basis , and *must* have an audio
chain that can reproduce the fullest frequency spectrum possible, and certainly
not be content with speakers and amps that are many orders _worse_ than the
mixing engineers are using! And some high end analog gear and better than
pedestrian Converters are certainly a nice thing for a Mastering Studio to have
as well.

Of course you are improving the crappy mixes that people are sending you,
you have a business niche, fine. But no studio owner here is going to be
sending you clients when they know as talented as you probably are, you don't
think it neccessary to be able to hear everything that's going on in a mix.
If everyone has spent 4x more on speakers and amps than you, you have little
to offer on that level.
And this grief is actually intended to help you Brother - as well as the state
of audio in general.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

"jonas aras" wrote in message
. com...
1. You infer several things about my room that aren't true.

Geez, the room is just one component.

Will's right, Jonas. Whatever your ears are capable of, your current
speaker selection doesn't relate to getting a lot of jobs from people here,
but then again, if you are getting in jobs that require the level of fixes
you're talking about, then you aren't doing them any favors by guessing at
what you're doing. And if you're getting the money and comeback clients,
then you owe it to them to continue stepping up the ladder, adding money to
your rates because of the equipment expenditures, and build yourself a
business.

I mean, ****, I'm a nobody, and I don't have a lot of money just to ****
away in audio equipment. I have to justify the expenditures, and one of my
speakers cost more than your current set. I have a large reference set that
cost $1000 each (cheap in the world of professional audio), so you need to
maintain your current desires and talent, and push a little on the equipment
end. Like I said, if you've got people coming to you for these jobs then
you need to be able to provide them a product about which you absolutely
have total knowledge.

I'd liken it to a post from Dave Collins in the 384 kHz thread where he
talks about mastering engineers that say they've made some changes maybe at
2.5 kHz by .1 dB as if that's going to be audible to anyone. It's a
fallacy. The change may well have been made, don't get me wrong. But it's
effect on the overall product is absolutely zero. Do you want to be listing
your mastering changes in .1 dB increments, or do you actually want to make
a positive difference on the final product? Talking about the speakers
you've been looking at, you aren't even in the .1 dB change range yet.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
RAP FAQ and Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at
www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.





The room is
asymetrical in shape and I've judiciously used some Auralex. One of the
other reviewers is a well respected chamber music performer/composer who
has
an ear for rooms that would make Keith Jarrett blush, and he did not note
anything out of the ordinary.

2. The Reveals do have better bass extension than the PBMs and upon
casual
listening they also seemed flatter thanthe PBMs until I noticed the vocals
and brass on a couple of CDs being 3-5 dBA softer than on any other
speaker
(ghetto blaster and car stereo included) and the fact the midrange is
certainly homogenized to make it all sound the same. The PBMs, which I'm
sure have a dip as well, at least didn't cover up these instruments and
allowed us to hear that there were eq differences in this range. The mids
on the Reveals aren't the greatest. Given a choice between the PBMs and
the
Reveals, I'd go with the PBMs, in spite of their shortcomings. They're
less
messed up.

3. I'd love to send you a copy of a project that was completed using
nothing but the PBMs and very poor source material. If you think that I'm
deaf, then so be it.

"WillStG" wrote in message
...
"jonas aras"
Second Place: Tannoy PBM 6.5 II. At first listen, they seem to be
less
rich
sounding than the Reveals, but the overall frequency balance was more
accurate overall.

Ummm - I worked with those puppies in a well designed, tuned studio
every
day for the better of 3 years Jonas. You didn't notice a bit notch in
the
midrange that Tannoy thought made them "less fatiguing" to listen to all
day?

The bass was more subdued than the Reveals, but this may
be the reason why the mids were more open and didn't hide the vocals.

In other words, they do have better low end extension than the PBM
6.5's,
yes? Look, if you think that hearing the low end extension makes it
harder to
hear the middle, your room is likely very poorly tuned. Furthermore
you're not
used to listening to full frequency program when you judge the overall
balance
of the frequency spectrum. Look I've been there and no way around it,
it's an
acquired skill and an enviroment that you have to get used to.

In a poorly tuned room where low end reproduction clouds the
program,
any
listening test results are less than optimal or emprical.

First Place: Event 20/20 (v1).

Your new "Mastering" speakers choice? Dude! At least _consider_ a
pair
of
active bi-amped Dynaudio BM6A's! I know a guy with 8 pairs of them,
$1420
a
pair till they're gone. If you're gonna be "Mastering", buy some decent
tools!

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits