[Jason]

I have been testing out monitors..not the rock-bottom ones (why?) or the
stratospheric ones(can't afford 'em). I take a clutch of CD's with which
I am familiar as well as some recordings I've made and some of my wife's
music that was recorded in a professional studio. The more I listen, the
more bewildered I get, 'tho I think I'm homing in some that I like.

So I tried an experiment, and I'm not sure if it works or not, hence
this posting.. I took CD's of my wife's professionally-recorded chamber
music as well as mp3's of the same music that we've put on her website.
The mp3's are very high bitrate versions, so they should sound decent,
right? Wrong. Well, decent maybe, but the quality revealed by good
monitors is very far from that of the uncompressed recordings. This
isn't a surprise, but the differences between monitors are.

All of them reveal the deficiencies of the compressed audio - 'sounds
like somebody threw a blanket over the band. But some of the monitors
seem to reveal considerably larger differences than others. At first, I
thought that the monitors that showed the largest differences must be
the better ones. Then I thought about it and now wonder if the perceived
differences might instead be due to *deficiences* (of some sort) in the
monitors. For the most part, the monitors that showed the biggest
differences were also preferrable--to me--on other material, but I
realize that could be some coloration effect that happens to appeal to
me and that also affects the comparison.

Am I obsessing too much? :-)

Jason

[[email protected]]

On Sep 6, 10:28*pm, Jason wrote:
I have been testing out monitors..not the rock-bottom ones (why?) or the
stratospheric ones(can't afford 'em). I take a clutch of CD's with which
I am familiar as well as some recordings I've made and some of my wife's
music that was recorded in a professional studio. The more I listen, the
more bewildered I get, 'tho I think I'm homing in some that I like.

So I tried an experiment, and I'm not sure if it works or not, hence
this posting.. I took CD's of my wife's professionally-recorded chamber
music as well as mp3's of the same music that we've put on her website.
The mp3's are very high bitrate versions, so they should sound decent,
right? Wrong. Well, decent maybe, but the quality revealed by good
monitors is very far from that of the uncompressed recordings. This
isn't a surprise, but the differences between monitors are.

All of them reveal the deficiencies of the compressed audio - 'sounds
like somebody threw a blanket over the band. But some of the monitors
seem to reveal considerably larger differences than others. At first, I
thought that the monitors that showed the largest differences must be
the better ones. Then I thought about it and now wonder if the perceived
differences might instead be due to *deficiences* (of some sort) in the
monitors. For the most part, the monitors that showed the biggest
differences were also preferrable--to me--on other material, but I
realize that could be some coloration effect that happens to appeal to
me and that also affects the comparison.

Am I obsessing too much? *:-)

Jason

I don't know if I can help you. My wife calls me OCD. yes I have the
disorder. Engineers have to be. Why? Look at who we work for. Even
Lennon would have rather been a fisherman.
At any rate. What do you need , and want out of a Monitor. Do you
record, rock or Rnb, or Chamber? or all of the above. I have been
told the industry is fragmented today. I for example record blues,
some rock,Christian and some folk. No classical metal. I use KRK V8's
with a sub woofer just slightly on. I also have Yamaha NS10's which
were the big thing years ago. Also I have some very oldJBL 4311's and
two sets of consumer speakers in my office and a sony boom box and a
car cd player.
Find a few engineers/producers that you like the way they mix and
see what they use. might be some really expensiive non options. If you
can test in a Guitar Center narrow your pro example cd's to 3-6 songs.
Also where you put monitors makes a difference. My KRK's sounded ok in
my last studio that had a wall right behind them. In my new studio the
wall is back 8 ft. I have them on top of the console. They needed a
sub woofer. Narrow it down to 2 or 3 then make a choice and roll with
it. If you have extra money buy a second set.
It's fun buying stuff. stress kills. If you get
them in your studio and hate them after a few days or week. Don't
scratch them up. Keep all the packing and boxes. Most stores will let
you trade them in or take them back.
Glenn.

[Scott Dorsey]

Jason wrote:
I have been testing out monitors..not the rock-bottom ones (why?) or the
stratospheric ones(can't afford 'em). I take a clutch of CD's with which
I am familiar as well as some recordings I've made and some of my wife's
music that was recorded in a professional studio. The more I listen, the
more bewildered I get, 'tho I think I'm homing in some that I like.

Note that monitors that sound good aren't always what you want. Sometimes
you want monitors that exaggerate particular things. Depends on how you
work.

So I tried an experiment, and I'm not sure if it works or not, hence
this posting.. I took CD's of my wife's professionally-recorded chamber
music as well as mp3's of the same music that we've put on her website.
The mp3's are very high bitrate versions, so they should sound decent,
right? Wrong. Well, decent maybe, but the quality revealed by good
monitors is very far from that of the uncompressed recordings. This
isn't a surprise, but the differences between monitors are.

All of them reveal the deficiencies of the compressed audio - 'sounds
like somebody threw a blanket over the band. But some of the monitors
seem to reveal considerably larger differences than others. At first, I
thought that the monitors that showed the largest differences must be
the better ones. Then I thought about it and now wonder if the perceived
differences might instead be due to *deficiences* (of some sort) in the
monitors. For the most part, the monitors that showed the biggest
differences were also preferrable--to me--on other material, but I
realize that could be some coloration effect that happens to appeal to
me and that also affects the comparison.

Depends on what they are doing.

For example, if you have a monitor with a huge presence peak, it will
exaggerate differences between recordings with issues in the presence
region. Now, this might be a good thing for you if you need to do
that when mixing, but it could also be a bad thing for you if you need
to judge overall tonality.

This is why there are so many different monitors out there, because
what people want in a monitor is different. Because people mix differently.

Am I obsessing too much? :-)

No, obsessing over details is what engineering is all about.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[david correia]

In article ,
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Am I obsessing too much? :-)

No, obsessing over details is what engineering is all about.
--scott



Ain't it the truth.




David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com

[Jason]

In article ,
says...


Ain't it the truth.

I feel better already : )

Glenn (I presume that is his name) mentioned the KRK's - those are at
the top of my list so far. I need to listen more, but there's a largish
pro audio dealer nearby and even bigger ones in NYC which is an easy day
trip away. And, yes, they all say they'll take returns if they're
pristine.

Most of my recording is of small chamber groups or choral ensembles -
much is recording my wife's compositions when they're performed in this
area. So, none of the knobs is set to 11.

I like how the KRK's sound at relatively modest levels - this ain't
heavy metal... Some others I tried seemed to lose some detail at lower
levels. I strive to preserve as much dynamic range as I can. It's an
important aspect of this sort of music.

[Jason]

In article , says...


Am I obsessing too much? :-)

No, obsessing over details is what engineering is all about.

Amen, brother. I'm an electronics engineer by day... This digital audio
business is an avocation, but one that's beginning to consume my
interest as I approach retirement (and as my hearing deteriorates - what
do 55+ audio engineers to to compensate for that?).

Jason

--scott

[[email protected]]

On Sep 7, 8:34*pm, Jason wrote:
In article ,
says...



Ain't it the truth.

I feel better already : )

Glenn (I presume that is his name) mentioned the KRK's - those are at
the top of my list so far. I need to listen more, but there's a largish
pro audio dealer nearby and even bigger ones in NYC which is an easy day
trip away. And, yes, they all say they'll take returns if they're
pristine.

Most of my recording is of small chamber groups or choral ensembles -
much is recording my wife's compositions when they're performed in this
area. So, none of the knobs is set to 11.

I like how the KRK's sound at relatively modest levels - this ain't
heavy metal... Some others I tried seemed to lose some detail at lower
levels. I strive to preserve as much dynamic range as I can. It's an
important aspect of this sort of music.

Hey don't feel like you have to get KRK's. I mixed so many albums on
NS 10's and had problems. 1 the NS 10 's tweeter's were strong so you
would not ad enough highs. People used to put tissue paper over the
tweeter to dampen the highs. 2 you did not hear the low's bass guitar
kick or rumble. So like a lot of 6.5" smaller monitors you might need
a sub or a second system to listen and see if you need to roll down
the mud 60-80 hz or so and below. I learned from a real good engineer
you can make a cd sound a lot clearer by rolling of lows on just about
everything. He would roll of 50 hz on bass and kick. 100 hz on vocals.
or 90 hz on vocals. 120 on piano. I like fat sounding cd's being a
bass player. 3rd thing I did not like about Ns10's was I think there
was a slight dip at about 250hz's. I would always want to fatten up
vocals and accoutic guitars then I would find that on other speakers I
had too much 250Hz. maybe it was the crossover point on the NS 10's.
Good luck.
Glenn.

[Mark]

All of them reveal the deficiencies of the compressed audio - 'sounds
like somebody threw a blanket over the band.


then perhaps the compression was done incorrectly..

what was the bandwidth setting?

Mark