Monitors - Is More Expensive Always More Neutral?

[James Price[_5_]]

I think there's a presumption by many that the more expensive
a monitor is, the more honest and neutral it is. In your opinion,
is that true?

As an aside, I assume more neutral doesn't equate to more
pleasing, as honesty isn't necessarily flattering.

[PStamler]

On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 2:06:28 PM UTC-5, James Price wrote:
> I think there's a presumption by many that the more expensive
> a monitor is, the more honest and neutral it is. In your opinion,
> is that true?
>
> As an aside, I assume more neutral doesn't equate to more
> pleasing, as honesty isn't necessarily flattering.

I'd say no. More expensive can mean higher maximum output levels rather than greater neutrality, and that's a legitimate goal in certain applications.

Peace,
Paul Stamler

[Scott Dorsey]

James Price > wrote:
>I think there's a presumption by many that the more expensive
>a monitor is, the more honest and neutral it is. In your opinion,
>is that true?

No, but studio monitors are ALSO designed to be loud without distortion,
and they are designed to be difficult to damage when someone repatches
something incorrectly.

Some more expensive monitors are designed to run loud at the expense of
performance at lower levels. If people work that way, they are a good
choice, if they don't, they aren't.

Some more expensive monitors are designed with very tight dispersion to
get an "up-front" sound in a small control room and to deal better with
poorly treated control rooms. This invariably comes with sonic artifacts,
but in some rooms they can be a huge win. On the other hand, in a better
control room, they are a poor choice.

It's too wide a generalization, but you CAN generalize within some product
lines. For example, the Genelec 8000 series monitors are all pretty much
voiced similarly. You go up in the line and you spend more money and you
get the same basic characteristics but better sound.

On the other hand, the older Genelec 1000-series monitors all sounded
totally different and had very different dispersion and tonal character.
You could spend more money and get a monitor that was worse for your
application.

>As an aside, I assume more neutral doesn't equate to more
>pleasing, as honesty isn't necessarily flattering.

Definitely not, but I don't want to be pleased by bad sound. If something
sounds wrong, I want to notice it as soon as possible, before the customer
does.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Trevor]

On 21/09/2018 7:22 am, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> James Price > wrote:
>> As an aside, I assume more neutral doesn't equate to more
>> pleasing, as honesty isn't necessarily flattering.
>
> Definitely not, but I don't want to be pleased by bad sound. If something
> sounds wrong, I want to notice it as soon as possible, before the customer
> does.

Yep, and once you go down that track, what sounds more 'flattering" on
some music will sound less so on others anyway. Far better to have as
much neutrality as possible within the constraints of whatever
parameters are deemed necessary for your own situation.

[Richard Kuschel]

On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 1:06:28 PM UTC-6, James Price wrote:
> I think there's a presumption by many that the more expensive
> a monitor is, the more honest and neutral it is. In your opinion,
> is that true?
>
> As an aside, I assume more neutral doesn't equate to more
> pleasing, as honesty isn't necessarily flattering.

Price is not the determining factor.
How the speaker sounds is what matters.
I have a pair of JBL L300 Summits They are absolutely lovely speakers and I really like them on my home system.
I tried to use them for studio monitors and they didn't work at all. It didn't matter what garbage I played on them, it always seemed to sound good.
I currently use a set of JBL 4430's which are really a decent studio monitor though I find that they lack really low bass.
What I like about the 4430 is that I can determine immediately how the vocals sit in the mix. I seem to hear the music in layers from front to back and those speakers really define that.
The other speakers that I used that sounded very similar to the 4430's were a set of Fostex 8" coaxials that had very much the same characteristics. Unfortunately I had to retire them to my living room system when the tweeter assemblies became unavailable.
There was a tremendous difference in price between the two sets but both were what i would consider neutral rather than flattering.

[Scott Dorsey]

Richard Kuschel > wrote:
>The other speakers that I used that sounded very similar to the 4430's were=
> a set of Fostex 8" coaxials that had very much the same characteristics. U=
>nfortunately I had to retire them to my living room system when the tweeter=
> assemblies became unavailable.=20

If they are RM780s or use the same drivers, then there is a pull available on
ebay right now.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

This is why you need larger monitors:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Bno-qsnbUA
--scott

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

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

James Price wrote:
> I think there's a presumption by many that the more expensive
> a monitor is, the more honest and neutral it is. In your opinion,
> is that true?
>
> As an aside, I assume more neutral doesn't equate to more
> pleasing, as honesty isn't necessarily flattering.
>

There is no telling. I don't get out much, so season accordingly. But
the only thing I ever heard tha impressed me as disappearing behind the
sound they made were the original Blue Sky 2.1 setups.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

PStamler wrote:
> On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 2:06:28 PM UTC-5, James Price
> wrote:
>> I think there's a presumption by many that the more expensive a
>> monitor is, the more honest and neutral it is. In your opinion, is
>> that true?
>>
>> As an aside, I assume more neutral doesn't equate to more pleasing,
>> as honesty isn't necessarily flattering.
>
> I'd say no. More expensive can mean higher maximum output levels
> rather than greater neutrality, and that's a legitimate goal in
> certain applications.
>
> Peace, Paul Stamler
>

I'd take Eminence as the present-day archetypical driver company,
and from what I have seen, the higher power they are, the less sensitive
they are. Seems like an adaptation to Class D power.

I don't know what more expensive means in terms of monitors.

--
Les Cargill

[Neil[_9_]]

On 9/20/2018 3:06 PM, James Price wrote:
> I think there's a presumption by many that the more expensive
> a monitor is, the more honest and neutral it is. In your opinion,
> is that true?
>
> As an aside, I assume more neutral doesn't equate to more
> pleasing, as honesty isn't necessarily flattering.
>
The purpose of studio monitors has historically been to make problems in
the recording process audible, so they didn't have flat frequency
responses. Some used concentric speakers to minimize such things as
frequency interference between drivers. And, no, I wouldn't call most of
them pleasant for casual listening.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Paul[_13_]]

On 9/20/2018 12:06 PM, James Price wrote:
> I think there's a presumption by many that the more expensive
> a monitor is, the more honest and neutral it is. In your opinion,
> is that true?
>
> As an aside, I assume more neutral doesn't equate to more
> pleasing, as honesty isn't necessarily flattering.
>

The responses on this thread have me wondering, although
I'm sure the topic has been beaten to death here, but:

How many people here use reference monitors for casual
listening, for their everyday listening use?

I'm thinking of using my Event TR5s for my bedroom laptop....

E. Power Biggs Bach sounds great on them!

:)

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 10/12/2018 5:09 AM, Paul wrote:
> How many people here use reference monitors for casual
> listening, for their everyday listening use?

These days, fewer and fewer people are using loudspeakers for casual,
everyday listening. Some people, however, use "reference monitor" in-ear
phones.

> Â*Â*Â* I'm thinking of using my Event TR5s for my bedroom laptop....
> Â*Â*Â* E. Power Biggs Bach sounds great on them!

Nothing will blow up. If you have them, and if you like how music sounds
with them, there's no reason not to use them. And anyway, in what way,
other than marketing, are those "reference monitors?"

--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote: "If you have them, and if you like how music sounds
with them, there's no reason not to use them. And anyway, in what way,
other than marketing, are those "reference monitors?"


So the very concept of reference monitors(speakers or phones),
is a myth? It's whatever something sounds best on?

[Paul[_13_]]

On 10/12/2018 11:46 AM, wrote:
> Mike Rivers wrote: "If you have them, and if you like how music sounds
> with them, there's no reason not to use them. And anyway, in what way,
> other than marketing, are those "reference monitors?"
>
>
> So the very concept of reference monitors(speakers or phones),
> is a myth? It's whatever something sounds best on?
>

"Reference" monitors, are supposed to have a frequency
response that is more "flat", or neutral, than your average consumer
grade speakers, which will usually have peaks in the high or lows.

[[email protected]]

Paul wrote: "
"Reference" monitors, are supposed to have a frequency
response that is more "flat", or neutral, than your average consumer
grade speakers, which will usually have peaks in the high or lows. "

But 'flat' often sounds wrong to the human ear. Where as 'peaks n
valleys' can sound more musical, more appealing, to certain
individuals.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 10/12/2018 2:46 PM, wrote:
> So the very concept of reference monitors(speakers or phones),
> is a myth? It's whatever something sounds best on?

No. A "reference monitor" is one that doesn't hide any flaws in a mix,
as some good sounding speakers do (which is why those speakers sound
good). The concept behind a "reference" speaker is that you can hear
what's wrong and then fix it so that it will sound good on any speaker.
They're not intended for casual listening, but rather, for critical
listening when you want to hear things in the mix that might not sound
right on some other speaker.

--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[James Price[_5_]]

On Friday, October 12, 2018 at 2:17:37 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Paul wrote: "
> "Reference" monitors, are supposed to have a frequency
> response that is more "flat", or neutral, than your average consumer
> grade speakers, which will usually have peaks in the high or lows. "
>
> But 'flat' often sounds wrong to the human ear. Where as 'peaks n
> valleys' can sound more musical, more appealing, to certain
> individuals.

Okay, but who said reference monitors are supposed to sound more musical / appealing than hi-fi speakers? Reference monitors are designed to be more revealing.

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote: "
No. A "reference monitor" is one that doesn't hide any flaws in a mix,
as some good sounding speakers do (which is why those speakers sound
good). The concept behind a "reference" speaker is that you can hear
what's wrong and then fix it so that it will sound good on any speaker.
They're not intended for casual listening, but rather, for critical
listening when you want to hear things in the mix that might not sound
right on some other speaker. "

Then I'd rather have reference grade as part of my personal
listening system.

Would you say that if something advertises itself as 'reference'
then it's not? Just advertising, as was said earlier in this thread.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Paul > wrote:
>On 10/12/2018 11:46 AM, wrote:
>> Mike Rivers wrote: "If you have them, and if you like how music sounds
>> with them, there's no reason not to use them. And anyway, in what way,
>> other than marketing, are those "reference monitors?"
>>
>> So the very concept of reference monitors(speakers or phones),
>> is a myth? It's whatever something sounds best on?
>>
>
> "Reference" monitors, are supposed to have a frequency
>response that is more "flat", or neutral, than your average consumer
>grade speakers, which will usually have peaks in the high or lows.

As opposed to "check mix" monitors like NS-10s or Horrortones which are
likely intended to emulate consumer speakers.

On the gripping hand there are people who use monitors with known colorations
to listen to very specific things.

Which is why it's not surprising to see four or five sets of monitors in a
studio.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>Paul wrote: "
> "Reference" monitors, are supposed to have a frequency
>response that is more "flat", or neutral, than your average consumer
>grade speakers, which will usually have peaks in the high or lows. "
>
>But 'flat' often sounds wrong to the human ear. Where as 'peaks n
>valleys' can sound more musical, more appealing, to certain
>individuals.

Reference monitors aren't for sounding good, they are for understanding
what is going on with the mix. They may sound good, but they may also
make problems obvious which wouldn't be noticed on more colored speakers.

The big soffit-mounted monitors are intended to be loud and sound musical
and appealing. They are not for mixing, they are for playing back to the
customer.
--scott

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 10/12/2018 3:38 PM, wrote:
> Then I'd rather have reference grade as part of my personal
> listening system.

As I recall, you're more interested in the mechanics of a mix than the
musicality, meaning, or emotion of a song itself. That being the case,
indeed, listening on an accurate reference monitor might give you more
enjoyment than listening on a speaker that flatters the musical
qualities of a recording.

> Would you say that if something advertises itself as 'reference'
> then it's not?

If it has nothing to say for itself than "reference," then it probably
isn't. If it has the support of competent mixing engineers, then it's
probably earned the name. That doesn't mean that every engineer has to
like every speaker that's advertised as "reference." There are
preferences - because they don't all sound alike when playing the same mix.

--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote: "As I recall, you're more interested in the mechanics of a mix than the
musicality, meaning, or emotion of a song itself. That being the case,
indeed, listening on an accurate reference monitor might give you more
enjoyment than listening on a speaker that flatters the musical
qualities of a recording. "


I want to hear the song itself Mike - not anything
added to or subtracted from it - by the speakers
or equipment themselves. I guess one could call
that 'transparency'. The same thing I do for TVs
in my sideline calibration trade.

[geoff]

On 13/10/2018 8:17 AM, wrote:
> Paul wrote: "
> "Reference" monitors, are supposed to have a frequency
> response that is more "flat", or neutral, than your average consumer
> grade speakers, which will usually have peaks in the high or lows. "
>
> But 'flat' often sounds wrong to the human ear. Where as 'peaks n
> valleys' can sound more musical, more appealing, to certain
> individuals.
>


So can brick-wall limiting "to some people". Doesn't mean it is good.

geoff

[John Williamson]

On 13/10/2018 00:11, wrote:

> I want to hear the song itself Mike - not anything
> added to or subtracted from it - by the speakers
> or equipment themselves. I guess one could call
> that 'transparency'. The same thing I do for TVs
> in my sideline calibration trade.
>
Don't forget the most important thing in any listening environment,
which is the room the speakers are in. It can make a great speaker sound
bad, or a bad speaker sound acceptable.

If, as you say, you calibrate video displays, you need to specify the
conditions they will be used in, as the apparent colours on the screen
vary according to the ambient lighting.

The only way to hear "the song itself" is to go to a live performance in
a good sounding rooom. *All* reproduction chains have colouratioms and
distortions.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[geoff]

On 13/10/2018 12:11 PM, wrote:
The same thing I do for TVs
> in my sideline calibration trade.
>


What - set them all to the preset "Vivid" ? ;- )

geoff

[[email protected]]

geoff blurted out: "
What - set them all to the preset "Vivid" ? ;- )

geoff "

Don't talk about **** you have no clue about geoff!

ave Maria....

[John Williamson]

On 13/10/2018 12:00, wrote:
> geoff blurted out: "
> What - set them all to the preset "Vivid" ? ;- )
>
> geoff "
>
> Don't talk about **** you have no clue about geoff!
>
Says the guy who spends a heck of a lot of time typing here about stuff
he knows nothing about...


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[None]

Li'l Theckmie gerbilled in message
...
> So the very concept of reference monitors(speakers or phones), is a myth?

That's bull****.

> It's whatever something sounds best on?

That's bull****, too. FCKISFOBS.

[None]

Theckhhhh-maaaah blurted in message
...

> geoff blurted out: "

Theckma uses the verb "to blurt". Hmmm ...

> Don't talk about **** you have no clue about geoff!

That's all you do online, li'l buddy. Talking about **** without a clue is
your entire life's work. It's your ****ing religion.

> ave Maria....

Q. E. Dumb****

[geoff]

On 14/10/2018 12:00 AM, wrote:
> geoff blurted out: "
> What - set them all to the preset "Vivid" ? ;- )
>
> geoff "
>
> Don't talk about **** you have no clue about geoff!
>
> ave Maria....
>


Pot, kettle.

geoff

[[email protected]]

John Williamson wrote: "Says the guy who spends a heck of a lot of time typing here about stuff
he knows nothing about...


--
Tciao for Now!

John. "

Both you and geoff are pretty presumptious to
ASSume what I "know nothing" about. Neither
one of you knows a damn THING about what I
know.

[None]

Dumb **** Theckma, the village retard, puke up in message
...

> Both you and geoff are pretty presumptious to
> ASSume what I "know nothing" about. Neither
> one of you knows a damn THING about what I
> know.

You've made a huge public display of what you know nothing about, ****-head.
Everyone that's seen your feeble fecal posts knows what a ****ing idiot you
are.

[geoff]

On 14/10/2018 12:16 PM, wrote:
> Both you and geoff are pretty presumptious to
> ASSume what I "know nothing" about. Neither
> one of you knows a damn THING about what I
> know.


Everybody here is fully aware of your level of understanding wrt audio
topics, as you have amply and repeatedly demonstrated.

One can't help but presume that this would likely be a similar situation
wrt TV calibration.

Did you understand the connotation of 'Vivid' and it's equivalent in
audio processing , and the significance of the following smiley ?
Presumably not ...

geoff

[John Williamson]

On 14/10/2018 00:16, wrote:
(Below my sig sep, so he also seems to have little or no understanding
of how usenet works.)

Both you and geoff are pretty presumptious to ASSume what I "know
nothing" about. Neither one of you knows a damn THING about what I
know.

We assume nothing, we just read your ill informed posts, then the ones
that argue against what you have just been told by experts that everyone
else on the group admire for their wide and deep knowledge of the field.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote: "
Everybody here is fully aware of your level of understanding wrt audio
topics, as you have amply and repeatedly demonstrated.

One can't help but presume that this would likely be a similar situation
wrt TV calibration.

Did you understand the connotation of 'Vivid' and it's equivalent in
audio processing , and the significance of the following smiley ?
Presumably not ...

geoff "

I don't need to demonstrate my knowledge of video calibration -
or of audio - to any member of this good ol' boys club also known
as 'rec.audio.pro'.

If you are suggesting in your latter paragraph sarcasm, it was not
taken that way, and was thus a flop - like a pancake - from the pan
right onto the kitchen floor.

[None]

Crybaby theckmah whined in message
...
> don't need to demonstrate my knowledge of video calibration -
> or of audio -

As you have conclusively proven, over and over and over again, you have no
knowledge of video or audio.

> Whaah! Whaaa-aaa-aaaaah!

Crybaby dumb ****.

[sTeeVee]

On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 3:06:28 PM UTC-4, James Price wrote:
> I think there's a presumption by many that the more expensive
> a monitor is, the more honest and neutral it is. In your opinion,
> is that true?
>
> As an aside, I assume more neutral doesn't equate to more
> pleasing, as honesty isn't necessarily flattering.

You bring up a great point, and there is an implied [but unspoken] point as well, which is the entire acoustical environment, what works best with *your* ears, what translates best, what prevents listener fatigue over a protracted mixing session, and what acoustical treatment you have given to your listening space and how precise is it? I'm afraid this is an eternal discussion. Just make sure that when you send the finished master file over to the [fill in the blank: major label; independent label; streaming service; download service, etc etc] that what the listener hears is exactly what you meant. Cheers!

SG

[Neil[_9_]]

On 10/14/2018 4:10 PM, sTeeVee wrote:
> On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 3:06:28 PM UTC-4, James Price wrote:
>> I think there's a presumption by many that the more expensive
>> a monitor is, the more honest and neutral it is. In your opinion,
>> is that true?
>>
>> As an aside, I assume more neutral doesn't equate to more
>> pleasing, as honesty isn't necessarily flattering.
>
> You bring up a great point, and there is an implied [but unspoken] point as well, which is the entire acoustical environment, what works best with *your* ears, what translates best, what prevents listener fatigue over a protracted mixing session, and what acoustical treatment you have given to your listening space and how precise is it? I'm afraid this is an eternal discussion. Just make sure that when you send the finished master file over to the [fill in the blank: major label; independent label; streaming service; download service, etc etc] that what the listener hears is exactly what you meant. Cheers!
>
> SG
>
Every variable that you mentioned regarding the acoustical environment,
plus a few that weren't mentioned such as air pressure and humidity,
also applies to the listener's environment (and audio system) and
guarantees that one has no idea whether what the listener hears is what
one intended.

--
best regards,

Neil