My old BSS crossovers have a provision to fit parametric eq modules to every output.
I always meant to make use of this feature to eliminate the equalizer I'm currently using but never got around to it.
Typical from pro gear, but i'm sure you already know that Charles.
Bss are quite good units from the one's i've heard (their digital loudspeaker manager (dsp filter) and eq and analog comp/noisegate).
It's something that really surprises me, why amateur don't use these gear more often and swear by audiophile ones. I'm not saying there is no good gear from audiophile culture (some are actually quite good technically and soundwise) but i'll never understand how a nice looking case make people accept to pay this much for things which already exist and perform better (almost always true, but there is exceptions i admit) in proworld?
Maybe it is relative to reference level and balanced impedance line too?
Big mistery for me.
About your configuration Charles, do you think using the slot eq cards could improve things?
I suppose you use 'good' eq so you could probably gain a little bit in SNR and probably lessen distortion a bit, but given the relatively high sens of your monitors it should not be bothering or you would have already changed your signal path.
Last edited:
Well, and swinging back towards topic. At least in UK. Somewhere in the 70s a nice man called Ivor and his friend Julian told us pro gear was sh*t and there stuff in simple cases with no knobs and frills showed they had spent the money on good sound. Many believed them.
Somewhere along the line audio jewelry came in and suddently the boxes cost more than the electronics.
I actually think people are starting to reconsider pro gear. esp as powered monitors are getting really good for not much money.
The on topic part. The OPs NS-1000s were originally monitors with a domestic option in a nice wood case. What little research I have done suggests they still hold their own 40 years on and so were really rather good at the time. I reckon George will be very happy with whatever route he takes to mod the crossovers.
I think any improvement would be marginal.
I am currently using an ARX MultiQ parametric which is incredibly convenient.
It has 6 bands of eq which can be used separately or daisy-chained in any configuration one desires: From 6 individual channels to mono channel with 6 bands of eq or any combination in between.
As for pro gear I always liked it which is not surprising given my background but the popularity of line source PA now means that manufacturers of pro drivers offer some really good 5-8" drivers at very competitive prices.
Dome tweeters are basically the only domestic HiFi drivers I still regularly look up.
Back OT I still think that given the simplicity of both the original and improved passive crossovers good results should be easily be possible using generic actives without eq using the appropriate xover points.
Those drivers must really have been in a different league to almost everything else back in the day!
Yeah! A chance for George the reference of his model as the two 0 added in it!
Otherwise (without these two 00) it had been hopeless! Really? This surprise me even more! You english guys have gotten along your pro audio history given so much incredible products/methods/engineers to the world! Tannoy's products are some of them but mr Rupert Neve which is the GODFATHER of good professional electronics is native from your country!
Last edited:
British pro audio was and is excellent but british HiFi is something I usually avoid like the plague. There is a chasm between them.
Something went horribly wrong there and the starting point was Linn with their rather subversive marketing methods and overemphasis on the source. There is something seriously wrong when the record player costs more than the rest of the system put together.
Something went horribly wrong there and the starting point was Linn with their rather subversive marketing methods and overemphasis on the source. There is something seriously wrong when the record player costs more than the rest of the system put together.
Oh yes! For everything studio/broadcast related one of the 'goldmine' i discovered with the advent of internet is the BBC technical archive. Such a huge amount of information... It's really a shame they closed the in house R&D department for credit reasons. But it should be the mood of the moment as most of this institutions are doing the same.
In France we still have IRCAM. But now Boulez passed away who knows for how long.
I'll try to stop off topic pro audio related post now. Please apologize George!
You've lost meYeah! A chance for George the reference of his model as the two 0 added in it!
Sad but true. My opinion (and only my opinion) is that the rot started when the old guard of audio magazines started retiring in the early 80s. CD allowed the young turks to claim LP was best forever and start the flat earth tendencies and the rest is history.
I have a 1966 Radford STA-25 I must get working again soon. Other than that the only british products in my system are the DAC, my Roksan TT and my SME arm.
Was refering to the Ns-10. Long time studio (most awfull) nearfield monitor must have. They had some quality i must admit: once you had a mix sounding listenable on them theyr was chance (not always) that your mix was ok. I liked the closed box for bass: not much extension but clean and powerfull (once paired with Crown DC75). Always prefered the full rangers Auratone to the ns10. They (ns10) where so bright sounding, in some studios they used some toilet paper to cover the tweeter... they were that good!
Ns 1000 play in an other league imho.
Last edited:
NS10s are a kind of Marmite speaker. Some love them and couldn't live without while others absolutely hate them.
Personally I fall into the latter category and furthermore I have never managed to get a decent mix out them that would translate well to other speakers.
If a mix sounds good on NS10s (ie it doesn't make my ears bleed and it doesn't induce headache) there are practically no upper mids or audible, balanced treble left on any other speaker. On the other hand I find my ancient Auratones to be an almost indispensable mixtool.
On a lighter note NS10 and NS1000s have nothing in common with each other besides manufacturer and being originally released in the '70s.
Personally I fall into the latter category and furthermore I have never managed to get a decent mix out them that would translate well to other speakers.
If a mix sounds good on NS10s (ie it doesn't make my ears bleed and it doesn't induce headache) there are practically no upper mids or audible, balanced treble left on any other speaker. On the other hand I find my ancient Auratones to be an almost indispensable mixtool.
On a lighter note NS10 and NS1000s have nothing in common with each other besides manufacturer and being originally released in the '70s.
Ideally you shouldn't be able to by listening to a record.
They work for some and people like Bob Clearmountain have produced some excellent work using them.
A large percentage of non-classical records since the mid '80s has been monitored through NS10 at some point but remember that monitors are the only bit of studio gear which is not directly audible in the released record. Their influence is only audible filtered through the ears of the engineer and his actions/reactions because of what he hears.
+1.
When you talk about Marmite you talk about he culinary specialty?
As good you are in pro audio stuff i must admit that for culinary, we on the other side of the Chanel are a step ahead!
But taste... you know differs from each others. It's fun you talk about Marmite: in french this refere to a cooking pot and for a bad sounding speaker we sometimes use the term "ça sonne comme une casserole" ( it sound like a pan).
Waaay OT and sorry, but looking at Bob's webpages he records digitally then mixes through an SSL 4000?
Yes pretty standard set up in studios for mixing. What do you find surprising?
edit:
In France in the studios i used to work usually they had an AMS/NEVE in line console or a NEVE split console for recording/tracking and an SSL for mixing. Both can be interchanged but the SSL is much user friendly about ergonomic (automation software is easy to understand and use... On Neve FlyingFader or Encore are much more tedious to operate i my point of view). On the other hand the AMS/NEVE offer much more flexibility for recording (matricing of input/output) and befor the use of DAW it was a definitive advantage at tracking stage. And sound between them differ.
Last edited:
The fact that its recorded to digital multitrack through the desk, back to analog, through the desk to mix and back to digital. I understand conversions when there is some magical effects box they like, but didn't realise that the old desks were still so widely used, even after watching Dave Grohl's w*nkfest over the Neve 8078!
Old desk ARE magical effect box!
Ok. Here is my point of view about that: given you use good quality converters, all synced and that you don't go crazy about routing (inducing more that 3 to 4 adc/dac) sound quality is kept ok. The need about working digital is all about editing and overdub. (Try edit with a tape machine... it can be done using a razor edge but such a pain in the .ss).
Large analog desk have very nice quality too. Eq on them are such great tools for example... And the summing and pan have their own character which differ from what you'll find itb (in the box: using software) and consoles to consoles. All in all they're still desirable soundwise! Above all when you paid them price asked new...
For me the only part where they 're not desirable is acoustically! They are a real disaster from an acoustical point of view: highly reflective surface just in front of you (4m width/1.5m depth). Comb filter heaven!
Please don't use such porn terms in my presence.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.