Unflattering, revealing reference monitor designs

[m2]

Given that the OP wants nearfield monitors and the response that he wants, I think this is the best route to go. Concentrate on the nearfields down to the 60-70hz area and fill the lower 1+ octave with a sub, tuned to match the level of the nearfields. This should open up a few more possibilities of simpler DIY speakers to be used as nearfields. Probably cheaper as well. Parts alone for a Zaph ZD5 are over $800.00.

On the Zaph website, there are a couple of other designs that seem to fit the bill:

The SR71 seems to be very flat down to about 80, and go all the way up to 30k.
The Seas L18 & 27TBFCG also has those caracteristics, albeit not going as low.

Both have the advantage of being existing designs with premade cabinets available.

Would you think either would be appropriate in terms of cost/performance? I would think that if one chooses one sub per speaker the higher crossover on the L18 wouldn't be a (positional) problem since the subs would be located where the speakers are. (?)

But, here's the thing. By the time you spend the $$ and the effort on going the DIY route for a setup like this, you would probably be better off (and cheaper) getting the Adams. With the possible exception being getting a set of passive monitors that fit what you want and DIYing the amps with a Gainclone of whatever flavor you like. Figure about $170-$200 for a dual mono Gainclone and I'm sure that would be less than what you would give for the difference between passive and active monitors.

I believe both the OP and I have been eyeing the Class-D amps as an additional DIY. Bi-Amping would be a goal I would think. Do you have any clue as to if the alternative Zaph speakers above would be cheaper? (I would think so).

Remember also that it isn't so much how flat of response the monitors are BUT that you really know what they sound like. Once you learn YOUR monitors, then you will know what to do with your mixes to get them to sound good overall.

Yes, of course. But I think there is a two fold issue here really (and this is just from my experience as an audio engineer for about a decade here, other people will perhaps have different opinions):

On the one hand there's the tonal quality of the speaker, i.e if it is "bright" or "warm" and that sort of stuff, which I would think technically is represented via the frequency response of the speaker.

On the other, there is the issue of the "accuracy" of the speaker (disregarding frequency response) in the sense that it would distort the signal and add harmonics (or subtract?).

One of the above I would as an audio engineer consider to be a matter of taste (the former) while the other I would consider to be an issue of "flaws" of the speaker. Once again, that is my subjective opinion on how the speaker performs and why.

 

[ChrisCummins]

It seems to me that if your room has certain properties, and without knowing them in advance, the best option is to get a speaker that by design is as neutral as possible. If not, one risks reinforcing the problems of the room. This doesn't solve the problems of the room obviously, but at least the risk of exacerbating them is reduced. Or is that logic wrong?

I'm not saying your logic is wrong, I'm saying that flat speaker response should only be a your aim if flat room response is also a goal, however, this debate is pointless since we are both wanting the same thing. I was just emphasizing that improving room response will have a much greater improvement on mixing then speaker response. Certainly more bang for buck too, if budget is tight.

I believe both the OP and I have been eyeing the Class-D amps as an additional DIY

Yup, you're right. For me, I enjoy building things, and I also would get a sense of pride knowing that everything I here is due to my own handiwork with a saw and soldering iron. I subscribe to the 1940's idea, where audio engineers got their name and reputation through building their own gear and understand how it works. Since the quality of your mixes is due to your ability manipulating faders and knobs, why not go the extra mile of having the quality of your mixes down to your ability to build good gear?

 

[soongsc]

Hi guys,
thanks ever so much for all the useful information - I've been doing hours of online researching around a lot of the things people have mentioned in this thread. As predicted, the more clued up I get on the subject, the more I realize that I'm not very clued up at all.

I think that the people trying to deter me away from this as a first project are right - I don't have enough experience, and even if I do a dot-to-dot kit, I still wouldn't be able to evaluate it intelligently, and I cannot afford to do anything grand right now.

Instead, I have decided that I should instead focus on some smaller warm up projects. Here's what I have in mind:

1. A pair of Auratone inspired single driver reference monitors (I will use my Mission 701's as mains for now, and use these Killatone's for checking the mix on, similar to how I'd use NS-10(00)'s).
2. An amplifier to drive them - Maybe I can find a better project, but this seems good enough, plenty of good testimonies and pre-made PCB's available.
3. A monitor controller - a combination of existing and tested DIY modules: a mono switch, a subharmonic filter, a volume control incorporating the K-20 system, multiple ins/outs etc.

Does this sound like wise(r) thinking?
Regards

I'm not sure whether you are on a tight budget or whether you are just interested in DIY. But from you description of what you are looking for, it's going to take years of work.

This speaker below is an active speaker originally aimed for the needs you describe.

An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.

Some people commented that it sounds similar to the NX-10, but these same people phased out their NX-10 because their customers had much different optinions on the final mixes.

I certainly don't know why those guys considered the Fostex drivers, because they do add more coloration to the sound. The best description I have read on the subject of studio monitor performance issues is the book "LOUDSPEAKERS for music recording and reproduction" by Phillip Newell and Keith Holland

When focus on low frequency editing becomes critical, probably sealed enclosures are a better choice.

 

[THUMP LUMP]

On the Zaph website, there are a couple of other designs that seem to fit the bill:

The SR71 seems to be very flat down to about 80, and go all the way up to 30k.
The Seas L18 & 27TBFCG also has those caracteristics, albeit not going as low.

Both have the advantage of being existing designs with premade cabinets available.

Would you think either would be appropriate in terms of cost/performance? I would think that if one chooses one sub per speaker the higher crossover on the L18 wouldn't be a (positional) problem since the subs would be located where the speakers are. (?)

Agreed. I'm sure there are other Zaph designs as well as others that will "fit the bill". The idea I had was to save some cost by not needing a nearfield that performs in the lower octaves if you are going to run a sub as well.

I believe both the OP and I have been eyeing the Class-D amps as an additional DIY. Bi-Amping would be a goal I would think. Do you have any clue as to if the alternative Zaph speakers above would be cheaper? (I would think so).

Again, agreed. Virtually any good sounding amp will work for this purpose. And, building a DIY 4ch. amp of whatever flavor you like will offset the cost of not having to buy passive crossover components. This cost offset only applies to the second amp as one will be needed in any case.

I haven't priced the components of the other Zaph designs you mentioned but I would assume that they would be cheaper.

Yes, of course. But I think there is a two fold issue here really (and this is just from my experience as an audio engineer for about a decade here, other people will perhaps have different opinions):

On the one hand there's the tonal quality of the speaker, i.e if it is "bright" or "warm" and that sort of stuff, which I would think technically is represented via the frequency response of the speaker.

On the other, there is the issue of the "accuracy" of the speaker (disregarding frequency response) in the sense that it would distort the signal and add harmonics (or subtract?).

One of the above I would as an audio engineer consider to be a matter of taste (the former) while the other I would consider to be an issue of "flaws" of the speaker. Once again, that is my subjective opinion on how the speaker performs and why.

Once more, agreed. The "tonal quality" of a speaker is really a subjective matter. But, they still need to reproduce accurately. What I am suggesting is that "flat" shouldn't be a top priority. Merely that one can get around certain problems with room treatment, EQ, etc and by learning the speakers being used.

 

[MarzZ]

I own the Adam A7's, NS-10's and Alesis Monitor One's. I mix with Sony MDR-7506's as well.

The A7's are AWESOME! Very nicely integrated ribbon tweeter and kevlar woofer. They are perfect for monitoring at 83db all day long. They can get loud but they suffer if not crossed over with a sub to handle 80-100hz and below. But for your purposes, you'd be hard pressed to find a better solution for the price and complexity. Sure you can try to attempt something similar by DIY, but my guess is it will be more expensive and results will vary with your given experience.

One day I would like to build some full range (possible dipole/free air) monitors that would rival the commercial markets offerings, because that is where real money can be saved with some proper DIY action. The $1k and below market for monitors is highly competitive and the A7's win IMO.