I think we already agreed about the close listening removing, sort of, the listening room acoustics. But you then still don't have the recording room acoustics that was part of what the recording engineer heard when making the recording.
So even with close listening to the same speakers as the recording monitors still doesn't give you the same sound.
Jan
Much mixing by recording engineers is done is the near field with small monitors. The big monitors built into the room soffits are for impressing clients when the mix is ready to show off.
No you don't. They use LEDE room and monitor/mix near-field also.
You only have what the room where the musicians played in the recording... and you do not have that if close mic'ed on everything.
Near field mic'ing, near field monitoring/mixing and near field home play back... all removes to large extent the rooms involved.
And really near field -- headphones remove room entirely.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
It this case both may well apply . I.E. the listening room and the recording space.
DC. The US actually has 16 territories!
Would have been a few more if you guys weren't so uppity to "stand on guard for thee." 🙂
I don't think that anyone who has contributed here on this topic so far, has the background to really make a definitive statement about speaker design and its limitations. However, we all have ears and can make up our own minds as to what we consider important and not important in loudspeaker characteristics. Seemingly, Richard Marsh has made a serious effort to make some things right, and he has put both his time and money to optimize what he thinks is most important.
Personally, I don't find the room very important (for me) and loudspeaker on axis response is very important. However, I generally listen in 'mono' more or less, so imaging is not very important to me. To many others, imaging might be all important, and their design choices and where they want to put their time and money, might be different from mine. That's OK with me, but it might also be that many here do not hear electronics differences for much the same reasons.
Personally, I don't find the room very important (for me) and loudspeaker on axis response is very important. However, I generally listen in 'mono' more or less, so imaging is not very important to me. To many others, imaging might be all important, and their design choices and where they want to put their time and money, might be different from mine. That's OK with me, but it might also be that many here do not hear electronics differences for much the same reasons.
Damn, I thought I was being original when I told people what my favourite TLA was!
Actually he does, but he is old enough to be forgetful Fred....
What is it that you do again? 🙂
I find room treatment is helpful, but not necessary for good sound. Its sort of like a MoFi recording, it really helps a struggling system. The difference is a non-struggling system just isnt in need for achieving very good results.
The analogy of being able to recognize a voice from room to room is pretty good.
The analogy of being able to recognize a voice from room to room is pretty good.
What I meant is that there may be 3 different types of 'rooms' used in creating the music.
1. The recording studio (which may also be 2.)
2. Mixing suite
3. Mastering suite
all may have very different requirements equipment and acoustics wise
AO I designed a speaker that measures better and sounds better than this one:
http://www.audioxpress.com/files/attachment/2609
Without DSP, all analog xover with time alignment and corrections. Weighs less than half of the Kii.
Any ambitious industrialists around?
Last edited:
What does that mean exactly? I haven't heard the speaker you are comparing your's to.
well the Kii3 along with the beolab90 and the M2 are part of a new wave of speakers that actually try and move the start of the art along a bi
Kii Audio Three |
or
https://bobmaccsblog.wordpress.com/2016/10/10/kii-three-speaker-review/
They are rather good.
Kii Audio Three |
or
https://bobmaccsblog.wordpress.com/2016/10/10/kii-three-speaker-review/
They are rather good.
I have never heard a piece of audio equipment that I could properly describe as stunning. Perhaps I am not easily stunned, I don't know. It didn't take Bob Macc long to make the claim, which gives rise to a little concern.
The new designs are probably subject to reasonably good patent and trade secret protection. Don't know about Vacuphile's design. For an industrialist to be interested, probably one big factor would have to do with how easily the design might be cloned.
The new designs are probably subject to reasonably good patent and trade secret protection. Don't know about Vacuphile's design. For an industrialist to be interested, probably one big factor would have to do with how easily the design might be cloned.
Bruno is an exceedingly talented designer and I have not seen a negative review of the kii (vacu says he can do better, but I've not seen him say the Kii are junk). I just think you've never listened to decent speakers.
How can listening to decent speakers any more accurate than listening to a performance in person? I assume that can't be, so they can only be so good.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.