| Consul |
I got some great information out of the first thread I posted here, but I'm thinking I need to step back and evaluate my goals.
I'm currently building a small basement music studio (13 feet by 17 feet by 6.5 feet high, masonry walls, open-joist ceiling stuffed with fiberglass), which will naturally include a monitoring system. At this point, I'm still convinced I can build something better for cheaper than buying it. The problem, of course, is that speaker design is so exact and complicated that it could be it's own university degree.
Right now, I'm favoring most a system using full-range speakers. The reason for this has to do with the critical midrange - that range of frequencies between 200hz and about 2khz that holds the majority of musical information. If at all possible, I'd like to avoid crossing over anywhere in that range, except nearly every two-way design I've run across on the web does exactly that.
So, my thinking is, at the moment, to find a good, smallish full-range that covers 200-18khz nice and smoothly, and then cross over at 150-200hz or so to let a woofer fill in the bass. Also, I plan to soffit-mount these monitors, so they will for all intents and purposes have an infinite baffle. These baffles will be aimed in toward the mix position at 30 degrees, relative to the back wall, thus forming a 60-60-60 triangle between both speakers and the listener.
What would be cool is if I could find drivers that would mount right into the wall, no enclosure. The area behind the baffles could be stuffed with fiberglass to accommodate this. I would most likely do a modular design, with the drivers themselves mounted on a piece of MDF, which then plugs into the wall.
So, my question to all of you is, am I onto something, am I off my rocker, or should I stop trying to play a big boy's game and go back to my tinker toys? ;)
As an aside, I'm experienced with electronics and design, and am currently an engineering student, so you don't have to dumb things down for me too much. ;)
Thank you all for your time. |
|
|
| Geoff H |
I think you are onto something. Setting the monitors into a masonry wall will provide a solid bafle, less colouration in the critical midrange. There are plenty of drivers that will work in less than a cubic foot of enclosure. There is an advantage in pushing the system resonance up a bit in that application.
Look for something with a higher efficiency, they tend to be better on transients, and it wouldn't hurt to port the enclosures. That will provide less cone movement when bass gets in, even though it will be down a fair bit.
I haven't heard them, but from what I have read the Fostex range should have something suitable. The drivers for a foldback system would also be suitable. JBL comes to mind.
Think about brick enclosures for the bass, placed under the uppers. I would start with JBL there. |
|
|
| Consul |
Hrm, I guess I could've been clearer. The soffits won't be masonry. That's just what the walls of the basement happen to be made out of. The soffit will most likely be gypsum board and 2x4s, like any other wall.
Although the idea of making brick soffits is intriguing. :)
I've posted this pic before, but this is an idea of what I have in mind:
http://img174.imageshack.us/my.php?...ntstudiohf1.jpg
(Ignore the fact that I drew the speakers as MTM for the moment. ;) Also, the side treatments are not going to look like that. I really need to update this drawing.)
Thank you! |
|
|
| planet10 |
I've put a pair of CSS FR125 miniOnkens into a monitoring environment with good success. The same driver could be mounted in a sealed cavity in the wall.
dave |
|
|
| Consul |
Of course, frequency response is only part of the picture for critical listening. Transient response and damping is a large part as well. I've noticed that most speaker makers don't even publish those waterfall graphs that show that kind of information.
As far as I can tell, paper cones with a big magnet are my best bet. At least, that's what I've been able to divine from what little is out there. |
|
|
| Consul |
Oh, hey planet10. :) We posted at the same time.
Yeah, I ran across those FR125's while surfing around, and they look pretty damn close to what I'm after, at least from what I can gather on the spec sheets. |
|
|
| planet10 |
The FR125 don't have as magical a midrange as the similar size Fostex, but do have a very flat FR (where the Fostex -- at least unmodified -- are a bit more challenged), and work well in a sealed enclosure (should be smaller than what you have illustrated (10-13L)), and are quite tolerent of amplifier sonics (but do prefer a nice SS PP amp -- ie most of them).
The FR125 is somewhat limited efficiency & level wise but if you are going to cut them off at the bottom that will go a long wasy to ameriolating that issue.
dave |
|
|
| Consul |
Thanks! Actually, I don't think level will be much of an issue, since this is such a small room to begin with. I'll likely be bi-amping a full-range with a woofer using an active crossover. I'm just out to get the most accurate sound I possibly can, and I just have this suspicion that the right full-ranger can really help me there.
As for a cabinet, well, mounting raw drivers right into the wall would be nice and easy, but if I have to hang a cabinet behind the soffit, I will. That's not a problem. |
|
|
| planet10 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Consul
As for a cabinet, well, mounting raw drivers right into the wall would be nice and easy, but if I have to hang a cabinet behind the soffit, I will. That's not a problem. |
I suspect there will be framing behind those soffits, so a subenclosure using that framing wouldn't be too hard -- the rest could be used for the woofers.
dave |
|
|
| ScottG |
With this sort of configuration you have several issues..
1. Acoustic Resistance w/ insulation.. Generally not a good idea with paper drivers unless the material is at least 5 inches away from the driver. Increasingly harder/thicker materials seem to be less effected by this.
2. Flat on-axis response.. The driver you use here should be flat on axis with a good off-axis response.
3. Absoprtion with the reflection between the drivers, particularly for higher freq.s. Obviously here you have shown an absorber behind your monitor. Note that it may NOT be advantageous to have absorption panels to the out"sides" of the speaker.
Now issue #1 suggests a non-paper driver UNLESS you can deal effectivly with the insulation batting. IF not I'd suggest looking at a woven driver like carbon fiber of glass fiber OR a doped paper design. This suggestion "bridges the gap" subjectivly between a paper driver and something like a aluminum/magnesium driver, while still providing a driver less sensetive to acoustic resistance.
#2 is FAR more limiting.. flat on axis designs are tough to come by..
Most expensive to least expensive:
http://www.madisound.com/pdf/scanspeak/12m_4631g00e.pdf
http://www.madisound.com/pdf/audax/hm100c0.pdf
http://www.madisound.com/pdf/seas/h1262.pdf
http://www.madisound.com/pdf/vifa/mg10md09-08e.pdf
At least from the graphs here the least expensive (the vifa) is actually the most linear..
Now there is no way to say which driver will have the best subjective response in this application, but its likely that the Scan Speak has an "edge" here (at a MUCH higher cost). Still, I'd bet that the vifa is pretty good.
There are of course other drivers like the HiVi B3S and the Aura NS3, but these are decidedly less efficient (Tangbands seem to straddle the eff. topic between the two types of drivers, BUT are often a bit less linear than their graphs would imply). (Note that the expensive drivers from Jordan and Bandor are more like the paper drivers, so they are not included because of their "sensetivity" to acoustic resistance.)
IF it were me - I'd prob. pick the Vifa driver for this application OR a good coaxial driver with an appropriate crossover (..but that costs considerably more).
http://www.madisound.com/cgi-bin/in...8.3480&pid=1961
http://www.bmspro.info/photos/bmspr.../BMS_5CN140.pdf
http://profesional.beyma.com/ENGLISH/producto.php
the 8BX
http://www.radianaudio.com/products...viewC=8_ceiling
Of these the easiest would be the seas - its more linear. The most difficult would prob. be the radian, BUT it quite possible would provide the best sound. (..give and take and all that.)
For simplicity sake then the Vifa is a "no-brainer", and probably the best overall choice for this application. |
|
|
| Consul |
| quote: | Originally posted by ScottG
With this sort of configuration you have several issues..
1. Acoustic Resistance w/ insulation.. Generally not a good idea with paper drivers unless the material is at least 5 inches away from the driver. Increasingly harder/thicker materials seem to be less effected by this. |
Well, I could definitely go ahead and hang an enclosure off the back of the soffits. I'm going to draw up really quick, if I can, how I planned to build the speakers and then mount them into the wall.
| quote: | | For simplicity sake then the Vifa is a "no-brainer", and probably the best overall choice for this application. |
It certainly does look like it would fit the bill, except for, again, not being able to look at how it handles transients.
Thank you for the help. |
|
|
| Consul |
How about this for some questions:
1) What would you do for "no compromise" monitoring in the room I described?
2) Since we know compromises will have to be made, which ones would you make?
I'm putting a lot of emphasis on a) keeping any crossover points out of the 200-2k range, b) flat response over said range, and c) good transient response and damping. It seems to me that anything else beyond those is then open for compromise.
Again, I'm not asking for someone to do the work for me. I just want to know if I'm on the right track.
A big thank you to everyone for the help. |
|
|
| lousymusician |
How about the Visaton B200? I've never heard them, but there is great love for them in open baffles (dipoles). Their Qt of .73 means they don't make tons of bass in an OB, but would make them close to ideal in an IB. Bass should be something like -3 dB at 40 Hz anechoic, with room gain they should go deeper. I'd worry more about having too much bass than about needing a sub.
The trend with the B200 seems to be to use a simple HF shelf (parallel resistor and coil) to bring the highs above 1kHz down a few dB, but efficiency should still be over 90dB/1 watt. See this thread.
They really should have a BIG enclosure volume to keep the system Q as low as possible, more than just the space between two studs. The angled baffles you propose might do it. Maybe some form of aperiodic loading could reduce the total volume needed?
I should add that I have no experience with this kind of setup or the Visaton, and that my opinions should probably be regarded as those of a raving lunatic. Still, I'd love to see how it would work.
Bill |
|
|
| Consul |
Well, there's nothing that says I can't do things the opposite way, and cross over once at 15k or so to cover the high frequencies. That might be easier, actually, since I could build a simpler amp for that.
EDIT: Oooh, I just had an idea! And that Visaton just might be the thing for it!
I could cross over at about 5k, which would give me two octaves from there to 20k. Two octaves below 5k would be 1250hz. If I can find a tweeter that can extend that low (maybe, maybe not), I can use a straight 4th-order Linkwitz-Riley active crossover and get phase coherence without needing to worry about natural roll-off.
That is, if I understood all of this stuff correctly. ;)
EDIT 2: Actually, if I can trust the curve for the Visaton on their spec sheet, I can probably cross over up higher, say around 6k. That would make finding a tweeter easier. |
|
|
| planet10 |
None of the plastic cone or carbon fiber cones i've heard do midrange as well as a good paper cone. Vifa had a couple non-paper drivers they called midranges that people used as full-ranges -- they were good, but not as good as the drivers we have been discussing. I've not seen a carbon fiber full range, so i'm not sure where that suggestion came from. Aluminum cone Jordans could be on the list for consideration but are a lot more money (the one example i heard was not very good, but was known to have had extreme thermal stress). The Neophone looks interesting but i've not had a chance to exercise mine yet.
That said, judicial treatment of a paper cone can very often improve its performance -- in particular its transmission of enery reflected off the back of the cabinet walls. Since you are making the cabinet, you can minimize this to start with (i was going to suggest 2x6 as framing studs for this part.
The Fostex & the FR125 both kill the Aura NS3 & the HiVi. They are good for what they do, but lack dynamics. |
|
|
| planet10 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Consul
1) What would you do for "no compromise" monitoring in the room I described? |
Pick a killer full-range (like the Fostex FE108eS or FE168eS) and actively XO to woofers on the bottom and a really good tweeter on the top (but somewhere above 5k -- higher would be better) -- something like one of the better Fostex horns or a nice true ribbon. That upper XO could be done passively as a compromise.
dave |
|
|
| planet10 |
| quote: | Originally posted by lousymusician
[B]How about the Visaton B200? |
That would be an interesting -- and a perfectly valid choice. They need phase plugs to get the highs right, but mounted in the BIG box defined by your soffits, would likely not need help in the bottom.
They seem flat and even when i listen to them, i don't hear the rising response seen in the factory measures.
They are pushing into another price league ($130/pr for modded Fostex FE126e/127e, $150/pr for FR125s, $400/pr for modded B200s -- all CAD$). Of them all the FR125 measures flattest.
dave |
|
|
| planet10 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Consul
Actually, if I can trust the curve for the Visaton on their spec sheet, I can probably cross over up higher, say around 6k. That would make finding a tweeter easier. |
When we 1st had a group audition of the B200, it was long before speculation on added a ribbon tweeter started. With phase plugs any of this talk went away. It would be a valid candidate for an extended midrange as above.
dave |
|
|
| Consul |
Wow... Thanks for all the things for me to think about.
There definitely seems to be more than one way to skin this cat. |
|
|
| el`Ol |
| For an in-wall application the drivers would have to be small, because you can`t listen on axis. A sulution would be the Veravox 3 (available at solen.ca), maybe in a line array if the spl of one pair is not enough for you. |
|
|
| Consul |
I have to admit, a line array built right into a wall would look pretty cool. ;) I also have to admit that the idea of two or more of the same driver on each side never occurred to me.
Just more proof that there are many, many approaches I can take to this problem. |
|
|
| planet10 |
| quote: | Originally posted by el`Ol
[B]For an in-wall application the drivers would have to be small, because you can`t listen on axis. |
Actually, given his diagram, the drivers could be positioned so that he is on axis. And in the specifi case of the Visaton, the primamry benefit of adding the phase plugs is a dramatic improvement in HF dispersion. Personally, having been exposed*, i wouldn't consider them without
*(in the interest of full disclosure, keep in mind that i may harbour a vested interest here)
dave |
|
|
| Consul |
| Yes, the walls (soffits) would be angled in on each side at 30 degrees relative to the back (existing) wall. This is a pretty standard design for most music studios. |
|
|
| planet10 |
| quote: | Originally posted by el`Ol
Then go for the Visaton B200. And don`t forget the high frequency correction. |
I fiure it is better to fix the problem than to band-aid it.
dave |
|
|
| ScottG |
| quote: | Originally posted by Consul
How about this for some questions:
1) What would you do for "no compromise" monitoring in the room I described?
2) Since we know compromises will have to be made, which ones would you make?
I'm putting a lot of emphasis on a) keeping any crossover points out of the 200-2k range, b) flat response over said range, and c) good transient response and damping. It seems to me that anything else beyond those is then open for compromise.
|
For this application? Thats actually pretty easy to answer:
I'd buy a Manger with the Neo Motor:
http://www.manger-msw.com/en/inhalt.html
This isn't a driver I'd normally recomend - but in this application and considering your requirements - its PERFECT!
(..provided of course that you are very carefull with a rear enclosure for the driver that has NO stuffing but has little interior reflections.)
http://www.hytechsales.com/prodsc.html |
|
|
| Consul |
Holy...! :bigeyes: $1200 per driver?!
Well, I guess I did say "no compromise."
The Visaton B200 is looking like a great driver for my application. I'm still unsure of what the phase plugs do, so I guess I can run off and do some research on that.
Planet10, do you sell B200s with the phase plugs already installed? |
|
|
| planet10 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Consul
The Visaton B200 is looking like a great driver for my application. I'm still unsure of what the phase plugs do, so I guess I can run off and do some research on that.
Planet10, do you sell B200s with the phase plugs already installed? |
The major improvement is quite a bit better HF dispersion. The same enery that is seen as a rise on axis is distributed more evenely. There is also a slight improvement in the midrange (not something i even noticed was a problem until i was able to compare. This is noticable mostly on vocals.
This (LOONNNGGGG) thread on Audio Circle has some end-user comments that don't have the potential bias my comments do.
http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/...p?topic=19253.0
Modified B200s are $400 CAD + post.
dave |
|
|
| Consul |
I'm afraid that just pushed them out of my budget. Sorry.
I still have a lot of other options, though. |
|
|
| Scottmoose |
| Then buy the unmodified drivers and install the plugs yourself. Cutting away the dust cap isn't rocket science -just take your time and it will be fine. Then you could add damping to the basket, frame etc etc etc. If I can do it for my 167s, which are harder to mod as they have a whizzer cone, then you can do it with a pair of B200s, with easier access to the dust cap. |
|
|
| Consul |
Eww, I don't know if I could trust myself to do that with $130 drivers. :D Still, the Visatons are sounding like the best way to proceed.
Hehe. Thank you all for the information. This thread has taught me more than all the other reading I've done so far. |
|
|
| planet10 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Scottmoose
Then buy the unmodified drivers and install the plugs yourself. |
Scott... if someone buys the drivers from me, i don't charge anything to install the plugs & do the ductseal. No one is going to buy from me on price so i have to add value -- oops, just checked Solen's pricing -- looks like they have gone down, so i'm charging too much -- should be $360 CAD modified w plugs.
dave |
|
|
| Scottmoose |
Aha. That would expain it. Please accept my sincere apologies Dave, I usually advise people to buy from you, as you know. My 126s are still improving -better than some Sigmas I've heard now.
Consul: trust me; it's worth the extra. If you need to save for a bit longer, do so. Your ears will thank you for it. Dave's modifications make a difference, and it's not a subtle one. The standard drivers are indeed, excellent, but the mods lift them to a completely new level. No witchcraft here BTW: the changes are measureable, and bring considerable improvements right across the frequency range. I have no personal interest in this I hasten to add: it's the honest view of a very satisfied customer. I've advised people to buy plugs & drivers from Dave for a while, and every one of them, including the sceptics, have come back raving either about the improvements (if it's a self-fit mod), or about the general quality of the drivers they've recieved, which have the benefits of additional tweaking to the magnet, basket, cone etc.
Take a look on the WD forum or Audiocircle and you'll see other people singing from the same song-sheet. Value for money isn't about the cheapest price; it's about the quality of what you end up with.
All the best
Scott |
|
|
| Consul |
Err, I might have misunderstood something here.
Planet10, is that $360 per pair? |
|
|
| Scottmoose |
| That's what he means. Canadian $, so it works out at about $318US for a pair of B200s fully modified (including phase plugs) by Dave. Which in my book is exceptional value for money. |
|
|
| Consul |
Ah, okay. For some reason, I was thinking that was "each". Sorry about that. And yes, that is indeed the best way to proceed, I think.
Thanks for the help! |
|
|
| Scottmoose |
| We're all always glad to help when we can. You won't regret it. |
|
|
| ScottG |
| quote: | Originally posted by Consul
Holy...! :bigeyes: $1200 per driver?!
Well, I guess I did say "no compromise."
The Visaton B200 is looking like a great driver for my application. I'm still unsure of what the phase plugs do, so I guess I can run off and do some research on that.
Planet10, do you sell B200s with the phase plugs already installed? |
The Manger used to be about $675 each from E-Speakers in the US.
The Visaton B200:
http://gallery.bcentral.com/GID4956...Range-B200.aspx
..when you factor in canadian vs. the dollar AND dave's mod - his price is good!
http://translate.google.com/transla...6lr%3D%26sa%3DG
Not exactly a linear response.. on ANY axis..
Fairly well suited for open baffle duty though Because of this deviation for total power response in-room when listened a bit off-axis.
On the otherhand there is always digital eq. ;)
Personally, I'd like to see what MarkMcK could do for the B200.:) |
|
|
| Consul |
Well, this is the first time I got to see a decay spectrum for the B200. It's... not as good as others I've seen.
E-Speakers doesn't appear to have the Manger anymore. The only place I found wanted $1200 apiece. http://www.tmhaudio.com/pricing.htm and scroll down a bit.
Well, that Hemp Acoustics FR8 looks decent. It's also missing a decay spectrum graph, though. |
|
|
| Scottmoose |
| Life does not revolve aroud spectrum decay graphs. The FR8 isn't much better in this respect, so I gather. For example, I've seen the graphs (privately) of the drivers Tannoy use in their top-end £15,000 Westminster Royal HE and it's nothing much to shout about. But I've yet to hear anyone complain about the sonics. If perfect theoretical measuremets are important, then mini-monitors are the way forward. Acoustic Energy's AE1 MK3 for example, or the infamous BBC LS3/5a, preferably a Heybrook made 11ohm version, which usually had the best measured performance. In FR, no-one would pretend that the drivers are the most accurate -by multi-way standards the technical performance is frequently apalling. But there are other considerations too. I still reckon the B200 is the best value FR driver out there for OB applications. Most users report that Eq is not needed in their rooms. As always, YMMV. |
|
|
| ScottG |
| quote: | Originally posted by Consul
Well, this is the first time I got to see a decay spectrum for the B200. It's... not as good as others I've seen.
E-Speakers doesn't appear to have the Manger anymore. The only place I found wanted $1200 apiece. http://www.tmhaudio.com/pricing.htm and scroll down a bit.
Well, that Hemp Acoustics FR8 looks decent. It's also missing a decay spectrum graph, though. |
In addition to what Scott said - I'll add this:
Chances are that very little acoustic absorption was used for this measurement. In otherwords its a "warts and all" measurement. Though I could be wrong, I'd bet that most other manufactureres "clean up" the decay by using absorption material (and windowing the graph), on the rare occasion where they provide this graph.
As an example lets look at Zaph's measurement of the Vifa DX25 vs. the Scan Speak AirCirc 6600:
http://www.zaphaudio.com/tweetermishmash/
These are basically the same tweeter BUT the Scan Speak has worse decay character than the Vifa despite having a price that is almost 8 times as expensive. The major difference here is that the Vifa uses absoprtion material in its rear chamber and the Scan Speak doesn't. Now don't go thinking that the Scan Speak is a "rip-off" relative to the Vifa. Though I haven't hear the two, I can almost guarantee you that the vastly more expensive Scan Speak sounds considerably better - AND it isn't due to an improved motor (which would show marked differences in non-linear distortion).
Now there are some areas where the B200 is "messy" and it will impact performace some. Notably the resonant "shelf" between 2 and 7 kHz. "Push" the driver a bit and it won't sound as "clean" in this passband. On the other hand most of the time it will sound quite "clean" and "transparent" in this passband because there is still a good 9 db's of clean decay. Notably however the speaker is incredibly clean from 200 Hz to 2 kHz compared to most drivers. Sure, there is a resonant mode around 300 Hz, but it doesn't last long and again, its a lot better than most drivers.
Many would argue that the fairly high NON-linear distortion would be more objectionable.. but I don't think those arguing have ever really tested their ability to audibly detect this distortion.
That leaves the on and off axis response of the driver - now THAT is something to worry about.. IF you don't have the ability to effectivly EQ it. (..and thats pretty easy to come by - especially for computer play-back.)
well.. just some thoughts. |
|
|
| lousymusician |
"The B200 a bass miracle is not general. ...with 80 cycles per second there is an increased height of 4 railways."
Ah, I love automatic translators! |
|
|
| Consul |
EQing the signal to the speakers is out of the question. I need this for critical listening applications, which means I need to be able to record and mix music using these as a reference. That's also why spectral decay data is important as well, although, like you said, so much depends on just how the driver was tested.
It's beginning to sound less and less like the B200 is the one for me.
I'd really like to know where you're getting the information on distortion and such. Is there something to these graphs that I'm missing? I'm still waiting for my copy of Dickason's Cookbook to come in, so I'm kinda shooting in the dark.
I do really love how those Mangers look. I just wish I could afford them. Do they really sound ten times better than a good Seas or Vifa woofer-tweeter combo? They sure do cost it. |
|
|
| ScottG |
| quote: | Originally posted by lousymusician
"The B200 a bass miracle is not general. ...with 80 cycles per second there is an increased height of 4 railways."
Ah, I love automatic translators! |
LOL..:D Yup, its horrible.. |
|
|
| Consul |
On the other hand, it's cool that my humble thread made it to five pages.
I really am learning a lot from this thread. It's just that every new post, I have to step back, learn yet another new thing about speakers, and then re-evaluate what I thought I already knew. :)
Thanks for the help, guys! |
|
|
| ScottG |
| quote: | Originally posted by Consul
EQing the signal to the speakers is out of the question. I need this for critical listening applications, which means I need to be able to record and mix music using these as a reference. That's also why spectral decay data is important as well, although, like you said, so much depends on just how the driver was tested.
It's beginning to sound less and less like the B200 is the one for me.
I'd really like to know where you're getting the information on distortion and such. Is there something to these graphs that I'm missing? I'm still waiting for my copy of Dickason's Cookbook to come in, so I'm kinda shooting in the dark.
I do really love how those Mangers look. I just wish I could afford them. Do they really sound ten times better than a good Seas or Vifa woofer-tweeter combo? They sure do cost it. |
post eq. for the speakers should not effect your ability to eq for mixing music. The process is transparent - in effect its like getting a perfectly flat transducer. You can still make adjustments mixing without even knowing its there. In otherwords it should not be a problem. The ONLY time it would be a problem is when you need to determine just how trasparent an application/plug-in is, but frankly you can do that with a driver that doesn't have a linear response. IF the plug-in eq. used to modify the B200's response isn't transparent - then find another (there are lots). Once you've found one - no more problems.
now for decay at lower sound pressure levels, the B200 should be excellent. If you need louder sound - then yes the treble could be a bit compromised. (..and note that many/most recording engineers mix with something that is FAR worse.)
the non-linear distortion I was referring to is further down the page "Klirrfaktor" where its referenced at 85 db, 90 db, and 95db - and it rotates.
as to the Mangers sounding ten-times better.. if you are a very critical listener - quite possibly.
one more note - if you listen closer than one meter the response will likely be "tilted-up" a bit more at higher freq.s. (i.e. the closer you get the more pronounced the treble becomes.) |
|
|
| Consul |
| quote: | Originally posted by ScottG
(..and note that many/most recording engineers mix with something that is FAR worse.) |
Boy, ain't that the truth! I could build a set of BIBs with a Fostex driver and come up with something that sounds better than those NS10Ms that so many mix engineers swear by. Yamaha recently released a speaker that looks like an NS10 with a bigger woofer. It's still awful.
In fact, I'm thinking about building a nice set of BIBs, forgoing the soffits for now, and seeing what I come up with. For all I know, I might be able to mix quite nicely on them. If not, I still have a nice set of speakers for the parlor. ;) |
|
|
| Consul |
I was just reading the whitepaper on the BBC LS5/8 monitor (now that I can understand a lot more of it), and I was struck by the similarity of their approach to my original approach of pairing a woofer with a smaller full-range. They used a 30mm dome tweeter with a fairly wide band, and paired it with a polypropylene woofer. In the end, though, they put their crossover at 2khz, but then again, such wide-band speakers that I have access to now were not available back then.
Now that I understand a little more about on- vs. off-axis coloration and stuff like that, I can hopefully make a more informed decision about what to get. Hopefully, the Dickason book will help, too, once it finally gets here. |
|
|
| planet10 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Consul
the Dickason book will help, too, once it finally gets here |
That book is chock full of very useful information, just don't take it as gospel, as he writes with a particular bias.
dave |
|
|
|
