Well then, what are some decent full range monitors (for listening to music at home). I simply have not heard any, meanwhile checking out some Home Theatre systems, a Bose system, some Dali bookshlef speakers - all at showrooms, nothing really seemed distortion free and detailled enough - connecting a small amp to an old woofer or 4 full range from a computer speaker was better for me.
What I have heard so far has not inspired confidence to do away with a subwoofer, or equalization.
This is an old post on finding a good full range driver.
I use these for near field mixing DALI IKON 2 MK2 bookshelf and stand speaker driven by a Gamut D200i Stereo Power Amplifier - Gamut International this is for near field mixing and listening. to fill a room I suggest
DALI IKON 5 MK2 - compact and discrete floor-standing speaker
or
DALI IKON 6 MK2 - amazing all-round floorspeaker
Do not need a SUB . Where are you located.
Bose is not a what I would use a a hi end comparison. I have no idea what amp or preamps you are listening thru with the Dali's I get no distortion driving at 85-90 db SPL suggest you find a place that has good amplifacation.
If you want to eq feel free in my opinion eq should only be used to compensate for room issues.
If you want a very neutral set of studio monitors, check out the line from Focal. They are the best I've ever heard. Reviews from pro users abound with praise for being able to mix on them and have that mix sound good anywhere. That says a lot.
They are expensive, and maybe not be available near you - but if you can give them a listen, it's worth you while.
They are expensive, and maybe not be available near you - but if you can give them a listen, it's worth you while.
Any well designed studio monitors will have the ability to have the mix sound good on any media and source.
Focal are great. I prefer to have discrete monitoring having the amp in the enclosure is not optimal in my opinion.
Last edited:
I guess I have the challenge of building good enough speakers that don't need a sub.
As I said, maybe I have been starved for good listening experiences on good systems. I don't know of any audiophiles in the country.
There are lots of kits and plans for great sounding full range monitors.
I will try and do some research and get you some links. Do you have a budget of what you can spend? Are you handy with a soldering iron ? There are some very nice sounding amp kits that you can build.
I used to think so, too. But after 20 years of using Myer Sound powered speakers for work, I don't worry about that anymore.
I used to think so, too. But after 20 years of using Myer Sound powered speakers for work, I don't worry about that anymore.
I understand own the Meyer HD-1. It sure does make it convenient. If I am setting for a long stay I use my component setup. if I am running and gunning the HD-1 are the best option for powered monitors.
Well thanks for the offer to help, but I have a lot of stuff here and I need to experiment especially with the speakers. Actually will take pictures of what I have and post them here. Would be interesting to see graphically what I have and what my battle to extract information from recorded music looks like.
Right now: no more spending until I do some experiments with speaker boxes.
Subscribed to Tape Op, thanks, lots of inverviews with recording engineers, as well as a whole lot of equipment, both hardware and software that I do no really understand yet.
Viewed some actual mixing sessions - seems very complicated. This is one example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GL4ePCGTZBs
Everything is changed - equalizer is applied to voices as well, so nothing will sound as it sounded in real life in the studio anyway. It's really
eye - opening.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GL4ePCGTZBs
Everything is changed - equalizer is applied to voices as well, so nothing will sound as it sounded in real life in the studio anyway. It's really
eye - opening.
In movies they apply makeup to actors so they look better, they line up camera angles to make short actors appear taller. If the scenery is not as attractive as they want, the put matte paintings in the background.
In audio we fatten up thin voices and smooth out uneven ones, we even correct missed notes with pitch shifters. We use flattering microphones. The goal is to make something that sounds good, not something that sounds like the live performer.
In audio we fatten up thin voices and smooth out uneven ones, we even correct missed notes with pitch shifters. We use flattering microphones. The goal is to make something that sounds good, not something that sounds like the live performer.
A musician/engineer/producer listens to music in their head. They know what they want it to sound like through real-world equipment.
What you listen to in recorded music is basically their 'vision' - but through your ears instead of eyes. Every single engineer on the planet has a totally different 'sound', and some are sought out for it.
The other thing is that no two humans on earth hear things in exactly the same way. The two of us could go to a concert and though it's the same band in the same venue, we'd com away with different insights.
None of these take into account the challenge of recording and reproduction in different acoustic spaces, which has significant influences on our perception of the content. Often more so than the emotional experience can overcome.
This is exactly why an engineer does what he does - his job is to sell records. So it has to sound good. If you want the real thing, go to a concert. Or learn to play an instrument, it helps you accept that recording is by nature destructive.
That is both the beauty and frustration of the music lover who also wants to be an audiophile. Being able to make stuff yourself makes the situation worse, not better - because you're always trying to hit an imaginary target (of 'perfect' reproduction) because the thing doesn't even exist.
I find it better to have low-distortion equipment, set up properly to minimise any external coloration, and then kick back and listen to the music. At the end of the day, that's the only reason we do this.
What you listen to in recorded music is basically their 'vision' - but through your ears instead of eyes. Every single engineer on the planet has a totally different 'sound', and some are sought out for it.
The other thing is that no two humans on earth hear things in exactly the same way. The two of us could go to a concert and though it's the same band in the same venue, we'd com away with different insights.
None of these take into account the challenge of recording and reproduction in different acoustic spaces, which has significant influences on our perception of the content. Often more so than the emotional experience can overcome.
This is exactly why an engineer does what he does - his job is to sell records. So it has to sound good. If you want the real thing, go to a concert. Or learn to play an instrument, it helps you accept that recording is by nature destructive.
That is both the beauty and frustration of the music lover who also wants to be an audiophile. Being able to make stuff yourself makes the situation worse, not better - because you're always trying to hit an imaginary target (of 'perfect' reproduction) because the thing doesn't even exist.
I find it better to have low-distortion equipment, set up properly to minimise any external coloration, and then kick back and listen to the music. At the end of the day, that's the only reason we do this.
Too bad, I don't mind movies looking crazy but.. come to think of it I would like a movie which was total reality - reality movie
I was hoping for true to life....
The truth hurts! So does deception.
If you set up some good players in a good sounding room and use as few mikes as possible , use A range or A class mic pres and sum it all on a all discrete counsel and have a good engineer it will sound like it did in the studio.
Not all sessions are like the You Tube session you posted.
Remember Less is More
You certainly can do that, but what percentage of commercial recordings would you say used that method? You can record things in a stairwell for the interesting acoustics, but the typical studio is pretty dead acoustically. it is an environment made for recording sound, not for listening to live performances. Typically. A real world example would be a studio of musicians playing together, the sound in the room would be similar to the sound on stage at a live performance. But the sound on stage is not at all the sound out front where the audience sits.
If you watch a movie made to real life, all your Roman Centurians would have wrist watches, and there would be telephone wires along the streets of Sparta. As an exercise, I once recorded an eight voice harmony sung a capella. Came out pretty well, within the limits of my singing talents. But of course there is no way in the world anyone could ever hear that live. I can only sing one voice at a time in real life.
If you watch a movie made to real life, all your Roman Centurians would have wrist watches, and there would be telephone wires along the streets of Sparta. As an exercise, I once recorded an eight voice harmony sung a capella. Came out pretty well, within the limits of my singing talents. But of course there is no way in the world anyone could ever hear that live. I can only sing one voice at a time in real life.
What is new is what I have learned since I got into this thing about a year ago when my existing stereo was found unrepairable.
I am noticing more and more things - which can be a sort of a curse. Just yesterday I was listening to a live band and I found myself criticizing the mixing - where are the drums? Why are the voices so loud? That guy has such a good voice but we need to bring up the lower end, get some more bass, more fullness into that voice. Then a little red light flashes on the speaker in front of me and I realize it's distorting on the voice input. I wanted a mixed ( I would have to learn to use it) and an equalizer and fix the whole thing!
Every real world sound I hear, from footsteps to doors to traffic - I have one thought - how in the world would I ever get that sound reproduced from a HiFi system - the sharpness, the power, the wide stage, the total lack of noise, distortion, the utter smoothness of it all.
Anyone think this?
All commercial recordings up until the late sixties. Quote "typical studio is pretty dead acoustically" end quote where did you get this from it is key to have the live room have a sound that is pleasing if you want to record an ensemble of musicians. You obviously have not been in many recording studios , there are lots of rooms that are set up to record just as I had explained. True multi track recording as we know it did not come of age until the late 60's early 70's (24 track plus). In order to record pre multi track you need a good sounding room and all the musicians tracking . You used mike placement and different sounding mics to get the sound you wanted and yes the room sound was very important. I grew up in this industry, 1962 to present day my Dad built the original Eldorado Recording in Hollywood California and I have been a professional recording engineer since 1982. I have seen a lot of change and it has swung back to the earlier style of recording . I suggest you do some research. Your movie analogue does not correlate. I am not speaking to one person trying to emulate eight, my comments are directed to setting up a band tracking them as a group and getting a true sound with feel, pocket and pleasing sonics.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.