These monitors with active crossovers and multi-amped look like great systems (just add a source and a volume control) that I never knew existed 
There has to be some catch 
Actually most of the newer studio monitors would make very nice home speakers, but not many people are willing to pay what they cost. The speakers that have been discussed so far range from $700 each up to about $2000 each.
A good studio monitor has a very smooth, extended frequency response, excellent imaging and is able to comfortably handle high volume reproduction. Every speaker maker in the world claims to do this, but few actually do.
Most near field studio monitors have built-in amplifiers for each driver with active crossovers and balanced line level inputs. They also usually provide adjustments for low and high frequency response to let the engineer adapt them to the specific room they are in. In addition they must be identical from one example to the next.
One of the more important aquired skills for a recording engineers is to be able to predict how a mix will sound on a variety of speaker systems based on how they sound on the monitors. Since recording engineers often work in many different studios it is vital that a specific model of monitor be as close to identical from one copy to the next as possible. This is not a requirement for most speaker builders. As long as a pair of them are close, they could care less how well matched they are to the speakers they built last year.
This is why the original posters idea of building his own monitors is foolish. He will be training his ears to work with a pair of speakers that no other studio is going to have. If he ever gets a chance to work professionally as a recording engineer, he will be starting over from scratch.
Phil
A good studio monitor has a very smooth, extended frequency response, excellent imaging and is able to comfortably handle high volume reproduction. Every speaker maker in the world claims to do this, but few actually do.
Most near field studio monitors have built-in amplifiers for each driver with active crossovers and balanced line level inputs. They also usually provide adjustments for low and high frequency response to let the engineer adapt them to the specific room they are in. In addition they must be identical from one example to the next.
One of the more important aquired skills for a recording engineers is to be able to predict how a mix will sound on a variety of speaker systems based on how they sound on the monitors. Since recording engineers often work in many different studios it is vital that a specific model of monitor be as close to identical from one copy to the next as possible. This is not a requirement for most speaker builders. As long as a pair of them are close, they could care less how well matched they are to the speakers they built last year.
This is why the original posters idea of building his own monitors is foolish. He will be training his ears to work with a pair of speakers that no other studio is going to have. If he ever gets a chance to work professionally as a recording engineer, he will be starting over from scratch.
Phil
3" 1.5 systems.
I just finished a few sets of the 1.5 using 2 different drivers.
First the MCM 54-606
http://www.boomspeed.com/wrnch22/rals1.5only.jpg
http://www.boomspeed.com/wrnch22/r1.5cab.JPG
And then the 871S
http://www.boomspeed.com/wrnch22/1.5.jpg
http://www.boomspeed.com/wrnch22/8711.5cab.JPG
I used a 8.2 and a 20uf to test the 2 of them on the high pass only and the 871 came out a little cleaner.
Over all the MCM did very well, but the wife still likes the 871s best over all.
Now the 657S in a MT,MTM up to .5cft not work the money.
The 871S and 606 out sound them with out even batting a eye.
And the cost of the 1.5 to the 657S driver along is equal.
Build some 1.5 and have fun.
I just finished a few sets of the 1.5 using 2 different drivers.
First the MCM 54-606
http://www.boomspeed.com/wrnch22/rals1.5only.jpg
http://www.boomspeed.com/wrnch22/r1.5cab.JPG
And then the 871S
http://www.boomspeed.com/wrnch22/1.5.jpg
http://www.boomspeed.com/wrnch22/8711.5cab.JPG
I used a 8.2 and a 20uf to test the 2 of them on the high pass only and the 871 came out a little cleaner.
Over all the MCM did very well, but the wife still likes the 871s best over all.
Now the 657S in a MT,MTM up to .5cft not work the money.
The 871S and 606 out sound them with out even batting a eye.
And the cost of the 1.5 to the 657S driver along is equal.
Build some 1.5 and have fun.
There IS a big difference between nearfields and home speakers: Home speakers sound good/musical. Nearfields sound accurate.
Home speakers interact with a room. Nearfields are designed to be heard in the nearfield, 2 feet or so away, without room interaction.
Swapping them functionally may not produce great results. At least, using home speakers as studio speakers may result in bad recordings, unless the recordist knows exactly what s/he is doing, and how sound on that set of speakers translates into real-world situations.
For example, if monitor (either proper nearfields or home stereo being used as monitors) puts out prodigous bass, mixes will tend to sound thin. If there is a bump in the mid-bass, mixes will have a dip in the mid-bass. Unless the user is so used to the sound that they make a correction for it.
One very good example is the Yamaha NS-10. They sound pathetic. They're not even accurate. But people know what they actually sound like, so mixes can come out well - explains its popularity (or past popularity).
Of course, this does not count for the fact there is a human being involved, and their skill (or lack thereof) is the single most critical component of the entire mixing process.
Also, many people have produced excellent mixes on sub-par monitoring systems, due to the same reasons as above.
There is no single right answer, just experience and more experience. As someone I know would say "don't think, start mixing". Because it is only through practice that one becomes perfect, and just as in any other art, mixing is all about practice, with a tiny bit of genius.
As a home recordist, the ideal way to check is to have a CD burnt to check in the car, on a cheap boombox, and a true hi-fi system, and this is the absolute minimum, even when using great nearfields. For anything less, more secondary checks are required.
I have mixed on speakers that go down to a deep, satisfying, bone-crunching 30 Hz. The problem is my mix sounds good only on that pair of speakers. On anything else, it sounds like moo-moo.
On choices between 8" and 6", I would think the 8" are slightly better suited for the wider freq. range coverage. It does create problems at the crossover point. However, since most good monitors are actively bi-amped, crossover design can do a little magic to get a flat and neutral sound.
About monitors sounding different, yes, all monitors sound different. This is a problem of unimaginable proportions: If all monitors sound accurate, should they not all sound the same? Ah, perfect world. At the end of the day, it is the user who makes the difference.
As I see it, it is important to know what the monitors are telling you, what you are hearing, and therefore how you implement that information. That is what produces stunning mixes. Not a pair of $2000 monitors. However, the $2000 monitor does help - how much is up to you.
Home speakers interact with a room. Nearfields are designed to be heard in the nearfield, 2 feet or so away, without room interaction.
Swapping them functionally may not produce great results. At least, using home speakers as studio speakers may result in bad recordings, unless the recordist knows exactly what s/he is doing, and how sound on that set of speakers translates into real-world situations.
For example, if monitor (either proper nearfields or home stereo being used as monitors) puts out prodigous bass, mixes will tend to sound thin. If there is a bump in the mid-bass, mixes will have a dip in the mid-bass. Unless the user is so used to the sound that they make a correction for it.
One very good example is the Yamaha NS-10. They sound pathetic. They're not even accurate. But people know what they actually sound like, so mixes can come out well - explains its popularity (or past popularity).
Of course, this does not count for the fact there is a human being involved, and their skill (or lack thereof) is the single most critical component of the entire mixing process.
Also, many people have produced excellent mixes on sub-par monitoring systems, due to the same reasons as above.
There is no single right answer, just experience and more experience. As someone I know would say "don't think, start mixing". Because it is only through practice that one becomes perfect, and just as in any other art, mixing is all about practice, with a tiny bit of genius.
As a home recordist, the ideal way to check is to have a CD burnt to check in the car, on a cheap boombox, and a true hi-fi system, and this is the absolute minimum, even when using great nearfields. For anything less, more secondary checks are required.
I have mixed on speakers that go down to a deep, satisfying, bone-crunching 30 Hz. The problem is my mix sounds good only on that pair of speakers. On anything else, it sounds like moo-moo.
On choices between 8" and 6", I would think the 8" are slightly better suited for the wider freq. range coverage. It does create problems at the crossover point. However, since most good monitors are actively bi-amped, crossover design can do a little magic to get a flat and neutral sound.
About monitors sounding different, yes, all monitors sound different. This is a problem of unimaginable proportions: If all monitors sound accurate, should they not all sound the same? Ah, perfect world. At the end of the day, it is the user who makes the difference.
As I see it, it is important to know what the monitors are telling you, what you are hearing, and therefore how you implement that information. That is what produces stunning mixes. Not a pair of $2000 monitors. However, the $2000 monitor does help - how much is up to you.
Monitor sound
I am not quite sure how much one has tune out the sound of a monitor they use, if it is half decent. I know someone who uses a locally made sub sat system for monitoring his mixes. His customers are amazed at the sound they hear. The drive units are all locally made but have been very well implemented.
His mixed go all the way to the UK and the Far East. The results sound great and he does not 'tune out his system' .
It does not sound as good as some other systems in the market but it seems enough for him to make good ( great) recordings.
On better systems his recordings sound terrific.
I guess the crucial factor is how far away from the norm the monitor really is. Drastic fluctuations in the response is probably the killer. Varying gently from the desired response probably does not affect the 'mixer' as much .
I also find many professionals who have their own favourites among monitors. I guess it all depends on the 'ears' and none of them are alike and never will be. It keeps the business of what sound better going on forever - I guess.
Cheers.
I am not quite sure how much one has tune out the sound of a monitor they use, if it is half decent. I know someone who uses a locally made sub sat system for monitoring his mixes. His customers are amazed at the sound they hear. The drive units are all locally made but have been very well implemented.
His mixed go all the way to the UK and the Far East. The results sound great and he does not 'tune out his system' .
It does not sound as good as some other systems in the market but it seems enough for him to make good ( great) recordings.
On better systems his recordings sound terrific.
I guess the crucial factor is how far away from the norm the monitor really is. Drastic fluctuations in the response is probably the killer. Varying gently from the desired response probably does not affect the 'mixer' as much .
I also find many professionals who have their own favourites among monitors. I guess it all depends on the 'ears' and none of them are alike and never will be. It keeps the business of what sound better going on forever - I guess.
Cheers.
I appreciate all the replies and ideas. I see
no reason for people to find me foolish, because
I am definately not striving to become a
profesional recording engineer. Actually. my
goals are sort of the opposite. I worked six
years as the Chief Technician for an audio
cassette duplication plant, which had it's own
24 track digital studio, and a mastering room. My
responsibilities were mainly tape alignment
and quality control, and to keep all of the
factory production equipment running. I've
tried my hand at being a recording engineer,
but found that I don't like the pressure and
budget restraints that are placed on an artist,
when they record in a studio that charges by
the hour. Recording my own musical compositions
at home is more rewarding for me than sitting in
a studio all day, churning out cheap pop singles
and demo tapes. I changed careers a few years
back. I don't miss the profesional recording
industry, because my home studio satisfies my
appetite for recording.
I did get to work with some of the local
mastering engineers and studio owners during this
time. I gained a lot of knowledge from them, and
got to tour many of the local studios in my area,
both big and small. Back then, the Yamaha NS-10s
were the industry standard, and considered to be
an essential piece of equipment for nearly every
studio. Some studios offered additional nearfield
choices. Generally studios that had Dynaudio or
other nearfield monitors costing over $1000 a
pair, also had over a quater of a million
dollars invested in total equipment, including
larger main monitors which cost more than a
typical automobile.
It's not really possible to recreate the
sound of a multimillion dollar recording
facility in a home studio. Even if I did have
the money to buy the same equipment, I would
still not have the same acoustical spaces to
record in. Being practical, I don't want turn
my home studio into a giant pit to throw all my
money into. It is possible for a home studio to
rival or better the sound of most demo or
project studios. The advantage is that more time
and love can be put into a project recorded at
home. A $1500 pair of nearfields isn't really
sensible for what I'm doing, especially since
I already have a pair of main monitors that I'm
happy with, and additional sound systems for
checking my mixes.
Currently there is no real industry favorite in
nearfield speakers. Dynaudio, Tannoy, KRK, and
Genelec all have their followers. The active
Mackies are getting quite popular as well. The
NS-10s have fallen out of favour, but are still
seen around. There's a proliference of less
expensive monitors that are marketed mainly
for budget studios and home recording. I'm
not happy with the quality of most of these,
so I've elected to build a simple prototyping
cabinet which will let me experiment with a
few different designs.
Internal biamplification seems to be the popular
trend in nearfields. I'm not sure if it's
actually an advantage over active or passive
speaker systems using external amplifiers, or
just more convenient. I could play around with
a biamplified system. I do have a pair of Marantz
integrated amps that I could integrate into my
system, but I don't want to get too far ahead
of myself. I've got the four sides of my
prototyping cabinet assembled, and have my blank
front and back baffles made. I'll cut out the
holes for my drivers later tonight. I should be
breaking in my drivers and doing some listening
tests shortly. I'll be back to post some initial
results in a few days, and will probably have a
few more questions as well.
no reason for people to find me foolish, because
I am definately not striving to become a
profesional recording engineer. Actually. my
goals are sort of the opposite. I worked six
years as the Chief Technician for an audio
cassette duplication plant, which had it's own
24 track digital studio, and a mastering room. My
responsibilities were mainly tape alignment
and quality control, and to keep all of the
factory production equipment running. I've
tried my hand at being a recording engineer,
but found that I don't like the pressure and
budget restraints that are placed on an artist,
when they record in a studio that charges by
the hour. Recording my own musical compositions
at home is more rewarding for me than sitting in
a studio all day, churning out cheap pop singles
and demo tapes. I changed careers a few years
back. I don't miss the profesional recording
industry, because my home studio satisfies my
appetite for recording.
I did get to work with some of the local
mastering engineers and studio owners during this
time. I gained a lot of knowledge from them, and
got to tour many of the local studios in my area,
both big and small. Back then, the Yamaha NS-10s
were the industry standard, and considered to be
an essential piece of equipment for nearly every
studio. Some studios offered additional nearfield
choices. Generally studios that had Dynaudio or
other nearfield monitors costing over $1000 a
pair, also had over a quater of a million
dollars invested in total equipment, including
larger main monitors which cost more than a
typical automobile.
It's not really possible to recreate the
sound of a multimillion dollar recording
facility in a home studio. Even if I did have
the money to buy the same equipment, I would
still not have the same acoustical spaces to
record in. Being practical, I don't want turn
my home studio into a giant pit to throw all my
money into. It is possible for a home studio to
rival or better the sound of most demo or
project studios. The advantage is that more time
and love can be put into a project recorded at
home. A $1500 pair of nearfields isn't really
sensible for what I'm doing, especially since
I already have a pair of main monitors that I'm
happy with, and additional sound systems for
checking my mixes.
Currently there is no real industry favorite in
nearfield speakers. Dynaudio, Tannoy, KRK, and
Genelec all have their followers. The active
Mackies are getting quite popular as well. The
NS-10s have fallen out of favour, but are still
seen around. There's a proliference of less
expensive monitors that are marketed mainly
for budget studios and home recording. I'm
not happy with the quality of most of these,
so I've elected to build a simple prototyping
cabinet which will let me experiment with a
few different designs.
Internal biamplification seems to be the popular
trend in nearfields. I'm not sure if it's
actually an advantage over active or passive
speaker systems using external amplifiers, or
just more convenient. I could play around with
a biamplified system. I do have a pair of Marantz
integrated amps that I could integrate into my
system, but I don't want to get too far ahead
of myself. I've got the four sides of my
prototyping cabinet assembled, and have my blank
front and back baffles made. I'll cut out the
holes for my drivers later tonight. I should be
breaking in my drivers and doing some listening
tests shortly. I'll be back to post some initial
results in a few days, and will probably have a
few more questions as well.
Ive been interested in building a pair of monitors, and came across this kit http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/pshowdetl.cfm?&PartNumber=300-640&DID=7
What do you guys think? Good, bad? Maybe can modify to make it better?
jawbreak
What do you guys think? Good, bad? Maybe can modify to make it better?
jawbreak
Re: Monitor sound
It's not so much that you are "tuning out" the sound of the monitor as that you are learning how to interprete what it tells you so you can make adjustments to the mix that result in a good final recording.
I think, most of this preference you will see is the result of having spent hundred or thousands of hours "learning" a particular speaker. I don't know anyone who really likes how the NS-10 speaker sounds, but if you have calibrated your ears to work with them then that is what you are going to want to use.
Phil
ashok said:
It's not so much that you are "tuning out" the sound of the monitor as that you are learning how to interprete what it tells you so you can make adjustments to the mix that result in a good final recording.
I think, most of this preference you will see is the result of having spent hundred or thousands of hours "learning" a particular speaker. I don't know anyone who really likes how the NS-10 speaker sounds, but if you have calibrated your ears to work with them then that is what you are going to want to use.
Phil
Hi Freakaccident,
Hope my comment about making your own monitors being foolish did not offend you. I offer my apology if my words gave offense.
In my experiance, most people who setup a home studio are either trying to develop marketable skills as a recording engineer or are musicians trying to record themselves on the cheap. Since educating your ears is one of the more time consuming parts of the process it seems to me that learning how to work with a one of a kind monitor does not help much toward the goal of becoming a recording engineer.
Just curious, but what near fields have you used professionally and why don't you want to continue using what you already know? It can't be just cost, since used monitors can be found pretty cheaply. Do you expect to be able to surpass the commercially available offerings with your home made monitors?
Phil
Hope my comment about making your own monitors being foolish did not offend you. I offer my apology if my words gave offense.
In my experiance, most people who setup a home studio are either trying to develop marketable skills as a recording engineer or are musicians trying to record themselves on the cheap. Since educating your ears is one of the more time consuming parts of the process it seems to me that learning how to work with a one of a kind monitor does not help much toward the goal of becoming a recording engineer.
Just curious, but what near fields have you used professionally and why don't you want to continue using what you already know? It can't be just cost, since used monitors can be found pretty cheaply. Do you expect to be able to surpass the commercially available offerings with your home made monitors?
Phil
The most important part of building a speakerjawbreak said:
is to have GOOD QUALITY DRIVERS.
If you have bad drivers, nothing will help you
to make the result to be good.
You can put WHATEVER filters and enclosure you can imagine around those drivers.
It still will not make that Good Sound.
That kit you link to, seems to use VIFA DRIVERS.
They are known for their very high Value/Money.
If they are VIFA drivers, you have made that MAIN PART
selection in a good way.
Ive never built anything yet as far as speakers and I need a pair of monitors for home recording. This package from partsexpress seems fairly reasonably priced as Im strapped for cash. You guys expert opinion be worth it buying this package? I was originally looking at some low end ones for about $300 a pair. How do you think these compare?
* Just looked at part list comes with Dayton 6-1/2" Woofers and Dayton 1-1/8" Silk Dome Tweeters. Part list in pdf manual downloadable from page*
* Just looked at part list comes with Dayton 6-1/2" Woofers and Dayton 1-1/8" Silk Dome Tweeters. Part list in pdf manual downloadable from page*
Amazing mid field monitors
I think the HHB circle 5 are great,with a 8 inch purple colured polyproplene bass cone,and a soft dome tweeter.
Also to consider is the Alesis Active 8, Behringer active,and Event 20/20 monitors.
They are quite cheap.
behringer active £350 pair
Alesis active £500 pair
HHB Circle 5 passive £380 pair
Event 20/20 passive £350 pair
And possibly the B&W 602's i'f your on a really limited budget.
6 inch fibreglass cone bass,titanium dome tweeter.cost £200 pair
I think the HHB circle 5 are great,with a 8 inch purple colured polyproplene bass cone,and a soft dome tweeter.
Also to consider is the Alesis Active 8, Behringer active,and Event 20/20 monitors.
They are quite cheap.
behringer active £350 pair
Alesis active £500 pair
HHB Circle 5 passive £380 pair
Event 20/20 passive £350 pair
And possibly the B&W 602's i'f your on a really limited budget.
6 inch fibreglass cone bass,titanium dome tweeter.cost £200 pair
Well, I put my drivers in last night, and
spent a few hours doing listening tests.
First off, I'm going to have to attenuate
the tweeter about 2 or 3 db. I'll have to
read up a little on attenuator networks later
tonight. Overall, the tweeter sounds very good,
but I won't be able to tell how things really
are around the crossover point until I have it
padded down.
Changing the cabinet volume was interesting.
I could hear how the bass is tighter at the
maximum volume of 1cuft, but not quite loud
enough. As I decreased the size I could hear
the bass getting louder and noticed the cone
excursion was increasing dramatically. I've
only decreased the cabinet size by .2 cuft.
I'll try going a little smaller tomorrow night,
and add some dampening material. The woofer is
very capable of producing deep bass, hopefully
I will be pleased with the final cabinet tuning.
Tannoy PBM8s were the nearfields I have used
the most in the past. I've also worked with
B&W 802s, and the concentric Tannoys, and liked
those very much as well. I didn't like listening
to the NS-10s for long periods, but often used
them as a quick reference just to obtain some
balance. I'm not expecting my speakers to sound
as great as these right off the bat, but the
drivers do seem pretty good. I think if I take
the time to learn all the finer points of
tuning a system, the end results should be
quite respectable.
one other observations was that there does
seem to be a sweat spot where the woofer and
tweeter seem to best integrate as I move my
head aroung the speaker. I mounted the woofer
and tweeter so that the flanges are nearly
touching. The best sound seems to come when
my ears are in the plane where the two drivers
intersect. When I design my final cabinet, I
think I can get this sweat spot right at the
level where my ears will be when I'm sitting
in my studio.
spent a few hours doing listening tests.
First off, I'm going to have to attenuate
the tweeter about 2 or 3 db. I'll have to
read up a little on attenuator networks later
tonight. Overall, the tweeter sounds very good,
but I won't be able to tell how things really
are around the crossover point until I have it
padded down.
Changing the cabinet volume was interesting.
I could hear how the bass is tighter at the
maximum volume of 1cuft, but not quite loud
enough. As I decreased the size I could hear
the bass getting louder and noticed the cone
excursion was increasing dramatically. I've
only decreased the cabinet size by .2 cuft.
I'll try going a little smaller tomorrow night,
and add some dampening material. The woofer is
very capable of producing deep bass, hopefully
I will be pleased with the final cabinet tuning.
Tannoy PBM8s were the nearfields I have used
the most in the past. I've also worked with
B&W 802s, and the concentric Tannoys, and liked
those very much as well. I didn't like listening
to the NS-10s for long periods, but often used
them as a quick reference just to obtain some
balance. I'm not expecting my speakers to sound
as great as these right off the bat, but the
drivers do seem pretty good. I think if I take
the time to learn all the finer points of
tuning a system, the end results should be
quite respectable.
one other observations was that there does
seem to be a sweat spot where the woofer and
tweeter seem to best integrate as I move my
head aroung the speaker. I mounted the woofer
and tweeter so that the flanges are nearly
touching. The best sound seems to come when
my ears are in the plane where the two drivers
intersect. When I design my final cabinet, I
think I can get this sweat spot right at the
level where my ears will be when I'm sitting
in my studio.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.