I don't try to got ya (gotcha)!
I faced the issue when i made my gear choice (i run a digital home studio for years).
And i was excited about having multiple ncore in convenient package when i first saw the fusion preliminary papers but had desillusion when seeing the principle of operation and thought 'why they don't just add a switch or relay to bypass the whole dsp thing?'.
But that is what market want i suppose.
I hope they choosen a modular implementation yes. that could be smartest choice for future upgrade.
I faced the issue when i made my gear choice (i run a digital home studio for years).
And i was excited about having multiple ncore in convenient package when i first saw the fusion preliminary papers but had desillusion when seeing the principle of operation and thought 'why they don't just add a switch or relay to bypass the whole dsp thing?'.
But that is what market want i suppose.
I hope they choosen a modular implementation yes. that could be smartest choice for future upgrade.
For low end I chose the driver:
8"
Dayton RSS210HO-4
or
Peerless SLS-P830667
or
6.5"
Peerless_SBS-160F35AL01-04
For High frequencies:
seas H1499-06 27TBCD/GB-DXT
For mid:
SATORI MR16P-4
or
Dayton PA130-8
depends of the design...
About enclosure design:
Dutch&Dutch 8C it is very interesting and easy to make
Another interesting design for low end is Elac Adante
in my case, 2 Woofers of 6.6" + 2 8" passive radiators placed on the back panel.
8"
Dayton RSS210HO-4
or
Peerless SLS-P830667
or
6.5"
Peerless_SBS-160F35AL01-04
For High frequencies:
seas H1499-06 27TBCD/GB-DXT
For mid:
SATORI MR16P-4
or
Dayton PA130-8
depends of the design...
About enclosure design:
Dutch&Dutch 8C it is very interesting and easy to make
Another interesting design for low end is Elac Adante
in my case, 2 Woofers of 6.6" + 2 8" passive radiators placed on the back panel.
Whenever I've heard a studio monitor (including visits to my local fancy pro emporium), I've thought they (moderate sized two-way boxes) were unimpressive. Not sure why. No low bass. No hot highs. Very blah. And not esp clean either.
Let me put it this way: if they were set up at a typical audio show with the usual crowd favourites nearby, nobody would be impressed.
Certainly, these boxes are designed with certain virtues that I don't value or even recognize. Like being able to be dropped from 4 foot height or play loud or sound just like other two-way studio monitor boxes that everybody else uses too. But home audio is not their market.
Likely somebody will post that I don't know a good speaker when I hear one.*
B.
*or maybe too many years listening to good speakers
Let me put it this way: if they were set up at a typical audio show with the usual crowd favourites nearby, nobody would be impressed.
Certainly, these boxes are designed with certain virtues that I don't value or even recognize. Like being able to be dropped from 4 foot height or play loud or sound just like other two-way studio monitor boxes that everybody else uses too. But home audio is not their market.
Likely somebody will post that I don't know a good speaker when I hear one.*
B.
*or maybe too many years listening to good speakers
Last edited:
Hi Ben,
Maybe because you mixed nearfield monitor and studio monitor.
Both have their virtue in case of pro environnement and display an interest given you use them for what they are supposed to do... Problem being what you see in studio desk's bargraph is not what is used all the time and for every step in the production:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/221643-active-vrs-passive-74.html#post3235493
Ben, some of this guys even use the same type of speaker as you! Go figure... and he is a talented one! ( just check the credits... self explanatory! )
Barry Diament Audio
Maybe because you mixed nearfield monitor and studio monitor.
Both have their virtue in case of pro environnement and display an interest given you use them for what they are supposed to do... Problem being what you see in studio desk's bargraph is not what is used all the time and for every step in the production:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/221643-active-vrs-passive-74.html#post3235493
Ben, some of this guys even use the same type of speaker as you! Go figure... and he is a talented one! ( just check the credits... self explanatory! )
Barry Diament Audio
Last edited:
(Near) full-range electrostatic? Wouldn't that just be fabulous... if any studio (besides the one in the link with Magnepan planers) ever had the good judgment to use ESLs.
B.
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Hi Bigun,
Check the first link i pointed, it resume the situation as i've seen it in 'big' professional commercial studios when i was still active in that field.
If you ever listened to a pair of Ns10 dodgy dorm quality could be a nice comment about them... from my own preference!
More about them:
The Yamaha NS10 Story |
Ben, just take a look at Barry Diament studio pictures. But keep in mind he is doing mastering, so his needs are differents than the one of a recording or mixing engineer: rather than looking at the individual trees in a forest he is looking at the whole landscape.
Needs are differents, tools too.
Check the first link i pointed, it resume the situation as i've seen it in 'big' professional commercial studios when i was still active in that field.
If you ever listened to a pair of Ns10 dodgy dorm quality could be a nice comment about them... from my own preference!
More about them:
The Yamaha NS10 Story |
Ben, just take a look at Barry Diament studio pictures. But keep in mind he is doing mastering, so his needs are differents than the one of a recording or mixing engineer: rather than looking at the individual trees in a forest he is looking at the whole landscape.
Needs are differents, tools too.
Last edited:
@bentoronto I have to both agree and disagree with you at the same time.
Studio monitors are generally designed to have a flat response and their job is to recreate what was recorded as faithfully as possible and many of them do this very well. However, if you look at the research done since the 1960’s it shows that human hearing does not have a flat response and people tend to like a “smiley face” or bass to treble reducing loudness frequency response that better matches the natural hearing response.
So, having had both traditional pre/power/passive hifi (nad 1240, 2x rotel RB850 bridged, B&B CDM1SE) and active studio monitors (Mackie HR824) (both at the same new price point) I actually prefer the studio monitor sound particularly if you get a well recorded and produced track, they shine, but you have to live with the disappointment of hearing favourite tracks sound unimpressive. The passive set up is more rounded and forgiving.
@alexmusic, funnily I have been modelling a floor standing transmission line this week in the leonardo TL software and the two drivers that seemed to suit my ideas and give a flat to slightly reducing response (like a studio monitor) and dig down to 20hz f6 in a 70ish litre 2.33m long TL are the rss210 and the sb23mfcl45-8. I have been looking at a PMC OB1 clone with the mid in a closed tube enclosure which puts a restriction in the line. Models pretty well.
Finally, with the newer systems having dsp or using pc dsp programmes you can always have a flat setting for critical listening and a more “hifi” sound for general listening.
So, I admire the OP’s intentions and hope he gets to build a speaker that matches their expectations but it will not be an easy road I suspect to challenge the commercial speakers cited for comparison. However my Mackies retail around £1400 but have a £60 8” woofer, a £30 tweeter and a basic plate amp (guess at £150-200) plus a passive radiator, so 1/3 price in components, guess another 1/6 in the cabinet and the rest for various mark ups.
Studio monitors are generally designed to have a flat response and their job is to recreate what was recorded as faithfully as possible and many of them do this very well. However, if you look at the research done since the 1960’s it shows that human hearing does not have a flat response and people tend to like a “smiley face” or bass to treble reducing loudness frequency response that better matches the natural hearing response.
So, having had both traditional pre/power/passive hifi (nad 1240, 2x rotel RB850 bridged, B&B CDM1SE) and active studio monitors (Mackie HR824) (both at the same new price point) I actually prefer the studio monitor sound particularly if you get a well recorded and produced track, they shine, but you have to live with the disappointment of hearing favourite tracks sound unimpressive. The passive set up is more rounded and forgiving.
@alexmusic, funnily I have been modelling a floor standing transmission line this week in the leonardo TL software and the two drivers that seemed to suit my ideas and give a flat to slightly reducing response (like a studio monitor) and dig down to 20hz f6 in a 70ish litre 2.33m long TL are the rss210 and the sb23mfcl45-8. I have been looking at a PMC OB1 clone with the mid in a closed tube enclosure which puts a restriction in the line. Models pretty well.
Finally, with the newer systems having dsp or using pc dsp programmes you can always have a flat setting for critical listening and a more “hifi” sound for general listening.
So, I admire the OP’s intentions and hope he gets to build a speaker that matches their expectations but it will not be an easy road I suspect to challenge the commercial speakers cited for comparison. However my Mackies retail around £1400 but have a £60 8” woofer, a £30 tweeter and a basic plate amp (guess at £150-200) plus a passive radiator, so 1/3 price in components, guess another 1/6 in the cabinet and the rest for various mark ups.
Never been in a studio which didn't have at least two sets. Never seen pictures of one either.
As for immediately impressive speakers: They are usually impressive because there is something wrong with them ie over-emphasized bass or treble.
PS: I loath passive radiators and would never contemplate using them especially not in a studio situation. There is one possible exception: Tiny desktop speakers which would require a port that is larger than the cab.
As for immediately impressive speakers: They are usually impressive because there is something wrong with them ie over-emphasized bass or treble.
PS: I loath passive radiators and would never contemplate using them especially not in a studio situation. There is one possible exception: Tiny desktop speakers which would require a port that is larger than the cab.
Last edited:
Me neither Charles, except the mastering's one ( they usually have only one pair to work with, the others are to check if the masters don't saturate when loudness is on... so it gives an idea of the kind of speaker/ integrated system they are).
For the mains it depends, some of the better speakers i've heard ( for my taste) where mains. Not all of them i confess.
For the mains it depends, some of the better speakers i've heard ( for my taste) where mains. Not all of them i confess.
Last edited:
Mastering studios are a completely different kettle of fish to mixing and recording studios and I have to confess I've never been in one.
I do have a favourite mastering engineer though: 'Careful' Kevin Metcalfe
And least favourite mix and mastering engineers, I will never again purchase recordings with their name in the credits: The Lord-Alge brothers
I do have a favourite mastering engineer though: 'Careful' Kevin Metcalfe
And least favourite mix and mastering engineers, I will never again purchase recordings with their name in the credits: The Lord-Alge brothers
If a "person from Mars" read the recent posts in this thread, they'd say it is illogical. On the one hand, you have people arguing that studio monitors are flat - which to my ears is the same as when economists of an earlier generation created models for rational humans.
Then you have others (sometimes the same person) saying different speakers for different purposes and places or the same purpose and the same place but the engineer wants to hear it sounding different because they might send some copies to DJ with different playback gear or car radios or guys with ESLs.
And all these people believing the ridiculous notion that the wire that comes in from the recording location is carrying a perfect Row H version of Beethoven and just a matter of not screwing it up too much with imperfect speakers that cause you to twiddle the wrong knobs..... and so on.
More constructively, I'd say the whole business is cooked from mic to "pressing" and the skill of the production team does not reside in owning any particular monitor* but in knowing how to create (by adding just a touch of reverb to Channel 23 because the mic was placed a few inches too close to the sax and some bass EQ to Channel 8) recordings with their gear (including high-quality headphones) that function as best as possible in the settings of typical end-users.
B.
* which boils down to making monitor sound alike (in FR and other parameters too) so engineers can work in different places - that's their crucial performance criterion, not HQ in the HiFi sense
Then you have others (sometimes the same person) saying different speakers for different purposes and places or the same purpose and the same place but the engineer wants to hear it sounding different because they might send some copies to DJ with different playback gear or car radios or guys with ESLs.
And all these people believing the ridiculous notion that the wire that comes in from the recording location is carrying a perfect Row H version of Beethoven and just a matter of not screwing it up too much with imperfect speakers that cause you to twiddle the wrong knobs..... and so on.
More constructively, I'd say the whole business is cooked from mic to "pressing" and the skill of the production team does not reside in owning any particular monitor* but in knowing how to create (by adding just a touch of reverb to Channel 23 because the mic was placed a few inches too close to the sax and some bass EQ to Channel 8) recordings with their gear (including high-quality headphones) that function as best as possible in the settings of typical end-users.
B.
* which boils down to making monitor sound alike (in FR and other parameters too) so engineers can work in different places - that's their crucial performance criterion, not HQ in the HiFi sense
Last edited:
If you want to make a speaker like the Dutch&Dutch 8C, i wouldn't go 3way. Then it will little to do with the original design. Also, the waveguide design is important, the seas DXT doesn't perform nearly as well as the dutch&dutch 8c.
As said before, my own project is also inspired on the 8c design, only in upscaled to 10inch. And my subwoofer in not incorporated in the monitor, but i have 4 separate subs (one beneath each monitor plus 2 more). Im currently working on the third version actually. So i wouldn't say it's easy to get it right. You can read about it here.
For professional use, i would also consider just buying a pair. And if you plan on building something similar, i would actually build something similar
.
I would have thought my sarcasm was obvious and directed to bentrolonto but alas...
Hi Zvu,
In fact i confess that like Brett i thought you were actually serious and didn't spot the sarcasm. I was a bit astounded at first then i told myself there may have been a sense lost in translation.
Now it is clear.
I first thought you were serious because of the ns10. I really HATE this loudspeaker overall presentation ( but i like their behavior for the low end, closed box does have an advantage for my own taste) but they are still reference nearfield monitors so...
Ben have strong opinions and this is expected from someone with such a long experience in the audio.
The way he explain them is a bit on the rough side and i suppose he like to tease just a bit too...
I suppose that like most of us (if not all!) Ben does what i call "me-morphism" ( a variant around the anthropomorphism theme) about his own preference and the way the world should run...
But like for all of us we hit the brickwall called reality! In that you can't deny the reality of an industry and habits and behavior associated with them (well in fact you can but this is just... denying).
The way you present things (about recording, mixing,mastering) Ben is an idealized view, the reality IS different from what you expect: producing a record is now divided into different phase and each phase should (this is not always the case) be done by different ears in different rooms using different tools (gear, loudspeaker,...). This help to have step back about the 'art' at work. And there is so particular needs (different style needs different treatments )which affect the overall quality ( the needs for an higher rms level because we are in an audio 'polluted' world for example, technical limitation about broadcast, etc,etc,...).
That being said i like Ben more and more as i read him ( no sarcasm intended i'm sincere) and there is a lot to learn from the guy! (Yes motion feedback is GOOD!).
You just have to adjust about the way he interact... and his own preference.
In fact i confess that like Brett i thought you were actually serious and didn't spot the sarcasm. I was a bit astounded at first then i told myself there may have been a sense lost in translation.
Now it is clear.
I first thought you were serious because of the ns10. I really HATE this loudspeaker overall presentation ( but i like their behavior for the low end, closed box does have an advantage for my own taste) but they are still reference nearfield monitors so...
Ben have strong opinions and this is expected from someone with such a long experience in the audio.
The way he explain them is a bit on the rough side and i suppose he like to tease just a bit too...
I suppose that like most of us (if not all!) Ben does what i call "me-morphism" ( a variant around the anthropomorphism theme) about his own preference and the way the world should run...
But like for all of us we hit the brickwall called reality! In that you can't deny the reality of an industry and habits and behavior associated with them (well in fact you can but this is just... denying).
The way you present things (about recording, mixing,mastering) Ben is an idealized view, the reality IS different from what you expect: producing a record is now divided into different phase and each phase should (this is not always the case) be done by different ears in different rooms using different tools (gear, loudspeaker,...). This help to have step back about the 'art' at work. And there is so particular needs (different style needs different treatments )which affect the overall quality ( the needs for an higher rms level because we are in an audio 'polluted' world for example, technical limitation about broadcast, etc,etc,...).
That being said i like Ben more and more as i read him ( no sarcasm intended i'm sincere) and there is a lot to learn from the guy! (Yes motion feedback is GOOD!).
You just have to adjust about the way he interact... and his own preference.
Last edited:
This thread needs more discussion about speaker design!
Alex, just have realistic expectations. As Jag noted, you probably won't be satisfied with v1. Also, I believe you're approaching the design process from the wrong starting point.
Consider this:
IOW, the acoustical design & environment have more influence on your results than the drivers. And these early priorities & decisions will affect best XO point, etc.
How does this sound to everybody? What have I missed or messed up? (Other than my speeling...)
Alex, just have realistic expectations. As Jag noted, you probably won't be satisfied with v1. Also, I believe you're approaching the design process from the wrong starting point.
Consider this:
- Tell us about your room's acoustics, preferred listening distance, etc. I believe we know only that you don't have an anechoic chamber; we'll need more info to design for your environment.
- Examine how - & why! - your example speakers work as they do.
- Consider risk/reward of simply copying these designs versus targeting their performance characteristics for your speaker.
- Determine approximate goals for speaker size, bandwidth, SPL, & desired placement in room.
- Simulate, analyze, tweak, repeat.
- Choose drivers, design cabinet, measure, analyze, tweak, repeat.
IOW, the acoustical design & environment have more influence on your results than the drivers. And these early priorities & decisions will affect best XO point, etc.
How does this sound to everybody? What have I missed or messed up? (Other than my speeling...)
Last edited: