|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Apr 9, 2021 9:56:15 GMT -6
These days, I'm trying to find ways to make what I hear betterer...err. So, if it's working, change it, right? I'm having really great results mixing wise with the Convert 2 and Amphion One 18s (and a sub) - there really are no surprises with translation...I use Sonarworks and that has been an absolute godsend. Anyway - I'm intrigued by the thought of getting even more out of my setup. More punch, more depth and stereo field - if that's possible...and I wondered if improving my amp might be a step in the right direction. I've got an old Lexicon 3BST - which is a rebranded Bryston. It's been great. Just spoke to littlesicily and he said he didn't really hear any appreciable difference in the Lexicon and the same model in Bryston... Maybe I should just consider powered monitors...kind've getting tired of dealing with the amp thing. |
|
|
|
Post by jmoose on Apr 9, 2021 11:11:13 GMT -6
I dunno, this seems like getting into gains of inches. Imo the power amp thing is overrated... Bryston is a great amp how much better can it get? If it's got some age on it then maybe a recap & refresh?
Otherwise details & better monitoring? Guess it's typical to ask how the room treatment is? Then if sonarworks is actually helping blah blah blee blee
Maybe a better question is what are you using for a monitor controller? Always seems to me like this is the best spot for a clear gain... There are some crappy volume knobs out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Apr 9, 2021 11:19:06 GMT -6
I have these class D amps you can try out.
|
|
|
|
Post by nick8801 on Apr 9, 2021 11:59:57 GMT -6
Maybe try out the amphion amp? People who use it claim it really helps to complete the system?
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Apr 9, 2021 12:33:31 GMT -6
Maybe try out the amphion amp? People who use it claim it really helps to complete the system? I’ve heard it’s bad |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Apr 9, 2021 12:33:58 GMT -6
I have these class D amps you can try out. You think it would be a step up? |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Apr 9, 2021 12:34:29 GMT -6
I dunno, this seems like getting into gains of inches. Imo the power amp thing is overrated... Bryston is a great amp how much better can it get? If it's got some age on it then maybe a recap & refresh? Otherwise details & better monitoring? Guess it's typical to ask how the room treatment is? Then if sonarworks is actually helping blah blah blee blee Maybe a better question is what are you using for a monitor controller? Always seems to me like this is the best spot for a clear gain... There are some crappy volume knobs out there. I use the pentiometer on the Convert 2. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Apr 9, 2021 13:31:18 GMT -6
I have these class D amps you can try out. You think it would be a step up? It could be. More power. Only way to know is to compare I suppose. |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,940 
|
Post by ericn on Apr 9, 2021 13:34:16 GMT -6
I don’t know, unless you fall in love with Svarts class D amp, you are going to find your going to spend a ton trying to beat the Bryston. Not saying you won’t find a better amp just a very expensive road.
Is a powered monitor a better option? Not most just simpler, you chasing the same thing it’s just somebody else chose the amp.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2021 8:57:24 GMT -6
I dunno, this seems like getting into gains of inches. Imo the power amp thing is overrated... Bryston is a great amp how much better can it get? If it's got some age on it then maybe a recap & refresh? Otherwise details & better monitoring? Guess it's typical to ask how the room treatment is? Then if sonarworks is actually helping blah blah blee blee Maybe a better question is what are you using for a monitor controller? Always seems to me like this is the best spot for a clear gain... There are some crappy volume knobs out there. I use the pentiometer on the Convert 2. 1) There’s your problem. Those Bournes pots kill detail on the Convery 2 and Source. The line level outs sound noticeable better. Try yourself a Coleman mil spec passive pot for short cable runs, a resistor ladder (eg Goldpoint stepped attenuator), or a transformer/autoformer volume control. You’ll spend at least hundreds of dollars but get a lot more detail. 2) Get a beefier amp. Bryston to Class D will lose detail and dynamics ime but I would use beefier amp than 150w per channel into those aluminum cones. Think at minimum 500w normal class ab, a Jim Williams modded Adcom 555, ATC P2, a more powerful Bryston, Emotiva differential reference, MC2, even McIntosh solid state or at least a thousand watts of class D. Make those stiff cones and surrounds move. Vintage King and Amphion demoing them with fleawatt class d shows the speakers in the worst light possible. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Apr 10, 2021 15:17:21 GMT -6
I use the pentiometer on the Convert 2. 1) There’s your problem. Those Bournes pots kill detail on the Convery 2 and Source. The line level outs sound noticeable better. Try yourself a Coleman mil spec passive pot for short cable runs, a resistor ladder (eg Goldpoint stepped attenuator), or a transformer/autoformer volume control. You’ll spend at least hundreds of dollars but get a lot more detail. 2) Get a beefier amp. Bryston to Class D will lose detail and dynamics ime but I would use beefier amp than 150w per channel into those aluminum cones. Think at minimum 500w normal class ab, a Jim Williams modded Adcom 555, ATC P2, a more powerful Bryston, Emotiva differential reference, MC2, even McIntosh solid state or at least a thousand watts of class D. Make those stiff cones and surrounds move. Vintage King and Amphion demoing them with fleawatt class d shows the speakers in the worst light possible. Man, sorry, I don’t believe that for a second. Chris Muth is going to design what he - and many - consider one of the top 3 DA converters on the market and he’s going to back end it with a cheap potentiometer that changes the sound? Sorry. Don’t believe it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2021 15:25:35 GMT -6
1) There’s your problem. Those Bournes pots kill detail on the Convery 2 and Source. The line level outs sound noticeable better. Try yourself a Coleman mil spec passive pot for short cable runs, a resistor ladder (eg Goldpoint stepped attenuator), or a transformer/autoformer volume control. You’ll spend at least hundreds of dollars but get a lot more detail. 2) Get a beefier amp. Bryston to Class D will lose detail and dynamics ime but I would use beefier amp than 150w per channel into those aluminum cones. Think at minimum 500w normal class ab, a Jim Williams modded Adcom 555, ATC P2, a more powerful Bryston, Emotiva differential reference, MC2, even McIntosh solid state or at least a thousand watts of class D. Make those stiff cones and surrounds move. Vintage King and Amphion demoing them with fleawatt class d shows the speakers in the worst light possible. Man, sorry, I don’t believe that for a second. Chris Muth is going to design what he - and many - consider one of the top 3 DA converters on the market and he’s going to back end it with a cheap potentiometer that changes the sound? Sorry. Don’t believe it. Chris Muth has a to make a sellable product without an expensive resistor ladder or an even crazier audiofile transformer or autoformer volume control in it. His real monitor controller, the monitor ST, is 2000 bucks. A Goldpoint 47 point stereo resistor ladder is 250 bucks a pop. Using a premade one like that or dangerous building their own would add a lot to the price. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Apr 10, 2021 16:20:13 GMT -6
To say it’s “a problem” is a little hyperbolic.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeremygillespie on Apr 10, 2021 17:40:26 GMT -6
John, I don’t think your volume pot has anything to do with your mixes. They sound great as is.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,940
|
Post by ericn on Apr 10, 2021 17:41:08 GMT -6
1) There’s your problem. Those Bournes pots kill detail on the Convery 2 and Source. The line level outs sound noticeable better. Try yourself a Coleman mil spec passive pot for short cable runs, a resistor ladder (eg Goldpoint stepped attenuator), or a transformer/autoformer volume control. You’ll spend at least hundreds of dollars but get a lot more detail. 2) Get a beefier amp. Bryston to Class D will lose detail and dynamics ime but I would use beefier amp than 150w per channel into those aluminum cones. Think at minimum 500w normal class ab, a Jim Williams modded Adcom 555, ATC P2, a more powerful Bryston, Emotiva differential reference, MC2, even McIntosh solid state or at least a thousand watts of class D. Make those stiff cones and surrounds move. Vintage King and Amphion demoing them with fleawatt class d shows the speakers in the worst light possible. Man, sorry, I don’t believe that for a second. Chris Muth is going to design what he - and many - consider one of the top 3 DA converters on the market and he’s going to back end it with a cheap potentiometer that changes the sound? Sorry. Don’t believe it. Perspective, compared to a P&G conductive plastic pot it’s a cheap pot, compared to 90 percent of the pots out there a Bournes isn’t cheap. Choice of pots is tough you need to find something that is available in the value and taper you need, something that sounds good and lasts. I know of a fair amount of higher end sealed ALPs that probably sound better than the Bournes cost more and most failed within a year. Yet that pot is the darling of the audiophile world. It’s all about balancing all the issues. |
|
|
|
Post by reddirt on Apr 10, 2021 19:45:26 GMT -6
What about an acknowledged great set of cans to augment your monitoring, John ? - A totally different and possibly refreshing perspective.
I've a pair of Focal Clear pro's coming next week , will let you know how they roll.
Cheers, Ross
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2021 20:28:56 GMT -6
To say it’s “a problem” is a little hyperbolic. Well this is about extracting that extra 1% to .1% from your system. It starts to get crazy and depend on things like cable runs and synergy. This is the "Am I going crazy?" part of gear OCD |
|
|
|
Post by sean on Apr 10, 2021 20:37:22 GMT -6
A studio I work out of installed a custom Goldpoint pot in the API 7800 and it definitely made a difference, especially at low volumes. The L/R balance often gets out of wack when you turn things down on most interfaces/monitor controllers. I don’t have any experience with the Dangerous gear so I can speak to that unit in particular
But, I think you’re likely going to hear more of a difference trying different amps. It’s a long rabbit hole for sure.
You might consider getting another 3B/Lexicon and running them as mono blocks? Then you’d also have a spare if one went down.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmoose on Apr 15, 2021 15:08:29 GMT -6
I use the pentiometer on the Convert 2. Not familiar with that piece but, yeah, by reputation & personal experience of hanging with Chris Muth I highly doubt he's going to use any part that lays a serious compromise on performance. Just not how he's wired. So that's it? Out of that into your monitors/amp? You've only got the one set? Not switching to horrortones or yomama's... a secondary reference? The only gear there I have an actual reference to is the Bryston. I can say that the one experience I had with Amphion monitors was pretty far from awesome. Instantly wasn't digging what I heard. Maybe if I had time to learn them I'd have a different opinion but circumstances that day didn't allow. Obviously not a fair shake. From my perspective its worth keeping a good amp around & Bryston is certainly a good amp. Never know when you might need it... one of the last rooms I booked before covid had all powered monitors that I wasn't familiar with. Asked if we could just plug in a set of NS10 and said they don't have an amp or room for an amp to visit... My daily drivers for the last zillion years are Dynaudio BM15 passives with a Hafler Transnova for juice. At the time I had the choice of BM15 in passive or powered and everyone said the passives sounded sweeter then the Dyn amps. That's what I picked and can't say I regret it or wish I had bought the powered boxes. I've thought about swapping the amp a few times but keep coming to the conclusion that I'd switch main monitors first. Not saying that amps don't matter, if you've got a really crappy amp its like listening through wet cardboard but even a lowly Samson Servo is better then what 95% of the public listens to. I just find power amps usually aren't the bottleneck in monitoring... |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Apr 15, 2021 16:00:03 GMT -6
John, I don’t think your volume pot has anything to do with your mixes. They sound great as is. Thanks...yeah not sure how we got on the volume pot discussion. I’ve never really understood the multiple monitor thing. So, people switch over to monitor A to adjust the midrange and then back to monitor B for the rest of the mix? It just seems somewhat counterintuitive to me. Another kind of “inside baseball” question: let’s say your room is perfect and it’s not affecting your mix. Then you have a set of Mon A that are a little toppy and not big on the bottom. Ok, you learn them and adjust. Then you have Mon B and they’re big on the bottom, little push in midrange, etc. but you learn that too. Wouldn’t and shouldn’t you come out with the same mix? |
|
|
|
Post by jeremygillespie on Apr 15, 2021 17:28:53 GMT -6
John, I don’t think your volume pot has anything to do with your mixes. They sound great as is. Thanks...yeah not sure how we got on the volume pot discussion. I’ve never really understood the multiple monitor thing. So, people switch over to monitor A to adjust the midrange and then back to monitor B for the rest of the mix? It just seems somewhat counterintuitive to me. Another kind of “inside baseball” question: let’s say your room is perfect and it’s not affecting your mix. Then you have a set of Mon A that are a little toppy and not big on the bottom. Ok, you learn them and adjust. Then you have Mon B and they’re big on the bottom, little push in midrange, etc. but you learn that too. Wouldn’t and shouldn’t you come out with the same mix? I use my 10’s for setting vocal levels and listening when I’m editing. Nothing quite helps me get vocal rides like they do. Footprints for all the delicate stuff and bottom etc. But, I guess it’s all what you’re used to using. |
|
|
|
Post by jmoose on Apr 15, 2021 17:53:29 GMT -6
Thanks...yeah not sure how we got on the volume pot discussion. I’ve never really understood the multiple monitor thing. So, people switch over to monitor A to adjust the midrange and then back to monitor B for the rest of the mix? It just seems somewhat counterintuitive to me. Another kind of “inside baseball” question: let’s say your room is perfect and it’s not affecting your mix. Then you have a set of Mon A that are a little toppy and not big on the bottom. Ok, you learn them and adjust. Then you have Mon B and they’re big on the bottom, little push in midrange, etc. but you learn that too. Wouldn’t and shouldn’t you come out with the same mix? Nah, doesn't really work like that. Not for me anyway I'm making different decisions based on what the speakers tell me. Here's a great philosophical question for you... Why is it that if every company who builds & markets studio monitors says their stuff is "flat" then why do they all sound so damn different?! Monitors can serve different purposes and I guess it depends on the work your doing. Some are better for long, loud tracking sessions. Some are more accurate for mixing. Some are good for checking what things are gonna sound like on a $29 bluetooth speaker. And some monitors are in the room not because they sound great but because they're a known reference. Howie Weinberg has NS10 & KRK in his room not because he listens to them and makes adjustments, but because artists come in and need to listen to speakers they're familiar with. Its as valid a reason as anything else. I spend probably 80% of my time on one set of monitors usually the BM15. Full range midfield. I'll swap to nearfields at various points in the process often in mono... check balances and maybe do some rides. I'll also use the alternates as a way to save my ears through the day. Prime example is checking out reference material or background music on breaks. I'll play those over whatever set isn't the primary. One thing I don't do is jump around from A to B and back and ride the monitor volume. Good way to chase your tail around. I tend to work more like a mastering engineer... find a spot and park it. So times I need to crank it up then turn down real low? Its usually the alternate monitors. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Apr 15, 2021 23:10:19 GMT -6
Thanks...yeah not sure how we got on the volume pot discussion. I’ve never really understood the multiple monitor thing. So, people switch over to monitor A to adjust the midrange and then back to monitor B for the rest of the mix? It just seems somewhat counterintuitive to me. Another kind of “inside baseball” question: let’s say your room is perfect and it’s not affecting your mix. Then you have a set of Mon A that are a little toppy and not big on the bottom. Ok, you learn them and adjust. Then you have Mon B and they’re big on the bottom, little push in midrange, etc. but you learn that too. Wouldn’t and shouldn’t you come out with the same mix? Nah, doesn't really work like that. Not for me anyway I'm making different decisions based on what the speakers tell me. Here's a great philosophical question for you... Why is it that if every company who builds & markets studio monitors says their stuff is "flat" then why do they all sound so damn different?! Monitors can serve different purposes and I guess it depends on the work your doing. Some are better for long, loud tracking sessions. Some are more accurate for mixing. Some are good for checking what things are gonna sound like on a $29 bluetooth speaker. And some monitors are in the room not because they sound great but because they're a known reference. Howie Weinberg has NS10 & KRK in his room not because he listens to them and makes adjustments, but because artists come in and need to listen to speakers they're familiar with. Its as valid a reason as anything else. I spend probably 80% of my time on one set of monitors usually the BM15. Full range midfield. I'll swap to nearfields at various points in the process often in mono... check balances and maybe do some rides. I'll also use the alternates as a way to save my ears through the day. Prime example is checking out reference material or background music on breaks. I'll play those over whatever set isn't the primary. One thing I don't do is jump around from A to B and back and ride the monitor volume. Good way to chase your tail around. I tend to work more like a mastering engineer... find a spot and park it. So times I need to crank it up then turn down real low? Its usually the alternate monitors. But it kindve sounds like you’re making my argument for me. Yes, everyone claims they’re flat. They’re not. But if you find a set that you get amazing translation from, I just don’t understand why you need two. Like aurotones - what’s the purpose? To see what it sounds like on a consumer speaker? Would you sacrifice the sound of your mix on near fields to make it sound better on a boom box? I guess that’s what I’m getting at. |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,940
|
Post by ericn on Apr 16, 2021 8:45:20 GMT -6
Nah, doesn't really work like that. Not for me anyway I'm making different decisions based on what the speakers tell me. Here's a great philosophical question for you... Why is it that if every company who builds & markets studio monitors says their stuff is "flat" then why do they all sound so damn different?! Monitors can serve different purposes and I guess it depends on the work your doing. Some are better for long, loud tracking sessions. Some are more accurate for mixing. Some are good for checking what things are gonna sound like on a $29 bluetooth speaker. And some monitors are in the room not because they sound great but because they're a known reference. Howie Weinberg has NS10 & KRK in his room not because he listens to them and makes adjustments, but because artists come in and need to listen to speakers they're familiar with. Its as valid a reason as anything else. I spend probably 80% of my time on one set of monitors usually the BM15. Full range midfield. I'll swap to nearfields at various points in the process often in mono... check balances and maybe do some rides. I'll also use the alternates as a way to save my ears through the day. Prime example is checking out reference material or background music on breaks. I'll play those over whatever set isn't the primary. One thing I don't do is jump around from A to B and back and ride the monitor volume. Good way to chase your tail around. I tend to work more like a mastering engineer... find a spot and park it. So times I need to crank it up then turn down real low? Its usually the alternate monitors. But it kindve sounds like you’re making my argument for me. Yes, everyone claims they’re flat. They’re not. But if you find a set that you get amazing translation from, I just don’t understand why you need two. Like aurotones - what’s the purpose? To see what it sounds like on a consumer speaker? Would you sacrifice the sound of your mix on near fields to make it sound better on a boom box? I guess that’s what I’m getting at. The Auratone had a specific purpose, it was a universal standard of what at the time a crappy car, TV or table top radio would sound like. It is not a great midrange speaker, it’s a speaker that’s just midrange. Now the idea of multiple monitors is because they all suck and none are really flat. Having a couple of speakers that do different things well and offer a different frequency range is a one way to judge how something is going to sound in different environments. Most studios in the days of glory also were not just doing Music, a lot of the Ad and post work would not see a mastering engineers touch so you had to make sure you didn’t have any real HF and LF problems at the studio. Because of the high distortion, being anything but truly flat freq response and the difference in rooms, no one speaker is going to offer a decent idea of how every speaker out there sounds. Most will work primarily off of the near field of choice using other near fields and mains as checks as they go along. Others are constantly switching from one speaker to another. By definition near fields are not meant to fill or cover the whole room. They are meant to be listened to in the near field, not the couch so the mains were there to cover a full room and of course we can’t forget the very important look cool enough to get you laid factor. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Apr 16, 2021 9:58:14 GMT -6
But it kindve sounds like you’re making my argument for me. Yes, everyone claims they’re flat. They’re not. But if you find a set that you get amazing translation from, I just don’t understand why you need two. Like aurotones - what’s the purpose? To see what it sounds like on a consumer speaker? Would you sacrifice the sound of your mix on near fields to make it sound better on a boom box? I guess that’s what I’m getting at. The Auratone had a specific purpose, it was a universal standard of what at the time a crappy car, TV or table top radio would sound like. It is not a great midrange speaker, it’s a speaker that’s just midrange. Now the idea of multiple monitors is because they all suck and none are really flat. Having a couple of speakers that do different things well and offer a different frequency range is a one way to judge how something is going to sound in different environments. Most studios in the days of glory also were not just doing Music, a lot of the Ad and post work would not see a mastering engineers touch so you had to make sure you didn’t have any real HF and LF problems at the studio. Because of the high distortion, being anything but truly flat freq response and the difference in rooms, no one speaker is going to offer a decent idea of how every speaker out there sounds. Most will work primarily off of the near field of choice using other near fields and mains as checks as they go along. Others are constantly switching from one speaker to another. By definition near fields are not meant to fill or cover the whole room. They are meant to be listened to in the near field, not the couch so the mains were there to cover a full room and of course we can’t forget the very important look cool enough to get you laid factor. Just thinking more about this. I use Tonal balance and other tools to confirm what I’m hearing - wonder if software is taking the place of multiple monitors? |
|
