|
Post by Johnkenn on May 17, 2019 20:32:30 GMT -6
So if Sonarworks is “correcting” monitors in a room, why would one need new monitors...
And why do I want new monitors?
|
|
|
Post by MorEQsThanAnswers on May 17, 2019 20:55:44 GMT -6
Transient detail maybe? Never used Adams, but have been told the ribbon tweeters have a softer way of handling top end. Not something an EQ could control/manipulate
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,928
|
Post by ericn on May 17, 2019 21:20:46 GMT -6
Besides lower or different distortion, it’s not really correcting your monitors it’s tuning them to somebody else’s idea of correct. If you like it use it but here I always systems like this take away something I like about a speaker as much as improving them.
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on May 17, 2019 22:59:11 GMT -6
Transient detail maybe? Never used Adams, but have been told the ribbon tweeters have a softer way of handling top end. Not something an EQ could control/manipulate I for one am not a fan of Adams. Too bright in a harsh way I've found and very very fatiguing. That's just me though. Others like them. Other don't like me.
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on May 17, 2019 23:00:58 GMT -6
So if Sonarworks is “correcting” monitors in a room, why would one need new monitors... And why do I want new monitors? Well they would still sound different and I'd think the hope a better monitor would take less correction which would mean less eq and less introduced phase stuff. But that also means trying to fix your room.
|
|
|
Post by guitfiddler on May 17, 2019 23:20:47 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on May 17, 2019 23:21:51 GMT -6
My experience is with the A7 thing or something. I wasn't the only one that didn't like them..so not sure. Those might be different. Never heard them.
|
|
|
Post by guitfiddler on May 17, 2019 23:23:21 GMT -6
My experience is with the A7 thing or something. I wasn't the only one that didn't like them..so not sure. Those might be different. Never heard them. Sometimes you like the cosmetics so much they sound more pleasing? Maybe? These are definitely worthy of a demo though! Too sexy for my stands! I had A7X’s and sold them. I can’t say they were harsh for me, but I liked the mid low region, couldn’t get along with the rest of the frequencies. It’s not that they were too bright in a harsh way. Just didn’t like them. Sounded like they were missing something.
|
|
|
Post by BenjaminAshlin on May 18, 2019 1:54:00 GMT -6
Sonarworks changes the 'eq' of what you hear in the room. But it can't change the timbre of the speakers themselves. It also can't add detail that the speakers can't reproduce.
Speakers are physical so correction only ''improves them, it doesn't fundamentally change how the sound it produced. Can't change the resonance of the cabinet, the design of the crossover and what that masks, or the physical design of the drivers themselves.
This is why SW just helps you get the most out of YOUR speakers in YOUR room.
In a funny way what SW has really done is show how bad some rooms are(This is a good thing). For a lot of people using SW is the first time they have measured their room acoustics. Some issues from the graphs ive seem on various forums actually come from speaker placement and the interaction between the back wall and the speakers. There is little point in SW until you get the best possible placement (and probably treat room corners and first reflections). Rant over.
IMO Adams have tooo much detail on in the high end and it distracts.
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on May 18, 2019 2:11:30 GMT -6
It also won’t fix bass overhang from ported designs. However, I get the idea behind the question: with Sonarworks, I have lost any desire to get new monitors. My mixes translate all the time, I jump into the car and I never want to fix the mix. However, this is on a professionally designed and treated room, after many tests for speaker position vs wall interference vs sweet spot position. Sonarworks gave me the last 5-10%.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 18, 2019 8:40:23 GMT -6
Sonarworks changes the 'eq' of what you hear in the room. But it can't change the timbre of the speakers themselves. It also can't add detail that the speakers can't reproduce. Speakers are physical so correction only ''improves them, it doesn't fundamentally change how the sound it produced. Can't change the resonance of the cabinet, the design of the crossover and what that masks, or the physical design of the drivers themselves. This is why SW just helps you get the most out of YOUR speakers in YOUR room. In a funny way what SW has really done is show how bad some rooms are(This is a good thing). For a lot of people using SW is the first time they have measured their room acoustics. Some issues from the graphs ive seem on various forums actually come from speaker placement and the interaction between the back wall and the speakers. There is little point in SW until you get the best possible placement (and probably treat room corners and first reflections). Rant over. IMO Adams have tooo much detail on in the high end and it distracts. I get that - and I get how the timbre could be different...but if each monitor set is spitting out the same (supposed the same) eq information, I guess the only difference would really be dynamics and quality of reproduction.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 18, 2019 8:41:45 GMT -6
It also won’t fix bass overhang from ported designs. However, I get the idea behind the question: with Sonarworks, I have lost any desire to get new monitors. My mixes translate all the time, I jump into the car and I never want to fix the mix. However, this is on a professionally designed and treated room, after many tests for speaker position vs wall interference vs sweet spot position. Sonarworks gave me the last 5-10%. Yeah - this is the impetus for the question...
|
|
|
Post by svart on May 18, 2019 9:00:39 GMT -6
Really digging my kh310D's..
|
|
|
Post by the other mark williams on May 18, 2019 9:57:51 GMT -6
Really digging my kh310D's.. ive been wondering how you like them so far, svart.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2019 15:32:41 GMT -6
I bet they are great. Those Klein&Hummel engineers that Neumann/Sennheiser got are great guys. (Once had an email conversation with one of them, and he was super-informative and very kind. Extremely competent and helpful.) And I somehow love that Klein&Hummel sound, and love the old 3-ways that I have ... So boring, so revealing.
|
|
|
Post by BenjaminAshlin on May 19, 2019 0:12:49 GMT -6
Sonarworks changes the 'eq' of what you hear in the room. But it can't change the timbre of the speakers themselves. It also can't add detail that the speakers can't reproduce. Speakers are physical so correction only ''improves them, it doesn't fundamentally change how the sound it produced. Can't change the resonance of the cabinet, the design of the crossover and what that masks, or the physical design of the drivers themselves. This is why SW just helps you get the most out of YOUR speakers in YOUR room. In a funny way what SW has really done is show how bad some rooms are(This is a good thing). For a lot of people using SW is the first time they have measured their room acoustics. Some issues from the graphs ive seem on various forums actually come from speaker placement and the interaction between the back wall and the speakers. There is little point in SW until you get the best possible placement (and probably treat room corners and first reflections). Rant over. IMO Adams have tooo much detail on in the high end and it distracts. I get that - and I get how the timbre could be different...but if each monitor set is spitting out the same (supposed the same) eq information, I guess the only difference would really be dynamics and quality of reproduction. When you EQ match and vocalign 2 different vocalist they don't sound the same. I guess its a similar concept.
|
|
|
Post by svart on May 19, 2019 11:37:19 GMT -6
Really digging my kh310D's.. ive been wondering how you like them so far, svart. So far, great. I haven't finished any new mixes on them yet, but I've been experimenting with tracking things, and I've got to say that I'm still hearing new things out of instruments I've tracked dozens of times before. I'm not sure if that's making it easier to make choices, or harder since there's more to consider. I also don't get fatigued listening to them, but I never really got fatigued listening to my old JBLs either. Listening to pro albums through them doesn't sound any different than listening through other sources, so there's that too. I'd say that I don't "hear" them at all. They don't have much coloration, if any, and going back and forth from my home stereo, car, headphones, etc, I don't have to "get used to" the difference like you would going between something and ns10's, if you get what I mean.
|
|
|
Post by donr on May 19, 2019 14:18:52 GMT -6
It also won’t fix bass overhang from ported designs. However, I get the idea behind the question: with Sonarworks, I have lost any desire to get new monitors. My mixes translate all the time, I jump into the car and I never want to fix the mix. However, this is on a professionally designed and treated room, after many tests for speaker position vs wall interference vs sweet spot position. Sonarworks gave me the last 5-10%. Where'd your speakers wind up as far as positioning in your room for best result?
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on May 19, 2019 15:13:02 GMT -6
It also won’t fix bass overhang from ported designs. However, I get the idea behind the question: with Sonarworks, I have lost any desire to get new monitors. My mixes translate all the time, I jump into the car and I never want to fix the mix. However, this is on a professionally designed and treated room, after many tests for speaker position vs wall interference vs sweet spot position. Sonarworks gave me the last 5-10%. Where'd your speakers wind up as far as positioning in your room for best result? I did that tuning by ear and aided by a cheap SPL meter, using the sine tone sequence from Mike Senior's "Mixing Secrets For The Small Studio" book: www.cambridge-mt.com/ms-ch1.htmI tried distances from 1m to 5cm, and that's where they ended up, only 5cm away. If the monitors are rear ported then they can't get as close. I did this twice, first when I had Yamaha HS8 (rear ported), and then with my APS Aeon, which are front ported. They are right next to my big bass traps and have absorption behind them. All that was before Sonarworks. When I got Sonarworks I could see I had done a pretty good job with positioning. I think this is possibly the best guide about Speaker-Boundary Interference Response (SBIR): arqen.com/acoustics-101/speaker-placement-boundary-interference/The Genelec guide is pretty good too, I see it's been updated: www.genelec.com/sites/default/files/media/Studio%20monitors/Catalogues/monitor_setup_guide_2017.pdfTheir old guide recommended a distance between 5cm and 1m. The new one recommends 5-60cm.
|
|
|
Post by donr on May 19, 2019 15:18:38 GMT -6
I had a similar result in my current space. I'd always had monitors out in the room a bit, but here they sound better close to the short wall. It was that placement I measured and had Jeff Hedback design the treatment.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 19, 2019 15:33:56 GMT -6
Where'd your speakers wind up as far as positioning in your room for best result? I did that tuning by ear and aided by a cheap SPL meter, using the sine tone sequence from Mike Senior's "Mixing Secrets For The Small Studio" book: www.cambridge-mt.com/ms-ch1.htmI tried distances from 1m to 5cm, and that's where they ended up, only 5cm away. If the monitors are rear ported then they can't get as close. I did this twice, first when I had Yamaha HS8 (rear ported), and then with my APS Aeon, which are front ported. They are right next to my big bass traps and have absorption behind them. All that was before Sonarworks. When I got Sonarworks I could see I had done a pretty good job with positioning. I think this is possibly the best guide about Speaker-Boundary Interference Response (SBIR): arqen.com/acoustics-101/speaker-placement-boundary-interference/The Genelec guide is pretty good too, I see it's been updated: www.genelec.com/sites/default/files/media/Studio%20monitors/Catalogues/monitor_setup_guide_2017.pdfTheir old guide recommended a distance between 5cm and 1m. The new one recommends 5-60cm. Wow. I had no idea I should be closer to the wall. I bet I’m about three feet from the wall.
|
|
|
Post by mulmany on May 19, 2019 16:16:12 GMT -6
Johnkenn, This was what we were getting at in the other thread. Unfortunately it's a pain when you already have everything set up. This will really effect the bass response at the listening position.
|
|
|
Post by BenjaminAshlin on May 19, 2019 16:23:07 GMT -6
I did that tuning by ear and aided by a cheap SPL meter, using the sine tone sequence from Mike Senior's "Mixing Secrets For The Small Studio" book: www.cambridge-mt.com/ms-ch1.htmI tried distances from 1m to 5cm, and that's where they ended up, only 5cm away. If the monitors are rear ported then they can't get as close. I did this twice, first when I had Yamaha HS8 (rear ported), and then with my APS Aeon, which are front ported. They are right next to my big bass traps and have absorption behind them. All that was before Sonarworks. When I got Sonarworks I could see I had done a pretty good job with positioning. I think this is possibly the best guide about Speaker-Boundary Interference Response (SBIR): arqen.com/acoustics-101/speaker-placement-boundary-interference/The Genelec guide is pretty good too, I see it's been updated: www.genelec.com/sites/default/files/media/Studio%20monitors/Catalogues/monitor_setup_guide_2017.pdfTheir old guide recommended a distance between 5cm and 1m. The new one recommends 5-60cm. Wow. I had no idea I should be closer to the wall. I bet I’m about three feet from the wall. Up to 3ft can be ok. If you download www.roomeqwizard.com/ and measure different speaker positions you can get pretty good positioning fairly quickly.
|
|
|
Post by MorEQsThanAnswers on May 19, 2019 16:28:44 GMT -6
I did that tuning by ear and aided by a cheap SPL meter, using the sine tone sequence from Mike Senior's "Mixing Secrets For The Small Studio" book: www.cambridge-mt.com/ms-ch1.htmI tried distances from 1m to 5cm, and that's where they ended up, only 5cm away. If the monitors are rear ported then they can't get as close. I did this twice, first when I had Yamaha HS8 (rear ported), and then with my APS Aeon, which are front ported. They are right next to my big bass traps and have absorption behind them. All that was before Sonarworks. When I got Sonarworks I could see I had done a pretty good job with positioning. I think this is possibly the best guide about Speaker-Boundary Interference Response (SBIR): arqen.com/acoustics-101/speaker-placement-boundary-interference/The Genelec guide is pretty good too, I see it's been updated: www.genelec.com/sites/default/files/media/Studio%20monitors/Catalogues/monitor_setup_guide_2017.pdfTheir old guide recommended a distance between 5cm and 1m. The new one recommends 5-60cm. Wow. I had no idea I should be closer to the wall. I bet I’m about three feet from the wall. A while back I remember reading about the listening position being 38% of the way into your room to reduce the effect of room nodes. I built my setup around this position, so my speakers are more than a few feet from the nearest wall on all sides (4" fiberglass treated). I bring it up cuz room nodes are still an issue (as you can see by my Sonarworks curve). I thought I was doing the best for myself at the time, but that Arqen article is really changing my head space... Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on May 19, 2019 16:42:10 GMT -6
There’s a lot of great guides for speaker/sub placement and listening positioning (Krk has a good one too) but in the end you have to experiment. REW is great for that, in my last room I got rid of a huge low end null simply by turning my sub 90 degrees to point horizontally.
Those SW plots are helpful but again, REW is great because you can the waterfall plot which is much more revealing. If you guys haven’t used it I highly recommend it.
|
|