| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
February 5, 2009 - 10:22am
#1
Professional Near Field Monitors - used as Hi-FI (Dynaudio BM 6 or BM 15)
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
Active professional monitors are excellent, but I wouldn't get either of those models. My favorite for two-channel is the Mackie 824 series because they're extremely flat with very low distortion. Off-axis response is excellent too.
--Ethan
Unbelievable. But- I can't really say I'm surprised.
Anyway, back to the subject at hand.
Please consider both Dynaudio speakers if they are in your range and you find they satisfy your needs.
Audiophiles prefer passive speakers so they can keep the amplifiers, which are sensitive to vibration, away from the speaker chassis-period. In this way, equipment upgrades are possible so that one can buy into better sound quality as they can afford it.
Also, avoid front firing ports in close proximity to tweeters or any other driver for that matter. Especially in near field situations. Front ported mini-speakers are potentially for situations where the system has great issues with rear wall proximity. If this is problem in your case, then consider it. As one who designs speakers, I have a tendency to avoid ports on the front of speakers.
For example, the "Audience 42" from Dynaudio is often seen used on Audiogon.
Then you can afford a decent amplifier to go with it. The Creek you have mentioned would work well.
http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?spkrmoni&1236214711&/Dynaudio-Audience-42-Black-Ash
Warning: they disappear from audiogon quite fast.
Make sure you audition the Adam monitors too.
Mackies aren't all that nowadays - the Dyns, Adams, and Events are all over the Macks.
Yes, they are harsh compared to Dynaudios, but that's because Dynaudios (the BM15s anyway) have a huge drop-out nearly 10 dB in the "harshness" range centered around 3.5 KHz. So of course they sound smoother than a speaker that's flat. If you really want a speaker that hides detail, you can achieve the same effect with better speakers and an EQ. Then you have better speakers and you can dick around with the EQ to make them sound any way you prefer, even if you change your preference next month or next year.
--Ethan
Adams are the same, though not quite as bad as Dynaudios. The harshness suck-out on an Adam S2A is only 6 dB, but it's also wider (lower Q) so more total energy is possibly removed.
I'm convinced this is why some people find such speakers pleasing and smooth and non-fatiguing and all the other adjectives. But those speakers are lying to you. They're missing important information in a critical part of the audible range.
--Ethan
The Mackies in the 800 series seem a little big for really nearfield listening. The tweeter is too far from the woofer, and you end up hearing the sound as being from seperate drivers.
They are kind of fun if you have a few extra feet allow for better driver integration.
If you listen too close and are on axis with the tweeter, it can be nails on chalkboard!
I listen about 7 or 8 feet from my 624s, and my partner's studio has the triangle about three feet for his 824s. I never noticed any problems at those distances. Then again I can't hear wire or fuses or capacitors, so what do I know.
--Ethan
Only compared to speakers that intentionally lower part of the treble range to sound "nicer." Which is my whole point in this thread. If a piece of music sounds harsh on flat speakers, blame the mix engineer, not the speakers.
--Ethan
Really, so if you sit right on top of a tweeter and it sounds too emphasized, it's the recording's problem?
7 or 8 feet sounds good, but three feet I'd call too close for the 800 series, and not meant as a flame. (Can you tell me about this friend's product? I'd like to hear what he mixes.)
Then again, in addition to hearing wire, I can hear above 1500 Hz, so I can see why you may not have tweeter concerns.
Maybe he's learnt that old trick so fond of owners of those nasty little Yamaha two ways so popular with recording manglers - draping wet toilet paper over the tweeter!
Seriously though, I wish all of you who haven't heard the Jamo C803 would forget all about this silly professional versus domestic speaker devision and go and listen to a pair.
I suspect you're in for a very pleasant surprise.
You are spot on on the quality of the Jamos.
I forget the site, but one audio reviewer gave them a great review and then said something like, "At 800 dollars, not many people will be able to afford these..."
I look at them as being a terrific value rather than an extravagance.
I've got to find a way to spend some time with the Tannoys.
I was so impressed with them I'm trading in my active Quad 12L's on a pair. That means l'll have to buy a power amp to run between them and my pre but to my ears these things are worth the extra $. The bass, although not going down to earthquake frequencies, is the first two way I've heard that can make you FEEL a kick drum hit you in the chest. The mid-range is almost as good as an electrostatic and the treble is open, fast and very realistic on instruments such as triangles and high hats. There's a seamlessness to all this too. I can't understand why there isn't more being said on audio forums and newsgroups about these little gems.
I also suspect that if you put a fast sub-woofer under them they'd be world killers but when I heard them being driven by a 150watt Rotel amp I didn't get any sense of missing out on bass.
The active Tannoys work well at close range but compared to the Jamo's the treble is a bit rough, they sure don't have the speed and slam in the bottom end of the Jamos and the mid range isn't in the same class.
Really, I think the Jamo C803's are a breakthrough product that other manufacturers of two way dynamics should be keeping an eye on.
I'd be interested to see how they measure. I suspect they have a very flat frequency response but who cares in the long run? They put a smile on my face.
the thing about the yamaha ns10 is...if you can get it sounding amazing on those effing things, itll pretty damn well likely sound amazing anywhere.
More likely if it sounds good on Yamaha NS10 it will be hopelessly colored on anything else because the engineer would unconsciously try to eliminate the speakers flaws by counter balancing them with flaws in the mix. How can you get a better, truer mix with horrible speakers than good speakers. I know the argument some will make is that "they know" the sound of those speakers so the flaws don't change their mix but that is completely absurd.
Years ago a friend was recording a small indy-pop record and they were mixing on NS-10 with the mixing process dragging on and on and on. Every time he brought it home to listen to the rough mixes they sounded off. So he started taking it around to friends houses and listening. He still couldn't put his finger on the exact problems until we listened to it on my system. He felt it was the truest, most informative sound. I then lent him a set of unused Stax headphones which he used in the mixing process while the engineer used the Yamahas. With the engineer taking direction from him the mix fell together very quickly.
When it was mastered the mastering engineer who used Dynlavy SC-IV and a Threshold amp told them it was one of the best mixes he had worked on in a long time. I've always wondered why do recording engineers get away with using crappy speakers but every mastering engineer that I know of uses high quality audiophile approved speakers?
If accuracy, in the on-axis frequency-response sense is desired, and a bookshelf type form-factor is required, may I strongly recommend the Infinity Primus 150 (now sold as the P152) loudspeaker? While the price is laughably low compared to the other speakers mentioned in this forum, I think for your application they may be perfect, especially since the lower price would free up some cash to get some really good amplification (which you could re-use later if and when you decide to assemble a more serious dedicated system). You can check out the Stereophile review of the Primus 150 to corroborate my accuracy claim.
I have personally set up a producer/engineer friend up with a pair of Primus 150's for his home computer-driven studio and he loves them. He is powering them with an old Monitor Series NAD 2100 amplifier on loan from me. At close listening proximity, the sound is very revealing and detailed at lower to medium volume levels and really is fantastically balanced. If you stand up or sit down, some suckouts in the midband do rear their ugly head, but these are not "deal breakers" in my opinion, more like annoyances.
For amplification, I would check into either the PrimaLuna or Cayin tube amplifiers (available used for just under a thousand dollars, used, or about 1.5 kilobucks new) or alternatively (if solid state is desired and/or a lower budget is required) consider the Marantz PM series or NAD integrated amps.
Sadly, most self-powered nearfields are made by companies that do not specialize in high fidelity, but rather ruggedness and indoor/outdoor usage. They typically do not go through the level of exhaustive design, testing, and listening evaluation to which "audiophile" brands subject their models. However, I do believe the Wharfedale Diamond 8 series is available in self-powered models, which may be worth investigating.
As for passive speakers, I have a few more recommendations for nearfield monitors satisfying the accurate and small requirements:
The PSB B25, which is a little "slower" and less detailed than the Infinities, but yet brings a certain holographic quality to the midrange that is missing in just about any other speaker near its price point. Its frequency response is very impressive, too (again, check out JA's Stereophile measurements), but with a bit of the midbass "hump" built in to make it sound bigger than it really is. So, not as strictly accurate, especially in nearfield listening, as the Infinities, but still probably very good.
The Dynaudios are rather darker sounding speakers, and this is probably more a deviation from, rather than an adherence to, absolute neutrality. However, they can be very pleasant to listen to for long periods of time as their dark character is non-fatiguing and does much to tame overly-bright recordings.
ProAc makes some great speakers, also, for your purposes, and may be worth looking into. I know many recording engineers who swear by them for "accuracy." They are quite expensive, though. And I haven't heard them in years, so I can't personally vouch for them. But they are much-beloved by many.
Carl Durrenberger
San Diego
I'm glad you qualified that statement with 'most'. I'd hardly call QUAD a company that doesn't specialize in high fidelity. However, the Jamo C803's walk all over the active QUAD two ways.
I hardly ever get evangelical about any audio component but I feel like screaming when people ignore this new Jamo speaker. I heard the PSP B 25's, several Dynaudio two ways, The Warfdale Diamonds ( & yes, they are a bargain) the Infinity's, Tannoy's etc and to my ears none of them come anywhere the Jamo C803's. So, I've never done this before , I'm getting down on my aged audiophile knees and begging all of you, PLEASE GIVE THE JAMO'S A LISTEN.
And yes, the small PoAc's are technically very accurate above the bass region but they won't put a smile on your faces like the Jamos.
Here endeth the sermon for today.
Will anyone listen?
the speakers dont really have any major "flaws". I love mine..just as valuable as my BW 802s, I think.
I would bet my life on the fact that at least one of your favorite rock albums had NS-10s in the chain. They are an industry standard because the mixes most always translate well when migrating from those to other speakers. The NS-10s arent "crappy" by any stretch. If one finds them not enjoyable to listen to, the source material can be blamed. NS-10s present a 2 kHz bump of + 5 dB and a low end drop @ 200 Hz, meaning that the all important midrange is laid out bare. Unforgiving...not really fun to listen to, but a great tool.
Of course if the mix engineer sucks, all bets are off, but noone needs "audiophile"-centric speakers to mix... it is just a matter of learning to use what you have, and NS-10s are just one option in a sea of good choices.
I know a guy that has eggleston speakers and some foofy-assed jigabuck (maybe one of the levinson or FM Acoustics) power amps....he is a very, very well known record/mix engineer for a large classical label...
His efforts are consistently terrible. I mean, awful. I believe partly because he changes gear like he changes socks...never allowing himself to really learn to use what he has.
I will.
What is important is to use a good speaker to begin with so one does not have to attempt to compensate. No wonder some Cds sound so poor.
NS-10s are a good speaker. Just as Mr. Winer's Mackies are. There are no speakers that are perfect. ALL are a compromise, so your statement about "using a good speaker to begin with" is pretty much meaningless. They are all flawed in some way. So...we have varying degrees of "flawed"...so the "perfect" criteria is shot, so what do we do next? We get insight from those who are more knowledgeable than us and make our choices accordingly. NS-10s are legendary for a reason, and that speaks volumes. No, I dont enjoy listening to them at all. I dont like listening to my bw 802s either, but they are valuable tools.
If you cannot get an amazing mix with NS-10s, you have a long way to go as a record/mix engineer.
So CDs sound poor because NS-10s were being used at the time of tracking/mixing? That is probably the quote of the month! When you get a chance and have time to research... see just how many recordings were made with those in the chain..... I wont expect you to eat crow publicly...but you shouldnt definitely chastise yourself in private for making such a silly comment.
95 percent of the damned sound can be attributed to the time spent before "record" was ever touched... Mic placement, Mic Selection, Ability of musicians, ROOM choice... those are the big factors at work..
Yes, right. 8" polypropylenes, with all that mass and their polypropylene sound, woofers work past 1.9khz, 24db crossover (and all the inductors, capacitors etc) and then into a horn loaded dome that has to reproduce down below 1.9khz. What a match made in heaven.
Right again.
As I said, what crummy speakers to use to monitor what is being recorded. No wonder everyone complains about the poor quality sound from CDs. Maybe try some Mapleshade Cds and hear the difference. 
Much better electronics, speakers etc used.
Generalizations about near field monitors and their effect upon the final product is one thing. The hidden variable is any particular engineers' hearing acuity. Given a large number of those who find themselves in the recording studio have had a previous, or continuing, career on the road with bands who regularly 'entertain' their fans at ear damaging volume, is it any wonder the results as dumped onto CD etc are often crap?
Hey, isn't this arguing by using specifications?
Ethan would aprove!
(This is purey goofing with SAS. No horse in this race at this time!)
you obviously do not know much about sound recording, mixing, or mastering, fella. Your slip is showing.
Ive heard 2 mapleshade albums and they sounded like shit.:)
and the stuff they sell.. absolute foo!
I wonder if the original poster, JMSOTO, is bothering to keep track of all this?
I you are JM, do let us know which speakers you managed to audition, what your final choice is and how you get on with them over the long term.
-------------------------------------------------------------
On the subject of recording quality and Mapleshade records ( which I don't think I've had any experience with) a sample of two isn't sufficient to judge the overall engineering quality of the entire range I feel. Take for instance a label I'm very familiar with, Naxos. Their CD's vary from utterly brilliant to absolute crap. Problem is you never know, until you get one home & play it, what you're in for. At least with classical recordings the quality is invariably, wether bad or good, consistent over an entire CD. With other kinds of music each track can exhibit a huge variation. I was compiling a 'Best of Fleetwood Mac' for a friends geriatric hippie party last week and was amazed that each LP/CD itself had a range of tracks from compressed crap to wide dynamic range brilliance. No wonder the public was primed to buy ( or steal) one track at a time as downloads. They must have been sick to death of having to pay for a barrel of apples, half of which were rotten, long before the MP3 nightmare added yet another degradation to the gentle 'art' of recording.
Yes, I digressed, and my apologies for that. I am interested to see which ones you ended up getting, OP.
to JS, full agreement re Naxos. Some of my favorite CDs have been produced by them...unfortunately some of the worst sounding cds I have ever heard..also Naxos. I dont know why that is... Maybe there is not a "house engineer"
as with Telarc(bad example because I dont care for them as a whole) or Delos, etc...
Yes do let us know what speakers you decided on JMSOTO. Hope all worked out for you.
And NC, actually I am wondering how you are a recording engineer when you have been stationed in Europe for the past 5 years?
By the way, I have worked with many a speaker and you evidently have no clue as to the sonic difference between a Scanspeak carbon fiber/paper, paper, and polypropylene cone drivers. Evidently neither does the pro audio industry, and how different types of driver configurations work.
And although I have only one Mapleshade CD, I, as well as many others, can assure you it is a superior quality CD. Anyone can place a negative claim. Unfortunately for you, we know different. And if what you feel about your Mapleshade cds is true, it reveals the poor quality of your system, and supports exactly what I stated earlier with regards to the speakers.
No kidding. Even if one wire or power amp can be discerned from another, the differences are at best very small. Versus speakers (and rooms) that all sound different, and all suffer from a severely skewed response at various angles, ringing, and distortion.
--Ethan
Thank you all for this information!!!
I will give the Jamo C803 a try and let you all know!
Ah, Ethan, but if you use the same speaker for listening, you can be very very precise.
There is a difference between accuracy and precision.
Anyway, yah gotta be more careful Ethan. Words spoken on forums have a way of getting around. In this thread you maligned Dynaudio for no reason I can understand.
Dynaudio owners are very cognizant of room acoustics. And they almost, to an individual, have the coin to afford room treatment - and understand the need for it.
And now what, (how many dealers and owners of dynaudio, worldwide?) how many Dynaudio dealers might say 'fuck Ethan' when it comes to recommending your product or promoting it. Anyone else may also consider that maligning someone else's product makes you a very loose cannon.
This is not so smart on your part.
This goes hand in hand with the idea of maligning all those people capable of discerning all these 'tweaks' you like to denigrate.
You shoot yourself square in the ass almost every time you open your mouth on this forum. Not because we are wrong, but due to you not having the discernment to make those value judgments, and calling us asses of some sort, in some way, for us having the capacity to do so.
That's right.... we all know there is nothing to be recorded in Europe... aint even gonna begin to touch that one other than to say I got the vast majority of my tonmeister/engineering training in Germany, while being stationed there.... Teije Van Geest(look him up) was my neighbor, and another Grammy winning engineer lived right down the street in Schwetzingen, so I had a great, real world education..... Id bet my life saying that there are far more opportunities to record over there, especially for classical/choral and things of that nature..
I didn't say you haven't worked with speaker cones. I said that you obviously didn't know much about recording.
I am quite sure they are all taking your comments to heart.
I dont give a continental damn, really. I said those two cds sounded horrible. I stand by my assertion. Why would anyone's opinion other than mine even matter? We are talking about sound here...not a solid, tangible thing..
do you even know what you are talking about? i didnt listen to the mapleshade stuff on the ns10s... those speakers are not even in my listening system, but live in the studio... I have Audio Kinesis and Quad ESLs for "private listening". bargain basement, poor quality stuff, I know..but they were all kmart had in stock, all I could afford.
So what experience do you really have in the recording industry except to visit a studio and gent? Who says what they have is the best, or even close? Are you working at a recording studio now? By the way, what is your name or did I miss it in another post?
Anyone attempting to justify an 8" (40 gram cone) poly woofer at 2khz as being accurate has obviously not performed any testing, or uses poor associated equipment. Add to that a 24db/octave xover with all the parts and matching to a horn loaded dome tweeter, and it demonstrates how little experience one has with speakers and drivers. So much for monitoring CD quality. No wonder everyone has complaints about cd sound quality. By the way, pro audio equipment is basically about the same quality as what the cheap cut rate stores sell. Just a tougher chassis though.
There are many other large recording studios on the planet. So does that make them superior as well? Of course not.
One has to carefully match components in your home system, which you obviously have not done, if you believe Mapleshade CDs are poor quality. By the way, another CD that is quite good is from VTL which uses some descent equipment designed by them.
you are about as clueless as they come, guy. There is nothing accurate about a damned speaker. they are all compromises. all!! we work with what we are familiar with. we listen/reference on several sources..... Please read "sound recording" and "handbook of recording engineering" by John Eargle(RIP, former Delos Engineer/Producer and Loudspeaker Authority)....because you havent a clue what you are talking about.
One cannot talk about sound(any sound! whether it be from mapleshade, mfsl, alia vox or telarc..whoever) in absolute terms... "high quality cd" from your mouth means nothing to me(no matter how many you had echoing your claims) because I have my own ears. Mapleshade CDs , what ive heard...not good. Ive bought two, hated them both, wont be buying any more.
How is telling the truth about a product's performance maligning? Have you ever seen hi-res anechoic graphs of that Dynaudio speaker model I mentioned? I didn't think so. I have seen the data, and I stand by what I wrote. It was measured by someone else, and I don't have permission to post it here. If you email me through my personal site www.ethanwiner.com I'll be glad to share that data plus data of several other popular near field monitors measured in the same session.
--Ethan
Good luck jmsoto. Hope all works well for you.
--------------
Fortunately some speakers are better than others. To insinuate that all are equal in one form or another demonstrates you have no experience and performed no testing. So you believe a $200.00 speaker is as good as a $2000.00 speaker? You also believe that a polypropylene cone is equal to a carbon/paper cone? You believe that the two way Mackie design I posted earlier is actually a superior design, as good as any? Of course that is sheer nonsense and demonstrates a lack of even basic science.
It is amazing that recording "engineers" with none or very limited electronic classes consider themselves the "experts".
Right.
How can you judge the quality of the source equipment when you don't understand basic science pertaining to speakers or electronics?
First you say there are no absolutes terms, then you condemn Mapleshade. Interesting contradiction.
To claim that no one can determine if one cd is better than another is an un-sustainable position.
I see you skipped the name, intending to post behind a nameless face. So we don't know who you are and who you work for.