The most neutral monitors for mix?

Soundhaspriority wrote:
> Pretending for a moment that there is such a thing as a neutral monitor, are
> there any opinion as to candidates?

Have you looked at ATC?

--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me here:
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
([email protected])

"Mike Rivers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:m4zZj.13366$HJ5.10146@trnddc01...
> Soundhaspriority wrote:
>> Pretending for a moment that there is such a thing as a neutral monitor,
>> are there any opinion as to candidates?
>
> Have you looked at ATC?
>
> --
> If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me
> here:
> double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
> ([email protected])

No, but I will.

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511

Hi Bob,

Full size or nearfield? On the mastering boards I hear names like
Lipinski, Duntech, Dunleavy, ATC, but those are not nearfields. I have
no experience with any of them, but they enjoy good reputations.

Dean

On May 22, 4:47 pm, "Soundhaspriority" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Pretending for a moment that there is such a thing as a neutral monitor, are
> there any opinion as to candidates?
>
> Please don't sidetrack onto the premise. I understand it's dubious, but it
> would nevertheless help me personally to hear your opinions.
>
> Bob Morein
> (310) 237-6511

drichard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Full size or nearfield? On the mastering boards I hear names like
>Lipinski, Duntech, Dunleavy, ATC, but those are not nearfields. I have
>no experience with any of them, but they enjoy good reputations.

Nearfield monitoring is sort of a cheesy compromise that has become
increasingly popular as people have had to work in poorly treated control
rooms. For the most part, you aren't going to get great imaging with a
nearfield system. And when you do, you will get it only in a small place.

I'm still a fan of big planars myself, but they're going to require more
space than the monkey boxes.

A good compromise are bass cabinets with ribbon tweeters, as used by
the Stage Accompany monitors and the big Griffins.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Scott Dorsey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:g16mod$4fc$1@panix2.panix.com...
> drichard <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>Full size or nearfield? On the mastering boards I hear names like
>>Lipinski, Duntech, Dunleavy, ATC, but those are not nearfields. I have
>>no experience with any of them, but they enjoy good reputations.
>
> Nearfield monitoring is sort of a cheesy compromise that has become
> increasingly popular as people have had to work in poorly treated control
> rooms. For the most part, you aren't going to get great imaging with a
> nearfield system. And when you do, you will get it only in a small
> place.
>
> I'm still a fan of big planars myself, but they're going to require more
> space than the monkey boxes.
>
> A good compromise are bass cabinets with ribbon tweeters, as used by
> the Stage Accompany monitors and the big Griffins.
> --scott
> --
What planars do you use?

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511

Nearfield.

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511

"drichard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1f8e1be8-5dda-44e2-92f8-a180db1e0315@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Hi Bob,

Full size or nearfield? On the mastering boards I hear names like
Lipinski, Duntech, Dunleavy, ATC, but those are not nearfields. I have
no experience with any of them, but they enjoy good reputations.

Dean

On May 22, 4:47 pm, "Soundhaspriority" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Pretending for a moment that there is such a thing as a neutral monitor,
> are
> there any opinion as to candidates?
>
> Please don't sidetrack onto the premise. I understand it's dubious, but it
> would nevertheless help me personally to hear your opinions.
>
> Bob Morein
> (310) 237-6511

Bob,

> Pretending for a moment that there is such a thing as a neutral monitor,
> are there any opinion as to candidates?

Mackie haters don't like to hear this, but Mackie 824s are about as flat as
it gets.

> Please don't sidetrack onto the premise.

But I must. :->)

Loudspeakers vary very little throughout their useful range compared to what
a room does with no bass traps and other acoustic treatment. Would you buy a
speaker whose response has half a dozen peak/null pairs spanning 20 to 35 dB
all below 200 Hz? That's what most rooms are like. I'd rather have a pair of
$80 Behringer Truth passives in a well treated room than Lipinskis in the
typical untreated bedroom studio.

--Ethan

Ethan Winer <ethanw at ethanwiner dot com> wrote:
>Bob,
>
>> Pretending for a moment that there is such a thing as a neutral monitor,
>> are there any opinion as to candidates?
>
>Mackie haters don't like to hear this, but Mackie 824s are about as flat as
>it gets.

They do measure pretty damn flat on-axis in a chamber. They have some other
issues, and they don't have deep bass extension, but they are still a hell of
a deal for what they are. They are way too forward for my personal taste,
but they are good enough that you can hear what is going on, and that's
saying a lot at that price point.

It was very interesting to listen to the Hafler monitor next to the Mackie...
the Hafler definitely had a very constricted and nasal sound in comparison.

>Loudspeakers vary very little throughout their useful range compared to what
>a room does with no bass traps and other acoustic treatment. Would you buy a
>speaker whose response has half a dozen peak/null pairs spanning 20 to 35 dB
>all below 200 Hz? That's what most rooms are like. I'd rather have a pair of
>$80 Behringer Truth passives in a well treated room than Lipinskis in the
>typical untreated bedroom studio.

This is true, but presumably anyone buying the Lipinskis has already spent
the money for the room.

This statement, by the way, can easily be borne out by listening to any of
the high end monitors on a trade show floor, where they all invariably sound
pretty dreadful no matter how good they really are.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott,

> They are way too forward for my personal taste

But that's my point. They are very flat. Most speakers have an intentional
response dip in the "harsh" range between 2 and 4 KHz. Even many pro
speakers. So they sound "smooth and airy" and by comparison Mackies sound
harsh. But the Mackies are more accurate.

> presumably anyone buying the Lipinskis has already spent the money for the
> room.

I wish. :->)

--Ethan

On Fri, 23 May 2008 13:53:58 -0400, "Ethan Winer" <ethanw at
ethanwiner dot com> wrote:

>Scott,
>
>> They are way too forward for my personal taste
>
>But that's my point. They are very flat. Most speakers have an intentional
>response dip in the "harsh" range between 2 and 4 KHz. Even many pro
>speakers. So they sound "smooth and airy" and by comparison Mackies sound
>harsh. But the Mackies are more accurate.

Another thing complicating this range is that a crossover pretty
much *has* to fall here. The crossover itself adds a big change
in directivity and (usually) a significant tilt in the radiation
pattern through the crossover region.

All the crossover issues are just exaggerated by our hearing.
Yikes! but not a lot of getting around it; dimensions are
pretty much fixed by mechanical constraints (linearly moving
pistons, yada yada) and they fight against the desire to
make all drivers very small WRT wavelength for best radiation
patterns. Good numbers fall into this range.

Possible valid but mutually exclusive crossover designs might
have flat on-listening-axis magnitude response, or flat "power"
(summed response of all sound in the room) response, or some
compromise, or even some other design goal. A perfect solution
doesn't exist. Bummer, but that's the deal.

But to respond to Bob's OP, if you've got the dough-re-mi, try
to find a pair of Nearfield Acoustics Pipedreams to listen to.
Possibly next to unobtainium now, and more expensive than my
house when current (2000, 2001, etc.) but they made the big
Wilsons sound like loudspeakers. And they're "nearfield" at
10 feet away. NOT portable (without a crew of guys with prison
tat's, anyway).

Much thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck
"I'm walking out, between parked cars, with my head full of stars"
-Elliott Smith