Tim,
As we agree on these points I can only post a figure from F. Toole "Sound Reproduction" that illustrates you first point, showing that these distances can only be estimated approximately from speaker dimensions.
Audiophiles and our prejudices
- Thread starter FrantzM
- Start date
Tim,
As we agree on these points I can only post a figure from F. Toole "Sound Reproduction" that illustrates you first point, showing that these distances can only be estimated approximately from speaker dimensions.
I can't help but think that if you always find yourself with the need to roll off your highs above 12 Khz that you either have very bright speakers or very bright electronics. Or maybe you have both.
We'll have to disagree then, Jack. A wave guide, not uncommon in consumer speakers also, can narrow the on axis response of a speaker from the listening position (they can also narrow it only for an extremely short distance, to avoid baffle reflections, depending on design) but that doesn't necessarily mean it's for near field listening. It means that it limits first reflections of trebles. Push back away from your "near field" monitors. Now go adjust the distance from each other, and the toe-in of the monitors accordingly. They should work just fine.
I didn't say that Tim. I said they were advantageous for near field listening. I never stated the converse. That is the problem here. Even if I DID say that the converse is a matter of preference, for some strange reason, I'm being quoted as saying the converse is gospel truth. We need a head scratchy emoticon. So we aren't disagreeing at all.
Really, when you think about it, if what they were trying to do was focus the sound into a very narrow field, they would necessarily have to mount the midrange (or mid/bass in 2-ways) drivers in waveguides as well (now were talking Geddes...also not near fields). What they're trying to do is eliminate reflections off the front of the speaker, not create a "near filed" image. That's created by the distance between the speakers and between the speakers and the listener.
Not at that intended distance my friend. There's more than enough directivity in the midrange. Well within quarter wave. Baffle diffraction isn't a problem either. We WANT localization. It's the peaks and dips in the treble range where we are very sensitive will wreak havoc on both product and work flow. But first let me restate my original position. We all know that nearfield takes the room out of the equation to a greater degree allowing us to hear more of the recording itself. No argument there. MY position is that professional monitors are designed with feature sets that optimize them for their intended use and placement. That many of them share waveguides is no accident. Not only do they avoid filtering from a nearby monitor on the horizontal plane (those nasty peaks and dips from filtering), they avoid reflections off the consoles on which they will be positioned above (So yes Ron vertical is important too). Again this doesn't mean they can't be used in free field and at greater distances, Just that their intended use dictated design elements of which the wave guide is but one. Just as, as you say, audiophiles going all overkill with big iron, the use of loads of power in nearfield active monitors is another. In my day anyway, professional's calibrated at 85dB, consumer at 2.83V (why I actually don't know - note. Must ask Sean). The 85dB prescribed for safety (health) and quality reasons. For an engineer to work for long periods with consistency, peaks must not go past that mark very much or very often lest their hearing degrade both temporarily in session and degrade permanently from prolonged over exposure. It also means that you can take work from one studio into another and not have to worry about at least being on a different hearing frequency sensitivity reference curve. I'll get back to that. The extra power, as in the big iron, is for ease more than the occasional headroom requirements. Not that I don't love a system that's got it. I'm a headroom bigot too. Now looking at things from this context, what have we got? We've got speakers OPTIMIZED for the placement already stated and designed to be flat as a pancake at those distances and flat at that reference output level. Now say we move from 3ft or 1m (a more typical home studio distance or "really small monitor" commercial studio distance) to double that? You drop 6dB right there. Most of that loss will be heard in the bass. To make that up you're now using up much more than twice the power. You gotta be asking yourself what the designer's intended sweetspot was for those amps to run at their best temperature/performance. Are we still getting that sense of ease? One can boost EQ sure. Great way to test the unit's enclosure designed for much lower output. One could now begin to use the room in their favor via boundary support. Now with the speakers twice as far apart as designed for toeing in may bring back centerfill but the information density of that fill will be a crapshoot vs. what you'd get when used as intended. You gotta be asking yourself why in heck you just don't listen to them closer at this point. It's flat, it's clear, it's WHOLE.
So can you use nearfield monitors from midfield? Yes. Can you use them for PA applications in a stadium. Yes. That was never the point! Now if someone wants to use them that way, hey no problem. Just don't go around saying they are as good that way as opposed to as intended.
In any case, back to my old argument with Mark. The ADM 9.1s don't use wave guides, so in that discussion, the point is moot.
I think you missed my post about the advantages of mirror matched pairs.
Tim in Bold Italics
I didn't say that Tim. I said they were advantageous for near field listening. I never stated the converse. That is the problem here. Even if I DID say that the converse is a matter of preference, for some strange reason, I'm being quoted as saying the converse is gospel truth. We need a head scratchy emoticon. So we aren't disagreeing at all.
Really, when you think about it, if what they were trying to do was focus the sound into a very narrow field, they would necessarily have to mount the midrange (or mid/bass in 2-ways) drivers in waveguides as well (now were talking Geddes...also not near fields). What they're trying to do is eliminate reflections off the front of the speaker, not create a "near filed" image. That's created by the distance between the speakers and between the speakers and the listener.
Not at that intended distance my friend. There's more than enough directivity in the midrange. Well within quarter wave. Baffle diffraction isn't a problem either. We WANT localization. It's the peaks and dips in the treble range where we are very sensitive will wreak havoc on both product and work flow. But first let me restate my original position. We all know that nearfield takes the room out of the equation to a greater degree allowing us to hear more of the recording itself. No argument there. MY position is that professional monitors are designed with feature sets that optimize them for their intended use and placement. That many of them share waveguides is no accident. Not only do they avoid filtering from a nearby monitor on the horizontal plane (those nasty peaks and dips from filtering), they avoid reflections off the consoles on which they will be positioned above (So yes Ron vertical is important too). Again this doesn't mean they can't be used in free field and at greater distances, Just that their intended use dictated design elements of which the wave guide is but one. Just as, as you say, audiophiles going all overkill with big iron, the use of loads of power in nearfield active monitors is another. In my day anyway, professional's calibrated at 85dB, consumer at 2.83V (why I actually don't know - note. Must ask Sean). The 85dB prescribed for safety (health) and quality reasons. For an engineer to work for long periods with consistency, peaks must not go past that mark very much or very often lest their hearing degrade both temporarily in session and degrade permanently from prolonged over exposure. It also means that you can take work from one studio into another and not have to worry about at least being on a different hearing frequency sensitivity reference curve. I'll get back to that. The extra power, as in the big iron, is for ease more than the occasional headroom requirements. Not that I don't love a system that's got it. I'm a headroom bigot too. Now looking at things from this context, what have we got? We've got speakers OPTIMIZED for the placement already stated and designed to be flat as a pancake at those distances and flat at that reference output level. Now say we move from 3ft or 1m (a more typical home studio distance or "really small monitor" commercial studio distance) to double that? You drop 6dB right there. Most of that loss will be heard in the bass. To make that up you're now using up much more than twice the power. You gotta be asking yourself what the designer's intended sweetspot was for those amps to run at their best temperature/performance. Are we still getting that sense of ease? One can boost EQ sure. Great way to test the unit's enclosure designed for much lower output. One could now begin to use the room in their favor via boundary support. Now with the speakers twice as far apart as designed for toeing in may bring back centerfill but the information density of that fill will be a crapshoot vs. what you'd get when used as intended. You gotta be asking yourself why in heck you just don't listen to them closer at this point. It's flat, it's clear, it's WHOLE.
So can you use nearfield monitors from midfield? Yes. Can you use them for PA applications in a stadium. Yes. That was never the point! Now if someone wants to use them that way, hey no problem. Just don't go around saying they are as good that way as opposed to as intended.
In any case, back to my old argument with Mark. The ADM 9.1s don't use wave guides, so in that discussion, the point is moot.
I think you missed my post about the advantages of mirror matched pairs.
Tim in Bold Italics
Sorry to be a pain, Tom, but I might suggest that what you're sensitive to is not the high frequencies in themselves, but the treble distortion that's coming out of the speakers. Yes, I've been banging on about this for a while, but I'm not continuing to do so just to exercise my chops! Just about every "conventional" high end system I've listened to reeked of this contamination to some degree, and I certainly would not want to keep listening to such systems. My own system has the same problem just as badly if it's off colour, makes you want to grab the treble slider and wrench it right down.
Live performances have treble, lots of it, but it's very "clean", so one's head has no trouble handling it. The recordings have no more treble than the real thing, it's just that enough high frequency contamination has been added by the time it gets to the speaker voice coils that one ends up with a sound that can be mighty unpleasant. I haven't spent the last 25 years working out how to get rid of this problem, not to have a fair chance of knowing what I'm talking about.
Trust me; or don't trust me, as you see fit: if you get rid of the high frequency crap being injected into the end sound you won't be making those complaints about the recordings ...
Frank
Similar threads
