Upgrading my studio monitors

[Rick Cornish]

I used to use ARC. Don't anymore, but it is a good product and recommended if you don't know your room or monitors really well.

There are so many monitors out there, that I can't keep track. Genelec and Focal are almost always very good. I have an old pair of fairly big (10") Genelecs with a sub that I use for mixing tracks that will be used in live situations (through a PA) and they've never let me down. I use my Westlake BBSM4s most of the time—very accurate, phase-coherent, and easy on the ears (all paper). (I would have a set of BBSM12s if I had the room for them—the best big monitors I ever heard.) I also use my AKG K712 headphones to check mixes.

Best of luck finding something that works for you.

[joelfriedman]

Thanks all. I'm just a composer, so it's all a bit beyond my wallet and current capabilities, but much appreciated! And I'm glad to help generate a fascinating conversation with so many on this board. If anyone has more to add please do! I'm not trying to end the thread.

Joel

[bayswater]

I'm fortunate to have a tuned room in my home where I can work 24/7 and my particular choice is that I wouldn't trust any of them over my own ears in my own room.

In my reply to the OP, my advise was don't stress on the monitor choice. Whatever you buy, take the time to really learn them. I can equate this to learning a piece of music.

Touching back on the "accurate" thing, I don't think it has anything to do with recreating the band vs a studio hybrid vs AI or anything else like that. I think in it's simplest description it's about "Does what I'm listening to actually sound(sonically) like what I'm listening to?". That's it. No more, no less.

I hope this doesn't come across as argumentative, definitely not my intention. Also, apologies if I'm interrupting yours and James conversation. Just felt it was an interesting topic and had to stick my nose in.

My name's Nappi by the way and it's a pleasure discussing this with you.

Nappi, (Sorry, on my tiny Mac without reading glasses, rnappi looks like mappi)I take your points. Still not clear what you mean about accuracy. If you are saying does the guitar in this mix sound like a guitar, or does it sound like my uncle's Lowry organ guitar preset, then yes, it's no more and no less. But after that, I'm not sure what accuracy is, or what the target ought to be for a mix, other than it sounds like what you have in mind. In that case, the listening environment needs to produce a sound like the one the intended audience uses, but after that?

[mikehalloran]

In addition to what I wrote earlier, I consider a clear midrange to be paramount. One of my go-to test tracks is Fleetwood Mac's Go Your Own Way. If I can hear the Hammond clearly in the mix, then I know that a monitor pair has got enough of "the goods" for my use. It's subtle but the organ smears into a wash on many speakers.

When I got my first pair of Equators, I played a major hit from 1974 on them. I almost sent them back. The orchestra balance behind the singer sounded terrible and the French horn was out of tune. What the…? I'd played this record at the radio station a zillion or more times and thought I knew every note and nuance. Well, I listened some more and realized that the background orchestra balance really was terrible and why didn't anyone tell the F-horn player to play better in tune?

Monitors have gotten a whole lot better in the last 50 years and I'll leave it at that.

[James Steele]

Thanks all. I'm just a composer, so it's all a bit beyond my wallet and current capabilities, but much appreciated! And I'm glad to help generate a fascinating conversation with so many on this board. If anyone has more to add please do! I'm not trying to end the thread.

You might consider these: https://www.thomannmusic.com/adam_t7v.htm

They're getting really good reviews and are really popular as far as budget monitors go.

[James Steele]

One of my go-to test tracks is Fleetwood Mac's Go Your Own Way. If I can hear the Hammond clearly in the mix, then I know that a monitor pair has got enough of "the goods" for my use. It's subtle but the organ smears into a wash on many speakers.

I have to get this and give it a listen.

[rnappi]

In addition to what I wrote earlier, I consider a clear midrange to be paramount.

Yup, mids are king and hence the reputation of the infamous NS-10s lives on. Back starting out I had the good fortune of getting to hang with two titans of the industry. Frank Filipetti when I briefly worked at Right Track Recording and Larry Alexander for over a decade when I was a staff composer for Jonathan Elias's production house Elias Arts. Their mantra was NS-10s as low as you can listen to them was "real life". And those guys had carte blanche to listen on anything they desired. I hate those miserable black boxes with a passion. But...just like getting your lows working on 5Cs, get your mids right on NS-10s and you're gonna have a good day.

...Well, I listened some more and realized that the background orchestra balance really was terrible and why didn't anyone tell the F-horn player to play better in tune?

Amen to that. Another too often overlooked mantra "sh_t in, sh_t out". It's baffling.

[rnappi]

Nappi, (Sorry, on my tiny Mac without reading glasses, rnappi looks like mappi)I take your points. Still not clear what you mean about accuracy. If you are saying does the guitar in this mix sound like a guitar, or does it sound like my uncle's Lowry organ guitar preset, then yes, it's no more and no less. But after that, I'm not sure what accuracy is, or what the target ought to be for a mix, other than it sounds like what you have in mind. In that case, the listening environment needs to produce a sound like the one the intended audience uses, but after that?

No worries on the name.

Probably a poor choice of words on my part, so I'll leave it with this:

Monitoring flat as possible, in a field that is most representative of how consumers will hear it and eliminating any variables that get in the way of that is my definition of accurate. How a person chooses to go about that is totally up to them and unique to their situation.

With regards to mixdown, I"ll respond to your question(if I may paraphrase) "accuracy in reference to what?" by asking... Having shipped your mix out to other people's hands and hearing the results, did the integrity of all your hard work survive in reference to the original final mix? If so, great! You've achieved accuracy. If not, next time it might be worth considering your approach.

Will you put your reputation on the line using headphones mixing for film/ TV where most people aren't listing in headphones? Or put out an album using software for correction / sound field manipulation as opposed to budgeting for studio time? Not saying you should or shouldn't do these things and certainly not disparaging anyone who doesn't have the dough to book a studio(we've all been there). Just things to consider in an endless list of things to consider.

[labman]

FWIW we loved dynaudio for decades. Now using Focal Trio11 Be for midfield and nearfields with their handy footswitch. Along with avantones. (and auratones in another room)