Best studio monitors for dialing in tones

[Drew_K]

Hey everybody, I’m wondering what your go to studio monitor is for dialing in tones. Right now I’m using a pair of KRK Rokit 5s. The issue I’m having with them is they’re very boomy and loose in the low end, which affects how I dial things in. Then I’ll show up to gigs and everything is thin in the low end and brittle in the top end, especially on most Marshall models. It takes too much time to re EQ things during a sound check most of the time, so I need a better pair of monitors for at home that will be closer to what I can expect in live applications (granted, I know FoH EQ and the room will play a role in this, but what I normally experience is more drastic than those variables usually can be).

 

[playmusic]

Although you could probably find a pair of studio monitors that might get you closer to what you will hear at FOH, a pair of FRFR or PA monitors/speakers would be a better predictor. You do also learn to adjust to some extent for live use, whatever you use at home, once you know what to expect in the way of tonal changes that will be required when moving from your home practice rig to live FOH.

You also may find yourself needing to adjust your EQ when moving from a practice space, to cutting through a band mix. What sounds good by yourself won't necessarily be the same as with your band. Best case scenario and definitely what I prefer, is needing to change little or anything from practice to rehearsal to stage, except rarely the global EQ.

 

[elvis]

I use Adam A7X at home and EV PXM-12MP at the gig and they match really well. FOH equipment varies, so that affects the sound. I don't get too hung up on it. I hear what I like, which helps me play as well as I can.

 

[Rex]

To be honest, almost any studio monitor that costs at least twice as much as the Rokit 5's will give you noticeably better results. The Rokit 5 is about as entry-level as you can get, and it shows.

 

[Aivoryuk]

you also need to consider the room environment and the placement of the speakers. That's not to say you need to spend to thousands on room treatment but consider that if you put speakers near walls/corners that is going to impact on how they sound. Some speakers have EQ selections to cope with that.

 

[strabes]

Far more important than the particular studio monitors you use are: 1) proper monitor placement, 2) isolating the speaker from the surface on which it's resting, and most importantly 3) acoustically treating your room. Room modes, long decay times, and comb filtering from reflections will dramatically change what ends up hitting your ears and cannot be fixed with different monitors or room correction software. KRKs are not the best monitors but your issue could just be huge dips in the low end because of comb filtering from the reflections. So before you spend money on new monitors, you'll want to get your room to a place where what you're hearing is pretty much what the speakers are putting out. That means at minimum some decent panels at the first reflection points and some bass trapping in the corners since you mentioned issues with bass. This site has some good info and instructions for less-than-ideal residential rooms. Make sure to read thru all 4 pages. If you have some tools you can easily build your own panels for around $35-40 USD per panel. The thicker you make them the lower frequencies they'll absorb.

I disagree with the suggestion to get FRFR/PA speakers instead of studio monitors. Bigger speakers with more volume in an untreated room will just make the issues I mentioned worse, especially when placed on the floor or in a corner. With speakers you can generally pick two of: cost / accuracy / volume, and for the same price FRFR/PA speakers are inevitably going to sacrifice accuracy/quality for sheer volume. It's also very easy to mistake "louder" for "better" when dialing in tones or mixing. You want to dial in tones in as neutral an environment as possible so you can be confident in what you're bringing to the venue, and the FOH engineer can adjust as necessary for that particular venue. Studio monitors and acoustic treatment are a better choice than PA speakers for this task. They can also double as excellent casual PC speakers and allow you to monitor in stereo with good imaging.

 

[Greg Ferguson]

^This^

 

[Mystic38]

To be honest, almost any studio monitor that costs at least twice as much as the Rokit 5's will give you noticeably better results. The Rokit 5 is about as entry-level as you can get, and it shows.

At the end of the day, the sound you hear is the sum of the parts.. some of those parts are for free (placement) some are reasonably priced (stands, basic room treatment) and some are expensive (better monitors).

There are a number of folk on the forum with Rokit 5 yet not having this issue, and tbh, imo a set of Rokit 5's setup properly in the room will be at least as good as a pair of 2x price speakers stuffed against a wall, corner, bookshelf or floor...

I suggest the OP looks at placement, then play a bunch of different genre music through his speakers and use the OUTEQ to tweak to taste.. then check with whatever headphones he has before deciding if he needs new monitors

 

[Rex]

At the end of the day, the sound you hear is the sum of the parts.. some of those parts are for free (placement) some are reasonably priced (stands, basic room treatment) and some are expensive (better monitors).

True.

There are a number of folk on the forum with Rokit 5 yet not having this issue...

Or not reporting the issue, or unaware of the issue because they’ve never tried anything better.


It’s always good to optimize what you already have. On the other hand, I saw a radical improvement when I swapped out a pair of Rokit 5’s for a pair of Event ASM8s. That Rokit midbass hump went away, the top end opened up, and the midrange came forward.

 

[Saja]

Adam A7X is what I use. Sounds great!

 

[playmusic]

Far more important than the particular studio monitors you use are: 1) proper monitor placement, 2) isolating the speaker from the surface on which it's resting, and most importantly 3) acoustically treating your room. Room modes and comb filtering from reflections cannot be fixed with different monitors or room correction software, and will dramatically change what ends up hitting your ears. KRKs are not the best monitors but your issue could just be huge dips in the low end because of comb filtering from the reflections. So before you spend money on new monitors, you'll want to get your room to a place where what you're hearing is pretty much what the speakers are putting out. That means at minimum some decent panels at the first reflection points and some bass trapping in the corners since you mentioned issues with bass. This site has some good info and instructions for less-than-ideal residential rooms. Make sure to read thru all 4 pages. If you have some tools you can easily build your own panels for around $35-40 USD per panel.

I strongly disagree with the suggestion to get FRFR/PA speakers instead of studio monitors. Bigger speakers with more volume in an untreated room will just make the issues I mentioned worse, especially when placed on the floor or in a corner. With speakers you can generally pick two of: cost / accuracy / volume, and for the same price FRFR/PA speakers are inevitably going to sacrifice accuracy/quality for sheer volume. It's also very easy to mistake "louder" for "better" when dialing in tones or mixing. Studio monitors are also a better choice because they can double as excellent casual PC speakers, allow you to monitor in stereo with good imaging, etc.

You can definitely make an argument that some rooms simply will not accommodate FRFRs/PA speakers for practicing and that is particularly true if you are crammed into a small/tiny room. Excellent advice regarding treating the room and doing the best you can to get good sound in whatever practice space you have available with your existing monitors. However, the OP was talking specifically about taking presets designed at home to the stage. Proper acoustic treatment of the room and moving to preset design on monitors that more closely resemble what you will be using on stage, are not mutually exclusive.

I maintain that the more closely the monitors you use are to resembling PA speakers and whatever you will be using for FOH and to monitor yourself on stage, generally speaking, the more seamless using the same presets for both environments (home, stage) will be. This is similar to how using an FRFR on stage with your modeler can often be a better predictor of what the FOH will sound like. This is the approach I prefer. Many users have experienced this when using studio monitors or headphones at home, only to arrive at rehearsal or the gig and discover that the presets they created at home, which sounded so brilliant, don't sound even remotely as good on the stage. There are no absolute rules though. Some users have no problems on stage with the presets they created through headphones or studio monitors. So, if that works for you, go for it.

Also, probably preaching to the choir here, although true that we often mistake louder for better, there is a qualitative, not just quantitative, difference between different volume levels - Fletcher-Munson. The sound may not be intrinsically better at higher volume, but it is perceived differently. That is the primary reason you so often see the advice to make sure you have vetted your presets at volumes closer to performance levels before using them at a show.

The OP was specifically trying to address how to most easily ensure that presets designed at home will transition seamlessly or at least with minimal tweaking to stage. For me that is using FRFR(s) for preset design with final tweaking at closer to performance volumes. Using headphones or studio monitors is not IMHO the straightest path to accomplishing that goal, YMMV.

 

[assaf110]

Optimizing your current setup is a good advice. I had great results when switching from 5 inch monitors to Adam's A7S, much easier to dial tones.

 

[Chromatizm]

You can't go wrong with Focals or Genelecs

 

[marsonic]

I thought I had written something about this...but it's not here. Whatever.

I actually kind of like my RP5s for low volume guitar monitors when I don't feel like wearing my IEMs. They fall apart and sound wrong as you turn them up, and I don't consider them good speakers. But, they do work for me as a guitar monitor...and I don't find huge bothersome differences between them, my mains (which are much nicer), and my IEMs. At least how I have mine set up, they're a little thick/muffled/muddy, which is probably why using them as your reference makes things sound thin on a PA system.

That being said, guitar sounds on the thinner side often do fit in a band mix better than awesome thick ones. That's probably why I like the RP5s for that purpose - a sound that cuts in a mix played quiet on the KRK doesn't sound like a thin fizzy mess the way turning down a lot of PA speakers can.

However you do it...you have to figure out how to set up your sounds/presets/etc. in a way that they translate to how you're actually performing/recording. If what you're doing isn't working...it's worth trying other things. Just remember, whatever your speakers do well, your sounds will do badly. E.g., super thick speakers lead to thin sounds and vice versa.

 

[Mystic38]

You can definitely make an argument that some rooms simply will not accommodate FRFRs/PA speakers for practicing and that is particularly true if you are crammed into a small/tiny room. Excellent advice regarding treating the room and doing the best you can to get good sound in whatever practice space you have available with your existing monitors. However, the OP was talking specifically about taking presets designed at home to the stage. Proper acoustic treatment of the room and moving to preset design on monitors that more closely resemble what you will be using on stage, are not mutually exclusive.

I maintain that the more closely the monitors you use are to resembling PA speakers and whatever you will be using for FOH and to monitor yourself on stage, generally speaking, the more seamless using the same presets for both environments (home, stage) will be. This is similar to how using an FRFR on stage with your modeler can often be a better predictor of what the FOH will sound like. This is the approach I prefer. Many users have experienced this when using studio monitors or headphones at home, only to arrive at rehearsal or the gig and discover that the presets they created at home, which sounded so brilliant, don't sound even remotely as good on the stage. There are no absolute rules though. Some users have no problems on stage with the presets they created through headphones or studio monitors. So, if that works for you, go for it.

Also, probably preaching to the choir here, although true that we often mistake louder for better, there is a qualitative, not just quantitative, difference between different volume levels - Fletcher-Munson. The sound may not be intrinsically better at higher volume, but it is perceived differently. That is the primary reason you so often see the advice to make sure you have vetted your presets at volumes closer to performance levels before using them at a show.

The OP was specifically trying to address how to most easily ensure that presets designed at home will transition seamlessly or at least with minimal tweaking to stage. For me that is using FRFR(s) for preset design with final tweaking at closer to performance volumes. Using headphones or studio monitors is not IMHO the straightest path to accomplishing that goal, YMMV.

I totally agree that presets should have a final dial in at volume, however IMO it is a fallacy to state that FRFR should, or needs, to be used.

FRFR is a marketing hype term without any specification, and those specs that ARE offered typically have slack tolerance vs those same specs of studio monitors. Also, every FRFR sounds different, some have unpleasant artifacts but again, at the end of the day they are SUPPOSED to represent EXACTLY what studio monitors are .. a faithful, amplified reproduction of the source. There are also cheap FRFR as there are cheap studio monitors, there are expensive FRFR as there are expensive studio monitors. There are bassy, bloomy, bright, peaky FRFR just like there are studio monitors.

Buying new monitors, or an FRFR is not an instant solution to improving the matching of presets created to tracking at volume on stage through some random PA. and, just like you would "dial in" the EQ of the room/PA you should also "dial in" your own monitors & room.

Essentially, what is important, just like in mixing with monitors with known unpleasant artifacts (say cough NS10), is to KNOW what they SHOULD sound like, and luckily, every single user is given a master template to check their system in the form of the AXEiii factory presets. Play those at volume, and add parametric EQ, or OUTEQ to make those sound tonally balanced .. problem very much largely solved imo.

Essentially, If you play a known amp in the factory presets and ended up adjusting the amp to reduce low mid hump, adding more low cut, tame highs etc etc.. then you need to know its your SYSTEM, not the preset!.. and your preset will sound thin and bright everywhere else. In reality, just know that the factory presets do not just sound good, they can sound unbelievably awesome..

I would very much recommend, learned the hard way, to reserve OUT1 for the PA, connect your monitor/FRFR/speaker setup to OUT2, have OUT2 copy OUT1 and use OUT2 EQ to make those Factory presets sound tonally balanced... without adjusting the amp in the preset and you are done. At this point you have somewhat normalized your system to that used to create the presets and setup a profile for your system..

This would strongly suggest that any presets you create will be reasonably true to your hearing of the Factory presets, and that using OUT1 for the PA gives the sound guy a solid, but blank canvas to tweak to taste, or if that guy is you, you can setup an OUT1 EQ for that system/room venue.

 

[marsonic]

I totally agree that presets should have a final dial in at volume, however IMO it is a fallacy to state that FRFR should, or needs, to be used.

FRFR is a marketing hype term without any specification, and those specs that ARE offered typically have slack tolerance vs those same specs of studio monitors. Also, every FRFR sounds different, some have unpleasant artifacts but again, at the end of the day they are SUPPOSED to represent EXACTLY what studio monitors are .. a faithful, amplified reproduction of the source. There are also cheap FRFR as there are cheap studio monitors, there are expensive FRFR as there are expensive studio monitors. There are bassy, bloomy, bright, peaky FRFR just like there are studio monitors.

Buying new monitors, or an FRFR is not an instant solution to improving the matching of presets created to tracking at volume on stage through some random PA. and, just like you would "dial in" the EQ of the room/PA you should also "dial in" your own monitors & room.

Essentially, what is important, just like in mixing with monitors with known unpleasant artifacts (say cough NS10), is to KNOW what they SHOULD sound like, and luckily, every single user is given a master template to check their system in the form of the AXEiii factory presets. Play those at volume, and add parametric EQ, or OUTEQ to make those sound tonally balanced .. problem very much largely solved imo.

Essentially, If you play a known amp in the factory presets and ended up adjusting the amp to reduce low mid hump, adding more low cut, tame highs etc etc.. then you need to know its your SYSTEM, not the preset!.. and your preset will sound thin and bright everywhere else. In reality, just know that the factory presets do not just sound good, they can sound unbelievably awesome..

I would very much recommend, learned the hard way, to reserve OUT1 for the PA, connect your monitor/FRFR/speaker setup to OUT2, have OUT2 copy OUT1 and use OUT2 EQ to make those Factory presets sound tonally balanced... without adjusting the amp in the preset and you are done. At this point you have somewhat normalized your system to that used to create the presets and setup a profile for your system..

This would strongly suggest that any presets you create will be reasonably true to your hearing of the Factory presets, and that using OUT1 for the PA gives the sound guy a solid, but blank canvas to tweak to taste, or if that guy is you, you can setup an OUT1 EQ for that system/room venue.

I think this approach is good. All of these things (good speakers for your purpose, good setup, room treatment, room correction, these kinds of tweaks, etc.) are worth at least considering, depending on how deep down the rabbit hole you want to go.

But...it's also missing the fact that all of this is a journey and that there is no easy button for getting detailed feedback from your speakers and knowing what to do with it.

Part of that journey is hearing enough different systems and doing enough experiments to know what you're hearing and especially whether or not you can trust it. And there really isn't a shortcut for that.

The closest thing to an "easy button" I've found is a really good set of IEMs. The presentation is different (stereo vs binaural). The physicality of loud music is gone. They have specific challenges relating to how wet things like reverbs and delays sound. And just like I personally find a good number of speakers, there are very highly regarded IEMs that I think are total crap. But, at the same time, the distortion inherent to them can be vanishingly low compared to speakers, you don't have to deal with the room at all, you can play/work at a happy medium between quiet and a safe version of "gig volume", and it's damn near trivial to get used to them by plugging them into your phone and doing chores around the house.

But....

I've owned (and worked mixing and/or mastering) speakers from $~300 to several thousand in untreated and heavily treated rooms, and the studio where I did my first internship had insanely nice monitoring. It wasn't a quick realization for me. And, no, the high 5 to 6-figure systems I've heard are not my favorites.

It's honestly a fun journey.

And, honestly, the fact that you're on here and reading this means that you're probably in better shape than a lot of guitarists. I've heard some really terrible guitar sounds live.

 

[Boomer]

The issue I’m having with them is they’re very boomy and loose in the low end

You should look into a 30~ band equalizer system to throw in front of your speakers. The Behringer Ultragraph Pro FBQ6200HD and a EMC8000 calibration mic are good cheapo units for monitor correction and way cheaper than new monitors.

If that's out of the budget, try to reduce the EQ on the Axe Fx using pink noise. Although a calibration mic is one of the most handy cheap tools you can get for any situation. Same with a good decibel meter.


As there is not an ideal studio monitor and the KRKs are really great monitors. I personally like Yamaha HS8s and JBL 308s, which would be even more boomy with the larger subs than the 5 inch KRKs.


Another suggestion is to get some foam underneath your monitors if you don't already have some. It'll lower boominess as it'll reduce what you have underneath the speakers from affecting the EQ. Plus make sure you have the monitors a bit away from your walls as proximity effect is an important factor too.

In my own experience, I have a home signal chain that follows

Instrument -> Axe Fx III -> Focusrite 18i20 3rd Gen S/PDIF -> dbx dual 31 band iEQ (moving this to the jam space and downgrading to the Behringer EQ since it works equally as well) -> JBL 308s and Yamaha HS8s.

Both sets of monitors are set to 83dB using the pink noise generator synth block in the Axe Fx at unity (+4dBu 0dB/max blue line no red/-20dBFS)
I use a calibration mic through the clean preamp on the Focusrite and use FabFilter Q3 to visualize the pink noise then adjust the 31 band EQ until it's flat.

I do the same with the PA at a jam space.

As for gigs, I'll trust the PA to be flat enough and if it sounds bad it means the sound guy is bad or changed the EQ 99% of the time. Although bad sound guys are far and few in-between with good calibration.

 

[elvis]

For the space my desk is in, I've had a lot better results with front-ported monitors than rear-ported. I also have the monitors on isolation stands. I am running a pair of Adam A7X and a pair of JBL 305P MK2 with a switch for A/B. They sound COMPLETELY different, but I find that a lot of club systems sound more like the JBL than the Adam. I use these mostly when mixing music so I can predict how it might sound in my car, at a friend's house, in earbuds, etc.

 

[playmusic]

I totally agree that presets should have a final dial in at volume, however IMO it is a fallacy to state that FRFR should, or needs, to be used.

FRFR is a marketing hype term without any specification, and those specs that ARE offered typically have slack tolerance vs those same specs of studio monitors. Also, every FRFR sounds different, some have unpleasant artifacts but again, at the end of the day they are SUPPOSED to represent EXACTLY what studio monitors are .. a faithful, amplified reproduction of the source. There are also cheap FRFR as there are cheap studio monitors, there are expensive FRFR as there are expensive studio monitors. There are bassy, bloomy, bright, peaky FRFR just like there are studio monitors.

Buying new monitors, or an FRFR is not an instant solution to improving the matching of presets created to tracking at volume on stage through some random PA. and, just like you would "dial in" the EQ of the room/PA you should also "dial in" your own monitors & room.

Essentially, what is important, just like in mixing with monitors with known unpleasant artifacts (say cough NS10), is to KNOW what they SHOULD sound like, and luckily, every single user is given a master template to check their system in the form of the AXEiii factory presets. Play those at volume, and add parametric EQ, or OUTEQ to make those sound tonally balanced .. problem very much largely solved imo.

Essentially, If you play a known amp in the factory presets and ended up adjusting the amp to reduce low mid hump, adding more low cut, tame highs etc etc.. then you need to know its your SYSTEM, not the preset!.. and your preset will sound thin and bright everywhere else. In reality, just know that the factory presets do not just sound good, they can sound unbelievably awesome..

I would very much recommend, learned the hard way, to reserve OUT1 for the PA, connect your monitor/FRFR/speaker setup to OUT2, have OUT2 copy OUT1 and use OUT2 EQ to make those Factory presets sound tonally balanced... without adjusting the amp in the preset and you are done. At this point you have somewhat normalized your system to that used to create the presets and setup a profile for your system..

This would strongly suggest that any presets you create will be reasonably true to your hearing of the Factory presets, and that using OUT1 for the PA gives the sound guy a solid, but blank canvas to tweak to taste, or if that guy is you, you can setup an OUT1 EQ for that system/room venue.

Should start by acknowledging that some practice areas will be so small or reflective that studio monitors or headphones may be the best option. Acoustic treatment might help with a "hard" room, but the apartment next door may object to breaking out a wall.

As I mentioned in my initial post, any monitor (studio, FRFR, PA, or for that matter, a traditional amp/cab), can ultimately be used to design presets that will translate to the stage. Especially once the person designing the presets learns to anticipate what their presets require to make the transition successfully. I just find FRFRs to be the most direct translation and most accurate predictor for live usage.

It just stands to reason that the more similar the equipment you are designing your presets on is to its intended use, the fewer the differences are that have to be accounted for. For example, Consider the reverse example. Would you use FRFRs to design presets for your studio? Although some of those presets might work fine, you would be better served by using studio monitors or headphones to design presets destined for the studio. The right tool for the right job. I believe the same applies to stage. Easiest and most accurate path to presets destined for stage, is to use equipment more similar to that on the stage. Granted, the room you are in, how it is treated, and your listening setup/position can skew things, no matter which type of monitoring you choose (with the possible exception of headphones).

Anyway, I stand by my initial suggestion, if the excellent recommendations regarding monitor placement, surface isolation, acoustic room treatment, etc. are not the ticket, and the OP still finds their KRK Rokit 5s just don't work for them, consider FRFR(s) instead of upgrading your studio monitors, although that is also a viable option. And lastly, use whatever works best for you. The above is just what works best for me.

 

[Deadpool_25]

To be honest, almost any studio monitor that costs at least twice as much as the Rokit 5's will give you noticeably better results. The Rokit 5 is about as entry-level as you can get, and it shows.

Truth. When I got my first Fractal product, an AxeFX II XL+, I got some KRK Rokit 6s. I returned them almost immediately and got a pair of Yamaha HS7s and have been happy with them for years. I eventually added a matching sub as well.

Edit: Ha. I went back and looked at my original thread and realized I never actually bought the KRKs. I listened to them in the store and they sounded meh; the HS7s sounded quite good. And apparently the Rokit 8s were 249 and the HS7s were 299 so not even much more. Rokits get consistently poor reviews around here and for good reason IME. The Yamahas typically get good reviews, as do the Adams and Focals.