Nearfield monitor article

The chase: I haven't auditioned enough monitors to be able to tell you which one is better than another. I'm currently using KRK Rockit 5's and like them, though I wish they could produce just a bit more volume.

Not to throw fuel, but everybody wants to know "what should I buy?" You really need to listen to the options for yourself. My ears and my opinions will be different from yours.
 
+1 with listen first then make up your mind.

IMO, It's a hard place because you really need to evaluate monitors in your room and over time.

Pretty difficult to walk into a retailer and make sense out of the choices even if you bring your own source material to listen to.

Richard
 
Rex
My questions aren't an attack. I was more curious to know if you & Glen agreed on the available products but disagree on the method of getting there.

I wasn't asking "what to buy". Rather, I was just aking for your opinions. There is no right and wrong.

So, which is it? Ginger or Mary Ann?
 
No problem. I know you weren't attacking. My own opinion is that I don't know enough of the available products well enough to recommend one as exceptional. I'm sure Glen knows things I don't, and he may have a different opinion. +1 on Barhrecords' comment: it's actually very hard to evelauate any speaker without listening to it over an extended period, preferaby in the environment it will be used in. You bring too much prejudice into a single listening session, and you're too easily influenced by the last thing you heard.
 
Last edited:
To get serious with some new nearfields, I would like to remix some sessions that gave me issues before and listen to some reference tracks at different db levels etc... all in my own control room.

And 100% agree that psychology can really sway you at the retailers.

I do consider online reviews valid for me. It's a slippery slope because you will be hard pressed to not find as many negative as positive reviews for any particular studio monitors if you Google enough.

The exception would be the upper upper $$ tier. And I attribute that to the fact that so very few studios can afford them and those that do probably aren't posting much online for or against.

Richard
 
Good thread here for those who are interesting in getting past all the BS surrounding small monitors. One thing that bugs me though is the concentration that many folks have on the 'flatness' requirement - as if it was everything that really matters.

In reality, a couple of db's worth of variation (as measured in a anechoic environment) is practically nothing compared to what any normal room imparts upon the whole picture. Fact is you don't just listen to speakers; you listen to speakers within a room. Many people underestimate the destructive contribution a room imparts, even with nearfield monitoring.

It is very common for a room to add or subtract 20-30db (or more) of peaks, valleys, etc. at various frequencies - and it all changes as you (or the monitors) move about in a room. To prove it to yourself, just play a steady note (on a keyboard or something) and walk around with a spl meter. Change the note and do it again. Amazing huh?

I'm not saying that monitors don't need to be 'flat'. Many other issues matter as much or perhaps even more. How about dynamic response? Do the monitors lose ability to reproduce a transient at higher levels? I would certainly consider a monitor that was able to respond properly to dynamics at volume levels a guitar player goes to (or monitors at) over another monitor that falls apart - but has a better FR spec. Many other issues like this come into play as well.

When it comes to choosing monitors there is one thing for sure these days - it's a highly-competitive market and this means you likely get what you pay for.

I can see how the author would be reluctant to recommend a particular model, as much as many would like. Perhaps you could identify the monitor(s) you feel don't fit well at their price-point. Potential buyers can just let their wallets decide from the remaining contenders. Nothing wrong with pointing out the low-value turds right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rex
Also,

When <insert your engineering idol here> uses nearfields brand X, that have one thing you will never have, *their* ears.

Having the ability to use your own ears and judgements lets them compensate for differences in different rooms, speakers, tracks etc.

Good ears would let an engineer mix with a set of nearfields that someone untrained might find completely unusable.

Richard
 
widrace said:
In reality, a couple of db's worth of variation (as measured in a anechoic environment) is practically nothing compared to what any normal room imparts upon the whole picture. Fact is you don't just listen to speakers; you listen to speakers within a room. Many people underestimate the destructive contribution a room imparts, even with nearfield monitoring.
Click to expand...
This.
 
widrace said:
It is very common for a room to add or subtract 20-30db (or more) of peaks, valleys, etc. at various frequencies - and it all changes as you (or the monitors) move about in a room. To prove it to yourself, just play a steady note (on a keyboard or something) and walk around with a spl meter. Change the note and do it again. Amazing huh?
Click to expand...

+1

Prime example: http://forum.fractalaudio.com/amps-cabs/43565-xitone-x24p-vids-info.html

In this case, it happened to be me moving around with an iPod Touch! You can easily hear how the sound changes as I move around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom