They all sound different (monitor dilemma) - Final verdict

Actually I'm already sold, but as I wrote, my dilemma is about something else now: if they have such different EQs, I think you need a way to figure out how to set a baseline and hear model/presets as they were intended.
What we are saying is whether or not they sound as different, cannot be concluded from the video as there are too many factors and the sound is often room /setup specific as you see some people here whove used adams disagree in them sounding the way they do in the video.

I fully agree on the baseline thing and the need to hear the models as intended ,but every monitor speaker end of the day sounds different in that sense even if all will try to be as neutral as possible, so thats why see some people liking the presets some never like presets.

To hear the baseline i think we need to be able to hear a sound thats as neutral as possible , without sounding very lifeless. A more straight forward way would be using global geq/ parametric eq if you know where your monitors cut or add something extra.

Which is why hearing the monitors accurately without desk vibrations or bad room characteristics like build up of 150hz for some people etc is important to know what is the extra / or underwhelming freq range for your monitor so you can attack right freqs inn the global eq without attacking the wrong ones,

and knowing your room characteristics like if they cause a spike at 150hz etc help, because then global eq can also offset that, or you can use a block in the chain , that helps you to more or less hear the truth and not good or bad coloration.

In my case to offset this issue i used sound id from sonarworks, use a measurement mic with a profile provided by them, and then run it through tests to calibrate my monitors in the room based on my listening spot., to effectively remove the excess coloration/(or add where it needs) the sound has in my room and thats my baseline.

I also have dt770 pro closed headphones and i use a flattening curve for them too and then i compare the two annd more or less if it sounds similar in terms of sound more or less thats my baseline, recording some tracks and hearing if they sound good on some gear helps me re affirm that the baseline is right.

So thats how i go about my baseline .

Ideally having acoustically treated room helps better. i know people using adam a7x + sound id + fully treated rooms + axe fx 3 , because this is a process and everything adds marginally to get to that right baseline.
 
Last edited:
You need to evaluate the monitor with your ears in your room.

I bought the Adam A7X based on a lot of good reviews, but with my ears, in my untreated room, at the volume level i use, I thought that they had too much high end.
To be able to compare I bought the Yamaha HS7 and those are the ones I kept.

Note: I don’t do any mixing, just use them connected to the FM3 for playing and listening to YouTube videos. A certain speaker can be “better” but bottom line is what works best for you.
 
Remember that the room they are in and where the speakers are placed heavily influence the sound too. That's where the dip switches on studio monitors, acoustic panels, room correction software etc come in.

Many of us don't have a dedicated studio space with great acoustics in the first place so we are at the whim of the peculiarities of that even with great studio monitors.

As an example, I use a pair of Genelec M040 speakers. They have performed very well in tests for accuracy etc. But because of space constraints in my apartment, I have to put one of them in a corner and another about half a meter from the wall. The room also has a very distinct 130 Hz boost that can make things boomy without correcting for it. So I use the dip switches in the back of the monitors as well as the Sonarworks Reference ID software to measure and correct the room response. These two things make a noticeable difference in the sound as it removes boomy lows for example.

I hope to buy a house this year to have a better space for all this.

PS. I do not recommend Sonarworks because their software is quite buggy and their support has been lackluster. If anyone knows another company that offers this sort of software (room correction via IRs for not only DAW use but also for general audio in Windows/MacOS) I'd love to try them.
IK Multimedia has ARC. Can't really speak to its quality myself, but my impression is that it's good, stable, but not as good as Sonarworks.
 
You need to evaluate the monitor with your ears in your room.

I bought the Adam A7X based on a lot of good reviews, but with my ears, in my untreated room, at the volume level i use, I thought that they had too much high end.
To be able to compare I bought the Yamaha HS7 and those are the ones I kept.

Note: I don’t do any mixing, just use them connected to the FM3 for playing and listening to YouTube videos. A certain speaker can be “better” but bottom line is what works best for you.
Oh, this is interesting! I'd like to know more, I'll write you if it's not a problem.
 
So thats how i go about my baseline .
I see and understand your point, but...

... what if Fractal that had the knowledge to model the single component of an amp make some "preset" EQ to accomodate the more common studio monitors? From that point on we could tweak, or simulate the response of different studio monitors, just like the cabs.
 
I see and understand your point, but...

... what if Fractal that had the knowledge to model the single component of an amp make some "preset" EQ to accomodate the more common studio monitors? From that point on we could tweak, or simulate the response of different studio monitors, just like the cabs.
I think we can have presets for standard frequency response curves of monitors, but the issue is re imposing , another curve on your monitor also requires you to flatten the existing curve on your monitor first, which is a complicated thing not really fractals domain or area of interest.

Unlike speaker impedance curves settings being a digital implementation which can be disabled or simply used to change the curve , monitors are physical with moving parts which create alot of variability at different amplitudes and distances.
 
Last edited:
I just want to throw that in, so maybe that’s helpfull.
Listen with good headphones. And yeah that’s not about a monitor sound that’s about the mixing result.
 
Remember that the room they are in and where the speakers are placed heavily influence the sound too
This! ans this is the reason you can not understand the quality of a studio monitor in a shop and from a YT HQ video.

About Sonarworks I can confirm the bad customer service (but as you know not everybody can be good as FAS or G66 ;)) but the new SoundId works fine: I have a good control room (acoustic treatment projected and realized) but it add a small but noticeable correction.
 
That said, two questions:
  1. is it possible to know which reference monitors are used in @FractalAudio studios? If they are Adam I will find everything brighter than it is intended to sound.
  2. To compensate that, is it possible (a future "wish" post) to add in the OUT block a selection of the EQ curves of the most common studio monitors so as to facilitate univocal listening?
I remember hearing that Fractal recommended using the Yamahas in the past and I think they used them too. But recently I heard them saying you have the top of the line Modeler, why not get the top of the line monitors. But if they used the Yamahas and liked them, I'd say that is a good choice.

I have 3", 5" and 8" Mackie MR monitors and they sound great. If you are going to put these on your desk close to you, the 8" are going to be too big. You can't hear all the frequencies that close. I put my 8" in the back of the room and it sounds like a 4x12 when cranked at loud bedroom volumes.

I love the Mackies.. got them all on sale for a great price.
 
FWIW if my presets sound too bright it probably has more to do with my personal taste than the monitors I use. My main live presets are designed to be used in a hard rock trio with dirty bass and a drummer nicknamed "the pounder" so extra sizzle definitely helps.
 
FWIW if my presets sound too bright it probably has more to do with my personal taste than the monitors I use. My main live presets are designed to be used in a hard rock trio with dirty bass and a drummer nicknamed "the pounder" so extra sizzle definitely helps.
Thanks
 
Actually I'm already sold, but as I wrote, my dilemma is about something else now: if they have such different EQs, I think you need a way to figure out how to set a baseline and hear model/presets as they were intended.
That's the big dilemma of setting up a studio (or a listening room).

You can't really evaluate a sound until you have accurate monitoring, and you can't really figure out if your monitoring is accurate until you know what things are supposed to sound like...or trusting in measurements/testing that very few people really understand....or other people's opinions that might not match your own ears.

This is the core issue mix and mastering engineers are talking about when they discuss how their mixes translate to other systems, and why so many "beginner" guides suggest listening on multiple systems in multiple places.

There is no easy/simple/cheap answer. You just do what you can, learn as you go, and upgrade as you need to after you've identified specific, articulable problems.

If anyone knows another company that offers this sort of software (room correction via IRs for not only DAW use but also for general audio in Windows/MacOS) I'd love to try them.

They're not all implemented as IRs. But, you could shoot an IR through any of them following measurement and use an IR Loader or Convolution Reverb to listen through them if you wanted to. IMHO, there's not much of a reason to do that. If nothing else, the channel arrangement for the processing can get a bit odd if you're actually using IRs. Doing it inside your Fractal is one reason to do it that way....but IMHO it's not worth it compared to just monitoring through either a DSP box or a DAW. But, I also don't care about the ~5ms of additional latency that causes on my system.

IK has Arc.
Waves has one, but I don't remember what it's called.
DiracLive is very well regarded, but it's also used more in the home-theater world.
AudioVero has some tools that you can use together to do the same thing, but it's a little less integrated as a complete product. This is what Bob Katz uses, last time I checked. And it does work by generating FIR filters that you play through (via IR Loader, Convolution Reverb, or AcourateConvolver).

They're all around the same price as SonarWorks, give or take a bit. I think Acourate is a couple hundred more expensive.

MiniDSP partners with Dirac Live, and most of their boxes will do room correction. The ones that are appropriate for a studio context are around $1000 to $2000 depending on whether the box integrates DACs or a stereo power amp.

DBX has a few dsp boxes that get at the same idea for live sound venues. You could, potentially, use one of those. But, I don't know of anyone doing that in a studio context. IIRC, they're a bit more expensive than software-only but not insane. I believe they also have less finely-grained control for the correction and more for time-aligning wildly separated speakers (e.g., in a big venue).

The cream of the crop is Trinnov. A stereo system with measurement mic is around 6 grand. There are a decent number of high-profile mix engineers and mastering engineers using Trinnov.

(all USA prices)

They all attempt to do basically the same thing (as far as the correction goes), and they all actually do it very well. How much you like it has a LOT to do with how well you take the measurements and a good bit to do with what you're starting with.

There are a couple people (including some very well respected engineers) who honestly believe that a Trinnov is the only thing you need, in an otherwise untreated room, to get mastering-quality sound. I am unconvinced. I understand (part of) the math and why it theoretically could work...but I haven't heard it for myself. I also invested in several thousand dollars worth of treatment and went back and forth between GiK Acoustics's designers and contractors to build this room. So...it might be partially confirmation bias.

Room correction in an already decently treated room is still going to be an improvement, potentially a significant one. In my room, it's not life changing (like the treatments were), but it is significant.

As far as deciding between the options, I really only have 2 thoughts.

The first big thought is about integrating subwoofers. You need at least 2 in any normal-sized home studio. If your room is small, that's more of an argument to have multiple subs, since you can place them in the room and tune the crossovers to help deal with room modes and take some of the weight off the correction. It isn't possible to physically fit enough bass trapping in a home studio to control the bottom few octaves and certainly not infrasonics. Seriously...if you dig into the math, the volume of bass trapping you would need is greater than the volume of the room in virtually every home/project studio. The treatment is still worth doing, but it can't be the end of the story.

I know a lot of people disagree with that and think subs aren't worth the complexities they cause. They are all wrong.

The problems come when you use the 80Hz crossover built into most cheap subwoofers that may or may not even have a phase adjustment, only use one of them, and don't bother calibrating everything...in other words, when you do literally everything wrong and pretend that has anything to do with the concept as a whole.

You need to be able to completely bypass the sub's included processing and set up the crossovers, phase, and levels yourself. Which, AFAIK, means that the JBL LSR sub is the only budget sub that is even remotely usable. At the high-end, you have more choices, but the next step up are all $1200+ each. The JBL's problem is that they don't actually go all that loud without distorting.

So, if you're going to integrate a subwoofer, you either have to do the crossover filters as part of your DAW/monitoring output in software....or you use Acourate, MiniDSP or Trinnov. They all can do both room correction and very complete subwoofer control. They are a more complete package than the others.

They also can be extended (if you have enough channels of processing/conversion to use) to a full-on active multi-way system. That's actually how Bob Katz is using Acourate. He bypasses all of the crossovers built into his speakers and has separate DAC and amplification channels for each tweeter, midwoofer, woofer, and subwoofer, all controlled by AcourateConvolver.

The other big thought is that they're like a lot of other things in the studio world. There are technical differences, but they're often small. Not always. But often. If one of them works in such a way that you can take better measurements (or modify the results if you know what you're doing), or just like working with it better, it may give better results than something that might be technically superior (up to a point).

AFAIK, Acourate and Trinnov are the only ones that can time-align individual drivers in addition to crossovers (just subs or active multi-way) and room correction. They are technically the most complete. MiniDSP might have added this functionality.

DiracLive and SonarWorks are probably the simplest to get up and running, and SonarWorks's measurement application is extremely straightforward.

As far as actually choosing between them....if you have the budget, just get a Trinnov and their measurement mic. I haven't heard a single bad thing about their service (nor should I at that price). And, it's the thing that makes believers out of people who have been incredibly anti-DSP for years.

If you don't....the big decision is whether you want a box that you can just put between your computer and your speakers or software-only. If you want a box, MiniDSP is the next best thing. It's kind of a big deal in the home-theater world, and it is very good.

If you want software-only, all of them work, and it's largely about how you want to integrate it and how well the software works with your head.

Personally....I still use SonarWorks and a couple other plugins (for crossovers and phase alignment) and always listen through a Reaper session that I keep running literally 24/7. It works for me. I've never used the SW systemwide app because it won't integrate with my subwoofers correctly. I'm currently contemplating an upgrade and trying to decide whether to get a MiniDSP basically now or wait longer to save up for a Trinnov.
 
That's the big dilemma of setting up a studio (or a listening room).

You can't really evaluate a sound until you have accurate monitoring, and you can't really figure out if your monitoring is accurate until you know what things are supposed to sound like...or trusting in measurements/testing that very few people really understand....or other people's opinions that might not match your own ears.

This is the core issue mix and mastering engineers are talking about when they discuss how their mixes translate to other systems, and why so many "beginner" guides suggest listening on multiple systems in multiple places.

There is no easy/simple/cheap answer. You just do what you can, learn as you go, and upgrade as you need to after you've identified specific, articulable problems.



They're not all implemented as IRs. But, you could shoot an IR through any of them following measurement and use an IR Loader or Convolution Reverb to listen through them if you wanted to. IMHO, there's not much of a reason to do that. If nothing else, the channel arrangement for the processing can get a bit odd if you're actually using IRs. Doing it inside your Fractal is one reason to do it that way....but IMHO it's not worth it compared to just monitoring through either a DSP box or a DAW. But, I also don't care about the ~5ms of additional latency that causes on my system.

IK has Arc.
Waves has one, but I don't remember what it's called.
DiracLive is very well regarded, but it's also used more in the home-theater world.
AudioVero has some tools that you can use together to do the same thing, but it's a little less integrated as a complete product. This is what Bob Katz uses, last time I checked. And it does work by generating FIR filters that you play through (via IR Loader, Convolution Reverb, or AcourateConvolver).

They're all around the same price as SonarWorks, give or take a bit. I think Acourate is a couple hundred more expensive.

MiniDSP partners with Dirac Live, and most of their boxes will do room correction. The ones that are appropriate for a studio context are around $1000 to $2000 depending on whether the box integrates DACs or a stereo power amp.

DBX has a few dsp boxes that get at the same idea for live sound venues. You could, potentially, use one of those. But, I don't know of anyone doing that in a studio context. IIRC, they're a bit more expensive than software-only but not insane. I believe they also have less finely-grained control for the correction and more for time-aligning wildly separated speakers (e.g., in a big venue).

The cream of the crop is Trinnov. A stereo system with measurement mic is around 6 grand. There are a decent number of high-profile mix engineers and mastering engineers using Trinnov.

(all USA prices)

They all attempt to do basically the same thing (as far as the correction goes), and they all actually do it very well. How much you like it has a LOT to do with how well you take the measurements and a good bit to do with what you're starting with.

There are a couple people (including some very well respected engineers) who honestly believe that a Trinnov is the only thing you need, in an otherwise untreated room, to get mastering-quality sound. I am unconvinced. I understand (part of) the math and why it theoretically could work...but I haven't heard it for myself. I also invested in several thousand dollars worth of treatment and went back and forth between GiK Acoustics's designers and contractors to build this room. So...it might be partially confirmation bias.

Room correction in an already decently treated room is still going to be an improvement, potentially a significant one. In my room, it's not life changing (like the treatments were), but it is significant.

As far as deciding between the options, I really only have 2 thoughts.

The first big thought is about integrating subwoofers. You need at least 2 in any normal-sized home studio. If your room is small, that's more of an argument to have multiple subs, since you can place them in the room and tune the crossovers to help deal with room modes and take some of the weight off the correction. It isn't possible to physically fit enough bass trapping in a home studio to control the bottom few octaves and certainly not infrasonics. Seriously...if you dig into the math, the volume of bass trapping you would need is greater than the volume of the room in virtually every home/project studio. The treatment is still worth doing, but it can't be the end of the story.

I know a lot of people disagree with that and think subs aren't worth the complexities they cause. They are all wrong.

The problems come when you use the 80Hz crossover built into most cheap subwoofers that may or may not even have a phase adjustment, only use one of them, and don't bother calibrating everything...in other words, when you do literally everything wrong and pretend that has anything to do with the concept as a whole.

You need to be able to completely bypass the sub's included processing and set up the crossovers, phase, and levels yourself. Which, AFAIK, means that the JBL LSR sub is the only budget sub that is even remotely usable. At the high-end, you have more choices, but the next step up are all $1200+ each. The JBL's problem is that they don't actually go all that loud without distorting.

So, if you're going to integrate a subwoofer, you either have to do the crossover filters as part of your DAW/monitoring output in software....or you use Acourate, MiniDSP or Trinnov. They all can do both room correction and very complete subwoofer control. They are a more complete package than the others.

They also can be extended (if you have enough channels of processing/conversion to use) to a full-on active multi-way system. That's actually how Bob Katz is using Acourate. He bypasses all of the crossovers built into his speakers and has separate DAC and amplification channels for each tweeter, midwoofer, woofer, and subwoofer, all controlled by AcourateConvolver.

The other big thought is that they're like a lot of other things in the studio world. There are technical differences, but they're often small. Not always. But often. If one of them works in such a way that you can take better measurements (or modify the results if you know what you're doing), or just like working with it better, it may give better results than something that might be technically superior (up to a point).

AFAIK, Acourate and Trinnov are the only ones that can time-align individual drivers in addition to crossovers (just subs or active multi-way) and room correction. They are technically the most complete. MiniDSP might have added this functionality.

DiracLive and SonarWorks are probably the simplest to get up and running, and SonarWorks's measurement application is extremely straightforward.

As far as actually choosing between them....if you have the budget, just get a Trinnov and their measurement mic. I haven't heard a single bad thing about their service (nor should I at that price). And, it's the thing that makes believers out of people who have been incredibly anti-DSP for years.

If you don't....the big decision is whether you want a box that you can just put between your computer and your speakers or software-only. If you want a box, MiniDSP is the next best thing. It's kind of a big deal in the home-theater world, and it is very good.

If you want software-only, all of them work, and it's largely about how you want to integrate it and how well the software works with your head.

Personally....I still use SonarWorks and a couple other plugins (for crossovers and phase alignment) and always listen through a Reaper session that I keep running literally 24/7. It works for me. I've never used the SW systemwide app because it won't integrate with my subwoofers correctly. I'm currently contemplating an upgrade and trying to decide whether to get a MiniDSP basically now or wait longer to save up for a Trinnov.
what are your thoughts on trinnov products and which ones do you think are worth it like st2 for example?

Yep sonarworks is the most straightforward 15 minutes and ready to go set up. The purpose of turning it into an ir and not using it in daw is significant in case of something, like linear phase, which imo sounds the clearest, but in daw plugin for sonarworks its 40-50ms latency, and the other options like zero latency have more phase distortion i used the deconvolver to generate and ir for linear phase and ported it to axe and boom! superb clarity in everything nothing sounds too much or too little unless badly dialled in, it got me to delete alot more of my peq blocks, which i had from earlier , as in the daw i never felt that clarity well enough. It simply helps me enjoy playing more.

Now i use the plugin it in the daw only to record/ or hear how things sound in a mix with the corrections or the app to make some adjustments to the the curve by remeasuring if i feel theres some innacuracy.
 
Actually I'm already sold, but as I wrote, my dilemma is about something else now: if they have such different EQs, I think you need a way to figure out how to set a baseline and hear model/presets as they were intended.
You can say the same thing about guitar cabs though. They can drastically change the resulting sound and you may not get what the amp is intended to sound like.

Regardless of what speaker you use, I think any speaker, IEM, or anything needs to be EQ’d for the room it’s in, as well as your preferences.

As long as a speaker produces all the frequencies like it should (not damaged, not low quality, etc.), any speaker can produce an “intended” sound. It just has to be EQ’d for the environment.

Even with the perfect speaker, using the dials on the speaker itself (referenced above) would be changing what the speaker produces. So there must not be any “ready to go speaker” if they have adjustments built in anyway.

EQ’ing for the room is the missing step in most workflows I think. I just play a recording I’m very familiar with, and use a Parametric or Graphic EQ. I push frequencies up until they sound harsh (and I know what that frequency is doing) then bring it down till it sounds right. With a para, I find the most irritating frequencies in a certain range, then bring it down. Maybe crude compared to reference mics and pink noising the room, but it works.

Once that’s done, anything I play through them sounds as intended, and I don’t touch any channel EQs unless I want more of some frequency. I do that for any room I gig in (as much as possible without irritating people), my IEM send, my home setup, etc. Using most digital mixers, I can save each EQ and call it up when I need. Next gig I’m ready to go without any surprises unless something major is changed at the venue. Really simplifies everything.
 
Ive brought this up in the past. 2 schools of thought on this.

If you want your presets to translate on the widest range of playback scenarios, you really need a flat base to write presets to. I don't think the Yamahas and the Adams are as different as you may think in this regard, but either should get you in the ballpark of what you're trying to do. Outside of being in a functional treated room, it doesn't matter anyway as you're not hearing what you think you're hearing.

If you'll always be playing your presets thru the same monitoring situation, then simply use that said monitor no matter how imperfect or unflat it may be.
 
what are your thoughts on trinnov products and which ones do you think are worth it like st2 for example?

Yep sonarworks is the most straightforward 15 minutes and ready to go set up. The purpose of turning it into an ir and not using it in daw is significant in case of something, like linear phase, which imo sounds the clearest, but in daw plugin for sonarworks its 40-50ms latency, and the other options like zero latency have more phase distortion i used the deconvolver to generate and ir for linear phase and ported it to axe and boom! superb clarity in everything nothing sounds too much or too little unless badly dialled in, it got me to delete alot more of my peq blocks, which i had from earlier , as in the daw i never felt that clarity well enough. It simply helps me enjoy playing more.

Now i use the plugin it in the daw only to record/ or hear how things sound in a mix with the corrections or the app to make some adjustments to the the curve by remeasuring if i feel theres some innacuracy.
The one for your monitoring situation. The ST2 Pro actually has 4 channels of IO, specifically to integrate stereo subs (or I guess use 2 pair of speakers for some reason). If you're monitoring in Stereo, that's what I would use. If you're monitoring 5.1, 7.1, or Atmos, you would need a different one. Actually, IDK if they do an Atmos compatible one. But, I'm still in the camp that says Atmos is a fad (other than the binaural version).

There definitely are workflows that benefit from using IRs.

As for linear phase correction....in most cases, the difference between linear phase and minimum phase isn't huge...it's mostly a slight change in the curve. The exception is for hi- and low-pass filters. But, there are actual reasons to prefer minimum phase XO filters, mostly that speakers' natural band-pass response, room modes, speaker box effects, etc. are all minimum/natural phase filters. None of them are linear phase. That's generally how multi-driver speakers work...the XO and the speaker each reverse phase, so you're back where you started for most of what the drivers cover, and you tune the EQ and phase response near the XO frequency so that they work out.

EQs/Filters are phase distortions, even linear phase EQ/filters. The "linear phase" part of it just changes what, exactly, it sounds like.

The overall setup is simpler for minimum phase filters, and the difference is minimal for peaks/shelves. And, technically, all filters/EQ s change transient response. It's all a question of whether the changes you make are preferable or detrimental.

Either way can work, though, and yes...use your ears. I've honestly gone back and forth over the years. FWIW, that's how AcourateConvolver does it as well...it generates FIR filters and then convolves them in a software monitor controller that is also basically a convolution reverb that does EQ, XO, and time-alignment instead of sounding like a reverb.

room.....room.......room.....room....room....just as speaker is %51 of amp tone, the room is %51 if not way way more.
It's definitely more than 51%.

If you're after accuracy and you haven't put a few grand into your room, there is no reason to put a few grand into speakers. If you haven't put a lot into the room and invested in a Trinnov (or something similar), there's no reason to actually go for high-end speakers (meaning 10k +).

Having done the comparison (due to having acquaintances with more money than sense), 10k split between the room, speakers/subs, and amps is BETTER than 50k on a hi-fi system in a normal room. It just doesn't look as sexy.

EQ’ing for the room is the missing step in most workflows I think. I just play a recording I’m very familiar with, and use a Parametric or Graphic EQ. I push frequencies up until they sound harsh (and I know what that frequency is doing) then bring it down till it sounds right. With a para, I find the most irritating frequencies in a certain range, then bring it down. Maybe crude compared to reference mics and pink noising the room, but it works.

Once that’s done, anything I play through them sounds as intended, and I don’t touch any channel EQs unless I want more of some frequency. I do that for any room I gig in (as much as possible without irritating people), my IEM send, my home setup, etc. Using most digital mixers, I can save each EQ and call it up when I need. Next gig I’m ready to go without any surprises unless something major is changed at the venue. Really simplifies everything.
That's basically what all these room correction things do. They just do it "automagically" and very precisely. And they actually are measuring things that most people can't hear accurately enough to adjust but that do affect their experience and decisonmaking.
 
Not read the whole post but I own the Yamaha HS7s and I regret keeping them. Apart from the fact they lack any real bass (even professional tracks sound weak), they pick up your phone when it’s nearby and do that 1990s modem sound.

They are also extremely dull and boring to listen to music generally through them.

They are in an average sized room too.

Just my 2 pence worth
 
Ive brought this up in the past. 2 schools of thought on this.

If you want your presets to translate on the widest range of playback scenarios, you really need a flat base to write presets to. I don't think the Yamahas and the Adams are as different as you may think in this regard, but either should get you in the ballpark of what you're trying to do. Outside of being in a functional treated room, it doesn't matter anyway as you're not hearing what you think you're hearing.

If you'll always be playing your presets thru the same monitoring situation, then simply use that said monitor no matter how imperfect or unflat it may be.
Not disagreeing with you, but for live, I'm not at all sure most live PAs are flat. It's been a looong time since I did live sound, but back in the day they sure weren't. They were built to be sexy -- big bottom, exaggerated top end.

No such thing as neutral in the real world, if anything it's a societal average.
 
Back
Top Bottom