They all sound different (monitor dilemma) - Final verdict

[fractalz]

I know, it was my premise, but I can't do otherwise, and anyway 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.

I've had the best luck tuning my presets for FOH at volume with a PA-style speaker, in my case, a QSC K12.

Once you have that dialed in, you can go back to your monitors and know what you are targeting by referencing one of these tuned presets.

FWIW, a lot of what I ended up doing was taming highs/lows with Cab Block filters. 80-125Hz low-cut, 4500-6500Hz high-cut.

 

[Bruce Sokolovic]

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.

Right, they're certainly not flat. Which is why if you're always hooking up to a different PA, make your patches on as flat a reference as you can get. If you're always using your same monitoring, be it power amp and cab, FRFR speaker or whatever it is you use to hear yourself, write your patches to that. I tend to use a wedge or a keyboard amp, personally.

 

[Tom Morris]

Would be interesting to see a list of all Fractal's beta testers and what speakers systems so on they have. Thanks to this thread I now know what Cliff uses, 9 grand for studio monitors? Would also like to know the average number of users broken down to live use only with a amp and real cab, bedroom players with whatever speakers and those that are full on high end studio users.

 

[la szum]

All monitors are different, and yet all monitor threads are the same.

 

[la szum]

Would be interesting to see a list of all Fractal's beta testers and what speakers systems so on they have. Thanks to this thread I now know what Cliff uses, 9 grand for studio monitors? Would also like to know the average number of users broken down to live use only with a amp and real cab, bedroom players with whatever speakers and those that are full on high end studio users.

Yes. Yes again. This is such a central, perpetually burning topic that I feel there ought to be some
kind of primer about it. Like you suggest, each scenario is drastically and dramatically different.

I'd say it is the biggest factor in getting the most (or not getting the most) out of any of the Fractals.

 

[Dave Merrill]

Right, they're certainly not flat. Which is why if you're always hooking up to a different PA, make your patches on as flat a reference as you can get. If you're always using your same monitoring, be it power amp and cab, FRFR speaker or whatever it is you use to hear yourself, write your patches to that. I tend to use a wedge or a keyboard amp, personally.

If you know the typical PA has some sort of sexiness curve built in, using a flat system to tune your patches may not be best, even if all those PAs are different, which they clearly are.

Tuning for "average in the real world you're in" may make more sense than tuning for flat as if that's a good proxy for "will work great everywhere".

In my live sound person days, I got a cheap RTA, and constantly argued with myself what curve I should go for when I shot the room. I never thought flat was the answer there, it's not what people expect or enjoy.

All of this is a hall of mirrors, if you ask me.

 

[Bruce Sokolovic]

If you know the typical PA has summer sort of sexiness curve built in, using a flat system to tune your patches may not be best, even if all those PAs are different, which they clearly are.

Tuning for "average in the real world you're in" may make more sense than tuning for flat as if is a good proxy for "will work great everywhere".

In my live sound person days, I got a cheap RTA, and constantly argued with myself what curve I should go for when I shot the room. I never thought flat was the answer there, it's not what people expect or enjoy.

All of this is a hall of mirrors, if you ask me.

Flat won’t work great everywhere, but it should give each PA a good base starting point of dialing in the sound they need for the band mix. Which also brings me to a separate discussion of just because it sounds great, doesn’t mean it’ll work in the mix. For another thread and probably beyond the scope of FAS forum.

 

[Tom Morris]

You can make Fractals stuff sound killer on just about any monitoring system however the challenge begins when trying to get things to sound the same in multiple systems wether it be studio monitors in ear monitors or a real amp and cab. But it sure would be nice to Know from those who are creating the factory presets what setup they are using. Are they shooting for a guitar in the mix tone or just wow this shit sounds sick when I'm noodling. As an example download Leon's presets any of them and compare that to most of the factory presets that are dark scooped bass heavy. I get it the real amp sounds like that and its user preference and your job to figure out how to make it fit your use mix whatever.

As a side note its been WHISED for to have more info as to what's being used when uploading to Axechange. Here again is why 99% of presets on the Axechange sound crappy to most users because they don't have the same setup as was used by whoever uploaded it.

 

[marsonic]

the challenge begins when trying to get things to sound the same in multiple systems

You flat-out can't do that.

You can do your best to make it sound as good as it can on a wide variety of systems. But, there are always going to be outliers. If somebody wired their speakers out of phase or only ran power to the subwoofers or something...there's nothing you can do to make the preset sound right there. Or your song. Or anything else. In a much simpler way, if I like a bright sound, I'm going to buy bright speakers...and your preset will probably sound brighter on my system than on yours. And that's really all there is to it.

The answer, from a modeling perspective, is to get it to sound good on an average-ish sounding system (not too bright/dark, not too compressed, etc.) at about the volume you want to play at that's broadly similar to the kinds of systems that you usually play on when it matters. It doesn't necessarily have to be perfect, but better is better. Then, you have to accept that there are going to be some variations.

Then, either you adjust EQ and compression/gain/etc. when you get there as fast as you can to bring what you're hearing more in line with what you want....or you run your own monitor mix separate from all that and let the FOH engineer (assuming, of course, there is one) handle the room either by EQing/compressing a stereo mix you provide or by mixing the channels you send them.

You can't control absolutely everything. And if you want to, really the only way to do it is to hire your own FOH engineer. And probably bring your own PA system. And still have the FOH engineer tune it to the room every time you play.

We are in a very interesting time in that it's not that expensive to build your band's rig around a StudioLive or X32 or something like them, hire a mix engineer to build your monitor mixes and one more for a stereo out that the venue can use...and to a great degree all they should need is a tilt and a couple shelves, maybe a safety limiter, and tune your already well-mixed stereo output to their system. And if you do run your own sound, you can do it the same way, it would just be one of you walking around for a bit with an iPad to set those few controls that really matter. And as you do it more, you should get pretty quick at it.

Why more small-ish bands don't do this is completely beyond me.

Short of that, embracing the variance really is the only way forward from that problem.

 

[RLD]

Use some money out of your monitor budget and DIY some room treatment...you will not regret it.
Even if you have to go with less expensive monitors...room treatment!
I used these plans.

 

[RDH]

Is this a monitor thread? Just askin?

 

[jekylred]

I have a pair of FOCAL Alpha 65 on a prima acoustic pad and I'm very happy.

 

[Tom Morris]

marsonic I wasn't talking from a professional engineer stand point and what can be adjusted to make two systems sound the same but more of joe grabs a CLR cabinet a Friedman cabinet and a set Yamaha studio monitors and expect them all to sound and feel the same without making any adjustments. But thanks for the opinion.

 

[strabes]

If you're really concerned about accuracy, you'll be much better off putting some of your budget into acoustic treatment for your room, rather than more expensive monitors. You will not be able to take advantage of better speakers if all you're hearing is comb filtering from the reflections. Size is also a major factor. If you're in a 10'x10' room, 7-8" speakers are probably too big.

 

[fractalz]

Would be interesting to see a list of all Fractal's beta testers and what speakers systems so on they have. Thanks to this thread I now know what Cliff uses, 9 grand for studio monitors? Would also like to know the average number of users broken down to live use only with a amp and real cab, bedroom players with whatever speakers and those that are full on high end studio users.

Recommendations in price order. I would chose the SCM 25A @ the $9k price point. That is what I have in my medium sized room. Shape in a smaller space. SCM 100s in the studio.

Focal Shape Series
Focal Trio6 Be
ATC SCM 25A
ATC SCM 100+

 

[WbbS]

I had a chance to compare them side by side!

So, yes @yek the Adams are not darker but sounds brighter due to the less low end compared to the Yamaha. This lack translate in more emphasis in the high frequencies.

To sum up my experience:

• Yamaha HS7: more low end, less higher mids
• Adam A7X: definitely less low end, I will need a sub to compensate (for MY taste) more detailed high.

So now I’m not sure anymore I’ll get the Adams. The less low end is something I’ll surely miss for recording and listening.

Plus, I find out that even Fractal uses the HS8 in their studio (surely the less expensive of their reference monitor): https://forum.fractalaudio.com/thre...tors-and-a-sonic-epiphany.151242/post-1799233
So the first point in my original post got an answer, or at least one of the possible answers.

To have both would be the best scenario but I don’t have enough space on my desk.

 

[WbbS]

Recommendations in price order. I would chose the SCM 25A @ the $9k price point. That is what I have in my medium sized room. Shape in a smaller space. SCM 100s in the studio.

Focal Shape Series
Focal Trio6 Be
ATC SCM 25A
ATC SCM 100+

I really want to try the Shape that are in my price range. I realized the Adams lack of bass compared to the Yamaha. Do you think the Shape 65 would need a sub?

 

[Jeronimo]

I had a chance to compare them side by side!

So, yes @yek the Adams are not darker but sounds brighter due to the less low end compared to the Yamaha. This lack translate in more emphasis in the high frequencies.

To sum up my experience:

• Yamaha HS7: more low end, less higher mids
• Adam A7X: definitely less low end, I will need a sub to compensate (for MY taste) more detailed high.

So now I’m not sure anymore I’ll get the Adams. The less low end is something I’ll surely miss for recording and listening.

Plus, I find out that even Fractal uses the HS8 in their studio (surely the less expensive of their reference monitor): https://forum.fractalaudio.com/thre...tors-and-a-sonic-epiphany.151242/post-1799233
So the first point in my original post got an answer, or at least one of the possible answers.

To have both would be the best scenario but I don’t have enough space on my desk.

Good that you had the opportunity to compare them side by side. Sounds like you and I had the same experience.
Keep us updated when you bought something

 

[yek]

I had a chance to compare them side by side!

So, yes @yek the Adams are not darker but sounds brighter due to the less low end compared to the Yamaha. This lack translate in more emphasis in the high frequencies.

To sum up my experience:

• Yamaha HS7: more low end, less higher mids
• Adam A7X: definitely less low end, I will need a sub to compensate (for MY taste) more detailed high.

So now I’m not sure anymore I’ll get the Adams. The less low end is something I’ll surely miss for recording and listening.

I've owned A7s , A5(X)s, A3Xs and others. Currently I have A5Xs mounted to the wall. I have never felt the need for a sub, because I use the monitors primarily for guitar sounds, and a guitar doesn't need to / shouldn't be in the frequency range of a sub. Monitors are supposed to be flat. If you're going for a lot of bass from the monitors themselves, you'll easily fall in the trap of hyped bass, just like most earphones these days.

 

[chris]

I had a chance to compare them side by side!

So, yes @yek the Adams are not darker but sounds brighter due to the less low end compared to the Yamaha. This lack translate in more emphasis in the high frequencies.

To sum up my experience:

• Yamaha HS7: more low end, less higher mids
• Adam A7X: definitely less low end, I will need a sub to compensate (for MY taste) more detailed high.

So now I’m not sure anymore I’ll get the Adams. The less low end is something I’ll surely miss for recording and listening.

Plus, I find out that even Fractal uses the HS8 in their studio (surely the less expensive of their reference monitor): https://forum.fractalaudio.com/thre...tors-and-a-sonic-epiphany.151242/post-1799233
So the first point in my original post got an answer, or at least one of the possible answers.

To have both would be the best scenario but I don’t have enough space on my desk.

Wow I have to high pass my A5x for too much bass.