Upgrading my studio monitors

[joelfriedman]

Hello folks,

I have a pair of Tannoy Actives that are REALLY old (20+ yrs?) and not sounding so good. How old are they? I'm not even sure what model they are See attached photo that doesn't have a model number. I looked for the serial number but couldn't find anything so far). Regardless I'm looking for an affordable upgrade. Not my field of expertise, so I'm posting here. My interest was peaked by 2 possibilities, although I'm open to your suggestions.
1. James was posting about his new Adams, which, replacement aside, he loves but are way out of my current budget, but I did see some highly regarded Adam T8Vs https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail ... io-monitor. There are also what are both smaller, but a big step in price Adam A4Vs https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail ... io-monitor
2. A friend may be able to get me a deal with something totally different and I'm curious what the list thinks of these. For home audio there's been buzz about SVS speakers and he suggested I try out a pair, such as their SVS Ultra Evolution Bookshelf https://www.svsound.com/products/ultra- ... -bookshelf, which MAYBE if I get a "friends and family discount" *might* be affordable, or more likely their Prime Bookshelf https://www.svsound.com/products/prime-bookshelf . They also have WIRELESS speakers, https://www.svsound.com/products/prime- ... d-speakers, which I thought were a TOTAL NO-NO for our purposes, correct? NO WIRELESS MONITORS? Although he said "just plug them in..."
3. Then there are the "usual suspects" Yamaha etc.
Whatever I look at would be plugged into my Ultralite MK4.

Any thoughts?

Thanks,

Joel

[mikehalloran]

Wireless can work over WiFi but not over Bluetooth if you're tracking. Even then, hardwired will have lower latency.

As to what to buy nowadays? I haven't been paying attention. My old Equator D8 IIs with a JBL LSR310S sub are still going strong. Equator went under about 10 minutes after I took delivery so that's out.

I have set up a couple of project studios with a 2x JBL 308P MkII + LSR310S setup that came out outstandingly not bad. If you are coming from a pair of Tannoys, it might not be any better.

I have doctors' appts this morning so gotta go for now. Later, I'll weigh in on how I set up and balance just about any subwoofer by ear to get a low end that I can trust.

[joelfriedman]

Thank you Mike! I know James loves his speakers, but that's in a different class from the Adams I'm looking at/ But I noticed Sweetwater seems to have noticed me looking and those T8Vs are now $240 each. I also honestly hadn't considered a subwoofer. I wonder if some of what I'm getting from my Tannoy's is not just 20+ yr "fatigue" (do speakers last that long having been through multiple moves?) but a lack of subwoofer to handle the bottom. Oh jeez, would getting a subwoofer improve what I have or...?

Wait, they have a bundle of TV7s with a basic sw https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail ... -subwoofer

And I haven't even thought of treating my space for sound... I'm often working on my Sennheiser 650 headphones so the room probably sucks.

It's the Tyranny of Choice, and the Unknown!

[James Steele]

Thank you Mike! I know James loves his speakers, but that's in a different class from the Adams I'm looking at/ But I noticed Sweetwater seems to have noticed me looking and those T8Vs are now $240 each. I also honestly hadn't considered a subwoofer. I wonder if some of what I'm getting from my Tannoy's is not just 20+ yr "fatigue" (do speakers last that long having been through multiple moves?) but a lack of subwoofer to handle the bottom. Oh jeez, would getting a subwoofer improve what I have or...?

Wait, they have a bundle of TV7s with a basic sw https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail ... -subwoofer

And I haven't even thought of treating my space for sound... I'm often working on my Sennheiser 650 headphones so the room probably sucks.

It's the Tyranny of Choice, and the Unknown!

Yeah... well I really went in big with the ADAM A77Hs. I've never spent so much on monitors in my life. They were about $2400/pair through Thomann. May even be less. What I like about the A series is that they have internal DSP so you can measure your room with SonarWorks and then upload the room correction profile into the monitor. No messing about with a plugin on your Master Fader, and then forgetting to bypass it when you bounce.

Whatever you get, given what you said about your room (and mine is far from flat also) I would say budget for some type of room correction like ARC or SonarWorks as I really believe those are a big help. The new ARC4 system with the little hardware box like Mike got recently is a really good solution if your interface or your monitors don't have onboard DSP to store a correction profile. I really am so happy not to have to have my ARC3 plugin on my master bus anymore.

Monitors are such a personal choice. I have always been intrigued by the ribbon tweeters used in ADAM and I have to say I'm very happy with the ones I bought, but I also dropped a LOT of coin on them. However, I really truly am looking at these as the last monitors I will need to buy. ADAM has a 5 year warranty (once you register them online) which is pretty nice and they've already shown me they stand behind their product.

I hope others chime in. I will say there is a certain amount of "you get what you pay for" out there... so do your research but don't cheap out if there's something better for say $100 more, etc. And try to budget for some sort of room correction solution. I believe they really do help. The minute I uploaded the SonarWorks profiles to my ADAMs, my mixes improved noticeably. Imagine that? The better you hear... the better your mixes!

[Michael Canavan]

IMO you can't go wrong with Adam or Focal over around 1200. Just my ears but I played tracks I liked the mix of on dozens of monitors when I decided to replace the Event 20/20s I used for decades. I went with Focal, but only because the sound in the price range I had $1,500 for a pair, wasn't as assaulting for monitoring purposes.

[joelfriedman]

Hi Michael,

$1200 is above my price point right now. . Not sure what my Tannoys were back in the day, so I can’t adjust for inflation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rnappi]

Perhaps add Dynaudio to the list. Black Friday is right around the corner, so you should be able to score something usable. My humble advise would be at your price point, let the deal be the decider on what you buy. Rather than brand maybe focus on if you want ported vs sealed cabinet design. After 30 years with as many hours as a lot of mastering engineers, I still can't mix worth a damn on ported speakers. Love the way they sound, but just can't seem to get on with them. That said, if you put the time in to really learn your monitors and room and how they interact with each other, it won't matter so much whether you have A $30K pair of Ausburgers or a $200 pair of JBLs.

Best of luck,
Rich

[bayswater]

I hope others chime in. I will say there is a certain amount of "you get what you pay for" out there... so do your research but don't cheap out if there's something better for say $100 more, etc. And try to budget for some sort of room correction solution. I believe they really do help. The minute I uploaded the SonarWorks profiles to my ADAMs, my mixes improved noticeably. Imagine that? The better you hear... the better your mixes!

I seem to be at odds with the prevailing views, although I don't disagree with what you say here.

Is the criterion accuracy? Compared to what? Original live sound? Or is it a representation of what people who consume the music will hear, and if so, what will they be using? Or is it detail? That's what I've landed on.

For a long time I used speakers that were copies of those used in BBC studios. They published the specs, and the drivers were available from KEF, and I had access to a shop with the equipment to make them. I replaced these with Mackie's when they started making them. They were a noticeable improvement over the BBC monitors in that I could hear things I hadn't noticed before in familiar recordings. Now, a couple of decades later, they sound pretty average.

Now I use a Creek amp and Totem speakers in a different room to listen to mixes to decide if I'm done. But I do the mix with headphones and emulations like DearVR. Perhaps that fails the "accuracy" test, but I can hear more detail with that setup than I can with any speakers I've tried.

There are a lot of arguments against mixing with headphones because they don't sound "real", but again, compared to what? If there is no absolute criterion, then I look for detail.

Still, as you say, you get what you pay for. I never hear detail in cheap equipment.

[bayswater]

I hope others chime in. I will say there is a certain amount of "you get what you pay for" out there... so do your research but don't cheap out if there's something better for say $100 more, etc. And try to budget for some sort of room correction solution. I believe they really do help. The minute I uploaded the SonarWorks profiles to my ADAMs, my mixes improved noticeably. Imagine that? The better you hear... the better your mixes!

I seem to be at odds with the prevailing views, although I don't disagree with what you say here.

Is the criterion accuracy? Compared to what? Original live sound? Or is it a representation of what people who consume the music will hear, and if so, what will they be using? Or is it detail? That's what I've landed on.

For a long time I used speakers that were copies of those used in BBC studios. They published the specs, and the drivers were available from KEF, and I had access to a shop with the equipment to make them. I replaced these with Mackie's when they started making them. They were a noticeable improvement over the BBC monitors in that I could hear things I hadn't noticed before in familiar recordings. Now, a couple of decades later, they sound pretty average.

Now I use a Creek amp and Totem speakers in a different room to listen to mixes to decide if I'm done. But I do the mix with headphones and emulations like DearVR. Perhaps that fails the "accuracy" test, but I can hear more detail with that setup than I can with any speakers I've tried.

There are a lot of arguments against mixing with headphones because they don't sound "real", but again, compared to what? If there is no absolute criterion, then I look for detail.

Still, as you say, you get what you pay for. I never hear detail in cheap equipment.

[James Steele]

Is the criterion accuracy? Compared to what? Original live sound? Or is it a representation of what people who consume the music will hear, and if so, what will they be using? Or is it detail? That's what I've landed on.

I think the statement really speaks for itself. I noticed by the way I never used the word "accuracy." You did. But still... that's fair enough. Compared to what? I dunno... inaccurate maybe? Anomalies that can be caused by the room you're listening to give the obvious example. In my case, I must need some bass trapping in my room because I was getting a lot of low end before I employed correction, therefore my mixes were lacking in the bottom. I took the ADAMs out of the box and initially set them up for their supposedly most accurate response. It sounded okay, but I did a couple very quick mixes and sent them to a friend and asked what she thought and her opinion was like... "it's okay." This was a lay person like you describe listening on a system that would be typical for a music "consumer."

So... I did the measurements with SonarWorks (which I found to be more thorough than when I took measurements for ARC3) and when I finished I uploaded the correction profile into the ADAMs' DSP via the A Control software. All of a sudden, when I played the project back, it was like the bottom end was gone. They were correcting for the "boominess" in my room. I found I was adding a bit of low end back on the kick drum... pushing up the bass guitar... and maybe backing of the high pass and allowing more bottom in the bass. I made another mix and sent to same friend. Within seconds she shot back, "Oh wow! That sounds really professional!!"

So yeah... this isn't rocket science. I'm not saying you can't mix in an environment that's not perfectly flat. I hazard a guess we are all doing that every day, but yeah... I want to trust what I'm hearing and speaking for myself, solutions like ARC or SonarWorks have helped me a lot. Yeah... call it accuracy if you wish. I fail to see how that's controversial?

There are a lot of arguments against mixing with headphones because they don't sound "real", but again, compared to what? If there is no absolute criterion, then I look for detail.

My "absolute criterion" might be that 9 out of 10 people will say it sounds bad. What is the criterion? I dunno... radical concepts like overall balance? Not too shrill? Not muddy? Good separation of instruments? These are just generalities... unless you're doing something unusual for the effect. As for headphone mixing, I got the Slate VSX system a while back and I found it to be helpful for checking mixes. Especially before I got my current setup. I haven't used it much since, but it was useful... again in my case for sussing out the bottom end.

Still, as you say, you get what you pay for. I never hear detail in cheap equipment.

It just stands to reason. Especially because whatever something sells for, the retailer and distributor need to take their cut. Then of course the manufacturer rightfully expects to make a profit, so to make a budget piece of gear they have to lower the cost of manufacturing. They do that two ways primarily: offshoring manufacturing/assembly and sourcing cheaper components. I suspect the latter may have the most noticeable effect. I think even my ADAMs are assembled in China, but one selling point about the A series versus the budget-friendly T series is that the ribbon tweeters (there's another more technically accurate term they use these days but I don't remember) are actually manufactured in Berlin to higher standards.

[rnappi]

I seem to be at odds with the prevailing views, although I don't disagree with what you say here.

Is the criterion accuracy? Compared to what? Original live sound? Or is it a representation of what people who consume the music will hear, and if so, what will they be using? Or is it detail? That's what I've landed on.

For a long time I used speakers that were copies of those used in BBC studios. They published the specs, and the drivers were available from KEF, and I had access to a shop with the equipment to make them. I replaced these with Mackie's when they started making them. They were a noticeable improvement over the BBC monitors in that I could hear things I hadn't noticed before in familiar recordings. Now, a couple of decades later, they sound pretty average.

Now I use a Creek amp and Totem speakers in a different room to listen to mixes to decide if I'm done. But I do the mix with headphones and emulations like DearVR. Perhaps that fails the "accuracy" test, but I can hear more detail with that setup than I can with any speakers I've tried.

There are a lot of arguments against mixing with headphones because they don't sound "real", but again, compared to what? If there is no absolute criterion, then I look for detail.

Still, as you say, you get what you pay for. I never hear detail in cheap equipment.

I think the criterion is to do whatever works for your particular needs in your particular situation. If you get the results you're after, then you have the perfect setup regardless of cost.

Having your mix translate to different listening environments is key. But the quest for accuracy, at least in a professional environment, is also about having your mix remain intact once it reaches the murderous hands of people down the line. Mastering, post, codec process for the interwebs, etc. The art of mixing is one compromise after another and having a so called "accurate environment" to make your decisions helps stack the odds in your favor.

As far as mixing in cans goes, I think the real issue with translation is you don't have 180° of separation listening on monitors. For me personally, cans are for making sure I'm not blowing up the low end and for the old fashion test of throwing them on the floor to hear if it sounds like an actual tune is coming out of them.

With your priority on detail, cheap at times can be you friend. I can't think of a better test of one's ability than to work on the most brutal of monitors, the Auratone 5C in mono. There's a reason you see them in every pro studio. If you can get your mix happening on them, it's all smiles when you switch back to your mains.

Best,
Rich

[bayswater]

James, no you didn’t mention accuracy but many do. I’d argue its in part a holdover from when the main thing people tried to do was reproduce the experience of a live performance rather than create something in the studio that may or may not exist outside of it. But I’m assuming accuracy is achieved when the original recorded signal is played back through speakers, and recorded again, and the two recordings are the same. My suggestion was that it might be easier to do get there with headphones and emulations of listening environments.

Mappi, yes getting something that sounds more or less the way you want on a lot of other downstream systems is key, but I don’t think the idea of accuracy adds anything to that. As for mixing in “cans”, what do you think of the attempts of some like DearTV to emulate the sound of speakers in headphones? I think they’ve done it well enough that when I do something in my headphones, it translates well to the other places I can test it.

[rnappi]

Mappi, yes getting something that sounds more or less the way you want on a lot of other downstream systems is key, but I don’t think the idea of accuracy adds anything to that. As for mixing in “cans”, what do you think of the attempts of some like DearTV to emulate the sound of speakers in headphones? I think they’ve done it well enough that when I do something in my headphones, it translates well to the other places I can test it.

I think if Dear Reality plugs work for you, that's terrific. Use what works. I own dearVR Pro, Music & Monitor as well as ARC and Sound ID Reference. If I were in a situation where I had to mix primarily in cans or if I had a less than stellar mix environment, I'd probably would get more use out of them. But.. 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. That said, a person's gotta do what they gotta do to get the job done.

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. You wanna learn a Charlie Parker tune, you can go buy the sheet music, get it under your fingers and great, new tune. Or.. if your a gluten for punishment, you can work on your transcribing and do it by ear. What one gains from doing it the hard way and what it does for one's hearing, perception & musicality is nothing short of astonishing. I feel exactly the same way when it comes to mixing. It's great having programs and plugs to help out, but don't let them replace putting the time in to learn your setup. Great results can be accomplished even in a less than perfect setting.

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.

[Guitar Gaz]

I am happy with my Yamaha HS8's - not too expensive but a very flat uncoloured sound - perfect for a small studio and good to listen to for many hours without ear fatigue. But you pay for what you get and it depends on the budget available.

[mikehalloran]

At the risk of going down the rabbit hole...


Monitor speakers do suffer fatigue after enough hours of play (on my fifth subwoofer since 1982) but is that what's happening? Likewise, DSP chips can burn out (like my first set of Equators) but that is something that normally happens right away.

My buddy and occasional collaborator, Bill Hare (Grammys for Pentatonix, London Symphony and others), still relies on his Mackie HR824 pair. Though he has tried others costing lots more, he goes back to them and they still sound great. Although the current HR824mk2 will set you back $1,700, a pair of the originals can be had well under $500 used. Bill has had room treatment and setup done as well as uses a nice subwoofer.

I believe that a sub is essential unless you have the space for 12" monitors with decent response to 30Hz. My JBL LSR310S is good at the volume levels I like but it lacks a most important feature: It cannot be bypassed unless driven by a monitor controller with a Sub out and bypass switch (I use a Radial MC3 that includes level control and polarity switch). Plenty of inexpensive (under $500) subs do have a bypass switch, often controlled by a foot plus a polarity switch. The LSR310S has some quirky setup features that affect performance if not being used in its intended mode where your monitors plug directly in.
A number of subs in this list would work for me.
https://www.sweetwater.com/store/search ... rch-header

The ARC 4 Studio box with measurement mic is pretty good.
https://www.ikmultimedia.com/products/arcstudio/
Like the late Ron Popeil: "Set it and forget it." The app is used to make and save changes in the box, otherwise, it's never called. The ARC 4 software only version is a plug-in that you need to insert into the mastering chain or install permanently into System Audio with any of a few apps. The downside is that there are only seven parametric frequency bands—yes, you can tweak after measuring but there are still only seven. The green lines show a +12dB hump between 30–50Hz and a roll-off of the top end. You can see by the orange lines in my graph that I got it to +/- 3dB overall but it would have taken four more bands to flatten out the 100Hz and 5–6kHz crossover areas any tighter.

Screenshot 2024-10-10 at 11.12.28 AM.png (245.82 KiB) Viewed 4259 times

ARC hates my subwoofer — or rather, its placement under my desk. Somehow, the mic is sensitive to reinforcement/comb filtering that I cannot hear. That's ok. I've learned to set it up without the sub and then add the JBL by ear.

TASCAM's R-R manuals always referred to one method of calibration (without a MRL Calibration tape) as the Whiz Bang method after a humor magazine popular over a century ago — I really like that name. Works great as long as you don't expect to use those tapes on other machines.

Anyway, here's my Whiz Bang method for setting up a subwoofer. I use late Steely Dan tracks (Aja, Citizen..., Very Best...) to get the balance sounding the way I expect. Roger Nichols was great at making sure that one can discern the bass and kick tracks clearly. Problem is that there is a wide range of levels where it sounds great so... Next, I use The Beatles Get Back from the 2009 remaster of Let It Be — has to be this track as later versions were mastered better. I find that I can barely hear Sir Paul so I turn up my sub until I can. Now I go back and forth with Steely Dan until both sound as perfect as I can make them. I can now trust the bottom end of my monitors and the mix translates to everything.