[Danny Richie]

I find waterfall plots very useful in getting some idea of a speaker's performance if I cannot listen to it. The Mackie HR 824 (which I have heard), with its passive radiator assisted design yielding response down to 39Hz from a smallish box, sounds just like the waterfall plot suggests. Look at the overhang in the bass. That is what one-note inarticulate bass looks like! It is also probably the main reason you were having difficulty getting your mixes to translate, although I have also read numerous instances of HR 824 owners needing to cross check their midrange on other speakers, like the NS10.

I have to agree with the usefulness of the water fall plot. No single measurement tells more about how a speaker will really sound than the waterfall plot.

[Freo-1]

I have to agree with the usefulness of the water fall plot. No single measurement tells more about how a speaker will really sound than the waterfall plot.

Well, at least there is agreement on this.  That's a good step.     
 
The plot explains why speakers such as ATC and Yamaha are used in a lot of studio setups. 

[mlundy57]

Now if I could just understand how to accurately interpret a waterfall plot I'd be in better able to follow these types of discussions. Apparently the types of charts I understand best (line) provide the least useful information while thy charts  that provide the most useful information (waterfall plots) I understand the least.

Can anybody suggest a good tutorial?

[Freo-1]

Now if I could just understand how to accurately interpret a waterfall plot I'd be in better able to follow these types of discussions. Apparently the types of charts I understand best (line) provide the least useful information while thy charts  that provide the most useful information (waterfall plots) I understand the least.

Can anybody suggest a good tutorial?

http://www.daytonaudio.com/OmniMicV2/hs17.htm

[mlundy57]

Thanks

[Quiet Earth]

Which graph or plot shows the nicerizer-homogenization effect that the 824s put on everything I played through them? That's the measurement I would be interested in learning. My Mackies made everything sound the same, so I could never really tell what I was doing differently. I actually didn't have too much trouble translating the bass on the 824s once I learned them. It was mostly everything else. Dynamics, detail, and just everything. What a mess.

The guy that bought them loves 'em for karaoke.

What is not what this thread is about?

It seemed more like a knowledge pissing contest than a discussion about studio monitoring. I was thinking that studio monitoring was a lot different than just improving a pair of speakers. I think I must be wrong.

[rockdrummer]

I am curious if anyone has ever done research involving this debate. If you are mixing and/or mastering recorded music, dont you want to hear every last little bit of info? Dont you want to have the "truest" representation of said recorded music?

If the goal is to make a recording sound good on "bad" speakers, is that, across the board, always the best sound possible? Does the recording always sound its best?

And what about the hours, days, even weeks spent finding desired guitar tones, drum tones, etc.?

If the recorded tone comes out of a bad speaker even adding its own colorations, doesnt that totally defeat the purose?
I have been a part of several conversations with recording studio employees and i want their opinion of this now.
Ben

[Danny Richie]

Quote from: Russell Dawkins on Today at 01:24 pm
What is not what this thread is about?

It seemed more like a knowledge pissing contest than a discussion about studio monitoring. I was thinking that studio monitoring was a lot different than just improving a pair of speakers. I think I must be wrong.

Actually this started as a split off of another thread when it went off topic. This is just how it has run its coarse.

My Mackies made everything sound the same, so I could never really tell what I was doing differently. I actually didn't have too much trouble translating the bass on the 824s once I learned them. It was mostly everything else. Dynamics, detail, and just everything. What a mess.

This is very true. The rest is just a mess.

[Danny Richie]

I am curious if anyone has ever done research involving this debate. If you are mixing and/or mastering recorded music, dont you want to hear every last little bit of info? Dont you want to have the "truest" representation of said recorded music?

I would think so.

If the goal is to make a recording sound good on "bad" speakers, is that, across the board, always the best sound possible? Does the recording always sound its best?

Most of these guys never really hear what they really recorded.

And what about the hours, days, even weeks spent finding desired guitar tones, drum tones, etc.?

Only for all of those things to be compressed and lost as drum hits are reduced to a thud. 

If the recorded tone comes out of a bad speaker even adding its own colorations, doesnt that totally defeat the purose?

Yes.

Funny thing is that a local recording studio used to bring in CD's that they had just mixed. They would listen to them on my system. And then they heard imaging and spacial cues (or lack there of) that they couldn't hear before or that they lost in the mix. Often these listening sessions ended in a trip back to the studio for re-mixing.

That same studio later got rid of the Mackies that they were using and went with a pair of our Paradox-1 mini monitors. They also added a lot more room treatment around their console area.

[studiotech]

I am curious if anyone has ever done research involving this debate. If you are mixing and/or mastering recorded music, dont you want to hear every last little bit of info? Dont you want to have the "truest" representation of said recorded music?

If the recorded tone comes out of a bad speaker even adding its own colorations, doesnt that totally defeat the purose?
I have been a part of several conversations with recording studio employees and i want their opinion of this now.
Ben

This is the precise argument I've been making for ever.  I've spent the last 15 years making this claim to anyone I meet who passes through the studio.  Why is it that generally, tracking/mixing studios have compromised monitoring while the mastering guys get the good stuff.  It's getting better recently, but as a whole the NS10 "average stereo" mentality rules most studios except for the more audiophile targeted guys.  It makes NO logical sense.  In my opinion, use the absolute best tools you can for the 90% of your audio work and THEN reference to something "average" and even poor quality to make sure nothing is too lost in the mix.  Give the mastering guy  a fighting chance rather than pass him an average product.  They can only work so much magic. 

Greg

[Quiet Earth]

Ok Danny. This thread started out as an alternative to binning another one, so it is what it is. That makes sense. Sorry for making it worse. 

This is very true. The rest is just a mess.

You know what though? I actually liked the way those Mackies sounded for listening to CDs and records (finished work). They kind of nicerized everything in a pleasing sort of way. I know most audiophiles want the truth and nothing but the truth in their speakers, but I actually enjoy a little character and personality for being entertained by music. (Not for studio monitoring). The problem for me was, that's not what I bought the Mackies for. It seemed ironic that I would buy a studio monitor for the brutal truth and actually get a hold of something I could live with for pleasure.

This is part of the big mystery for amateurs like me who try to do a little home studio mixing/mastering for fun. At least I learned a lot in the process. It's also why I try not to judge a book by its waterfall plot cover.    You never really know until you live with it for awhile. Well, that is true for me anyway. I'm a little bit slow to figure some of this stuff out.

[Danny Richie]

Greg, Thank you!

Quiet Earth, Thank you for your feedback as well.

[Quiet Earth]

If the goal is to make a recording sound good on "bad" speakers, is that, across the board, always the best sound possible?

I would say no, because I have a lot of modern compressed music that sounds really great in the car that doesn't sound as entertaining at home. I think the questions you are asking are a huge topic to discuss, and they are more of a who is going to listen to this and where kind of scenario than an absolute sound quality dilemma.

You and StudioTech bring up some good points.

[Freo-1]

I would say no, because I have a lot of modern compressed music that sounds really great in the car that doesn't sound as entertaining at home. I think the questions you are asking are a huge topic to discuss, and they are more of a who is going to listen to this and where kind of scenario than an absolute sound quality dilemma.

You and StudioTech bring up some good points.

Amen to that.  It's kinda sad that many of better recordings out there are the old RCA Seal series from the 50's and 60's.  A lot of the vintage jazz recordings sound better than the majority of the modern compressed recordings.  Especially awful are recordings which are victims of the loudness wars. 

[dcgl22]

If you'd like to take a gander inside some speaker systems check this out: http://www.hifishock.org/index.php/category/6710-speakers.  There is a good mix of brands of various levels of perceived quality.  Some of this is really surprising, still the proof of the pudding is in the listening...

DanG

[Hank]

Thanks DanG - interesting site - never heard of it.  BTW, it appears that guy has the slowest server on the planet.