Is high end computer audio worth it

[MEgamer]

It's not that they're supposed to sound bad, it's that they're not supposed to sound good. They're not supposed to sound bad either. They're just there to reproduce accurately how the music sounds, especially at close range

and im sure that graph of teh revel is just a theoretical flat response.

 

[MEgamer]

The purpose of good mixing monitors is not for them to sound good or to make your music sound good. It's so you can hear what your music really sounds like, so you can make it sound good

 

[astrallite]

It's not that they're supposed to sound bad, it's that they're not supposed to sound good. They're not supposed to sound bad either. They're just there to reproduce accurately how the music sounds, especially at close range

and im sure that graph of teh revel is just a theoretical flat response.

Revel is one of the few companies that has access to a TRUE anechoic chamber, using the one at the NRC, rather than electronic anechoic sysnthesis. What the heck is theoretical flat response? Drawing a line on paint brush?

You are really starting to reach. There are many intentional design limitations on mixing monitors because engineers have to sit for 9 hours a day, 5 days a week listening to them, including aggressive treble rolloff. Another includes "bumped" upper bass in order to create a sense of additional bass without a subwoofer.

Here is your pseudo-anechoic measurement M&K by the way...

 

[MEgamer]

how did we even come to talking about monitors anyway...

looks like i lost this. 🙁

what do u mean by starting to reach anyway?

 

[astrallite]

Your confusing description of sounding good and accurate. There's no such thing as "sounding good", that's completely a subjective analysis that's effected by too many variables, including room acoustics. However, accurate speakers should sound better for the typical listener than a speaker with exaggerated frequency response, when put through a series of different source material. (The more accurate speaker will be more versatile as some material will sound bad on the inaccurate speaker due to a loading up effect of the exaggerated frequencies).

Also, I know you found a wiki article about studio monitors being "tonally accurate," but it's completely impractical in a mixing booth and a lot of engineers found this out the hard way. Soft domes and rolled off treble is a design decision for nearfield listening because most of the smaller studios have no space for a proper speaker setup. Now it may be a possible that these mixing monitors in fact are more linear in crammed environments due to the number of reflections from the proximity of the listener, and that the measurement system is flawed (where you put speakers in an empty room and a mic 1 meter away) because it isn't accurate of the circumstances of the environment where it will be used.

The higher end studios actually mix with more traditional speakers in traditional loudspeaker placement. You can use more accurate speakers because you aren't sitting inches from them.

Here's Digital Domain Studio which is fairly upscale and has recording 1000s of major records. They've got a larger studio and can mix with linear speakers without the fear of listening fatigue.

 

[MEgamer]

i see.. so in other words, traditional speakers are always better?

 

[astrallite]

If you have the space for them, and they are competently designed there is no doubt they are better. They don't have the same design compromises for nearfield mixing.

Nearfield monitors are for the most part just rectangular boxes with soft dome tweeters and cloth woofers. They totally ignore diffraction effects from baffle reflections, dispersion is completely ignored (since it's unnecessary if you are sitting a few inches away), and like I said, the treble response dives after around 15K intentionally. For their use in a cramped cubicle where you expect significant reflections, nearfield monitors are certainly superior, because they are designed for a sub-optimal environment.

The passive stand mounts companies like JBL and Dynaudio are significantly better than their powered monitors in most major performance aspects. You aren't going to put their powered monitors on stands a few feet away from the listening position, and come out with better measurements than their passive equivalents. For example, JBL's premier brand is the Revel Ultima series. You won't anything in their powered catalog that touches those speakers, and they are a pro audio brand that sells primarily mixing speakers!

 

[MEgamer]

basically in the proffessional field.

have you researched into klein and hummel, they are a branched company from sennheisers. looking at there frequency response even there installed, PA speakers have more linear frequency response.

http/www.sennheiser-kh-line.com/klein-hummel/globals.nsf/resources/prox1280_manual_g_e_518852_rev070717.pdf/$File/prox1280_manual_g_e_518852_rev070717.pdf

 

[astrallite]

Those are horn-loaded speakers. Nothing else needs to be said.

 

[MEgamer]

27 Hz - 20 kHz, ± 3 dB

http/www.neumann-kh-line.com/neumann-kh/home_en.nsf/root/prof-monitoring_studio-monitors_main-monitors_O500C#

this one's good

 

[MEgamer]

thos yamahas are like what?

100-(18000?)khz ± 5dB

 

[halodude23]

I don't understand how people like builderbobftw don't get banned from forums like this, it makes it pretty hard to get accurate information when you have ignorant people spamming forums giving out incorrect information, especially when you are new to forums and you don't know who the trolls are. When you post something and get a reply from an active user with a lot of posts it's a general assumption that they are knowledgeable, when in this case it couldn't be farther from the truth.


I'm trying to decide which headset to get with my new gaming rig, but there is a lot to learn about audio quality that makes it very difficult. So far I'm interested in the Razer Carcharias and Medusa NX 5.1 Gaming Headset and am willing to spend up to $150 on a quality headset, but there are so many brands and different types that its hard to tell which ones are quality. Anyways, if anyone really knowledgeable about this topic would like to spend a few minutes talking to me on ventrilo and guide me in the right direction that would be amazing. Otherwise I'll try to keep learning and hopefully make a good decision.

Solder go try out a turtlebeach x40 for $200 or go check on the site =D Hope it helps, it's 7.1 Surround Sound Also

 

[halodude23]

I found this forum really funny, I read every thing pretty much BuilderBob sounds really idiotic and unknowledgable about speakers LOL!!

 

[astrallite]

Obviously he was trolling; he hasn't been back since. I mean, I try to remain optimistic and assume he is intelligent--he apparently didn't understand that the same argument could be used regarding video quality or a lot of things that he treasured, so the only logical conclusion is he is trolling.

 

[halodude23]

Obviously he was trolling; he hasn't been back since. I mean, I try to remain optimistic and assume he is intelligent--he apparently didn't understand that the same argument could be used regarding video quality or a lot of things that he treasured, so the only logical conclusion is he is trolling.

I ROFLED SO DAMN HARD!!

 

[elel]

I ROFLED SO DAMN HARD!!

Good for you.
I think I'm going to PM one of the mods and ask them to close the thread though. I hate to think of someone new to the audio forum coming across this nonsense.

 

[aford10]

This topic has been closed by Aford10