Can some one please recommend some accurate (flat response) reference studio
monitors? Currently I'm using Alesis Monitor Ones but I'm beginning to
think they're not very accurate and I think my mixes are suffering. I'd
like to stay under $500 if possible. I'm not looking for "great sounding"
speakers, I'm looking for accuracy.

thanks,
Fleming

fleming wrote:
Can some one please recommend some accurate (flat response) reference studio
monitors? Currently I'm using Alesis Monitor Ones but I'm beginning to
think they're not very accurate and I think my mixes are suffering. I'd
like to stay under $500 if possible. I'm not looking for "great sounding"
speakers, I'm looking for accuracy.

There is no accuracy. It doesn't exist, especially under $500. And much as
I dislike the Monitor One, I'd suggest that you look at your room before
you look at the monitors.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

The Tannoy Reveals are a good, inexpensive monitor that you might want
to add to a list of potential candidates.

Can some one please recommend some accurate (flat response) reference studio
monitors? Currently I'm using Alesis Monitor Ones but I'm beginning to
think they're not very accurate.

But they are quite accurate so if you have big problems balancing your mixes
you can be sure that even the best speakers won´t help you much. I used to
work a lot in an untreated room with Alesis Monitor 2 and I was completely
unable to balance the bass properly. I followed the route that you are about
to and went out and bought the ADAM SA2.5a which are in the highest category
(but before custombuilt of course) in price-and quality (I, and all reviews
I have read, think).
Anyway this didn´t help at all, my bass was still way too loud everywhere
except in my room. Then last year I got a deal together which allowed me to
built a new studio from the bottom where everything is designed to meet the
standards of modern studios. That was a real eyeopener for me because
everything I do here translates perfectly outside in the real world and
actually the speakers probably don´t really matter that much.
Minor room treatment costs way less that 500 dollars so I would give that a
try. Take a look at John Sayers site, a great place to begin (and end
actually).

The Tannoy Reveals are a good, inexpensive monitor that you might want
to add to a list of potential candidates.

I know I'm in the minority here, but man I hate those things, and
everything I've heard from Tannoy recently. No top end at all - every
person I know who mixes on them seems to end up with these incredibly
bright mixes when they play them someplace else.

Fleming: Just over your price range are the JBL LSR6325Ps. They're a
powered nearfield monitor, and I can't find anything under $2k that can
compete with them for translateable mixes. I had the Alesis Monitor
1's a couple years ago, and I agree that they're tough to mix on.

I also agree you can mix on almost anything and get solid results if
you treat your room first and understand where your current speakers
are lieing to you... and you might be surprised how much better the
Mon1's sound after cleaning up your room. Check out Auralex.com - they
offer free room evaluation via a form you download and fax in. Draw a
picture of your room for them and they'll let you know what of their
products will help your room sound better. It's a start, and it's
free.

Good luck!

I've been using passive Yorkville YSM-1 for a few years. My mixes
always suffered until I fixed my room. YSM-1s don't qualify as great
speakers, but they're not bad. Talk to Ethan Winer at Real Traps about
fixing your room acoustics first. Then consider better monitors.

DaveT

coreybenson wrote:
The Tannoy Reveals are a good, inexpensive monitor that you might want
to add to a list of potential candidates.

I know I'm in the minority here, but man I hate those things, and
everything I've heard from Tannoy recently. No top end at all - every
person I know who mixes on them seems to end up with these incredibly
bright mixes when they play them someplace else.

Is this your experience with the new Tannoy Reveal line or with older
Reveals? I heard that the older models tended to sound muffled which, I
presume, would result in bright mixes. The Reveal I have (a new one)
sounds pretty bright to me.

The Tannoys LaGossa Studio had would give (false) wide imaging that
would obviously not translate to tape. Very hard to get used to.
They would have been an older series, but they are the only ones which
I have personal experience .

Doc Weaver

coreybenson wrote:

I know I'm in the minority here, but man I hate those things, and
everything I've heard from Tannoy recently. No top end at all -
every person I know who mixes on them seems to end up with these
incredibly bright mixes when they play them someplace else.

Fleming: Just over your price range are the JBL LSR6325Ps. They're
a powered nearfield monitor, and I can't find anything under $2k
that can compete with them for translateable mixes.



I think there must be a personal preference / difference in hearing
thing going on here. We have JBL in our edit suite, and I find them way
too bright. My mixes all come out too dark.

In the control room we have Tannoy concentrics. They seem much more
natural to me, and my mixes translate fine.

Go figure.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

From Lorin:
I think there must be a personal preference / difference in hearing
thing going on here. We have JBL in our edit suite, and I find them way
too bright. My mixes all come out too dark.

In the control room we have Tannoy concentrics. They seem much more
natural to me, and my mixes translate fine.

I'm perfectly willing to accept that... Which JBL's do you have in the
edit suite? Older JBL's always sounded hyped in the top end to me, but
the new LSR series powered monitors sound really fantastic, IMHO. We
had the LSR25P's, and upgraded late last year to the LSR6325p's, which
are a much smoother sounding cab, I think.

I will admit that it was the clarity in the high end that caused me to
purchase the JBL's over anything else at up to 5 times their price.
Some people might call this brightness, especially if you're used to
mixing on something darker, perhaps?

From Pawel:
Is this your experience with the new Tannoy Reveal line or with older
Reveals? I heard that the older models tended to sound muffled which, I
presume, would result in bright mixes. The Reveal I have (a new one)
sounds pretty bright to me.

I haven't mixed on anything Tannoy makes in over 10 years. I have,
however, done listening tests to a ton of them over the years, and they
always sound muffled to me. Keep in mind, though... TONS of people
love their Tannoy speakers. I'm one guy... ok, actually there are five
guys currently mixing in our studio, and they all love the JBL's, and
have been really excited about how well the mixes are translating, but
still... it could be an anomally of our space that makes them sound so
much better than anything else. Oh, and an anomally of the listening
spaces that had the Tannoys as well, I suppose.

Good luck to the OP... listen to everything you can and take home what
you like. Treat your room before buying anything else.

Corey
http://www.curbsideproductions.com/

Doc Weaver wrote:
The Tannoys LaGossa Studio had would give (false) wide imaging that
would obviously not translate to tape. Very hard to get used to.
They would have been an older series, but they are the only ones which
I have personal experience .

Did you try placing them more closely together and making sure there weren't
any reflective surfaces between them? Or toeing the tweeters in?
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

coreybenson wrote:
From Pawel:
Is this your experience with the new Tannoy Reveal line or with older
Reveals? I heard that the older models tended to sound muffled which, I
presume, would result in bright mixes. The Reveal I have (a new one)
sounds pretty bright to me.

I haven't mixed on anything Tannoy makes in over 10 years. I have,
however, done listening tests to a ton of them over the years, and they
always sound muffled to me. Keep in mind, though... TONS of people
love their Tannoy speakers.

You should know that for the last 20 years or so, Tannoy has basically
made three lines of studio monitors, each of which have different voicing
and each of which sounds different.

Now they have added the Proto-J (which doesn't really count since it's
not really a studio monitor) and the Ellipse (which is really designed
around the dual concentric driver and voiced like the System speakers
and should be grouped with them).

But they aren't all the same. Very much unlike other manufacturers like
KRK or Spendor which try to make things sound the same across the lines.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

You should know that for the last 20 years or so, Tannoy has basically
made three lines of studio monitors, each of which have different voicing
and each of which sounds different.

I'm aware of that, but I think it's good that you mentioned it, Scott.
When I've been comparing Tannoys in listening rooms around here, it's
been against similarly-priced cabinets... in other words, the Reveal
line, which is priced at around the same price-point as the JBL's we
ended up purchasing. We also listened to Genelecs and Dynaudio's
(brought home a set of BM5A's, brought them back - I would describe
them as a Mid-Field monitor rather than a Near-Field, which is what we
need in our smallish control room), and FOR THE MONEY, nothing could
compare. Yes, we could purchase MUCH more expensive monitors that
sounded a few percent better, but at 1/4 to 1/5 the cost, the JBL's
were 98% as good. I didn't really want to drop $3k, which is about
where I started hearing a little bit of an improvement over the JBL's.

Again, this was all personal opinion, and it's exactly that... personal
OPINION... someone else's experience will most definitely vary.

We, and the other engineers using our space, are very happy with our
decision, so - I feel like we got lucky, and that it would be worth it
for someone else to check them out. However, I still say $500 worth of
room treatment would go a long way towards fixing any problems the OP
is having... which I'm pretty sure is in agreement with what you've
said as well, Scott.

Thanks!

Corey
http://www.curbsideproductions.com

coreybenson wrote:
You should know that for the last 20 years or so, Tannoy has basically
made three lines of studio monitors, each of which have different voicing
and each of which sounds different.

I'm aware of that, but I think it's good that you mentioned it, Scott.
When I've been comparing Tannoys in listening rooms around here, it's
been against similarly-priced cabinets... in other words, the Reveal
line, which is priced at around the same price-point as the JBL's we
ended up purchasing.

No, I mean that Tannoy has traditionally offered three different designs
at each price point, each with a different voicing.

I think the Reveal is sort of seperated from the rest of the lines because
it is sort of a budget item. I sort of think of the Reveal as being like
a low cost PBM-series speaker. There isn't really a dual-concentric product
in the same price range as the Reveal (although there is an ICT one, they
don't really push it as a monitor).

We, and the other engineers using our space, are very happy with our
decision, so - I feel like we got lucky, and that it would be worth it
for someone else to check them out. However, I still say $500 worth of
room treatment would go a long way towards fixing any problems the OP
is having... which I'm pretty sure is in agreement with what you've
said as well, Scott.

I absolutely agree. And I'll also said that money spent on monitoring,
either on speakers or the room, will usually buy you more per dollar than
money spent anywhere else in the chain.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Now they have added the Proto-J (which doesn't really count since
it's not really a studio monitor)



Not only is the Proto-J not a studio monitor, it's not even a real
loudspeaker. It would have to be improved by an order of magnitude to
be considered ****ty.

How that atrocity ever made it out Tannoy's doors mystifies me. Crap
like that completely destroys their credibility.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

Different methods were tried, but it was too long ago to remember
without question. Just so you know, this was in the day of 2" tape,
12' boards, and all in one sessions.
The monitors sat about 4 feet apart on the center of the back of the
desk. They sounded great as long as you remembered to make your mix
wiiiiiide (or turned on the big Urei's in the wall) .

Doc Weaver

coreybenson wrote:

Which JBL's do you have in the edit suite? Older JBL's always
sounded hyped in the top end to me

Not old but not LSR series. 42xx maybe? I can't remember.



I haven't mixed on anything Tannoy makes in over 10 years. I have,
however, done listening tests to a ton of them over the years, and
they always sound muffled to me.

Yeah, I can see how they could be perceived that way. I've used terms
like "soft" and "subdued" to describe the top end of the x00 concentric
series. I just happen to like that, and with my particular ear/brain
combination, it results in mixes that translate well, whereas I get
fatigued using monitors with more forward-sounding top end.

I think you're right that this comes down to being a case of preference,
rather than one design or the other being more "correct." My SO has a
pair of MB Quart speakers that I thought were too bright when I first
heard them, but when I switched back to my ol' favourites, mine sounded
"dull" by comparison.

I wonder if the preference is driven by just whatever we're used to, or
if there are characteristics built into each individual's ear/brain that
leads them to prefer one type of sound over another?

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

Lorin David Schultz wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

Now they have added the Proto-J (which doesn't really count since
it's not really a studio monitor)

Not only is the Proto-J not a studio monitor, it's not even a real
loudspeaker. It would have to be improved by an order of magnitude to
be considered ****ty.

How that atrocity ever made it out Tannoy's doors mystifies me. Crap
like that completely destroys their credibility.

Not at all. I think it's intended as a cuing monitor. You use it for
cuing up tapes and records. It has no low end, it's super forward and
brittle. It's next to impossible to destroy. There is a big demand for
that sort of thing in the broadcast industry.

I think the problem is that Tannoy in the US doesn't know what it's for.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Doc Weaver wrote:
Different methods were tried, but it was too long ago to remember
without question. Just so you know, this was in the day of 2" tape,
12' boards, and all in one sessions.

Those days still exist around here. But in that sort of situation, you
always have imaging problems due to the reflections from the console
below the monitors. As opposed to today, when you always have imaging
problems due to the baffling caused by the video monitor right in the
center of the soundstage.

The monitors sat about 4 feet apart on the center of the back of the
desk. They sounded great as long as you remembered to make your mix
wiiiiiide (or turned on the big Urei's in the wall) .

That should be reasonable, though. That's about right if you are
around three and a half feet back from the monitors, which is realistic
for a side-by-side console.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Lorin David Schultz wrote:

I think you're right that this comes down to being a case of preference,
rather than one design or the other being more "correct." My SO has a
pair of MB Quart speakers that I thought were too bright when I first
heard them, but when I switched back to my ol' favourites, mine sounded
"dull" by comparison.

No. There IS a case of one being more correct than the other. Go into
the tracking room and listen to the instrument. Now, go back into the
booth and ask yourself if it sounds right. The point of speakers is to
accurately reproduce the sound going into them.

I wonder if the preference is driven by just whatever we're used to, or
if there are characteristics built into each individual's ear/brain that
leads them to prefer one type of sound over another?

Both are probably true, but the reason that it's important to constantly
keep listening to live music is so that your preference won't be drifting
around.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:

No. There IS a case of one being more correct than the other. Go
into the tracking room and listen to the instrument. Now, go back
into the booth and ask yourself if it sounds right. The point of
speakers is to accurately reproduce the sound going into them.



Great, but the problem is that NO speaker accurately conveys the sound
of the instrument in the room, so we're back to the "preference" thing
as we decide which approximation we find most acceptable.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

Lorin David Schultz wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

No. There IS a case of one being more correct than the other. Go
into the tracking room and listen to the instrument. Now, go back
into the booth and ask yourself if it sounds right. The point of
speakers is to accurately reproduce the sound going into them.

Great, but the problem is that NO speaker accurately conveys the sound
of the instrument in the room, so we're back to the "preference" thing
as we decide which approximation we find most acceptable.

Absolutely. But it still gives you the ability to say "Oh, my God, those
MB Quart speakers have no midrange!" and be able to accurately judge which
approximation you can deal with.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

you always have imaging problems due to the reflections from the console
below the monitors. As opposed to today, when you always have imaging
problems due to the baffling caused by the video monitor right in the
center of the soundstage.

LOL! That is all too true!

Doc Weaver

Not only is the Proto-J not a studio monitor, it's not even a real
loudspeaker. It would have to be improved by an order of magnitude to
be considered ****ty.
How that atrocity ever made it out Tannoy's doors mystifies me.

Those of us who are not fans of recent Tannoys (like in the last 25
years) will be less astounded at this fact than you.

Scott Fraser

I think you're right that this comes down to being a case of preference,
rather than one design or the other being more "correct." My SO has a
pair of MB Quart speakers that I thought were too bright when I first
heard them, but when I switched back to my ol' favourites, mine sounded
"dull" by comparison.

I've had that same experience in other people's studios!

I wonder if the preference is driven by just whatever we're used to, or
if there are characteristics built into each individual's ear/brain that
leads them to prefer one type of sound over another?

This probably has at least a little bit to do with my preferences, I'm
su

1. Bass guitarist/singer 1/3 of my professional musical career.
2. FOH/Monitor engineer 1/3
3. Recording engineer 1/3

I'm more of a musical JOAT than anything, but the last 4-5 years I've
been focusing more on the recording than anything, and having a
permanent studio the past 2+ years has helped. I'm still playing bass
and running sound, just less often than I'm recording/mixing
recordings.

Corey
http://www.curbsideproductions.com/

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Absolutely. But it still gives you the ability to say "Oh, my God,
those MB Quart speakers have no midrange!" and be able to
accurately judge which approximation you can deal with.


Sure, a hole in the response is easy to detect and correct. That's not
what we're talking about here, though. We're comparing top end that's
smooth and mellow versus forward and pronounced. Both measure flat in
an anechoic chamber, yet they sound quite different and neither sounds
like the actual instrument. There is no objective means by which to
choose. All one has in that situation is preference.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

coreybenson wrote:

This probably has at least a little bit to do with my preferences,
I'm su

1. Bass guitarist/singer 1/3 of my professional musical career.
2. FOH/Monitor engineer 1/3
3. Recording engineer 1/3


Yup, there's yer answer... you've spent two-thirds of your audio life
beating up your ears. Of course Tannoys sound dull to you -- you've got
no HF hearing left! g

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

Lorin David Schultz wrote:

Sure, a hole in the response is easy to detect and correct. That's not
what we're talking about here, though. We're comparing top end that's
smooth and mellow versus forward and pronounced. Both measure flat in
an anechoic chamber, yet they sound quite different and neither sounds
like the actual instrument. There is no objective means by which to
choose. All one has in that situation is preference.

Oh, I bet a waterfall plot would show some major differences right there.
So might distortion spectra.

People don't show objective measurements on speakers, mostly because they
look so bad. But they can give you a pretty good notion of what a speaker
is going to sound like.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Oh, I bet a waterfall plot would show some major differences right there.
So might distortion spectra.

People don't show objective measurements on speakers, mostly because they
look so bad. But they can give you a pretty good notion of what a speaker
is going to sound like.

While this is true, I recall a situation (which probably has little
bearing on this particular thread, but what the heck) where I was
working for an audio company. The engineer there helped me test a
cabinet I built to be used as a bass guitar cabinet (4 Peerless 8"
drivers in an 18" x 18" x 18" cube). From the measurements, he made
the arbitrary judgement that it would sound like garbage.

One of the best sounding bass rigs I've ever played through, and I wish
I still had it. It was just RIGHT, in all the ways one would hope.

He's still working in the Audiophile realm, designing passive
crossovers and new drivers for high-end installs, and still doesn't get
it when something WORKS that plots out badly. Sometimes his MEASURED
successes sound bad to the rest of us.

By the way, this is more anecdotal than anything... not sure what point
I'm trying to make if any.

Corey
http://www.curbsideproductions.com/

coreybenson wrote:
While this is true, I recall a situation (which probably has little
bearing on this particular thread, but what the heck) where I was
working for an audio company. The engineer there helped me test a
cabinet I built to be used as a bass guitar cabinet (4 Peerless 8"
drivers in an 18" x 18" x 18" cube). From the measurements, he made
the arbitrary judgement that it would sound like garbage.

One of the best sounding bass rigs I've ever played through, and I wish
I still had it. It was just RIGHT, in all the ways one would hope.

Yeah, but that's not a speaker, so much as a musical instrument. It's
SUPPOSED to be resonant. It's not supposed to be accurate. That's not
part of the design requirements.

If you did plug a bass guitar amp into a flat cabinet, it wouldn't sound
very interesting. Because that's not what it's for.

He's still working in the Audiophile realm, designing passive
crossovers and new drivers for high-end installs, and still doesn't get
it when something WORKS that plots out badly. Sometimes his MEASURED
successes sound bad to the rest of us.

Well, you need to know what to measure. And you need to design systems to
do what needs to be done, not something else.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Yeah, but that's not a speaker, so much as a musical instrument. It's
SUPPOSED to be resonant. It's not supposed to be accurate. That's not
part of the design requirements.

Fair enough, Scott. Which was why I caveated it when I posted...

If you did plug a bass guitar amp into a flat cabinet, it wouldn't sound
very interesting. Because that's not what it's for.

Actually, I regularly plug my bass straight into the board in our
studio and it sounds great. This also works when we have headphone
rehearsals, which are another "mostly-flat" sound reproduction unit.

He's still working in the Audiophile realm, designing passive
crossovers and new drivers for high-end installs, and still doesn't get
it when something WORKS that plots out badly. Sometimes his MEASURED
successes sound bad to the rest of us.

Well, you need to know what to measure. And you need to design systems to
do what needs to be done, not something else.

Oh, I'd say he's pretty well versed in a "text-book" way. He
absolutely knows his stuff... he's just a little too fixated on the
numbers in contrast to the results. Man people pay him obscene amounts
of money for what he does, and the company he works for is
well-respected in Audiophile realms.

But your point is well made, Scott. I agree with the core sentiment
completely! lol

Drop me an email offline if you want particulars, but I'm not going to
out him online...

Corey
http://www.curbsideproductions.com/

In article .com,
"coreybenson" wrote:

From Lorin:
I think there must be a personal preference / difference in hearing
thing going on here. We have JBL in our edit suite, and I find them way
too bright. My mixes all come out too dark.

In the control room we have Tannoy concentrics. They seem much more
natural to me, and my mixes translate fine.

I'm perfectly willing to accept that... Which JBL's do you have in the
edit suite? Older JBL's always sounded hyped in the top end to me, but
the new LSR series powered monitors sound really fantastic, IMHO. We
had the LSR25P's, and upgraded late last year to the LSR6325p's, which
are a much smoother sounding cab, I think.


That's weird. I have a pair of the LSR25Ps and needed a part. When I
spoke to parts and service at JBL, they said that the 25 model was the
only one which wasn't changed when the newer line came out. All the
parts are interchangeable.

I like these speakers for location work a lot.

Edwin

In article ,
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

coreybenson wrote:
While this is true, I recall a situation (which probably has little
bearing on this particular thread, but what the heck) where I was
working for an audio company. The engineer there helped me test a
cabinet I built to be used as a bass guitar cabinet (4 Peerless 8"
drivers in an 18" x 18" x 18" cube). From the measurements, he made
the arbitrary judgement that it would sound like garbage.

One of the best sounding bass rigs I've ever played through, and I wish
I still had it. It was just RIGHT, in all the ways one would hope.

Yeah, but that's not a speaker, so much as a musical instrument. It's
SUPPOSED to be resonant. It's not supposed to be accurate. That's not
part of the design requirements.

If you did plug a bass guitar amp into a flat cabinet, it wouldn't sound
very interesting. Because that's not what it's for.



I think that this is true for folks that like the SVT or other colored
kind of tone, but there are many of us out there that want something
that is as accurate as possible. A full range Meyer system makes for a
great bass rig, used by such bassists as Phil Lesh and Anthony Jackson
(very different bassists, stylistically). I noticed that when I tried to
get my onstage rig to be more flat, sound persons liked my bass sound a
lot better because I was making tonal decisions that made sense in the
house, rather than just for me. I don't understand why bassist who use a
colored rig like an SVT will send their signal to the FOH direct instead
of using a mic.

Just my 02c.
Edwin

That's weird. I have a pair of the LSR25Ps and needed a part. When I
spoke to parts and service at JBL, they said that the 25 model was the
only one which wasn't changed when the newer line came out. All the
parts are interchangeable.

That's what we were told as well, but the 6325's are coated in a
rubbery substance. I'm not sure what magic it's doing, but there's a
dramatic difference in something, which all of us described as
"smoothing" out the tone.

Great cabs... not for everyone, but perfect for us! lol

Corey

coreybenson wrote:
Lorin:
Yup, there's yer answer... you've spent two-thirds of your audio life
beating up your ears. Of course Tannoys sound dull to you -- you've got
no HF hearing left! g

LOL... Ok, you're probably correct on SOME level... But really, this
from a guy who's signature says:

"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"

Yeah, but Lorin works in TV - where a midlevel-for-many-things
level around 83db is often considered very very loud for program audio.
( Guess it's the distortion on the Director and all the other people
shouting on the COMs that makes things seem really noisy even though
you listen relatively low, eh Lorin? I know some nights I get out on
Central Park West, smell the manure from the Zoo wafting across the
Park and think, "Ahh the tranquility of New York City traffic!" )

Let me again plug the idea that for musicians and audio guys, it is
a useful exercise to have one's ears checked now and again. Normally
the really high end does roll off some with age, but abuse can even
notch out the midrange of your hearing, and you might be surprised
maybe that your ears aren't exactly a "matched pair". I hear around
80hz exceptionally well in my left ear for example, but merely normally
with the right one. If you have a health plan, it should cover a
checkup with a referral from your Physician - do it.

Sometimes I wonder why the kids, having the best high frequency
hearing, still tend to generally like sound overemphasized up top. And
then typically one of my kids will let a series of hypersonic screams
of fun... Eeeeshh!

Will Miho
NY TV/Audio Post/Music/Live Sound Guy
"The lager print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

WillStG wrote:
snip
Let me again plug the idea that for musicians and audio guys, it is
a useful exercise to have one's ears checked now and again. Normally
the really high end does roll off some with age, but abuse can even
notch out the midrange of your hearing, and you might be surprised
maybe that your ears aren't exactly a "matched pair". I hear around
80hz exceptionally well in my left ear for example, but merely normally
with the right one. If you have a health plan, it should cover a
checkup with a referral from your Physician - do it.

Where are you gonna get a checkup that really means anything...at least
with respect to high frequency loss? I got one of my kids checked
recently, and the top freq' on the gear, IIRC was 8k.

IMHO, one can get a better idea of HF loss by rubbing a dry forefinger
and thumb together in a quiet room. Almost any audio semi-pro has
enough gear to (at least roughly) gauge one's personal HF loss. A pair
of good headphones (I like my old Koss Pro 4AAA's) and an AF generator
will do it....

Sometimes I wonder why the kids, having the best high frequency
hearing, still tend to generally like sound overemphasized up top. And
then typically one of my kids will let a series of hypersonic screams
of fun... Eeeeshh!

Mine don't do that...in fact they're always telling 'me' to turn it down.

Huh...WHAT???

jak
Will Miho
NY TV/Audio Post/Music/Live Sound Guy
"The lager print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

WillStG wrote:

Yeah, but Lorin works in TV - where a midlevel-for-many-things
level around 83db is often considered very very loud for program
audio. ( Guess it's the distortion on the Director and all the
other people shouting on the COMs that makes things seem really
noisy even though you listen relatively low, eh Lorin? I know some
nights I get out on Central Park West, smell the manure from the
Zoo wafting across the Park and think, "Ahh the tranquility of New
York City traffic!" )

People keep commenting on how loud it is in the audio room. The reality
is that it isn't really all that loud though, it's just a lot of sounds
at once. The program isn't all that loud, but by the time you add the
cacophany of six people all talking at once over the com plus the little
cue speaker checking the next live hit, it can seem like a lot of noise.



And then typically one of my kids will let a series of hypersonic
screams of fun... Eeeeshh!

Yeah, but that's music baby!

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

jakdedert wrote:
Where are you gonna get a checkup that really means anything...at least
with respect to high frequency loss? I got one of my kids checked
recently, and the top freq' on the gear, IIRC was 8k.

IMHO, one can get a better idea of HF loss by rubbing a dry forefinger
and thumb together in a quiet room. Almost any audio semi-pro has
enough gear to (at least roughly) gauge one's personal HF loss. A pair
of good headphones (I like my old Koss Pro 4AAA's) and an AF generator
will do it....

A good Audiologist. The Audiologist's standards for test gear is
8Hz to 16k or so. At the end of my last test I got a graph for each
ear. I forget how far apart the steps were. EAR Institute has free
checkups at the AES Conventions, if you get a floorpass.

Will Miho
NY TV/Audio Post/Music/Live Sound Guy
"The large pint giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

WillStG wrote:
jakdedert wrote:
Where are you gonna get a checkup that really means anything...at least
with respect to high frequency loss? I got one of my kids checked
recently, and the top freq' on the gear, IIRC was 8k.

IMHO, one can get a better idea of HF loss by rubbing a dry forefinger
and thumb together in a quiet room. Almost any audio semi-pro has
enough gear to (at least roughly) gauge one's personal HF loss. A pair
of good headphones (I like my old Koss Pro 4AAA's) and an AF generator
will do it....

A good Audiologist. The Audiologist's standards for test gear is
8Hz to 16k or so. At the end of my last test I got a graph for each
ear. I forget how far apart the steps were. EAR Institute has free
checkups at the AES Conventions, if you get a floorpass.

The House guys at the AES show only go up to 8 KHz, because it's actually
very difficult to do accurate measurements above 8 KHz. Wavelengths are
so short that you can set up standing waves inside the ear and headphones.

Because most hearing problems are fairly wideband, though, if you have
a high frequency problem, it'll show up on a standard test, even if that
test only goes up to 8 KHz. Everybody in the industry should get one
annually and keep the plots on file so you can see any changes.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

WillStG wrote:
A good Audiologist. The Audiologist's standards for test gear is
8Hz to 16k or so.

AFAIR standard audiological assesment is 125Hz to 8k only. For good
evaluation of HF hearing one has to requested an extended test with
special equipment.