The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Posts 26 to 30 of 30
  1. #26

    User Info Menu

    So, excuse my ignorance, but what would be a good compromise for say, a 2.1 system for my desktop setup that would be mostly used for listening and play along practice, with occasional stabs at amateur recording, assuming that I would be sitting close to the sweet spot a majority of the time?

    I have my main stereo situated 15 feet behind me, but connected to my computer via WiFi, so that’s only for listening, not for practice. My desktop speakers are a set of inexpensive Klipsch powered speakers with a small sub attached. OK for desktop work for practice, but I always wonder about getting an inexpensive set of powered monitors instead, and whether that would still make for pleasurable listening, but then what to do about a separate sub? I’m not recording, but would like to start to learn.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #27

    User Info Menu

    I'll bet the Klipsch are better than most inexpensive monitors, and are also more real-world. Unless you're actually mixing or mastering complex recordings, you already have good speakers. But, you can certainly get a 30-day trial of powered subs with o risk. I switch between my M-Audio powered monitors and my KEF bookshelf speakers when mixing: the monitors are accurate but cold, the KEFs are warm and full.

  4. #28

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by yebdox
    So, excuse my ignorance, but what would be a good compromise for say, a 2.1 system for my desktop setup that would be mostly used for listening and play along practice, with occasional stabs at amateur recording, assuming that I would be sitting close to the sweet spot a majority of the time?

    I have my main stereo situated 15 feet behind me, but connected to my computer via WiFi, so that’s only for listening, not for practice. My desktop speakers are a set of inexpensive Klipsch powered speakers with a small sub attached. OK for desktop work for practice, but I always wonder about getting an inexpensive set of powered monitors instead, and whether that would still make for pleasurable listening, but then what to do about a separate sub? I’m not recording, but would like to start to learn.
    I use Rokit 8's for a digital piano. They'd work well for any desktop setup. Inexpensive as powered monitors go. I've owned this set 4 years and nary a glitch.

    KRK RP8G3 Rokit 8" Powered Studio Monitors with JS-MS70 Monitor Stands & Cables 709257607672 | eBay

  5. #29

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Woody Sound
    Thanks. Sort of like the difference between playing through an FRFR speaker and a guitar cab (?)

    Is there a downside to using studio monitors in a room to listen to regular commercial CDs? (Jazz, classical, pop, etc)
    No downside I don't think.

    It might even help in some ways.

    Studio Monitors are flatter than most stereo speakers [ Paradigm is an exception ] so you hear the Recordings as they did in the control room or closer to that anyway.

    Good Monitors reveal a lot of details too.

    Then you can play back Wes or George Benson or Metheny , Moreno etc. to make sure your Guitar is not too loud in the mix and you have the drums and bass at acceptable levels ( period and Genrè specific of course ).

  6. #30

    User Info Menu

    A quote from post #6 of a Reaper Forum thread Why do your recordings sound like ass? - Cockos Incorporated Forums

    The purpose of a studio reference monitor is to accurately render the playback material. The purpose of a good home stereo is to sound good. These goals are often at odds with one another, and a simple frequency chart does not answer the question.

    A common trick among hifi speakers is a ported design that delivers what I call ONB, short for "one note bass." The speaker designer creates an enclosure designed to deliver a dramatic "thump" right around the frequency cutoff of the speaker. This gives an extended sense of low-end, and it gives a dramatic, focused, powerful-sounding bass that can be very enjoyable to listen to, but it is the kiss of death for reference monitoring. Every bass note is rendered like a kick drum, and the recordist cannot get an accurate sense of the level or tonality of the low-end. If you play back something mixed on a ONB system on a different stereo, the bass is all over the place, reappearing and disappearing, with no apparent consistency or logic to the level. This is especially acute when you play a record mixed on one ONB system back on a different ONB system. Notes and tones that were higher or lower than the cutoff of the other system either vanish or seem grossly out-of-proportion.

    Another serious consideration is handing of the crossover frequency. On any enclosure with more than one driver (e.g. a tweeter and woofer), there is a particular frequency at which the two speakers "cross over," i.e. where one cuts off and the other picks up. The inherent distortion around this frequency range is arguably the most sensitive and delicate area of speaker design. Hifi speakers are very often designed to simply downplay the crossover frequency, or to smooth over it with deliberate distortions, and often manage to sound just fine for everyday listening. But glossing over what's really going on there is not good for reference monitoring. The fact that this often occurs in the most sensitive range of human hearing does not help matters.

    Other common issues with home hifi systems are compromises made to expand the "sweet spot" by, for instance, broadening the overall dispersion of higher frequencies at the expense of creating localized distortions in certain directions, a general disregard for phase-dependent distortions that occur as a result of simultaneously producing multiple frequencies from a single driver, nonlinear response at different volume levels, as well as the more obvious and intuitive kinds of "hype" and "sizzle" that are built in to make speakers sound dramatic on the sales floor.

    The important thing to understand is that none of the above necessarily produces a "bad sounding" speaker, and that the above kinds of distortions are common even among expensive, brand-name home theater systems. It's not that they sound cheap or muffled or tinny, it's just that they're not reliable enough to serve as reference-caliber studio monitors. In other words, the fact that everyone raves about how great your stereo sounds might actually be a clue that it is *not* a good monitor system.

    In fact, high-end reference monitors often sound a little boring compared to razzle-dazzle hifi systems. What sets them apart is the forensic accuracy with which they reproduce sound at all playback levels, across all frequencies, and without compressing the dynamic range to "hype" the sound. On the contrary, the most important characteristic is not soaring highs and massive lows, but a broad, detailed, clinical midrange.

    The two most common speakers used in the history of studio recording are certainly Yamaha NS10s and little single-driver Auratones. Neither one was especially good at lows or highs, and neither was a particularly expensive speaker in its day (both are now out of production and now command ridiculous prices on eBay). What they were good at was consistent, reproducible midrange and accurate dynamics