monitors(no im not looking for recommendations ha ha)

seannash

okay so a while back i was told when setting up my moniotrs that i should turn my monitors all the way up and adjust the output on my daw and soundcard to suit them.
is this the best way to set them up?
does it really matter

DamagedTrax

i'd go for the mackie hr8... oops sorry.. read the thread wrong :pac::pac::pac:

erm i dunno the answer to that one. i always have mine 3/4 the way up.. just incase im ever drunk and get a little naughty with the volume.. better safe than sorry!

seannash

DamagedTrax wrote: »

i'd go for the mackie hr8... oops sorry.. read the thread wrong :pac::pac::pac:

erm i dunno the answer to that one. i always have mine 3/4 the way up.. just incase im ever drunk and get a little naughty with the volume.. better safe than sorry!

guess i should be worried about blowing them alright

old gregg

turn them up to 11

Morning Hush

DamagedTrax wrote: »

erm i dunno the answer to that one. i always have mine 3/4 the way up.. just incase im ever drunk and get a little naughty with the volume.. better safe than sorry!

I have mine 3/4 too. Interested to hear if there's anything behind this though...

seannash

someone was saying something bout a hot signal going through analogue gear sounds best(wasnt really listening) but ive only got my soundcard which is hooked up th my laptop and then my monitors

I suppose the more you turn the monitors up, the more of their frequency response curve you're bringing into play..

thebookofbob

>>just incase im ever drunk and get a little naughty with the volume.. better >>safe than sorry!

2nd that advice.. I probably frightened the living crap out of apartment upstairs when I did just that at 3am on weekend.. I had plugged the earphones in & forgot to turn down the "Main Out" bus.. so now they're now set to 1/2 way!

seannash

Deleted User wrote: »

I suppose the more you turn the monitors up, the more of their frequency response curve you're bringing into play..

anyone else have an opinion on this.sounds interesting

iquinn

seannash wrote: »

anyone else have an opinion on this.sounds interesting

I'm not sure about that, but you may get better sounding results having your soundcard and amp at full and then use a passive volume controller. Controlling the volume digitally, in software, reduces the bit-depth.

seannash

iquinn wrote: »

I'm not sure about that, but you may get better sounding results having your soundcard and amp at full and then use a passive volume controller. Controlling the volume digitally, in software, reduces the bit-depth.

active monitors,if it makes a difference,so instead of amp being up full should they be up full.does it matter?

studiorat

Deleted User wrote: »

I suppose the more you turn the monitors up, the more of their frequency response curve you're bringing into play..

This means absolutely nothing. What does bringing a frequency responce curve into play mean exactly?

It would really depend on how the volume pots control the amplifier. Whether they control a feedback loop or whether they just attenuate the signal. However I think having the pots at the 0dB position should have the least coloration on the circuit.
Most professional active monitors don't actually have a volume pot.

iquinn

seannash wrote: »

active monitors,if it makes a difference,so instead of amp being up full should they be up full.does it matter?

Any software attenuation will reduce the bit depth, regardless of whether you're using active or passive monitors. If that's what you mean?

DamagedTrax

studiorat wrote: »

Most professional active monitors don't actually have a volume pot.

???

are you talking pro as in big fuk off farfields or pro as in 1000€+ near and midfields?

cause the folloeing all have volume - mackie, adam, klien + hummell, genelecs etc etc

seannash

DamagedTrax wrote: »

???

are you talking pro as in big fuk off farfields or pro as in 1000€+ near and midfields?

cause the folloeing all have volume - mackie, adam, klien + hummell, genelecs etc etc

Ive got genelecs,they have volume control.I think there considered pro

DamagedTrax

sackly

seannash

iquinn wrote: »

Any software attenuation will reduce the bit depth, regardless of whether you're using active or passive monitors. If that's what you mean?

no someone said that my amp shopuld be up full,but i dont use an amp so does tyhe same logic for having the amp up full apply to havng my active monitors up full.
im totally clueless to this ive just heard conflicting advice.it probably doesnt really make a difference but i was just curious

DamagedTrax

whoever told you that your amp should be up full is talking total bollox.

iquinn

seannash wrote: »

no someone said that my amp shopuld be up full,but i dont use an amp so does tyhe same logic for having the amp up full apply to havng my active monitors up full.
im totally clueless to this ive just heard conflicting advice.it probably doesnt really make a difference but i was just curious

Well if your monitors have a volume pot, then I would put your soundcard/DAW output at unity, 0dbfs and adjust the volume on your monitors for best results.

But that's probably a pain in the arse.
I'd stick a Nano patch or something like that into the path.
imho.


loosing the ability to type/think....

Well, isn't the whole point of spending e800 on monitors as opposed to just putting it out through you hi-fi speaker that good monitors will have a reasonably flat frequency response..no bass boost..no boosted highs..Your speakers will affect the sound before the room no?..and at the output stage (the wire going from your card/desk to the speakers), is that not post dac conversion anyway, so you're not losing bit depth..

DamagedTrax

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, isn't the whole point of spending e800 on monitors as opposed to just putting it out through you hi-fi speaker that good monitors will have a reasonably flat frequency response..no bass boost..no boosted highs....

depends on your hi-fi speakers really. top end hi-fi gear has a very flat response. BW nautilus can be found in many studios and mastering houses world wide but are still hi-fi gear.

(im just being a little pendantic.. i know what you really meant )

I suppose i was a bit vague..i expected someone to know what i was talking about though..

studiorat

Apologies to those I offended! I suppose they are professional whatever they are as long as they are making money! However I feel it's a poor design feature and these should be trim pots rather than knobs if there at all.. I also think having these on the speakers makes differences between monitors much more likely, due to the fact that is un likely that each pot has the same value unless fully turned up. (0 ohms)

The reason those volume pots are there is to adjust for switching from different monitors so there isn't a change in level every time you flip over to a different set when mixing. If you are only using one set of monitors you don't need to touch the knob, it should be at unity. Up full!!!

However the proper way to set these up is with with a decent monitor controller or centre section where each monitor output has it's own trim so the need for a trim on the back is un-necessary. In my opinion you don't start getting into good monitoring territory until you are up into €1,200 each. When you start comparing then you start to notice.

seannash

studiorat wrote: »

Apologies to those I offended! I suppose they are professional whatever they are as long as they are making money! However I feel it's a poor design feature and these should be trim pots rather than knobs if there at all.. I also think having these on the speakers makes differences between monitors much more likely, due to the fact that is un likely that each pot has the same value unless fully turned up. (0 ohms)

The reason those volume pots are there is to adjust for switching from different monitors so there isn't a change in level every time you flip over to a different set when mixing. If you are only using one set of monitors you don't need to touch the knob, it should be at unity. Up full!!!

However the proper way to set these up is with with a decent monitor controller or centre section where each monitor output has it's own trim so the need for a trim on the back is un-necessary. In my opinion you don't start getting into good monitoring territory until you are up into €1,200 each. When you start comparing then you start to notice.

cool up full it is then.
is there any principle behind this,just curious.

iquinn

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, isn't the whole point of spending e800 on monitors as opposed to just putting it out through you hi-fi speaker that good monitors will have a reasonably flat frequency response..no bass boost..no boosted highs..Your speakers will affect the sound before the room no?..and at the output stage (the wire going from your card/desk to the speakers), is that not post dac conversion anyway, so you're not losing bit depth..

In the digital world for every 6db you reduce the volume, you loose 1bit.
Link
Obviously DAW developers know this and compensate for the effects, but there's no getting around the loss (as far as I know)and there's no way to really know how each DAW is dealing with that loss.
So if you leave your digital level at unity and control the level in the analog domain, then you don't have to worry about it.
I certainly noticed an improvement when I switched to an analog volume controller.

studiorat

studiorat wrote: »

Apologies to those I offended! I suppose they are professional whatever they are as long as they are making money! However I feel it's a poor design feature and these should be trim pots rather than knobs if there at all.. I also think having these on the speakers makes differences between monitors much more likely, due to the fact that is un likely that each pot has the same value unless fully turned up. (0 ohms)

The reason those volume pots are there is to adjust for switching from different monitors so there isn't a change in level every time you flip over to a different set when mixing. If you are only using one set of monitors you don't need to touch the knob, it should be at unity. Up full!!!

However the proper way to set these up is with with a decent monitor controller or centre section where each monitor output has it's own trim so the need for a trim on the back is un-necessary. In my opinion you don't start getting into good monitoring territory until you are up into €1,200 each. When you start comparing then you start to notice.

What?...you're talking about passive monitors ya?..active monitors have their own amplifier built in...a seperate gain stage to which that pot is the control..And i would imagine there would be a trim pot knocking about somewhere in the circuit anyway for callibration reasons..Id be wary of putting my monitors up full whack..You dont know when some wild transient might come outa nowhere and blow them like..

iquinn

iquinn wrote: »

So if you leave your digital level at unity and control the level in the analog domain, then you don't have to worry about it.
I certainly noticed an improvement when I switched to an analog volume controller.

Thats what im saying...if your adjusting post conversion you're not losing any bit depth..


edit...I am thinking about this in terms of my set up though..

Ah the Maths in that link bring me back to my college days..

jimi_t

studiorat wrote: »

In my opinion you don't start getting into good monitoring territory until you are up into €1,200 each.

Well for nearfields anyway I'd have to disagree based on demoing the Adam A7s; but as with anything, the more you spend the more objective it gets.

Keithaburke

Deleted User wrote: »

I suppose the more you turn the monitors up, the more of their frequency response curve you're bringing into play..

studiorat wrote: »

This means absolutely nothing. What does bringing a frequency responce curve into play mean exactly?

It's my favourite quote in this thread. I feel bad for laughing but it's a little gem. I am going to use it myself.

Has anyone seen these?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LY8Wi7XRXCA

Infinite solutions, with Mark Ericson. I love the techno speak!

Keith

studiorat

seannash wrote: »

cool up full it is then.
is there any principle behind this,just curious.

No real principle really. Maybe the path of least resistance, maybe the fact that the level controls are less likely to be different and maybe 'cause full up is the one place you know is exactly where it was the last time you moved them.

As for worrying about transients while it's a valid point the power amplifier really should have a line level pre-amp before it.

The real point here though is this:
You should not be taking the output to your monitors directly from the master outs of the sound card. You should be using monitor outputs. A lot of cards have a monitor output with it's own volume control, same with mixers for that matter. This way we can work at full level (full word length) on our 2trk mix-down and still have seperate control over the volume we are working at on the monitors. See?

PaulBrewer

studiorat wrote: »

'cause full up is the one place you know is exactly where it was the last time you moved them.

I'd suggest for a given working output there'd be no difference sonically.

That being the case then the logical thing to do is have amp or monitors up full because as SR says at least it's a match and a constant.

Jimbo808

Deleted User wrote: »

I suppose the more you turn the monitors up, the more of their frequency response curve you're bringing into play..

What DOES that even mean. I didn't know monitors have a frequency response curve dial??

J*808

PaulBrewer

Originally Posted by CQD
I suppose the more you turn the monitors up, the more of their frequency response curve you're bringing into pla

I think what CQD was referring too is the Fletcher Munson Curve i.e. your ears have a different frequency responses at different volume levels.

This was the reason for the Loudness Buttons on HiFis (which boost top and bottom) so you could turn down the overall level but still have a 'balanced' sound.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fletcher–Munson_curves

Jimbo808

Right on chief

madtheory

seannash wrote: »

anyone else have an opinion on this.sounds interesting

No opinion, but I do have a fact- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour

The frequency response of the monitor does not change depending on level (assuming it's fairly well designed!) but the response of your ear is level dependent.

Edit- Paul got there before me! Strictly speaking, it's not Fletcher- Munson any more, their research is out of date- although their conclusion is very close to perfect.

DamagedTrax

whats optimum listening level? isnt it roughly 83db?

I was kind of under the impression that you're better off mixing at low levels..

PaulBrewer

My own opinion is chopping and changing with a preference for low levels - I find even a loud listen to the complete song once is too much in trying to avoid Lug Fatigue .....

Perhaps it age though

Jimbo808

Jimbo808 wrote: »

What DOES that even mean. I didn't know monitors have a frequency response curve dial??

J*808

fyi..im referring to how any monitor will affect any signal passing through it..A lot of lower end monitors will have a bump in the lower or high frequency ranges..Generally you want as flat a frequency response as possible..When the frequency response is drawn on a graph, its called a frequency response curve..Ive included a pic of the frequency response curve for the krk krok monitors..

And just to put this to bed, and to get back to the point i was trying to make in the first place..If your monitors are up full, the response will be exxagerated..if your amplifying beforehand and your monitors are at a low level this difference between the peaks and the troughs in the curve will be minimised..Hence you'll be getting a flatter frequency response..which is what you want..and you wont be in any danger of blowing your nice expensive monitors(these things do happen)..

Jimbo808

Deleted User wrote: »

fyi..im referring to how any monitor will affect any signal passing through it..A lot of lower end monitors will have a bump in the lower or high frequency ranges..Generally you want as flat a frequency response as possible..When the frequency response is drawn on a graph, its called a frequency response curve..Ive included a pic of the frequency response curve for the krk krok monitors..

I know what a frequency response curve is. What you're talking about is generally referred to as "colour" or an implied EQ, rather than honest monitors.. What I meant is, how does this relate to the amount of signal passing through the monitor. i.e. "Bringing more of the frequency response curve into play". The lads nailed it on the head with the Fletcher Munson Curve.

J*808

PaulBrewer

Of interest is the fact that Philip Newell and Keith Holland (both referred to in that SOS article on NS10s we spoke of a few months ago) are both of the opinion that Frequency response is less important for a monitor to operate well than other factors.

In fact it was found in measurement tests that they did that monitors that performed well from a mix perspective may not have performed particularly well looking at Frequency Response.

However all that ones performed well Mixwise did excel in one area namely frequency v time . (The 'reverb time' of the speaker as it were) and phase response (the relationship between the 2 drivers)

These were found to be the real issues.

As usual in Audio, the simple thing to understand isn't the important thing!

Jimbo808

Yeah, you mentioned something to me recently about a speakers impulse response being a major factor Paul?

J*808

Keithaburke

Deleted User wrote: »

And just to put this to bed, and to get back to the point i was trying to make in the first place..If your monitors are up full, the response will be exxagerated..if your amplifying beforehand and your monitors are at a low level this difference between the peaks and the troughs in the curve will be minimised..Hence you'll be getting a flatter frequency response..which is what you want..and you wont be in any danger of blowing your nice expensive monitors(these things do happen)..

whatever you meant...

My thinking on it is that when the monitors are turned up full (no attenuation) their response is most likely to reflect the frequency response diagram leaflet you get when you buy the speakers.

Perhaps they do it already.. they do on some expensive microphones... but it would be useful for those diagrams to tell you at what amplitude the test signal was passed through the speakers at the said frequencies...

I wonder do the attenuation pots (volume pots) reduce all frequencies uniformly? If not.. that would colour the signal and the monitors would have a difference frequency response diagram for different amplitudes.

The Fletcher Munson curve thing is also where "pink noise" as opposed to "white noise" comes from. Personally I feel that your brain makes allowances for a lot of the difference they talk about. I think the more music you listen to on speakers, the better you will know what they sound like... and what they do to the music.

I.E. If you spend your life listening to Al Green on every hi-fi and car stereo you've ever owned... then listen to Al Green on the monitors... and you'll know what they do to sound.

Keith

DamagedTrax

My thinking on it is that when the monitors are turned up full (no attenuation) their response is most likely to reflect the frequency response diagram leaflet you get when you buy the speakers.

the frequency response diagram with monitors is graphed at differant dbSPL levels so that statment is untrue.

I wonder do the attenuation pots (volume pots) reduce all frequencies uniformly? If not.. that would colour the signal and the monitors would have a difference frequency response diagram for different amplitudes.

see above

I think the more music you listen to on speakers, the better you will know what they sound like... and what they do to the music.

100% correct

Keithaburke

DamagedTrax wrote: »

the frequency response diagram with monitors is graphed at differant dbSPL levels so that statment is untrue.

Graphing how a monitor reacts to an input signal of a given amplitude and frequency is not the same thing as saying all frequencies are attenuated uniformly by a volume pot.

No?

Keith

DamagedTrax

the response on a quality monitor isnt going to be affected too much by a trim control. (unless you're driving them too hard and they clip obviously)

**quality being the operative word here. god only knows how the budget monitors will respond

the only thing thats should affect what you hear is your hearing itself - which brings us back nicely to the fletcher munson curve.

(obviously there are other factors involved such as room etc but lets for arguements sake say that we're in a hyperbolic [spelling?] chamber)

PaulBrewer

Deleted User wrote: »

If your monitors are up full, the response will be exxagerated..if your amplifying beforehand and your monitors are at a low level this difference between the peaks and the troughs in the curve will be minimised..Hence you'll be getting a flatter frequency response..which is what you want..and you wont be in any danger of blowing your nice expensive monitors(these things do happen)..

I'm afraid this statement is entirely incorrect.

PaulBrewer

Jimbo808 wrote: »

Yeah, you mentioned something to me recently about a speakers impulse response being a major factor Paul?

J*808

Yes, that's what I mean about speaker 'Reverb Time' -

I shouldn't have used that term as it's technically incorrect but does relate well to explaining Impulse response, namely giving the speaker a good old dart with a short sharp signal and observing it's return to 'stillness'

Ported speakers (a technique often used in small monitors to make them sound 'bigger') can often exhibit very bad impulse responses, that's to say it takes quite a while for the speaker to return to standstill therefore leaving you with no idea what the feck is going on down the low end.

The above mentioned Alesis are a good example of that but it is a trait shared by many entry level monitors.