Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MikeHarris]

Mike's son came by with a pair of twos...pardon my old school respect of keeping it in the fam...and we took them to Bad Boys studio for playback. not sure if they were final versions.
As a side note, the headphone output of a laptop is an inadequate source

[MikeHarris]

.. agree with this.  For home use who would buy high end passive "Hi Fi" speakers when these mid-field powered monitors are so good

unfortunately i have recently come across two folks more interrested in justifying their purchase of McIntosh power amps than sonics.
example..ATC SCM150 active 3 way $20,000 pair...passives @$39000...but you do get to choose stunning finishes

[Mark Fairchild]

It would be cool if Danley would send the Studio 2 over to Amirm at audiosciencereview.com to perform his Klippel NFS measurements. It's an impressive system that costs about $100,000 and allows you to take high resolution anechoic measurements without the need for an anechoic chamber or the time and effort involved with trying to take measurements outside. If fact, the NFS system is potentially more accurate than anechoic chambers at low frequencies. It would be interesting to see how it compares to a similar studio monitor in its price range such as the Genelec 8341A which are around $5900 for a pair. The CEA2034 "spinorama" measurements for this speaker are impeccable though. The biggest weakness he found was their limited power if you ever needed to impress your clients with how loud they get, but for normal studio operations it wouldn't likely be a problem
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/genelec-8341a-sam%E2%84%A2-studio-monitor-review.11652/

[MikeHarris]

Mark...Genelec has 2 models above the 8341...the 51 & 61...still using dual woofers behind a waveguide with a central coax mid high

[Ned Ward]

Other thing to point out - at this price point and performance level, if you're not mixing with them in a treated room, you're not really hearing what you could. Studio construction and sound treatment costs can make these speaker prices seem trivial, but it's worth it. In my untreated home studio, the Danleys would be casting pearls before swine - and in most home theater setups as well.

[Yoel Klein]

So I’m coming back to my question, Is the studio 2 a single point source?

[Tim Weaver]

So I’m coming back to my question, Is the studio 2 a single point source?

It can be considered that, yes.


I am taking a guess at the tech in these, but it's an educated guess and Ivan did agree to my earlier observation.


The mid/hi section is exactly the same as the studio 1. A 6.5" mid with a coaxial HF. Whatever synergy magic they do, is definitely happening here also. Just like you would pair the Studio 1 with an external sub and it still considered "point source" the Studio 2 just integrates the sub into the same cabinet.

Now that the Low frequency driver is very, very close to the midrange you can raise the crossover pooint between the two. This lessens the demand on the midrange which means you'll have even less intermodulation distortion out of the mid driver and the mid can handle a bit more input power now since it doesn't have to reproduce any low freqrency at all.

You get:
Point source
Extended freq response
Single cabinet
No single sub/room interaction issues


The downsides are:
Larger physical cabinet
Can't turn the sub on/off to A/B mixes that way.


So the ultimate monitoring situation would be to have a pair of each kind. Lol

[Ivan Beaver]

It can be considered that, yes.


I am taking a guess at the tech in these, but it's an educated guess and Ivan did agree to my earlier observation.


The mid/hi section is exactly the same as the studio 1. A 6.5" mid with a coaxial HF. Whatever synergy magic they do, is definitely happening here also. Just like you would pair the Studio 1 with an external sub and it still considered "point source" the Studio 2 just integrates the sub into the same cabinet.

Now that the Low frequency driver is very, very close to the midrange you can raise the crossover pooint between the two. This lessens the demand on the midrange which means you'll have even less intermodulation distortion out of the mid driver and the mid can handle a bit more input power now since it doesn't have to reproduce any low freqrency at all.

You get:
Point source
Extended freq response
Single cabinet
No single sub/room interaction issues


The downsides are:
Larger physical cabinet
Can't turn the sub on/off to A/B mixes that way.


So the ultimate monitoring situation would be to have a pair of each kind. Lol

You are correct in how the layout/operation is.  Because the drivers are close together in relation to the xover freq, they will act as a single source of sound.

Regarding the sub on/off issue, it is interesting to listen to different recordings and the amount of bass they have.  This gives an idea of the sub level in the studio. 

If the recording has alack of bass, then the studio it was recorded in had TO MUCH bass, so the engineer lowered the bass instruments to account for that.  But it makes the recording sound thin on a proper system.

This is one reason we made these to be used without a sub.  It takes away the user adjustment of sub levels.

If you want more sub, then put it in the mix, NOT by increasing the level of the playback sub.

The whole goal of a studio monitor is to reproduce exactly (or as close as we can) the sound going into it, NOT to have a "color" of its own, which will mess up the mix being done on them.  you want a white canvas to paint on, not an "off white", that you have to adjust to.

The same thing goes for PA speakers, in my opinion anyway, but that is a different topic.

[Mark Fairchild]

Ivan is correct as usual, but I think it's also important to keep in mind that often times where studio monitors are typically located are often not optimal positions for sub frequencies due to console bounce, front wall bounce, floor bounce, room modes, etc. That's why well respected acousticians such as Carl Tatz often prefer to integrate subs in optimal positions because when optimized correctly they can mitigate some of those issues, but as Ivan often says, "It depends." 

[Ned Ward]

You are correct in how the layout/operation is.  Because the drivers are close together in relation to the xover freq, they will act as a single source of sound.

Regarding the sub on/off issue, it is interesting to listen to different recordings and the amount of bass they have.  This gives an idea of the sub level in the studio. 

If the recording has alack of bass, then the studio it was recorded in had TO MUCH bass, so the engineer lowered the bass instruments to account for that.  But it makes the recording sound thin on a proper system.

This is one reason we made these to be used without a sub.  It takes away the user adjustment of sub levels.

If you want more sub, then put it in the mix, NOT by increasing the level of the playback sub.

The whole goal of a studio monitor is to reproduce exactly (or as close as we can) the sound going into it, NOT to have a "color" of its own, which will mess up the mix being done on them.  you want a white canvas to paint on, not an "off white", that you have to adjust to.

The same thing goes for PA speakers, in my opinion anyway, but that is a different topic.

Ivan - I'd agree with you that for stereo listening, 2 speakers are the way to go, and monitors are there to reveal mix deficiencies.


Subs are helpful when someone is using speakers in a non-treated room, and usually at an MI grade level. At the level of studios these would be going into, I will assume that isn't an issue.


While I don't have a sub to go with my ancient Event Audio TR6's, I do use frequency analyzer plugins to show me how much low end I can't hear.


So perhaps a way to explain to studios is that once you reach a certain level, you don't need a sub - unless you're mixing post for 5.1/7.1...

[ProSoundWeb Community]