General monitor questions - near field vs.???
Home > Home Recording Forum > Mixing Techniques > General monitor questions - near field vs.???
Posted on Jul 23, 2009 06:56 am
Indellable
Music Afficionado
Member Since: Aug 12, 2008
I always see "near-field" as a way to describe a lot of monitors. However, I dont recall seeing the other kind, i.e. "far" field or something....
My questions are:
What is the other main type of monitor?
What are the differences between the 2?
I currently have a pair of KRK Rockt 8s and a mathching KRK 10" sub. Am I missing a crucial part of a monitoring chain, for lack of a better word?
Thanks.
[ Back to Top ]
Jul 23, 2009 10:26 am Near-fields are just what the name implies - For use in the near-field. Short throw, narrow dispersion, limited range, etc. They're "the little speakers" in a typical studio (usually the ones on close-stands or the console housing) that are used for non-critical, low SPL work.
They're used in home studios frequently because they (generally) react less to a bad room. Gigantic sacrifice though IMO...
The other type? "Normal" - "Mid field" - "Regular" - "Mains" - "The big speakers" - whatever you want to call them, they're standard throw, normal to wide dispersion, full-range speakers designed for "normal" listening use at "normal" distances at higher *relative* SPL (85dBSPL measured at 3' is a lot different than 85dBSPL measured at 7').
With 8's and a sub, you're on the border... Placement is far more crucial than I could possibly get into in a single paragraph. Proper room treatment also. As is proper calibration.
A pair of near-fields in a room is the simplest (and as it would imply, least accurate in the long run) monitoring setup. The space is still a critical factor, but the room reacts less. Once you throw a sub or "normal" speakers in the mix (no pun intended) the entire rule book changes. Eh, "changes" isn't the right word... But everything becomes much more critical. Measurements go from "around there" and "about that loud" to centimeters and tenths of decibels for accurate calibration. But the payoff is well worth it, of course.
There's a little tiny bit more here if you're bored -- Really doesn't scratch the surface (especially when a sub is concerned - One reason I opt for single-source full-range speakers over satellites/subs):
www.massivemastering.com/..._Room_Setup.php
www.massivemastering.com/...oring_Chain.php
IndellableMusic AfficionadoMember
Since: Aug 12, 2008
Jul 23, 2009 12:38 pm Thanks - always a wealth of info and one of the reasons I find myself coming back to these boards.
Quincysanhttp://www.unitedmusicians.infoContributor
Since: Nov 11, 2007
Jul 23, 2009 02:28 pm Great info...I'm unhappy with the sound of my Alesis Monitor 1 setup...that being said, I only spent $175 on the amp and both monitors. Anyone have an opinion on whether better monitors or acoustic treatment would be the best first step to take? I'm currently in a room that's about 12x15 with an 8 ft ceiling. I'm using twin mattresses propped in the corners right now and I'm not sure they are doing much good for me at all. Sound seems muddy.
Also, I'm using the alesis m1's on a foldout picnic table along with my control surface, mointors, mouse and keyboard. The monitors are set up in an equilateral triangle, but they are sitting directly on the table and not pointing directly at my face. Would it be sufficient to buy some foam wedges and leave the monitors on the table, or are stands the best option without exception?
Jul 23, 2009 03:41 pm DO NOT confuse Alesis near fields with good ones, don't judge...Monitors ones are the single worst nearfields I have ever heard.
The only real sacrifice I notice is the bass in some cases...the best I have ever had were JBL 4206's...Herb Utsmelz has them last I heard...they were very nice...they do react less in a bad room, their sound develops within a few feet and are made for...you guessed it, close range listening...not reflective from walls and such.
NS10's (me thinks) are the most common, even in very high end studios, for near field listening. In the properly treated room they work very well...but yes, often used in home studio's because they work well in smaller rooms.
Quincysanhttp://www.unitedmusicians.infoContributor
Since: Nov 11, 2007
Jul 23, 2009 06:49 pm How about these Mackie HR824's with Quicklock speaker stands for $700? Anyone tried these? Seems like a good price for the package deal...
Noize2uCzar of MidiAdministrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002
Jul 25, 2009 01:29 pm The 824' are pretty good. And as you were using rear ported monitor's before you should get much better results with the Mackie's. They are pretty durable as well from what I have heard and seen. And can be loud when they need to be. Although the bottom tends to roll off a bit when cranked too loud.
GeoffSM7b the Chuck Noris of Mic'sContributor
Since: Jun 20, 2002
Jul 25, 2009 01:33 pm if you can get a chance to go to a music store and try them out. that said , I've read a lot of good thing about KRK, yamaha, and My Events I've come to love(but they don't make em any more ).
Jul 25, 2009 03:25 pm i rock Event' 20/20's and absolutely love them aswell....a friend took me with him to go monitor shoppin' and i was quite surpirzed in the 8" range M-Audio's did quite nicely at low to moderate volumes....the KRK's were a bit dark untill you crank 'em up , then they blow the M-audio's outta the water....i used to really dislike the KRK due to their hi's....but when i got it up to around 70db SPL.....the m-audio's were a bit harsh, and the KRK's really shined....but if yer like me and mix at comfortable levels the m-audio's are just fine....
makie's are pretty reliable, and if you can afford Tannoy or ADAM i'd definately look into them.
i hate blue's for no logical reason....overpirced and under performed was my experience with them
Quincysanhttp://www.unitedmusicians.infoContributor
Since: Nov 11, 2007
Jul 26, 2009 10:56 am Thanks for all the suggestions! I'm definitely going to make a trip to Guitar Center and listen to everything. Those people are going to get pissed eventually...I'm acquainted with most of the people working there, and every time I go in I take up an hour of time and buy it somewhere else for cheap.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it be difficult to tell if the monitors are flat without a point of reference? What I mean is that I've never owned a pair of good monitors, so how am I to know what a certain recording is supposed to sound like? Would it be practical to use a graphic EQ on the signal going to the monitors? I think if I had a visual point of reference like that it would help me to tell if any range is particularly understated/overstated...
Noize2uCzar of MidiAdministrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002
Jul 26, 2009 08:12 pm On the answer of EQ for monitor's. I never use an EQ in the signal chain for the monitor section. I keep it as short as possible with only the amp between the source and monitor's.
GeoffSM7b the Chuck Noris of Mic'sContributor
Since: Jun 20, 2002
Jul 27, 2009 08:46 am yeah i would never use an EQ or anything that might effect the signal. the only thing i might have would be , the Mackie big knob or PreSonus Control station.
Jul 27, 2009 10:47 pm when yer listening, pay attention to which ones are "mid-rangey" meanin' vocals and guitars really stand out......others you'll hear will sound brite, or some dark....in the end it comes down to personal preference, and a little forethought as to what kind of music you'll be mixing on 'em....also bring a few cd's of music you're really familiar with and ask to hear that on 'em all.....test at low and high volumes, you'll hear a set you like.
Quincysanhttp://www.unitedmusicians.infoContributor
Since: Nov 11, 2007
Jul 28, 2009 07:11 pm I wasn't clear, sorry.
I was trying to think of the best way to objectively evaluate how flat the monitor response is.
I was thinking there might be some kind of EQ representation that i could use passively while evaluating different monitors. My thought was if I could see the frequencies that should be there, I could more easily evaluate if certain bands are coming through correctly.
Jul 28, 2009 08:44 pm you could use pink noise, and some kind of spectragraph..i donno, my best advice is just use your ears....you'll be able to hear the difference in them....some will sound edgy (meaning a mid range bump) while others can sound warm (meaning less highs)...thin sounding means the lows are not present. imo the ears will give you a better result than any kinda automatic flatness detector device...flatter isn''t necessarily better Yamaha ns-10's are notoriously not flat and they were a huge staple in every major studio just about....once you get used to mixing on your monitors (and your ears will adjust to them overtime) you will be able to do what ya want on 'em just fine.
Quincysanhttp://www.unitedmusicians.infoContributor
Since: Nov 11, 2007
Jul 29, 2009 04:39 pm Perfect. Thank you.
Noize2uCzar of MidiAdministrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002
Jul 29, 2009 08:56 pm The reason to use a CD that you are completely intimate with, and I mean very intimate. A CD that you know at least one track and would hear any little nuance that wasn't right.
Doing that will help you hear if the monitor is hyping any portion of the freq. spectrum. It is You really can't do that with a graph. Hearing the CD playback and sounding similar to what you are used to without any highs mids or lows sounding accentuated means they are flat, or close to it.
Jul 30, 2009 12:59 am I have a disc that has some of the greatest recordings ever, along with some of the worst. The great ones should sound great. The bad ones should sound bad - And be specific about why it sounds bad - At different volumes - at different listening positions.
If they don't accurately reveal what's bad, you can't trust it when it sounds good.
SmikalowMountain Top Recording Member
Since: Sep 11, 2009
Oct 06, 2009 02:06 am I like using monitor speakers that are the sae as will be used to hear the CD's I produce.
But the catch is the quality of the speaker. A good pair of speakers can set you back $600.00 and up.
I found a bargain out there! Generally the acoustical suspension speakers break down with in 12 to 14 years. A lot of people will give then to the Good Will or some other thrift shop. They can then be bought for $30 to $40 bucks. Here is the catch, it only cost about $25 bucks a speaker to have the suspension portion replaced. So I got a really nice pair of Marantz speakers that are like new for about $80 bucks with new suspension cones. saving a nice $520.00. they make excellent monitors. I have seen some really nice speakers out there for next to nothing.
