All studio monitor all the same, room is what makes them sound different

    Hi


    Interesting article.


    When shopping for studio monitor speakers, you probably spend countless hours researching the highest ratings and pouring through many comments on forums, but you probably haven’t ever thought about what kind of impact the room itself has on your sound system.


    We have a thesis that the monitors themselves actually vary in just the slightest ways and the studio or room is the greatest factor in determining what you hear. In many cases, this causes issues creating your ideal output, but put the insulated padding away – we’ve got a solution to this seemingly complex problem.


    Check frequency responses before and after calibration.


    Before:
    [Blocked Image: http://sonarworks.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/SW_C1_Frequency_response_before.png]


    After calibration:
    [Blocked Image: http://sonarworks.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/SW_C1_Frequency_response_after.png]



    Wasn't it requested for Kemper to have such calibrator? ;)


    Tom

    Edited once, last by skoczy ().

    Yeah, they sell calibration systems... LOL


    I agree with the room being a protagonist in the overall sound, But it's a long shot to conclude that monitors souns "almost the same". Just go to a pro store and A/B a few.
    True, yiur test will not be accurate because of monitors' placement, but I can assure you that they sound different... Unless they are based on a same design.


    OTOH, the results they are showing are somehow fake, since they're based on steady signals: if you tried with short signals results would be way worse. Time-independent EQ can not really make a room flat.
    Nothing can beat a room treatment :)

    Quote from viabcroce

    OTOH, the results they are showing are somehow fake, since they're based on steady signals: if you tried with short signals results would be way worse. Time-independent EQ can not really make a room flat.
    Nothing can beat a room treatment :)

    I've read a lot of user comments which had good results by using this software. I'm not really convinced. Maybe the software helps you to treat the room correctly, because you have to measure different spots with a test signal. ?(

    Quote from viabcroce

    Nothing can beat a room treatment :)


    I absolutely agree.
    the room (dimensions, proportions, materials etc) are the source of these problems, hence they should be fixed, or at least somewhat adressed, as any good room treatment does.


    a room's problems occur in the time domain, trying to solve these in the frequency domain means treating the symptoms, not the causes.

    At GC, with a wall of monitors, the room being the same, I hear huge differences between all monitors of the same speaker size.


    At home, having owned a bunch of different monitors, they are vastly different, all in the same room, and they don't have the same response or rates of sound over differing volumes.


    I don't know what you would call it, timbre, character, tone, whatever, but surely the build material of speakers greatly affect their sound, in a way that is identifiable as a difference, even if their frequency spectrum is near identical, no?

    Quote from DonPetersen

    I absolutely agree.
    the room (dimensions, proportions, materials etc) are the source of these problems, hence they should be fixed, or at least somewhat adressed, as any good room treatment does.


    a room's problems occur in the time domain, trying to solve these in the frequency domain means treating the symptoms, not the causes.


    Yes!


    When we profiled some amps here in my room - often the amp owner was astonished how great the amp sounds.


    The room is VERY importaint - and It needs treatment itself - no EQ can help.

    (All trademarks are trademarks of their respective owners, which are in no way associated or affiliated with soundside.de)


    Great Profiles --> soundside.de

    Quote from DonPetersen

    I absolutely agree.
    the room (dimensions, proportions, materials etc) are the source of these problems, hence they should be fixed, or at least somewhat adressed, as any good room treatment does.


    a room's problems occur in the time domain, trying to solve these in the frequency domain means treating the symptoms, not the causes.



    Agree 100%.


    And not even the symptoms, really.


    If you're sitting in a null, boosting that frequency changes NOTHING - well, it might make the neighbours even more pissed....


    Other than that, modal ringing isn't affected (i.e. some frequencies keeping on reverberating).


    And graphs like these are most often averaged all to hell, covering up A LOT of problems.



    This is really misleading advertising. I mean, systems such as these CAN help, and especially in a well-treated room. But this is pretty shameless in my opinion.

    Quote from db9091

    At GC, with a wall of monitors, the room being the same, I hear huge differences between all monitors of the same speaker size.


    At home, having owned a bunch of different monitors, they are vastly different, all in the same room, and they don't have the same response or rates of sound over differing volumes.


    I don't know what you would call it, timbre, character, tone, whatever, but surely the build material of speakers greatly affect their sound, in a way that is identifiable as a difference, even if their frequency spectrum is near identical, no?



    Not an expert, but I would say design is the main thing rather than materials. At least of the enclosures, the speakers themselves are probably another matter.


    Then some monitors are more used to shine a light on certain areas of the frequency spectrum (auratones, NS10s etc... Though neither of these are really linear studio monitors, at least the NS10s were consumer speakers to start with), and are not considered linear. Then there's all sorts of voodoo regarding crossover frequencies, how they handle transients etc....


    The point about speakers being fairly equal WHEN COMPARED TO THE EFFECT OF THE ROOM is true, in my opinion, UNTIL you treat the room properly.



    Of course, at my skill level, neither room nor speakers may be the biggest hindrance... ;)

    My 2p (or cents or whatever currency you favour)


    Room treatment makes a world of difference and need not cost the earth. My little man-cave here cost around £250 UK and a load of my time. This got me a vocal wall and sound treatment in a bunch of other places. It's 4" acoustic density rockwool slabs with home-made frames and breathable material over them.


    Has this made the room perfect? No. I don't think any of us home-made folks in regular rooms in regular houses will ever have a 'perfect' room. Then again, there is no such thing as a perfect monitor..... So the trick is to get both as flat as possible within your budget and 'wife acceptance factor' on the treatment.


    I've had 3 sets of speakers in here since treating the room. All sounded different. I know the treatment is doing something positive though because in all cases, the £250 worth of treatment suddenly made *all* of the speakers sound a lot more expensive. And, with what I have, I've managed to make mixes that sound pretty good in here that sound good through phones, in the car and through the crappy speakers on an iPad. The limits for me now are my own ability, not the room.

    Quote from Mago

    Acoustic treatment for the room is a must if you want to hear what you're doing.


    But saying all monitors sounds the same in a "perfect" listening environment, is like saying all guitars sound the same through a "perfect" amp.
    Kinda ;)



    Well... My take: you need a "perfect" listening environment to really hear the differences between monitors. Or at least to get anything out of the differences. And you need good ears to utilize them. Well, you might hear the differences, but you hear that 12dB peak at 123 Hz (and a lot more peaks, nulls, ringing etc) on ALL those monitors until you get it sorted out in the room... :)

    A case study in room response graphs, from my own home studio.
    I have panels of 2 inches of dense rockwool at first reflection points (front, back, sides and ceiling cloud), and a basstrap (or boradband absorber, really) in each of three wall corners (straddling the corner, 4 inches thick), as well as a bass trap on a wall/floor corner (which was the best place for it, oddly enough - but such is room acoustics). Also, monitor position and especially listening position makes a huge difference, I had to pull my chair back quite a bit to get this response. All panels/traps are 100 cm x 60 cm. (sorry, 3.5 feet by 2 feet). I definitely need more bass traps etc, but this is what I have at the moment.


    Anyway, I have done some measurements while tweaking. Here is what my room sounds like today:


    [Blocked Image: http://i1309.photobucket.com/albums/s621/Michael_DK/Home%20Studio/6thoctavesmoothing_zpsf9d650ae.png]



    To my eyes, the curve looks to have the same smoothing as the graph those advertising guys display.



    Now, that curve is at what is called 1/6th octave smoothing. Don't ask about the math, but it makes the curve look smoother than it really is. Great for brochures and a very general idea of a room. But for studio applications, not really useful at all, especially in bass and mids.



    Let's see what it looks like when you use a less aggressive smoothing. Here it is at a 1/24th octave smoothing:
    [Blocked Image: http://i1309.photobucket.com/albums/s621/Michael_DK/Home%20Studio/24thoctavesmoothing_zpsd82da10f.png]



    Oops, what happened? Well, the curve got a lot more ripply, for one thing. But that's not important. Look at the areas 100-200 Hz, 300-400 Hz, 500Hz-1kHz... Now those are pretty drastic changes, of say 5 dB - to EACH side (both louder and softer, if you will).




    Dare I show this next graph, with NO smoothing applied?


    Brave yourselves....



    [Blocked Image: http://i1309.photobucket.com/albums/s621/Michael_DK/Home%20Studio/Nosmoothing_zps7f816b87.png]



    OK, some of these peaks and nulls just got even worse by like 2-3 dB. And some places, the sound all but disappears, giving more or less a true null (for that particular listening position, but close enough to be a problem, especially below 1kHz (or something). Though in general peaks are a bigger problem, as well as wider but shallower dips. The massive density of narrow peaks and dips in the 3k + range I'm not too worried about, they are pretty narrow and the higher frequencies are not that critical in that regard. That's what I've heard anyway. And there's still that peak at roughly 120-130 Hz. Right smack in the middle of low B note on a guitar......



    Anyway, this was just to show why such graphs should be taken with a pinch or two of salt. Or a boatload.




    And last graph: a waterfall plot. This shows how long it takes for each frequency to die out - i.e. the reverberation of each frequency:
    [Blocked Image: http://i1309.photobucket.com/albums/s621/Michael_DK/Home%20Studio/Waterfall_zpseb3e0b9f.png]


    As you can see, not only do I have a big peak at that 120-130 Hz point - it also excites ringing in the room, so B notes are louder AND keep ringing for some time after the initial note stops. Time after sound source is upwards, and the colour then shows how loud the particular frequency at each time on the y-scale. Terrible explanation, ask if I should try again. Or alternatively, tell me to shut up and stop posting....

    You Know..


    it's the same when drinking beer in different bars... and German beer seems to have the best effect on the room and it's occupants ;)


    :) enjoy your weekend kemperers...

    Leg em down and yackem smackem

    Quote from Stevoe

    You Know..


    it's the same when drinking beer in different bars... and German beer seems to have the best effect on the room and it's occupants ;)


    :) enjoy your weekend kemperers...


    First time I ever drank with a guy from Finland (you are all hard-core and I'm British!) he toasted with the word 'Kipiss'


    Sorry for the spelling.


    I thought he said 'Get Pissed'. Which was the most 'to the point' drinking toast I've ever heard. :thumbup:


    Mind you, you don't want to know what happened when I tried to buy a bus ticket for several colleagues in Germany with my typically British command of foreign language. That wasn't so good :whistling:

    I can totally sympathies with you.. I'm British also :) been here about 13 years ... and totally true.. hard core drinking fun seekers are made here .)

    Leg em down and yackem smackem

    Quote from Mago

    Acoustic treatment for the room is a must if you want to hear what you're doing.


    But saying all monitors sounds the same in a "perfect" listening environment, is like saying all guitars sound the same through a "perfect" amp.
    Kinda ;)

    +1


    Both is important, acoustic treatment for the room AND good studio monitors. It's not just about frequency curves, there are monitors you can work for hours without getting tired ears, good monitors can make a big difference.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    first name: Guenter / family name: Haas / www.guenterhaas.de