PDA

View Full Version : No more big studio loudspeakers anymore?



Niklas Nord
10-12-2005, 12:23 PM
Many years ago, there was big studio loudspeakers made by JBL, now they are so very very small :blink: Why?

:D

I mean loudspeakers like the 4355, now we have the LSR -series.
Or have I missed something on their website?

Dynacoman
10-12-2005, 03:05 PM
I suspect WAF and wimpy husbands. :D

dancing-dave
10-12-2005, 03:18 PM
Also wimpy designers and engineers.

"Duke" Spinner
10-12-2005, 04:40 PM
most Studios have gone to powered nearfield Monitors

Titanium Dome
10-12-2005, 04:41 PM
...Better engineering, more knowledgeable design, superior drivers, advancing technology, more effective enclosures, newer materials, and better electronics.

Oh yeah, PLUS male consumers being p-whipped, and engineers being limp-wristed pantywaists. :rotfl:

Ken Pachkowsky
10-12-2005, 05:26 PM
The truth of the matter is most studios are going to small footprint self powered nearfield type monitors. Ask anyone in the studio equipment business. Nobody here on the coast is buying large format monitors anymore.

You would be hard pressed to find large format mains in the "Major" studios around LA. Everyone is going with smaller footprint self powered mains. I have been to 2 major studios in the last month who's main control rooms are using small format 3 way Genelec's. I kid you not. The bass sounds like a mic'd cardboard box with someone kicking it. They are however capable of withstanding huge spl's. It's a bloody shame is what it is. As much as I hate most rap crap, just listen to the kit. Horrible, synthetic, digital junk!

Thats my 2 cents.

Ken

Alan Fletcher
10-12-2005, 05:52 PM
>>"I have been to 2 major studios in the last month who's main control rooms are using small format 3 way Genelec's. I kid you not. The bass sounds like a mic'd cardboard box with someone kicking it. They are however capable of withstanding huge spl's. It's a bloody shame is what it is. As much as I hate most rap crap, just listen to the kit. Horrible, synthetic, digital junk!"<<

Wow, Ken. Tell us how you really feel.

Seriously, you're right. I still can't understand why everyone seems to think the Genelecs are the cat's meow. I personally think they are an overpriced,yet average sounding powered monitor. I'm not crazy about them and I think one could do better (especially for the money) with the Mackie 824's if that's the monitoring route you want to go.

As far as (c)rap "music" is concerned, all the digitized garbage that has taken the place of real musicians and the people who really know how to play them- that junk has migrated to nearly all genres of music. Such is life (sigh).

-A

johnaec
10-12-2005, 06:06 PM
As much as I hate most rap crap, just listen to the kit. Horrible, synthetic, digital junk!Ya' know what's even more a shame? The main clientele at the studio in Oakland where my friend is head engineer is rap and hip-hop, (even a muslim hip-hop artist that has to take prayer breaks several times each session!!), and they actually have JBL DMS-1 monitors! http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=6994&highlight=dms-1

What a waste...

John

Ken Pachkowsky
10-12-2005, 06:13 PM
Wow, Ken. Tell us how you really feel.
Yes, it was a bit strong but HONEST!

Have a good one...

Ken

pelly3s
10-12-2005, 08:27 PM
Well you can get some huge Dynaudio monitors :D the M4+ but it's an extremely expensive way to go for anything. I wish JBL would come up with something like the K2's for a studio I didnt see any future plans for one this weekend at AES either but i did get to listen to LSR6328's in 5.1 and it was killer

Niklas Nord
10-13-2005, 04:29 AM
I don´t like genelec. The Genelec´s, big and small that I have heard - all had some kind of distorsion/harschness in the top, and the imaging wasn´t there. All this in nice rooms with all kinds of correct built acoustic threatment, walls and so on..

JBL DMS-1, maximum SPL 130db, and with really low distorsion, yes it would be someting. :) but whait, I have the DMS-1 @ home, almost :bouncy:

Ian Mackenzie
10-13-2005, 05:53 AM
Many years ago, there was big studio loudspeakers made by JBL, now they are so very very small :blink: Why?

:D

I mean loudspeakers like the 4355, now we have the LSR -series.
Or have I missed something on their website?

Well people like Tad and Westlake still market LFM systems, although they are probably flagships that pull in core business in the smaller systems.

I think it would be a real design challenge to design a small/ medium format monitor that could match a large format system.

Years ago (1975) an AWA scientist over here designed a system called the Duplex driver monitor. It had more and lower bass than a Tannoy Arden by using dual Coral long throw 8 inch woofers in a back to back duplex configuration tuned to a particular TS alignment. The total box volume was only 3 cuft 3 but it had an f3 of 27 hertz. It was a three way with time aligned passive crossover.

I imagine a system using say dual JBL 2235 configured the same way (1/2 ing the VAS) would occupy a similarly small foot print, add a 2123 mid cone and wave guide horn and way to go Sam.

Physical size is only the illusion of big sound, its the bass extension and lack of power compression makes the big boxes sound big.

mikebake
10-13-2005, 07:42 AM
Physical size is only the illusion of big sound, its the bass extension and lack of power compression makes the big boxes sound big.
Another nice truism that I hadn't seen put quite so succinctly before; therefore, to answer the original question, if a smaller system gives bass extension (maybe with subs) and lacks compression, then no need for a large box..............

Rolf
10-13-2005, 09:12 AM
Many years ago, there was big studio loudspeakers made by JBL, now they are so very very small http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/images/smilies/blink.gif Why?

http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

I mean loudspeakers like the 4355, now we have the LSR -series.
Or have I missed something on their website?

Hi everybody.

I was discussing this with some people in the business a few years ago, and was told that when a record is made, the tecnician did not need a large speaker because he knew what it would sound like when played on a large speaker. I told him this sounds like "crap" to me. However, he ageed with me in that in the final mastering a big speaker was needed to really hear the result. (So much for small speakers)http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/images/smilies/banghead.gif

I have been looking around several of studio web sites, and find that many still uses large monitores. Many even uses JBL 4333, 4343 and 4350 today, others use B&W Nautilus and other brands. You have to search their information very closly to find this info.http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/images/smilies/blink.gif

BUT: the most just use, as pointed out in this thred, small self-powerd monitors like Genelec....Why do you thing that most "newer" cd's sound like "crap" today? The really serious one, like Telarc, uses "real stuff" and I believe they will still do it in the future.

What to do? listen to the cd at your own place before you buy it. Any serious record dealer will be happy to let you do it. I have such a agreement with my record shop, as he know I would never make a copy and NEVER play a burned cd on my system.

Rolf

tomt
10-13-2005, 11:05 AM
the lust for small space,salesclowns,and the ghost of auratones
(horrortones)

and an uneducated populace

http://gearslutz.com/board/archive/index.php3/t-860.html

http://www.prodistroaudio.com/page17.html

why pay $300 to hear what tv speakers sound like,

when a tv for less than $100 will do?

http://www.smurphco.com/articles-tvtech-triplep.html

Titanium Dome
10-13-2005, 12:48 PM
I sometimes waste my time on other forums. Here's what one guy replied to LH Forum member pelly3s with respect to JBL monitors.

http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=104513&postcount=14

Nice, huh? I complained about his post as an example of a moderator not acting like a moderator but like an opinionated @sshole. I never got a response, probably because he was the moderator who got the complaint.

Ken Pachkowsky
10-13-2005, 01:55 PM
This frosted my butt.....probably over reacted but here is my reply. Lets see how long it takes for this super moderator to end my membership with that forum.

Hmmm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
JBL is pro mass market garbage. Whenever I work at a studio that has them, I ask that they be replaced. The PMC/Bryston combo is my speakers of choice, followed by Genelec and M&K. JBL, EV, and altec have all had their day. I have heard the 4355, it doesn't even come close to the PMC/Bryston combination. It also doesn't come close to the Genelecs either. I guess its a matter of what you like in a speaker.

I use Dunlavy SC V when mastering.

I suspect I have a few years more experience in this than you my friend. I come from the days when JBL was not owned by a mass market Corp. Looking at your list of equipment I would be inclined to think your pretty much a rookie and don’t know your butt from a hole in the ground. Of course, you are far too young, arrogant and opinionated for any of this to sink in. Maybe as you and more importantly your ear mature, you can look back on your post with some regret. In any case, I and many others would disagree entirely with your opinion.

Have a nice day.

JBLnsince1959
10-13-2005, 02:00 PM
Sir Terrence the Terrible

maybe the title says it all

Robh3606
10-13-2005, 02:23 PM
Don't let that guy get under your skin. That's his opinion for all its worth. Go up on the PMC site, look around and see if you can find their claim to fame.

Rob:)

Ken Pachkowsky
10-13-2005, 02:29 PM
Don't let that guy get under your skin. That's his opinion for all it worth. Go up on the PMC site look around and see if you can find there claim to fame.

Rob:)

Sometime the dark side emerges:bouncy:

JBLnsince1959
10-13-2005, 02:41 PM
Let's all just take a deep breath and try and be balanced. There are many opinions as there are speakers and we should respect all of them.

HOWEVER, we all know that:
JBL makes the best pro, montiors and consumer speakers period; and anyone who doesn't agree is just being an ignorant asshole whose experience and hearing abilities is in deep question.

there, that should provide the insight and balanced opinion we all need.

Ken Pachkowsky
10-13-2005, 02:45 PM
HOWEVER, we all know that:
JBL makes the best pro, montiors and consumer speakers period; and anyone who doesn't agree is just being an ignorant asshole whose experience and hearing abilities is in deep question.

there, that should provide the insight and balanced opinion we all need.

Very well put and a good chuckle. However, I could not resist.

Akira
10-13-2005, 03:24 PM
Even in the glory years when 43xx ruled the world, large format monitors were not used very much. Their main purpose in life was to IMPRESS THE CLIENT. Ken's Westlakes were my favorite monitors. I can remember when I started my career, hearing them and being so impressed. Westlake is not just a builder of monitors they are proprietary studio designers. They build the room around the monitors. Their sound just impaled me against the wall...it was so loud you "couldn't even look at it", yet there was no ear fatigue at all!
The only other use for these beasts was in aquiring initial sounds off the floor in bed tracks. For example: the first sound an engineer gets is kick drum because the entire mix is built around it, followed by the rest of the kit and bass guitar. When the two instruments are seated right, the entire mix is placed around them. The purpose of the large format monitor is to hear every nuance in that kick drum which could be missed in a small monitor. Also it is very, very hard to derive your tonality and sculpt your sound unless you have the SPL level to deal with it. Once your 'beds' are laid, (the easiest and most fun part of the mix) many engineers prefer to use small format monitors on the console for MANY reasons. Ear fatigue, a more appropriate image size, not to mention a more realistic sound. A common rookie mistake is to blast a large format monitor and be in sonic heaven. You know what that sounds like when you play it back on a normal home system...CRAP....tiny....out of balance....improper tonality....I could go on forever.
Large format monitors are generally not used for final downmix, and mastering. Back then the monitor of choice (for all of the above reasons) was the good old 4310. If you owned a pair of L100's back then, you would find many albums that had perfect phasing, imaging, texture and balance. That is a direct result of the product being mixed on a 4310!
Secondly, the world wide market for large monitors is estimated at 2000 units. Even if you produce a successful product, that's not much of a market. Small format monitors and small studios are in. There is an advantage to using small near fields. Even in world class installations, which all have in wall monsters, the small self powered unit produces excellent imaging and lack of exterior interference. And yes I think Genelecs are superb in this regard.
The third reason large format monitors are not popular is the shear decline of medium and large installations. Today everyone and his mother has a pro tools in their basement....which has led to a lot of crap, and a lot of monitors for sale. BTW, being a casualty of the times...anyone want to buy a pair of Tannoys? :(

Ken Pachkowsky
10-13-2005, 03:40 PM
Articulate and well put without being abrasive. We to used small monitors for the final mix because it gave a realistic example of what the final pressing would sound like on FM radio and lesser sound systems.

I would only take exception to one thing. Imaging, having owned many esoteric speakers in my days (large and small) not just JBL’s, these HR1’s have the most incredible imaging I have ever heard. Not all may agree, but that’s my opinion.

Kudo’s on the kick drum and bass sound. Genelec’s have more of a synthetic slap than a true skin to skin punch. Compression can affect this to a great degree as well.



Great reply



Thanks

scott fitlin
10-13-2005, 03:48 PM
Today everyone and his mother has a pro tools in their basement....which has led to a lot of crap, and a lot of monitors for sale. BTW, being a casualty of the times...anyone want to buy a pair of Tannoys.This, and this alone, is, in my opinion, the most largely responsible single thing that has led to the decline of many things music and audio related!

This has affected studios, engineers, recording artists, recording label employees, audio companies and what they manufacture, oir dont manufacture becuae everything is DIY comp/digi tech lo fi, etc!

Ken Pachkowsky
10-13-2005, 03:55 PM
I once owned a pair of Quad ESL's that had pretty awsome imaging.

Ken

JBLnsince1959
10-13-2005, 04:01 PM
I could not resist.

Don't feel badly, I would have done the same thing :D

JBLnsince1959
10-13-2005, 04:07 PM
I once owned a pair of Quad ESL's that had pretty awsome imaging.

Ken

my large Martin Logans, when setup properly, image almost laser like. Opps, can I say that on this forum, forgive me JBL GODS

Akira
10-13-2005, 06:27 PM
Kudo’s on the kick drum and bass sound. Genelec’s have more of a synthetic slap than a true skin to skin punch. Compression can affect this to a great degree as well.

This is precisely the reason why a large monitor is used during initial bed tracks. If you used a small 2way Genelec to aquire your kick drum sound, it would flap like a piece of paper in the wind. The shear SPL level of a large format monitor allows you to hear every nuance and sculpt your sound. When the image is turned back down to a normal level, it is all there even at low SPL. If you then proceeded to play it back on the Genelecs, you could then hear the sound that you intended to design. Using the above example in reverse, it would be near impossible to aquire that sound. This is the very thing that 'audiophiles' fail to understand.

Ken Pachkowsky
10-13-2005, 07:22 PM
This is precisely the reason why a large monitor is used during initial bed tracks. If you used a small 2way Genelec to aquire your kick drum sound, it would flap like a piece of paper in the wind. The shear SPL level of a large format monitor allows you to hear every nuance and sculpt your sound. When the image is turned back down to a normal level, it is all there even at low SPL. If you then proceeded to play it back on the Genelecs, you could then hear the sound that you intended to design. Using the above example in reverse, it would be near impossible to aquire that sound. This is the very thing that 'audiophiles' fail to understand.

Once again, I agree with most of what your saying and understand it but disagree on the Genelecs.

"If you used a small 2way Genelec to aquire your kick drum sound, it would flap like a piece of paper in the wind."

I was in a studio several years ago that had just spent gobs of money on a pair of large format Genelec 3-ways SA30's or something. Even at High SPL's the kit had very little natuaral sound to it. They lasted about 3 months before being removed and sold for a huge loss. I spent a few hours over a couple of weeks listening to them and was very dissapointed after all the hype. I have heard 3 different models of Genelecs and have never been impressed enough to pay anywhere even close to the asking price. I will admit at higher frquencies they sounded pretty good. On the other hand, have you ever heard a pair of BBSM 12's or 8's at a 1/8 the price. No contest at high or low spl's.

I have enjoyed your posts and the friendly sparring:D .

have a good one.

dieterj
10-14-2005, 11:06 AM
Many years ago, there was big studio loudspeakers made by JBL, now they are so very very small :blink: Why?

:D

I mean loudspeakers like the 4355, now we have the LSR -series.
Or have I missed something on their website?
But only in Japan they have big new Jbl Monitors at this Time,why?
http://www.harman-japan.co.jp/report/index.html

JBLnsince1959
10-14-2005, 02:23 PM
But only in Japan they have big new Jbl Monitors at this Time,why?
http://www.harman-japan.co.jp/report/index.html

because the Japanese still care about quality

CONVERGENCE
10-14-2005, 04:52 PM
Hi
Most big recording studios still have those big monitors. I agree with all of you that the small and medium scale studio are pretentious with their
genelec monitors.

I heard them OK lot's of imaging but the sound is crapp.

Hard to convince them otheirwise they never heard better.
I call that mediocrity.

Here is a few recent pictures of major studios AIR,A SMALL STUDIO IN NORMANDY FRANCE,SOUND ON SOUND in NEW YORK.

Sorry for the capital letters. My key pad is english my software is french.



http://img2.uploadimages.net/436102studio1.jpg

http://img2.uploadimages.net/156028digital_factory.jpghttp://img2.uploadimages.net/728811SOUND_ON_SOUND.jpg

And I HAVEN'T INCLUDED ALL THE sONY STUDIOS. ALL MAJOR CITIES IN THE WORLD WILL HAVE LARGE STUDIOS WITH LARGE MONITORS.THANK GOD.

.................................................. .................................................. .....

Ian Mackenzie
10-14-2005, 05:52 PM
In a previous version of the forums I post images of sone UK monitors and the evolution of large format systems of that era.

As I recall there was a development of two trains of thought on what should be used for the HF and UHF department in multiway monitors as horns were considered in some circles harsh. Others sighted that when pushed hard, the cones/domes actually produced higher levels of distortion and so on. This lead to a split in monitor ideology and customised designs came about that used soft domes, doped paper cones and systems that could be retro fitted with either horns or cones/domes. At the time dual 15 inch woofers were consider a mainstay.

That I think spurred outfits like Genelec and others onto the scene and they went the whole bottle with time alignment, driver integration and full active systems. The attitude in the UK (The Poms are a whinging lot at the best of times) has also a lot to do with it and its a case of what engineers are used to using. The Tannoys, ATC's, Genelecs and B &W all tend to be more laid back and seem bass shy compared to JBLs..that's just the way it is.

But you still can't squeeze a quart out of a pint bottle an not expect some compromises.

Small boxes by virtue of the engineering principles of attaining a good extended bass response are much less sensitive than a large system, often as much as 6-10 db. So you need 4-10 times the power for the same level and issues such as power compression come into play. The net effect is small systems do sound small. Even the LRS systems sound diminished beside a 4343! (altough they are in many ways a more idea loudspeaker).

My own inclination despite what I wrote earlier is that big speakers do in fact sound bigger, mainly because of driver cone area (the laws of physics).

More driver cone area equals increased sensitivity, lower distortion and higher power handling. That is the basic physics issue with an all cone direct radiator system...In the case of large format systems using cones/domes for the HF and UHF bands they might be a wee bit more accurate at lower and nominal listening level but once you starting playing at or approaching live levels they run out of puff and sound harsh and often brittle due to a symptom known as cone cry :crying: in speaker engineering circles.

In this application horn/wave guide loaded system have the aces up their sleeves.

Akira
10-15-2005, 06:32 AM
I would only take exception to one thing. Imaging, having owned many esoteric speakers in my days (large and small) not just JBL’s, these HR1’s have the most incredible imaging I have ever heard. Not all may agree, but that’s my opinion.

This has turned into an interesting thread.
Ken, I think you misconstrue me thinking my position is that small monitors are superior to large monitors. Prehaps I gave the impression that once the bed tracks are laid there is no use for the big ones. More accurately, I and many others probably still use them throughout various stages of the mix 50-70% of the time. If I was forced to use only one set of monitors they would be large format.

The difference is not in sound quality. The difference is in perception.

Small format monitors have 3 main advantages in the studio: a more realistic image size compatable with home systems. reduction in ear fatigue, and perception-- the ability of the ear to interpret the speaker to be an accurate representation of the source.

Large monitors, can be extremely accurate, and one of their primary advantages is that the room is acoustically engineered to be taylored to their response. In a properly tuned control room their are no walls. (Westlake) Large monitors sound a whole lot better by virtue of their image size; the listener is engulphed in their immence sound field. Isn't that why we are all addicted? At high SPL you can hear the tinest squeek in a foot pedal of a kick drum. And of course their main purpose in life...TO IMPRESS THE CLIENT.

Where large monitors can be a disadvantage (perception) is that they really come into their own and sound awesome at a much higher SPL. The human ear preceives different frequencies at different db levels. (see chart below) This is called the Fletcher Munson equal loudness contour curve. (ie: bass response at low SPL is under emphasized) When you monitor your source at too high a level (or too low) it's going to be out of perspective. That is why final mix is conducted at 90-95db on a small format system.

Finally, Ian is right about one thing that he continually likes to point at my direction. Studio engineers have a biased opinion and tend to favor what they are used too. The reason JBL have dominated this industry is that they tend to have characteristics engineers like. Every house engineer knows his environment so intimately that he can use the large system (or small for that matter) at any level and compensate for accuracy. But in the end, after clobbering my ears for a couple of hours, I invaribaly switch over to small to give my ears a break.

Earl K
10-15-2005, 08:34 AM
Hmmm,

- It looks like Dr. Claude Fortier has folded this ground breaking company . That's sad . SOTA had great products.

- The CF1000 and CF2000 were the first all cone , high resolution , high output studio monitors that I had the pleasure to hear. I was going to make my own all cone version ( inspired by these monitors ) until I discovered that DynAudio had just stopped selling raw components .

- The 15" woofer(s) was ( I believe ) ; a 2234 , the lower-mid 10" ; a 2122h with the rest of the coned transducers being made by DynAudio . As far as the JBLs' I mentioned, I'll need to rip a monitor apart to actually verify what my eyes have told me ( from my past encounters with these monitors ) .

- ( for posterity ) ; Here's a pdf cut sheet on the CF2000 .

Cheers

Ken Pachkowsky
10-15-2005, 09:33 AM
This has turned into an interesting thread.
Ken, I think you misconstrue me thinking my position is that small monitors are superior to large monitors.

I agree it's interesting and want to clarify that I did not misunderstand you. I agree with 99.9% of everything you have said. I only spent a few years in a control room back in the 70's, so am far from an expert. I would also be blowing smoke out my ass if I did not admit to a passion and bias for large high quality mains.
After starting a family I had to move on to a more stable income:banghead: . I am sure many here can relate.

We were a Westlake designed facility. All mastering was done on the mains. The final mix was almost always done on a custom (very small) 2-way prototype system designed by Paul Barton (anyone know who he is?). This was done for the exact reasons you state. A final mix on the mains sounded terrible on radio (been there, done that).

The problem today is many (granted smaller) studios are using nearfields for the mastering process and the final mix just sounds terrible on any high quality system, large or small. I am sure we could come up with plenty of other reasons for todays generally sad state of reproduction quality other than the type of monitors used but that would be a huge time consuming debate.

Have a good one.

Earl K
10-15-2005, 09:56 AM
A Paul Barton hint (http://www.soundstagelive.com/factorytours/waveform/) with a tie-in to additional info .

:p

Ken Pachkowsky
10-15-2005, 10:27 AM
A Paul Barton hint (http://www.soundstagelive.com/factorytours/waveform/) with a tie-in to additional info .

:p

Yep. that be the man.

leif
10-15-2005, 10:40 AM
British loudspeaker manufacturar KEF have or at least had, one large monitor. The KEF KM1. Big, nice and untraditional. I have seen them, but not heard them.
see them on www.kef.co.uk (http://www.kef.co.uk)

subwoof
10-15-2005, 10:45 AM
One story I use to explain the size / accuracy issue with monitors ( esp when showing the 4345's in the living room ) is to say that these are supposed to be **reproducers** of all sounds above and below what the actual note is. and FLAT.

If you want to create the sound of a kick drum, use a cone that is actually CLOSE to it's diameter!

Suppose you had a full size concert grand piano and you suspected an out of tune low E string. Just how are you going to do that on a console monitor???

Oh that's right, those notes are in the -6db region...you don't really need those.

sub

Rudy Kleimann
10-15-2005, 10:57 AM
my large Martin Logans, when setup properly, image almost laser like. Opps, can I say that on this forum, forgive me JBL GODS

I guess I can come out of the closet now...http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/images/smilies/biggrin.gif I too enjoy a pair of Martin-Logan SL3's. Worship them, at times. But I do enjoy, yea, worship my JBL's too. Depends on the program material and my mood.

Is it possible to worship two Audio Gods?http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/images/smilies/argue.gif

And Martin-Logan doesn't do Sound Reinforcement very well, nor could I afford all the amplifiers they would require... this is primarily the domain of JBL, with some assistance from Cerwin-Vega and Renkus-Heinz.

I can hear the rumble of thunder...http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/images/smilies/shocking.gif

Akira
10-15-2005, 01:26 PM
We were a Westlake designed facility. All mastering was done on the mains...
The problem today is many (granted smaller) studios are using nearfields for the mastering process and the final mix just sounds terrible on any high quality system, large or small.


You have raised an interesting point. In the 70's mastering, (the transfer of analog tape to the vinyl medium) was done on medium to full size monitors. This was neccessary because the mastering engineer would cut the lacquer grooves while listening to the 'preview' head of the disc cutter. This was an entirely different skill set and talent that recording engineers generally did not preform and had a great impact on the final product.
Today mastering means something totally different. How to kill someone's work on a computer! and always on......A SMALL MONITOR!
I learned how to master on a computer because, thanks to digital technology it takes no skill or talent, you just need an ear. I could never do that on a lathe cutting disc.
I do not begrudge the new digital era. The realm of possibility has truely opened up and it is far easier for anyone to do it....that's the problem.

Ken Pachkowsky
10-15-2005, 01:39 PM
This was neccessary because the mastering engineer would cut the lacquer grooves while listening to the 'preview' head of the disc cutter. This was an entirely different skill set and talent that recording engineers generally did not preform and had a great impact on the final product.


Yep, we used a Skully Lathe and our mastering engineer was John Smith for the 2 years I worked at Century 21 (10 bucks Earl if you can come up with his claim to fame!:bouncy: ) haha This is a good one.

Ken

Ken Pachkowsky
10-15-2005, 01:41 PM
Earl or anyone for that matter.

I will donate 10.00 in your name to the site... if you can tell me in a reasonable amount of time John's claim to fame.

Ken

Ian Mackenzie
10-15-2005, 01:53 PM
Yes its the way of the world and now many great artists are going direct via rather than signing with a major label.

Unfortunately the production standards vary so much that it is indeed rare to come across contemporary stuff that sounds like it hasn't been recorded in a jam tin!

Ken Pachkowsky
10-15-2005, 01:57 PM
Recorded in a jam tin!


Now, thats a good description! From the thunder down under!

Ken

Earl K
10-15-2005, 01:59 PM
Earl or anyone for that matter.

I will donate 10.00 in your name to the site... if you can tell me in a reasonable amount of time John's claim to fame.

- I was offline & just came back .

- I don't know / but give the site 10 bucks anyway.

- I'm going to guess that John Smith had a hand in developing the 4430/4435 monitors .


:)

Ken Pachkowsky
10-15-2005, 02:11 PM
Summer 1968 Studio 2. 6.00-8.00pm. Stereo mixing: `Happiness Is A Warm Gun' (remixes 1-4, from take 65); `I'm So Tired' (remixes 1-5, from take 14); `Cry Baby Cry' (remixes 1-3, from take 12). Mono mixing: `I'm So Tired' (remixes 1-3, from take 14); `Cry Baby Cry' (remix 1, from take 12) I'll raise it to 15$

Ken

Earl K
10-15-2005, 02:15 PM
Hmmmm,

- Guess Who's intro half-side album, done for Coca Cola ; "Introducing A Great Pair" ? .

- That's my last best guess . ;)

Ken Pachkowsky
10-15-2005, 02:38 PM
Hmmmm,

- Guess Who's intro 1/2 side album for Coca Cola ; "Introducing A Great Pair" ? .

- That's my last best guess . ;)


Well, that will do....but his real claim was as follows. He started with the BBC and spent about 3 years as Ken Scotts Assistant Engineer at Apple records. A very talented and funny guy!

One day I recall sitting around the control room listening to the final mix on of all things "Your Discovery Store" a jingle we produced for The Hudson's Bay Company. Burton Cummings sang the lead vocal and Marc Le France (drummer from Trooper and later on Triumph) was sitting with his back to John. Out of the blue John pulls IT out and taps Marc on the shoulder with it. He turned his head and there it was. I never saw a guy move so fast in my whole life. It was hilarious! Ya had to be there. I would never have dreamed he would do that. Took us 30 minutes to stop laughing.

I will donatethe 15 bucks in your name....was fun.

Now, work to do.

later guys

Sam
10-15-2005, 02:41 PM
Well, I think it´s strange that the big monitors are so rare in studios today. I really like the sound! The DMS-1 sounds great but try to find one. I think there are 2 o 3 pairs in Sweden. But the good thing is that you can buy some big JBL´s for your livingroom:) I bought a pair of L300 today:D

Best Regards from Sweden
Anders

Ken Pachkowsky
10-15-2005, 02:46 PM
Here ya go.

Payment Details

Transaction ID:http://images.paypal.com/en_US/i/scr/pixel.gif7GF374144T0107128Sales Tax:http://images.paypal.com/en_US/i/scr/pixel.gif$0.00 USDTotal:http://images.paypal.com/en_US/i/scr/pixel.gif$15.00 USDItem/Product Name:http://images.paypal.com/en_US/i/scr/pixel.gifDonation Towards the Maintenance of the Lansing Heritage WebsiteBuyer:http://images.paypal.com/en_US/i/scr/pixel.gifKen PachkowskyMessage:http://images.paypal.com/en_US/i/scr/pixel.gifI make this donation on behalf of Earl K. for being a smart ass..:)

Ken Pachkowsky
10-15-2005, 02:48 PM
I bought a pair of L300 today:D

Best Regards from Sweden
Anders

Enjoy them:applaud:

Ken

CONVERGENCE
10-15-2005, 03:35 PM
Mastering lab have been awarded the grammy high tech award year after year.
They use those huge ALTEC LANSING MONITORS for mastering.

GRAMMY Magazine - February 2, 2004
2004 Technical GRAMMY Award
Doug Sax

Presented by vote of the Recording Academy's National Trustees, the Technical GRAMMY recognizes individuals and organizations who have made significant contributions, other than performance, to the field of recording. The Technical GRAMMY was first awarded in 1994.

GRAMMY.com
Howard Massey

http://www.grammy.com/images/features/sax02.jpgDoug Sax
"I don't think there's a better mastering engineer in the world." So says ten-time GRAMMY-winning engineer Al Schmitt. "Doug Sax is all about the music. He's got integrity, he's got great ears, and he's a great guy."

Mastering is the final step in the recording process, the last chance to make a good recording great, or a great recording even better. Practitioners of this fine art are a specialized breed of engineer; their work can be likened to that of a skilled microsurgeon, making delicate moves that enhance the vision of the artist and producer in subtle but important ways. In this era of increased competition and new methods of delivery, their role is a vital one.

Born in Los Angeles in 1936, Douglas Sax was fascinated at an early age by the sound of the 78 rpm records in his father's collection. Ironically, trumpet became Sax's instrument of choice; in fact, his main competition in high school came from a fellow L.A. native by the name of Herb Alpert. Although he established a career as a symphonic trumpeter, he never lost his interest in the sound of recorded music, and so, with partners Lincoln Mayorga and older brother Sherwood Sax, he opened The Mastering Lab in 1967 — one of the world's first independent mastering facilities. Featuring all hand-built equipment designed by Sherwood, including custom cutting lathes that have become legendary, the studio was soon turning out many of the top hits of the '70s, including Who's Next, Nilsson Schmilsson, the Rolling Stones' Sticky Fingers and the Eagles' eponymous debut. Sax also established a pioneering set of procedures for testing and evaluating audio components by ear.

In 1970, Sax and Mayorga realized a lifelong dream with the founding of Sheffield Lab Recordings, an audiophile label dedicated to producing state-of-the-art direct-to-disc classical and jazz albums. Through his body of work, Sax has inspired a whole generation of engineers. Sterling Sound's Greg Calbi recalls that "Doug's records always had a certain sound that everybody loved but nobody else could achieve. There was a certain sonic image that he planted in my head, and I've always aspired to make my records sound that good." Adds fellow Technical GRAMMY recipient George Massenburg, "Doug Sax's work opened my eyes to the possibilities of how great equipment could better serve great artistry, and opened my ears to how good a recording could actually be."

Sax continues to play an active role in the contemporary music scene, mastering many of today's top albums, including Rod Stewart's GRAMMY-nominated As Time Goes By and the recent surround sound SACD release of Pink Floyd's Dark Side Of The Moon, building on an already legendary track record.

Howard Massey is a veteran audio journalist and active member of the Recording Academy's Producers & Engineers Wing. His latest book is Behind The Glass, a collection of interviews with leading record producers.

Earl K
10-15-2005, 03:40 PM
on behalf of Earl K. for being a smart ass..

- I had a suspicion that today was the day that the "IT" story was going to be told /
- but you didn't seriously think you'd con me into being the story teller / did you ?
- Anyways, Har ! :p

Earl K
10-15-2005, 03:51 PM
:) Nice Post ! Convergence :applaud:

- I wasn't aware Doug Sax mastered Nilsson Schmilsson ( bad eyes I guess ) / this album is a longtime favourite of mine .
- I'll play it next after 10cc finishes . :bouncy:

speakerdave
10-15-2005, 06:36 PM
They use those huge ALTEC LANSING MONITORS for mastering.[/i]
Well, yes and not yes. There's some information on the web, but it is spotty and not dated unless there are dates mentioned internally. I've read that he does have big monitors--Altec 288 16G's on 511E horns and EV T350 tweeters. The information I found said that the bass is horn loaded, but in a photo of him there is a speaker in the background that might be the monitors in question and the woofers are baffle mounted. The crossovers, like much of the electronics in the original studio are his brother Sherwood's design.

More details: The original studio is apparently still in use but he has opened a new 5.1 studio (because so much of the market demands 5.1 mastering) in Ojai using ATC speakers (British). He is quoted as saying he likes the fact that they sound a lot like his original monitors, which he views as very accurate, but they are large and he did not want to build a 5.1 studio with such large speakers.

David

norealtalent
12-21-2005, 05:50 PM
Hmmm,

- It looks like Dr. Claude Fortier has folded this ground breaking company . That's sad . SOTA had great products.

- The CF1000 and CF2000 were the first all cone , high resolution , high output studio monitors that I had the pleasure to hear. I was going to make my own all cone version ( inspired by these monitors ) until I discovered that DynAudio had just stopped selling raw components .

- The 15" woofer(s) was ( I believe ) ; a 2234 , the lower-mid 10" ; a 2122h with the rest of the coned transducers being made by DynAudio . As far as the JBLs' I mentioned, I'll need to rip a monitor apart to actually verify what my eyes have told me ( from my past encounters with these monitors ) .

- ( for posterity ) ; Here's a pdf cut sheet on the CF2000 .

Cheers

You're a life saver Earl! Tell me more. I'm going to pick up a pair tomorrow. Do you have any more info on them or the AAX-1 crossover? Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks, Dave :bouncy:

Domino
01-07-2006, 03:11 AM
Large format monitors are designed for large rooms and small, near field monitors are designed for close-up use. The near field monitors are far more accurate and their soundtage has been be designed much more accurately with todays technology for use at close range. Beleive you me if large format monitors were better they still will be using them as the standard. The cost issue is meaningless. I love my 4333's but for accurate mixing in the studio is a different matter

JonathanKeehn
01-07-2006, 01:23 PM
Large format monitors deliver a dynamic visceral impact that small nearfield monitors will never be able to reproduce. It's my opinion that "real men" frequently prefer large format speakers just like they prefer 7-liter engines and high-powered handguns. I credit part of the trend toward tiny little speakers to the overall feminization of the American man. The current trend in monitor size is possibly related to the changes in American culture over the last 30 years. It has less to do with the Wife Acceptance Factor and more to do with the Husband Wimp Factor... just my opinion.

Ken Pachkowsky
01-07-2006, 01:36 PM
Large format monitors deliver a dynamic visceral impact that small nearfield monitors will never be able to reproduce. It's my opinion that "real men" frequently prefer large format speakers just like they prefer 7-liter engines and high-powered handguns. I credit part of the trend toward tiny little speakers to the overall feminization of the American man. The current trend in monitor size is possible related to the changes in American culture over the last 30 years. It has less to do with the Wife Acceptance Factor and more to do with the Husband Wimp Factor... just my opinion.


I love this. At last, someone who is more of a shit disturber than me. I hope your wearing your flak jacket! :D

Ken

Titanium Dome
01-07-2006, 01:43 PM
Large format monitors deliver a dynamic visceral impact that small nearfield monitors will never be able to reproduce. It's my opinion that "real men" frequently prefer large format speakers just like they prefer 7-liter engines and high-powered handguns. I credit part of the trend toward tiny little speakers to the overall feminization of the American man. The current trend in monitor size is possible related to the changes in American culture over the last 30 years. It has less to do with the Wife Acceptance Factor and more to do with the Husband Wimp Factor... just my opinion.

:rotfl: That's pretty funny from a guy who needs big speakers, big car engines, and high-powered guns to make him feel like a man. :die:

I've got everything I need to feel like a man right here...no material object substitution or power compensation needed.

Nice try though, MR. OVERCOMPENSATION. :banana:

kingjames
01-07-2006, 01:55 PM
I think the american male is concerned with size in only one area and it ain't speakers! :p

JonathanKeehn
01-07-2006, 02:42 PM
As per the "overcompensation theory": America became the greatest nation in history by having an overcompensated economy, an overcompensated military industrial complex, and overcompensated space and technology program and an overcompensated charity to lesser privaledged countries from the Marshall Plan era forward. Power is often a symbol of greatness rather than an affectation of it. There are always individual exceptions to this generalization, but mankind has a general yearning for better, stronger, bigger and more powerful. This innate desire for greatness is what drives the engine of human progress forward century after century. It is a central theme for this Nation's greatness. The folks who think there is an inverse relationship between one's speaker size, car engine power or financial attainments and the size of one's male sexual unit have missed the point, and are often just voicing subconscious envy. Also, while I believe the greatest assets of a man are spiritual, rather than material, the material symbols often reflect a man's strength of purpose and achievement.

Ken Pachkowsky
01-07-2006, 03:01 PM
As per the "overcompensation theory": America became the greatest nation in history by having an overcompensated economy, an overcompensated military industrial complex, and overcompensated space and technology program and an overcompensated charity to lesser privaledged countries from the Marshall Plan era forward. Power is often a symbol of greatness rather than an affectation of it. There are always individual exceptions to this generalization, but mankind has a general yearning for better, stronger, bigger and more powerful. This innate desire for greatness is what drives the engine of human progress forward century after century. It is a central theme for this Nation's greatness. The folks who think there is an inverse relationship between one's speaker size, car engine power or financial attainments and the size of one's male sexual unit have missed the point, and are often just voicing subconscious envy. Also, while I believe the greatest assets of a man are spiritual, rather than material, the material symbols often reflect a man's strength of purpose and achievement.


I was trying to figure out what to highlight in this quote and had trouble eliminating any of it. Well said...

I will take great interest in following this thread and admire the precision of the response in defending your opinion.

Ken

Mr. Widget
01-07-2006, 03:31 PM
I think the american male is concerned with size in only one area...I don't think that is correct... from my observations JonathanKeehn is correct about what a "true" man thinks is important. I'd suggest that the "true" man is delusional, but that is a whole other off, off topic discussion.

Who started this fascination with large genitalia anyway? Read the Kama Sutra. It puts size into proper perspective.

Back on topic...

I agree with Domino that small near field monitors are more useful for mixing... but for playback, large visceral speakers are my speakers of choice. In the old days, typically the smaller nearfields were used for the lion's share of the work, but a few minutes of airing out the tunes on the big sofit mounted mains would usually be necessary to make sure the balance was right... don't want to overcompensate for lack of bass...


Widget

kingjames
01-07-2006, 04:01 PM
My reference to male size was to add some humor to this thread as I believe this thread is going off topic.On the serious side I prefer both size speakers. Most of the time now, I listen to music at low volume and my small speakers sound just as good as my large ones at (low volume),(that is what makes JBL-JBL! only one watt to run them) Sometimes I will listen to my bigger speakers at (low volume) because I might be listening to something that has horns and my smaller speakers doesn't give me that option. So for me, I believe music can sound just as good on small speakers as large speakers, but volume play's a major role in determining what speakers I use.

Guido
01-07-2006, 04:14 PM
......... and high-powered handguns.

:shock:

Not here! :scold:

Titanium Dome
01-07-2006, 04:32 PM
Jonathan

With my tongue ever so lightly against my cheek...


As per the "overcompensation theory": America became the greatest nation in history

Not having been around in every epoch of world history like you have, I guess I'll just concede your point. That is unless greatness might also be tied to other things like achievement in the arts, invention of the crucial tools of civilization, or say the creation of philosphy, religion, ethics, medicine, reading, writing, mathmatics, etc.


by having an overcompensated economy, an overcompensated military industrial complex, and overcompensated space and technology program and an overcompensated charity to lesser privaledged countries from the Marshall Plan era forward.

Someone might see the hand of God and His blessings on the US as the foundation of our "greatness" as you describe it; historians might see the sacrifices of patriots in the first two centuries as the foundation of our greatness; some might see the Constitution and our principles of Liberty and Law as the foundation of our greatness. There are those who believe the greatness of the nation comes from the spirit of its people, despite the excesses of its military-industrial complex. Your argument, while enthusiastic, is overly narrow and extremely overcompensated.


Power is often a symbol of greatness rather than an affectation of it.

Well, sometimes power is just power, too. Power is an affectation of greatness when it's abused, squandered, or exploited, like the current debacle in Iraq, or the not too distant one in Viet Nam, or the invasion of Somalia. How about the abuses practiced routinely by people in our government, who wail about "baseless" accusations that they claim are made "out of political motivation" or "an attempt to turn our country over to terrorists" while the miscreants continue to lie, cheat, and steal to extend their greatness and their power?

Power is a symbol of greatness when it's used with restraint, respect, and the consent of the people. Otherwise it's axis powers all over again. I don't suppose you consider Nazi Germany or the old Soviet Union as #2 and #3 on your list of "biggest + most powerful = greatest" do you? Well, maybe you do; they had some bitchin' tanks and missles and bombs. At some point they both controlled more land, more people, and more military power than we did. In fact we had to team up with one to beat up the other.

Since power "is often a symbol of" many other things and much less often a symbol of greatness than you can prove, your argument is thin. Power even can be inherited by or granted to individuals and institutions that are not competent to wield it.


There are always individual exceptions to this generalization, but mankind has a general yearning for better, stronger, bigger and more powerful. This innate desire for greatness is what drives the engine of human progress forward century after century. It is a central theme for this Nation's greatness.

Mankind also has a general yearning for pride, envy, gluttony, lust, anger, greed, and sloth. Fortunately these are countered by the virtues of humility, kindness, abstinence, chastity, patience, liberality, and diligence. Some will say that following these virtues leads to greatness.

I can agree in general with your fist sentence, but the other two are hard to swallow. Maybe if I were a real man, I'd have a bigger throat.



The folks who think there is an inverse relationship between one's speaker size, car engine power or financial attainments and the size of one's male sexual unit have missed the point, and are often just voicing subconscious envy.

Everyone knows who brought the subject up in the first place. Having a preference is one thing; using your preference to make insinuations about the virility of people who don't see it your way is begging for a reaction. Nice try, though, projecting your actions onto other parties.


Also, while I believe the greatest assets of a man are spiritual, rather than material, the material symbols often reflect a man's strength of purpose and achievement.

Yes, that seems anecdotally true sometimes, I agree, but I'd have to see your data to accept that it's "often." In some cases I'd have to argue that luck or inheritence or criminal behavior or inability to live within one's means might play a role. I don't know what perentage for each of those, so I won't say "often."

In fact, in each instance where you invoke the persuasive sounding "often" in your arguments, it'd be great to see some actual facts to back it up. If there are facts that carry forward your statements, hopefully they'll be as clear and simple for us to see as they are for you to state them.

BTW, you're going to have the last word on this, since I don't want to get into some kind of lengthy contest or have this turn really sour. I won't be counter-arguing whatever you write next. So best of luck with your response, and I'll talk to you next time when we focus on JBLs. :)

------------------

I'd like to beg the moderators' and posters' indulgence for the length of this post and its off thread content. I promise I won't write on this subject again in this thread. Mods in particular feel free to delete this and my previous post to clean things up. If you do, I ask that you take out Jonathan's as well.

Mr. Widget
01-07-2006, 04:51 PM
.... and I'll talk to you next time when we focus on JBLs.Now that's a novel idea!;)


Widget

kingjames
01-07-2006, 04:52 PM
I couldn't of said it better myself.


Jonathan

With my tongue ever so lightly against my cheek...



Not having been around in every epoch of world history like you have, I guess I'll just concede your point. That is unless greatness might also be tied to other things like achievement in the arts, invention of the crucial tools of civilization, or say the creation of philosphy, religion, ethics, medicine, reading, writing, mathmatics, etc.



Someone might see the hand of God and His blessings on the US as the foundation of our "greatness" as you describe it; historians might see the sacrifices of patriots in the first two centuries as the foundation of our greatness; some might see the Constitution and our principles of Liberty and Law as the foundation of our greatness. There are those who believe the greatness of the nation comes from the spirit of its people, despite the excesses of its military-industrial complex. Your argument, while enthusiastic, is overly narrow and extremely overcompensated.



Well, sometimes power is just power, too. Power is an affectation of greatness when it's abused, squandered, or exploited, like the current debacle in Iraq, or the not too distant one in Viet Nam, or the invasion of Somalia. How about the abuses practiced routinely by people in our government, who wail about "baseless" accusations that they claim are made "out of political motivation" or "an attempt to turn our country over to terrorists" while the miscreants continue to lie, cheat, and steal to extend their greatness and their power?

Power is a symbol of greatness when it's used with restraint, respect, and the consent of the people. Otherwise it's axis powers all over again. I don't suppose you consider Nazi Germany or the old Soviet Union as #2 and #3 on your list of "biggest + most powerful = greatest" do you? Well, maybe you do; they had some bitchin' tanks and missles and bombs. At some point they both controlled more land, more people, and more military power than we did. In fact we had to team up with one to beat up the other.

Since power "is often a symbol of" many other things and much less often a symbol of greatness than you can prove, your argument is thin. Power even can be inherited by or granted to individuals and institutions that are not competent to wield it.



Mankind also has a general yearning for pride, envy, gluttony, lust, anger, greed, and sloth. Fortunately these are countered by the virtues of humility, kindness, abstinence, chastity, patience, liberality, and diligence. Some will say that following these virtues leads to greatness.

I can agree in general with your fist sentence, but the other two are hard to swallow. Maybe if I were a real man, I'd have a bigger throat.




Everyone knows who brought the subject up in the first place. Having a preference is one thing; using your preference to make insinuations about the virility of people who don't see it your way is begging for a reaction. Nice try, though, projecting your actions onto other parties.



Yes, that seems anecdotally true sometimes, I agree, but I'd have to see your data to accept that it's "often." In some cases I'd have to argue that luck or inheritence or criminal behavior or inability to live within one's means might play a role. I don't know what perentage for each of those, so I won't say "often."

In fact, in each instance where you invoke the persuasive sounding "often" in your arguments, it'd be great to see some actual facts to back it up. If there are facts that carry forward your statements, hopefully they'll be as clear and simple for us to see as they are for you to state them.

BTW, you're going to have the last word on this, since I don't want to get into some kind of lengthy contest or have this turn really sour. I won't be counter-arguing whatever you write next. So best of luck with your response, and I'll talk to you next time when we focus on JBLs. :)

------------------

I'd like to beg the moderators' and posters' indulgence for the length of this post and its off thread content. I promise I won't write on this subject again in this thread. Mods in particular feel free to delete this and my previous post to clean things up. If you do, I ask that you take out Jonathan's as well.

Ken Pachkowsky
01-07-2006, 05:09 PM
Jonathan

With my tongue ever so lightly against my cheek...



Another outstanding reply, but alas from the Dome I would expect no less.

Ken

norealtalent
01-07-2006, 05:16 PM
I like big speakers because to me, they sound better than little ones, they don't ask me to follow them, donate to them, worship them, murder for them, vote for them, sacrifice myself or family for them or offer eternal condemnation for my humanity. They simply make beautiful music that thrills me to the bone while drowning out the bs created by those who would ask me to believe otherwise. For this, I am extremely grateful... :bouncy:

Ken Pachkowsky
01-07-2006, 05:25 PM
I like big speakers because to me

Outstanding contribution from another JBL Westlake convert!

Mr. Widget
01-07-2006, 06:06 PM
...they don't ask me to...Here here!:rockon2:



Widget

Titanium Dome
01-07-2006, 06:18 PM
Originally Posted by norealtalent
...they don't ask me to...


Here here!:rockon2:



Widget


Maybe there are so many reflections and so much distortion you can't hear them asking... :p

norealtalent
01-07-2006, 07:04 PM
Originally Posted by norealtalent
...they don't ask me to...




Maybe there are so many reflections and so much distortion you can't hear them asking... :p

No distortions, my speakersare on stands, not a pulpit... :D

Titanium Dome
01-07-2006, 07:25 PM
No distortions, my speakersare on stands, not a pulpit... :D

Ha ha. Nice one.

chad
01-07-2006, 08:18 PM
Look familiar?

Personally, I'd love to have a pair of NS10's - and no one can deny their presence in studios for many many years.:)

Ian Mackenzie
01-07-2006, 10:28 PM
Perhaps a more on topic reference to greatness per large speakers should be that it is not (and should not be) necessary to run them loud to make them sound any good. The same cannot be said for small speakers as a rule.

Greatness therefore is not a direct relationship to size but moreover and expression of what power, size or might can deliver.

The owner of the small speaker may argue that large speakers only deliver a loud noise and not music and this is unfortunately the case where timbre, transparency and imaging are traded for dynamics and power handling with large speakers.

Its a fact that it is harder to make large speakers sound like music.

Plugging in 1/3 octave equalizers, cheap and nasty analogue or digital crossvers and enormous sound reinforcement power amps is not the answer and those who think this means greatness are sadly delusional.

A few are learning but its taken and evolution and half a lifetime..............

Ian

JonathanKeehn
01-08-2006, 08:02 AM
I will concede that small speakers are often more tonally accurate and image better than monster systems powered by hundreds of watts. I have a 26-year old pair of Yamaha NS-1000m's that are superb monitors. My preference, however, is for large format JBL systems driven by powerful amps because of the visceral and emotional impact they generate when playing jazz and rock music. For classical music. I prefer the Yamaha's.

In reply to Titanium Dome: your counter-arguments are well stated and insightful. I believe the possession of powerful material possessions is not in and of itself necessarily a fault or virtue of character. It depends on the attitude of the possessor as well as his/her mental and spiritual development.

toddalin
01-08-2006, 10:23 AM
Look familiar?

Personally, I'd love to have a pair of NS10's - and no one can deny their presence in studios for many many years.:)

A pair currently in the Recycler. Have at 'em!:D


01/07
http://www.recycler.com/IMG/NEW.GIF


http://www.recycler.com/asp/AdDetails.asp?iID=32433&sBAC=818&bSQ=0&iC=45&iSC=963

YAMAHA ns 10m industry standard good condition firm callers only $480

Ducatista47
01-08-2006, 01:35 PM
Fascinating thread, meaningful responses. My two cents, one at a time, follow.

To the vastly more important spiritual side, I quote a great Japanese sage. "There is only one disease, and it is arrogance." I dare anyone with a brain and a spirit to find an exception to that. At the very least I couldn't find one anywhere in this thread, or in my meager life thusfar.

To the topic, I like good speakers insofar as they faciltate my enjoyment of music. This is not entirely a non-spiritual pursuit. I do have a new (for me) take on large monitors, as I am now listening to my recently aquired 4345's. They don't have the shimmering midrange of Canton Ventos, the bass is more than fine even though I haven't bi-amped them yet (can't wait to!), the ten inch is a real treat, the slot never disappoints. I am sure each individual feature could be equalled or bettered by more modern drivers and smaller units.

What is totally new to my experience is the imaging and soundstaging. I was prepared to hear the elements of the soundstage in terms of the audiophile and engineering references we use as a common language in this pursuit. I have heard Paragons, S8R Sovereigns, EV Patricians, 4333's, B460 subs and many current powered subs. I have heard surround sound large and small. I've been at this since the mid fifties, this listening to cones and horns thing. Sitting back with my eyes closed with the 4345's presenting goes beyond all previously mentioned. I have to conclude that sonic ultra-accuracy, bass slam and what normally passes for balance are individually over rated. A MUCH more pleasing experience is being embraced, wrapped up and cuddled if you will, by the sound fields created by these giant boxes. I'll have to leave it to the Brahmans on this site who listen to 4345's every day to describe this in detail, but I can say that no small box or combination of small boxes is going to create what I am hearing. It is a VERY BIG, but more importantly, an ENVELOPING and UNEARTHLY PLEASING soundstage.

Balance counts. Baffle placement and crossover design counts. Greg Timbers, I assume, being a genius helps. A company that values ears over meters is a big plus. But, in this case SIZE MATTERS!

I have read from the seventies on how the creation of more exciting sound fields was the biggest improvement yet to be made. Since the recording process is out of my hands, the reproduction end of it is all I can work with. Who was to know VERY LARGE, well designed and manufactured speakers were key to the goal? Well, now I do, for one.

If anyone cares, and since we like JBL's I think you do, these are also the most dynamic speakers I have ever heard, movie theaters included.

The point is, I think, since JBL and several other companies are so good at making speakers, it is a damn shame they can't make any money selling large, floorstanding models. The market must not be there. I read only one hundred pair of these magnificient units were produced. I guess you guys will have to build them yourselves. I know that is exactly what some of you are up to, and thank you in advance for that.:)

Clark in Peoria, and JBL Heaven

Mr. Widget
01-08-2006, 01:46 PM
To distill your comments...

There really is something very pleasing/exciting about a large speaker creating a large soundstage. The same is true of these and other very dynamic speakers... they don't have to be loud for you to enjoy the benefits of dynamics.

As for the lack of the shimmering mids... I concur. I wish JBL had come out with a version using the 2441 and a better horn. Perhaps their own 2397.

On the subject of the 4345... I do like the 2245 and 2122H much better than the dual 15s and 2202 of the 4350/4355. The 4345 is truly a great speaker. Perhaps someone on this forum will take the info provided by Bo and the work of Giskard and Ian and go to that next step with a better mid horn and driver.


Widget

Ian Mackenzie
01-08-2006, 03:04 PM
Fasinating thread, meaningful responses. My two cents, one at a time, follow.

To the vastly more important spiritual side, I quote a great Japanese sage. "There is only one disease, and it is arrogance." I dare anyone with a brain and a spirit to find an exception to that. At the very least I couldn't find one anywhere in this thread, or in my meager life thusfar.

To the topic, I like good speakers insofar as they faciltate my enjoyment of music. This is not entirely a non-spiritual pursuit. I do have a new (for me) take on large monitors, as I am now listening to my recently aquired 4345's. They don't have the shimmering midrange of Canton Ventos, the bass is more than fine even though I haven't bi-amped them yet (can't wait to!), the ten inch is a real treat, the slot never disappoints. I am sure each individual feature could be equalled or bettered by more modern drivers and smaller units.

What is totally new to my experience is the imaging and soundstaging. I was prepared to hear the elements of the soundstage in terms of the audiophile and engineering references we use as a common language in this pursuit. I have heard Paragons, S8R Sovereigns, EV Patricians, 4333's, B460 subs and many current powered subs. I have heard surround sound large and small. I've been at this since the mid fifties, this listening to cones and horns thing. Sitting back with my eyes closed with the 4345's presenting goes beyond all previously mentioned. I have to conclude that sonic ultra-accuracy, bass slam and what normally passes for balance are individually over rated. A MUCH more pleasing experience is being embraced, wrapped up and cuddled if you will, by the sound fields created by these giant boxes. I'll have to leave it to the Brahmans on ths site who listen to 4345's every day to describe this in detail, but I can say that no small box or combination of small boxes is going to create what I am hearing. It is a VERY BIG, but more importantly, an ENVELOPING and UNEARTHLY PLEASING soundstage.

Balance counts. Baffle placement and crossover design counts. Greg Timbers, I assume, being a genius helps. A company that values ears over meters is a big plus. But, in this case SIZE MATTERS!

I have read from the seventies on how the creation of more exciting sound fields was the biggest improvement yet to be made. Since the recording process is out of my hands, the reproduction end of it is all I can work with. Who was to know VERY LARGE, well designed and manufactured speakers were key to the goal? Well, now I do, for one.

If anyone cares, and since we like JBL's I think you do, these are also the most dynamic speakers I have ever heard, movie theaters included.

The point is, I think, since JBL and several other companies are so good at making speakers, it is a damn shame they can't make any money selling large, floorstanding models. The market must not be there. I read only one hundred pair of these magnificient units were produced. I guess you guys will have to build them yourselves. I know that is exactly what some of you are up to, and thank you in advance for that.:)

Clark in Peoria, and JBL Heaven

Welcome to the 4345 club..the nicest thing I have read around these parts for a while.

When all the drivers and diaphragms and fresh as a daisy and they are positioned just right they are quite peachy. A bit of sweet talking to the crossover and careful calibration of the L Pads and you can't pick one driver from the other.

What amps are you using? Might and Power go hand in hand..I'm running Passlabs.



Ian

Ian Mackenzie
01-08-2006, 03:07 PM
To distill your comments...

There really is something very pleasing/exciting about a large speaker creating a large soundstage. The same is true of these and other very dynamic speakers... they don't have to be loud for you to enjoy the benefits of dynamics.

As for the lack of the shimmering mids... I concur. I wish JBL had come out with a version using the 2441 and a better horn. Perhaps their own 2397.

On the subject of the 4345... I do like the 2245 and 2122H much better than the dual 15s and 2202 of the 4350/4355. The 4345 is truly a great speaker. Perhaps someone on this forum will take the info provided by Bo and the work of Giskard and Ian and go to that next step with a better mid horn and driver.


Widget

Did someone mention aquaplas coating?:coolness:

Ducatista47
01-08-2006, 04:13 PM
To distill your comments...

There really is something very pleasing/exciting about a large speaker creating a large soundstage. The same is true of these and other very dynamic speakers... they don't have to be loud for you to enjoy the benefits of dynamics.

I couldn't agree more. What I consider good speakers sound fine at low and high spl's.


As for the lack of the shimmering mids... I concur. I wish JBL had come out with a version using the 2441 and a better horn. Perhaps their own 2397.

On the subject of the 4345... I do like the 2245 and 2122H much better than the dual 15s and 2202 of the 4350/4355. The 4345 is truly a great speaker. Perhaps someone on this forum will take the info provided by Bo and the work of Giskard and Ian and go to that next step with a better mid horn and driver.
I don't want to speak for him, but Subwoof already has a couple of solutions worked out. Add me to the list of members curious about what his big project is. I was polite enough not to ask him when he handed over his babies. By the way, he is a really nice fellow, and knows a ton. He is a cabinetmaker and stonemason as well, and would love to sell you some 10,000 watt Crowns.


It is too soon to be knowledgeable about 4345's, but not too soon to be impressed. I was hoping I was not the only one to think these speakers are something else, at least special and yes, great.

Thank you, Clark

Ken Pachkowsky
01-08-2006, 04:51 PM
On the subject of the 4345... I do like the 2245 and 2122H much better than the dual 15s and 2202 of the 4350/4355. The 4345 is truly a great speaker. Perhaps someone on this forum will take the info provided by Bo and the work of Giskard and Ian and go to that next step with a better mid horn and driver.

Widget



The 2245H and 2122 is a hard combo to beat but agree the weakness of the system is the upper end. I think I still prefer the single 18 of the 4345 to the dual 2235's in my Westlakes. I did A-B the 2123 to the Gauss 3184B and the Gauss was superior but suspect I would like the 2122 better. The pair of BBSM15's I sold last month had 2122's in them and wow.....stunning. In fairness to the HR-1's they sound better if you sit further back than you had to with my departed 4345's.



I can only imagine what the SM-1 sounds like with dual 2245H's and 2122. We will find out in the next couple of weeks.



Ken

boputnam
01-08-2006, 06:14 PM
Sitting back with my eyes closed with the 4345's presenting...Brilliant, syntax, dood. Made me nod with recognition.

Reading the rest of your post, I wonder if you've not got the means to properly RTA the 4345's, I could email pictures of my 31-band graphic. It wouldn't be exact, but shouldn't be far off, by any means. My only hesitation is, my newer variable Q EQ requires less "correction" at fewer frequencies than did the former, lower Q EQ. Anyway, let me know if it would be of interest.

Ducatista47
01-08-2006, 06:21 PM
Welcome to the 4345 club..the nicest thing I have read around these parts for a while.

When all the drivers and diaphragms and fresh as a daisy and they are positioned just right they are quite peachy. A bit of sweet talking to the crossover and careful calibration of the L Pads and you can't pick one driver from the other.

What amps are you using? Might and Power go hand in hand..I'm running Passlabs.

Ian

Thank you, Ian. I like to think the "club" is not just for anyone who has money to spend on speakers, but for those who did their homework and read what the "members" had to say about their pride and joy. And made the necessary sacrifices, of course. I'm afraid my qualifications end there, but I am learning.

My impressions of the individual transducers are based on a close visit to the baffle board and one ear cocked right in. From my couch (which I placed in a sweet spot - is there any other reason to move furniture?), the wonderfully integrated whole presents itself.

Amps are a work in progress. Mike is examining his inventory and I think I will use a big JBL/UREI for the 2245's and tube power for the tops. Right now it is a 60 Watt JoLida 502, and I am taking it easy until they are bi-amped with at least 200 watts for the woofers. By the way, a second UREI will power the 4333's for surround duty. This will be a 5.1 system as well as stereo. I think the 4345's will make awesome fronts. I will probably use one of my control 10's for the center; I have a couple of amps I could do for that. They are forward in the vocal range, I'm told. An all JBL 5.1 for sure.

I hear the PassLabs are sweet. MOS-FET output stages are nice. Me, I like tubes for music. If I could afford Nelson's amps I would rather swing Grommes monoblocs. I have never heard anything better. Best tube bass on the planet, and very, very musical.

Clark, Unfortunately far from Down Under

boputnam
01-08-2006, 06:22 PM
...agree the weakness of the system is the upper end. Do you mean the CD and horn? I think that is what most find "troubling", and I know Subwoof has a very cool mod that he nearly got me into, but I found there there were cabinet bracing obstructions that stalled me. But, that's just me...

I did find, however, that new diaphragms and the newer KT DN370 smoothed the prior harshness that was characteristic. It is muchly improved, of late.

As well, the new 2245's I put in (thanks Tim G!!) about a year-ago, seem to be "finding themselves", daily. The bottom end is even more effortless (if that's possible), and at incredibly low gain. I think it was Giskard that reminded about the 2245: "...give 'em 1 watt, you get 1 watt." :)

boputnam
01-08-2006, 06:26 PM
It's my opinion that "real men" frequently prefer large format speakers just like they prefer 7-liter engines and high-powered handguns. Oh shit, and I'm a devout lesbian! :dont-know

(sorry I missed this exchange - been gigging... ;) )

4313B
01-08-2006, 06:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonathanKeehn
It's my opinion that "real men" frequently prefer large format speakers just like they prefer 7-liter engines and high-powered handguns.

Oh shit, and I'm a devout lesbian! http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/images/smilies/dont-know.gif

(sorry I missed this exchange - been gigging... http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/images/smilies/wink.gif )
__________________
bo
Too much gear, so little time...



Yeah. That's pretty funny.

Ducatista47
01-08-2006, 07:56 PM
Brilliant, syntax, dood. Made me nod with recognition.

Reading the rest of your post, I wonder if you've not got the means to properly RTA the 4345's, I could email pictures of my 31-band graphic. It wouldn't be exact, but shouldn't be far off, by any means. My only hesitation is, my newer variable Q EQ requires less "correction" at fewer frequencies than did the former, lower Q EQ. Anyway, let me know if it would be of interest.

You are so kind, and so perceptive. Bearing in mind that until recently RTA was Regional Transit Authority to me, I would love to study your findings. These sound very well set up now, even though Subwoof's room was a lot bigger than mine (damn, that size thing again). I am sure there is always room for improvement, though, and I am the curious sort.
My email link is on my profile page.
It would always be nice to improve equipment, but I am wary of swaping drivers in my 4345's. I think the entire package - drivers, baffle and crossover design, manufacturing skill and whatever voodoo was used to make these sound so great - is responsible for the unearthly soundstage and I, for one, don't want to f it up. Tweaking, however, would be great.
These speakers are pretty special to my old ears. Nice to hear agreement from other listeners.

Thank you again, Clark

Ken Pachkowsky
01-08-2006, 09:24 PM
Do you mean the CD and horn? I think that is what most find "troubling", and I know Subwoof has a very cool mod that he nearly got me into, but I found there there were cabinet bracing obstructions that stalled me. But, that's just me...

I did find, however, that new diaphragms and the newer KT DN370 smoothed the prior harshness that was characteristic. It is muchly improved, of late.

As well, the new 2245's I put in (thanks Tim G!!) about a year-ago, seem to be "finding themselves", daily. The bottom end is even more effortless (if that's possible), and at incredibly low gain. I think it was Giskard that reminded about the 2245: "...give 'em 1 watt, you get 1 watt." :)

Wow, I can't imagine the 2245's sounding even better. I am going by memory but they were damned impressive the way they were.

Yes, re the horns. I found them to be a little harsh at times and very difficult to dial in.

I am sorry I won't get a chance to hear them again before we leave.

Ken

Ian Mackenzie
01-08-2006, 10:52 PM
Ken,

We can frame and mail you a picture to hang on the wall..something to think about and aspire too:applaud: .

Ian:D

Ian Mackenzie
01-08-2006, 10:54 PM
Surprised not more members have dialed in with their 4435's and 4350's, even Urei's.

Ian

Ken Pachkowsky
01-08-2006, 11:01 PM
Ken,

We can frame and mail you a picture to hang on the wall..something to think about and aspire too:applaud: .

Ian:D

Haha Ian:bouncy:

It was funny though...

Ken

gene
01-11-2006, 06:59 PM
overseas jbl has a couple of big studio speaker they make. they say the market is better over as far as big speakers

Tom Loizeaux
01-11-2006, 08:01 PM
...It would always be nice to improve equipment, but I am wary of swaping drivers in my 4345's. I think the entire package - drivers, baffle and crossover design, manufacturing skill and whatever voodoo was used to make these sound so great - is responsible for the unearthly soundstage and I, for one, don't want to f it up. Tweaking, however, would be great.
These speakers are pretty special to my old ears...

That's how I feel about my pair of 4343s!

Tom

boputnam
01-21-2006, 07:07 PM
I could (post) pictures of my 31-band graphic. It wouldn't be exact, but shouldn't be far off, by any means. Apologies for being so tardy. I was travelling, then serially ill, then forgot, and then couldn't find this thread... :blink:

Caveats: This Klark Teknik DN370 EQ is a different beast than most other analogue EQ's. Read about it here: http://www.klarkteknik.com/brochures.htm (click on "DN370 brochure")

The filters are proportional Q, meaning Q increases with increasing correction. The Q increases in a greater-than-linear fashion, but I don't think it's exponential. The point is, these corrections (fader positions) are more modest than what is required for other EQ's to produce the approximate same correction. It's all about Q, man.

Also, note the notch filter setting. The notch filter (lower knob rimmed in yellow) is a -18dB (Q=32) cut. There are two notch filters, but I am only using one.

Harryup
01-23-2006, 01:30 PM
I think it's sad that producers/master egineers like to flatten all the music for the purpose that is should be sounding good in the car. Why not compress in the carstereo so there is a image of live music left for us with more capable loudspeakers at home. For you who can read and understand Danish this months issue of High Fidelity has an article of how little musical dynamic there is left in a modern CD. Actually less than in the same albums vinyl version. The article is called "Stop the violation of CD's – NOW". So scrap the small toys and produce music for musiclovers and compress if necessary in the playback equipment like iPods etc and not on the records.
And bring back the full size loudspeakers into mixing and mastering.

boputnam
01-23-2006, 02:42 PM
Great point. Widget and I once talked about a two-sided CD format - one side producted with dynamics for audiophile listening; the other side produced for "other" listening.