But only in Japan they have big new Jbl Monitors at this Time,why?Originally Posted by Niklas Nord
Many years ago, there was big studio loudspeakers made by JBL, now they are so very very smallWhy?
I mean loudspeakers like the 4355, now we have the LSR -series.
Or have I missed something on their website?
http://www.harman-japan.co.jp/report/index.html
because the Japanese still care about quality
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.
And I HAVEN'T INCLUDED ALL THE sONY STUDIOS. ALL MAJOR CITIES IN THE WORLD WILL HAVE LARGE STUDIOS WITH LARGE MONITORS.THANK GOD.
.................................................. .................................................. .....
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 cryin speaker engineering circles.
In this application horn/wave guide loaded system have the aces up their sleeves.
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.
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
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. 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.
A Paul Barton hint with a tie-in to additional info .
Yep. that be the man.
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
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
Forgive US!!!
I guess I can come out of the closet now...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?
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...
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.
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!) haha This is a good one.
Ken
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
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
