- I'll have to disagree - E-Stat 06:09:24 01/30/08
(4)
- In Reply to: RE: Studio monitors... posted by mkuller on January 29, 2008 at 10:48:55
Can't say I've ever heard - or heard of - a studio monitor in a home environment...
I've known plenty of folks who used what was arguably the most widely used monitor from the 70s in their homes - the JBL 4310 (aka Century L100). Neutral reproducer? Not a chance!
rw
- Back in the late '70's... - mkuller 09:47:18 01/30/08
(3)
- In Reply to: RE: I'll have to disagree posted by E-Stat on January 30, 2008 at 06:09:24
...when I was shopping for loudspeakers, the JBL L100s were on my short list.
IIRC, the 4310s were also available and had a little different design, other than their stark appearance.
That's when I discovered the Dahlquist DQ-10s and entered the realm of high end.
Through the 1980s my next door neighbor had L-100s with their colored foam grilles.
No wonder a lot of recordings from that era sound so bad.
- Differences - E-Stat 10:56:35 01/30/08
(2)
- In Reply to: RE: Back in the late '70's... posted by mkuller on January 30, 2008 at 09:47:18
The 4310/4311 used the same drivers, but were inverted (tweeter on bottom) for the hang-it-high-above-the-window-to-the-studio mounting and had foam damping around the tweeter. They were essentially the same speaker.
They sounded best with stuff like Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple where you wanted the peaky upper bass and elevated lower highs. I was always an "East Coast" sound kind of guy. As you indicated, the DQ-10 was an altogether superior musical reproducer.
I spent some time on the Genelec site and read their positioning guidelines. From their perspective, it is a bad thing for the speaker to be more than a meter away from the back wall. Funny, that's exactly the opposite of what I find works best. That's not surprising since they like to bury them in the wall, much less let them breathe and minimize room effects.
rw
- Minimizing room effects - KlausR. 01:48:46 01/31/08
(1)
- In Reply to: RE: Differences posted by E-Stat on January 30, 2008 at 10:56:35
> That's not surprising since they like to bury them in the wall, much less let them breathe and minimize room effects. <
This sentence clearly shows that you don't have a clue. You'd better go and read some acoustics textbooks instead of those glossy audio magazines.
Klaus
- Doesn't the link you provided above... - robert young 04:35:37 01/31/08
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: Minimizing room effects posted by KlausR. on January 31, 2008 at 01:48:46
show them mounted in the wall? Your own example, Klaus.
You're slipping.
- Doesn't the link you provided above... - robert young 04:35:37 01/31/08
(0)
- Minimizing room effects - KlausR. 01:48:46 01/31/08
(1)
- Differences - E-Stat 10:56:35 01/30/08
(2)
- Back in the late '70's... - mkuller 09:47:18 01/30/08
(3)
- So you'd call this small? - KlausR. 03:00:31 01/30/08
(4)
- In Reply to: RE: Studio monitors... posted by mkuller on January 29, 2008 at 10:48:55
You MUST be kidding!!!
Bass is flat to 17 Hz, max. SPL is 116 dB/1m. The upper fullrange unit, which I have, is flat to 30 Hz standard (127 dB/1m), 20 Hz on demand. Compared to high-end speakers with equivalent performance they are small, only 30" tall.
Why do audiophiles not use studio monitors at home I don't know, given the obvious advantages of active loudspeakers, some of which (like mine) use digital signal processing. You get more bang for the buck, they play louder with less distortion, are easier to place because of in-built correction features, have protection circuits.
Klaus
- RE: So you'd call this small? - morricab 05:04:42 01/31/08
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: So you'd call this small? posted by KlausR. on January 30, 2008 at 03:00:31
"30 Hz standard (127 dB/1m)"
BS!
Klaus, go look at the 0 500C measurments again: At 100 Hz the max spl is 110db and at 50Hz 103db. This is far away from the 127db "spec". They only hit 127 db at 500Hz! Also, distortion in tha bass at 100db is quite high compared to, say a Wilson X1!
For the bass box they give this spec:
Schalldruckpegel im Halbraum
bei 3 % THD in 1 m 116,4 db SPL
Given how false the other maximum spl with 1% distortion spec is compared to the actual measurement I am inclined to believe that this one is also equally optimistic.
"given the obvious advantages of active loudspeakers"
What about the obvious disadvantage of the speaker maker putting in a crappy amp? Makes a big difference you know. Correction features can easily be added with inexpensive DSP, no need to build it in.
"they play louder with less distortion"
You have NO proof of this!! I have even shown you one audiohphile speaker that has much lower distortion.
- There are exceptions to every rule...(nt) - mkuller 09:56:42 01/30/08
(1)
- In Reply to: RE: So you'd call this small? posted by KlausR. on January 30, 2008 at 03:00:31
(nt)
- These are not exceptions! - KlausR. 04:45:57 01/31/08
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: There are exceptions to every rule...(nt) posted by mkuller on January 30, 2008 at 09:56:42
When I look at Klein+Hummel, they have 2 nearfield, 2 midfield/main monitors, Genelec have 5 nearfield, 6 main monitors, Dynaudio have 7 nearfield, 9 midfield/main monitors.
You're not up to date!
Klaus
- These are not exceptions! - KlausR. 04:45:57 01/31/08
(0)
- Why? - E-Stat 06:02:43 01/30/08
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: So you'd call this small? posted by KlausR. on January 30, 2008 at 03:00:31
Why do audiophiles not use studio monitors at home I don't know...
Easy. My 'stats reproduce the kind of music I listen to (acoustical) in a far more realistic way. They create a large sound field that mimics the live venue as I experience it. Nearfield monitors have their place, but not in my listening room.
they play louder...
Huh? What? I can't hear you!
rw
- RE: So you'd call this small? - morricab 05:04:42 01/31/08
(0)
Post a Followup:
