As I live a few hundred miles from any city that would have audio monitors, I have to rely on reviews and user opinions to a great extent-- at least to narrow down the choices.

When I read the message boards, you could almost copy and paste one brand name into someone's opinion of another. Comparing the Genelec 8030A and Adam A7, for example, people have the same praise and criticisms about both.

My question: what do you think would happen if opinions were based on blind A-B testing, using sound samples that were unfamiliar to the listener? I just wonder how much of what I read is what people want to believe, especially if they've already made an investment in one brand.

Genelec seem to be either loved or hated - I call them a "Marmite" loudspeaker. Adam do seem to be flavour of the month at the moment with some people.

Personally, I searched for about 6 years to find small high quality monitors I could trust.

ATC were top of my list, but were heavy and expensive - Harbeth were also in there with the quality, but were only passive versions and I wanted actives. I ended up purchasing the Klein + Hummel O110 (D version actually) which I am very happy with.

Review is HERE (http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul07/articles/kleinandhummelo110.htm).

It says:- "These monitors may be small, but they punch well above their weight."

Under "Alternatives" it says:- "Most monitors that match the sonic quality of the K+H O 110s cost significantly more, but on the list would be the ATC SCM20As, Harbeth Monitor 20s, PMC DB1s and Geithain ME25s."

I tried the first three before I went for the O 110s - cost and weight on the first ruled it out, passive only on the second ruled it out, slightly coloured speech ruled out the third (but all were excellent and, personally, I would go for any of these over the two you mention).

I hope this helps.

As I live a few hundred miles from any city that would have audio monitors, I have to rely on reviews and user opinions to a great extent-- at least to narrow down the choices.

When I read the message boards, you could almost copy and paste one brand name into someone's opinion of another. Comparing the Genelec 8030A and Adam A7, for example, people have the same praise and criticisms about both.

My question: what do you think would happen if opinions were based on blind A-B testing, using sound samples that were unfamiliar to the listener? I just wonder how much of what I read is what people want to believe, especially if they've already made an investment in one brand.

Blind testing is good, but with well-known, not unknown, sample files. You're correct that monitor choice is a very subjective thing. But you're looking for accuracy in reproduction and you can't judge that unless you know what the test clips are supposed to sound like AND kinow that they were recorded and mastered properly to boot. You can't say that violins sounds too strident, for example, unless you know that they sound properly on the original recording.

FWIW, my personal choice was for a pair of JBL Pro LSR4328P

John and Steve, both of you make valid points -- and I'm not contradicting anything you brought up -- but I'm not thinking so much about relative and/or subjective opinions of sound quality. I'm thinking of bias caused by seeing a certain nameplate.

To take a ridiculous example, how many people could fairly judge a top-quality monitor that you slapped a "Radio Shack" logo on?

People seem to need allegiances to various brands, like the years-old Mac vs. PC wars. It becomes less about the thing itself, and more about your affiliation. Nothing to be done about, just a human need to take into account.

philip:

I do think you're right to some extent. I have to admit, while I love my Earthworks monitors, I really couldn't tell huge differences between them and the Genelec monitors used at the CD replication plant where we remastered a music project I recorded. I honestly think that once you get to a certain level of audio quality, things are pretty even. Although I do know those people who say they can tell the difference between brands of audio wire (I won't even go into that area). Names do play a role. They did when I bought my monitors, and I suspect anybody who says differently fibs at least a little.

Wayne

FYI, another engineer I know swears by Truth monitors. Loves them.

Wayne, I'm starting to formulate my personal rules for choosing:

1. Pick something with good reviews.
2. Buy.
3. Stop looking at the alternatives!

I was just about to settle for the Gen 8030s, when I saw the JBL 4326 with self-adjusting acoustics. Knowing that my room is not ideal for sound, I'm starting to rethink...again!...and violating my own rules.

The important thing about a monitor is that it is truthful and trustworthy - so you can make intelligent decisions on it.

It should *not* sound "good" or have a sound of it's own - in fact, good monitors can often sound bland or bad, especially if what you are playing through them is not perfect.

A monitor that makes your recordings sound better than they are should be avoided at all costs.

Be very careful - many people fall into the trap of buying a monitor because it sound great, rather than telling them the truth about their recording (which is what it should do).

A long time ago, by shortlist became ATC, Harbeth and PMC - because these were all excellent monitors and because the owners of the companies were passionate about their products and wanting to get them right. Later on I added K+H to the list and with the possible additions of Geithhein and Digidesign (made by PMC). Of these my favourites are: ATC, Harbeth and K+H (and I own Harbeth and K+H monitors).

John and others....let me bring you into a topic that seems to have no good answers, as far as I've seen in my Google searching and message board posts.

Let's say you have a good editing setup with honest monitors...now you add an editor (me) who has less-than-great hearing. (As many people do who are 50+, with limited upper-frequencies.) Has the cost of the monitors been a wasted expense? Is their honest sound of any value, even without the ears to fully appreciate what they can do?

I think less-than-perfect hearing is becoming very common, with the aging of the baby boomers and the long-term effects of loud music. So much that maybe "perfect" hearing is now the exception and not the rule.

What are your thoughts on this riddle?? I can't reach any conclusions so far.

John and others....let me bring you into a topic that seems to have no good answers, as far as I've seen in my Google searching and message board posts.

Let's say you have a good editing setup with honest monitors...now you add an editor (me) who has less-than-great hearing. (As many people do who are 50+, with limited upper-frequencies.) Has the cost of the monitors been a wasted expense? Is their honest sound of any value, even without the ears to fully appreciate what they can do?

I think less-than-perfect hearing is becoming very common, with the aging of the baby boomers and the long-term effects of loud music. So much that maybe "perfect" hearing is now the exception and not the rule.

What are your thoughts on this riddle?? I can't reach any conclusions so far.

If you have a dealer handy that will let you do it (and I remember you saying you didn't) one trick it to take a compilation CD of audition tracks and do a series of A/B tests. Rank the candidates in descending order by price. Test each pair with your material starting with the top. Compare 1 & 2, then 2 & 3, then 3 & 4, etc, working your way down until you reach a pair where you can hear a difference between the two under test. The upper one of that pair is the one to pick.

John and others....let me bring you into a topic that seems to have no good answers, as far as I've seen in my Google searching and message board posts.

Let's say you have a good editing setup with honest monitors...now you add an editor (me) who has less-than-great hearing. (As many people do who are 50+, with limited upper-frequencies.) Has the cost of the monitors been a wasted expense? Is their honest sound of any value, even without the ears to fully appreciate what they can do?

I think less-than-perfect hearing is becoming very common, with the aging of the baby boomers and the long-term effects of loud music. So much that maybe "perfect" hearing is now the exception and not the rule.

What are your thoughts on this riddle?? I can't reach any conclusions so far.

"Less than perfect hearing" is mostly a drooping upper end frequency response.

Quality monitoring is a *lot* more than mere frequency response - frequency response in itself is less important that a lot of other factors.

This is the ability to judge a mix, to hear what is going on, to hear and understand "noises", to get a proper balance.

Frequency response on it's own plays very little in the above.

I have only had my K+H O110Ds for a couple of years and I certainly don't regret the money - and I am in my 50's with a less than 20kHz top end.

...
I have only had my K+H O110Ds for a couple of years and I certainly don't regret the money - and I am in my 50's with a less than 20kHz top end.


I auditioned a pair of O110's and a pair of O300's at the time I got my JBLs. Found the JBL and O110 sounded very similar. The 300's were very nice and their price showed it!

John, your reply is exactly what I've been searching for. Thank you.

Do you know of any further reading on this? Not mixing itself, but the skills and physiology of it? I have books on audio, but none address the issue as your post did.

I've got a set of B&W's I use which I am happy with. not a lot of bottom, but reasonably honest, and you can listen to them all day long without fatigue. since you never mentioned price range, add in Dynaudio. they have some great units, with optional DSP to eq the room out via remote control software. even their base monitors are very nice, with good low end.

if your higher end hearing isn't great, you can always eq it up a little. to me transient response is a big factor, especially when editing dialog.

Lastly, the room will make a huge difference, no matter what you install.

Make sure you deal with room acoustics properly or else it won't matter what you get.

Any books or articles you'd recommend on room acoustics? Thanks.

Any books or articles you'd recommend on room acoustics? Thanks.

Here's a good place to get started: Primacoustic - Acoustical Solutions (http://www.primacoustic.com/)

Lots of other good references available via a google search.

As I live a few hundred miles from any city that would have audio monitors, I have to rely on reviews and user opinions to a great extent-- at least to narrow down the choices.

When I read the message boards, you could almost copy and paste one brand name into someone's opinion of another. Comparing the Genelec 8030A and Adam A7...
Based on blind A-B testing, using sound samples that were unfamiliar to the listener? I just wonder...

Philip you are in a tricky situation not being able to listen to the speakers. I am familiar with all the speakers mentioned in this thread and really you wouldn't go wrong with any of them be it the Genelecs, the Adams or the Klein + Hummels. But first you should know the Klein and Hummels are WAY more expensive than the others and they are way more understated sonically than the Genelecs or the Adams (although fairly close to the Genelecs).

First thing I would suggest is, if you are a member of any audio gear forums like "Gearsultz" that you put out a call to people in your area that have these monitors and check them out with some CDs you are really familiar with and have a good range of material. Obviously you want to have some material with a good bit of vocal stuff stuff smack in the midrange to gauge speech.

The monitors/speakers are "Near Field Monitors" that are primarily designed to allow you to create a mix that will translate onto most systems regardless of size, acoustics and so on. They all do that but they all have strengths and weaknesses. Yes Adam product has been flavour of the past couple of years but so have the Genelecs in other quarters and the Klein + Hummels get pumped up in other (more higher end) trade magazines and sites.

If you are really predisposed to "warm" sound you will probably gravitate towards the Genelecs or the Klein + Hummels. If you like finely detailed imaging and sound then you will like the Adams.

I started off my search convinced (by marketing) that I NEEDED the Genelecs, then I was convinced I NEEDED the Adams after reading a bunch of reviews. I bought the Adams but after several visits to different audio stores doing blind tests with a variety of monitors including Genelecs and more higher priced speakers - the whole lot of what is generally available. And I settled on the Adam A7s in fact with the idea that I would upgrade to the S3A's within a year or so. But then I was convinced, absolutely convinced I need the Klein + Hummels. I blind tested them in 2 locations and thought the price differential to quality of sound was too great so I abandoned the idea. Now that I am out of the vortex of user hype and marketing hype I am glad I got the A7s because they suit the way I go at editing and sculpting sound.

I use them for video editing 20% of the time but the other part I am either playing synths or sampled instruments (grand pianos, percussion, etc) through them or recording stuff so the detailed high end of the sound with the ribbon tweeter allows me to hone in on stuff and deal with nuance. I will say one thing you probably haven't heard too much. A subwoofer is really key if you want to get the most out of these Near Field Monitors and unfortunately they are not cheap. The benefit of a sub seems trivial at first but once you live with it for a while you realize how important it is to the sound.

If you are using the speakers for video remember that 5.1 sound requires 5 speakers plus the sub. So if you are going the Klein + Hummel route you are looking a small fortune to do this.

Not sure if this will make your decision easier but at least you will see that you are not the only one who has gone through this process. Might be worth your while to take a field trip to a city where you can preview the Genelecs and the Adams but try to go to a city where you can go to more than one shop because acoustics play havoc on speakers (as I am sure you know) and sales reps can make it difficult to make a thoughtful decision. Remember take music with you that you know really well. Good luck.

Andy, thanks. That's all helpful advice.

Dare I say that the JBL 4326 has also entered the picture? Judging only by the number of superlatives people use for them vs the other brands, they seem to be another good choice.

Here's another question for you: Let's say that you used the A7's on a video project (my intended use, BTW). Then, for some reason, you had to take the same footage and redo the sound with Genelecs.

Now we have two DVDs of the same video. Only diff is the audio monitors you used. The effects of compression, quirks of the home theater system on which they're watched, etc....well, some things are predictable, others are random.

The question, hypothetical as it is: eliminating all other sources of variability, except the way those speakers affect your work, how different is the sound on those two DVDs? And how much of a trained ear does it take to hear the differences?

In the end, it really comes down to the work you produce, right? So, if you'll play along with me, I think this is an interesting thought to consider. Thanks.

Any books or articles you'd recommend on room acoustics? Thanks.

You could start here
Acoustics 101...Practical guidelines for acoustic construction: building a sound studio, listening room, home theater room, and any other sound control room project. (http://www.acoustics101.com/)

Dan

You should also throw the Dynaudios in there as well. They sonically are similar to the Genelecs in that they have a warmer midrange and high end but are in the price range of the Adam A7s.

Your question about mixing a project on the Adams and then doing the same on the Genelecs. Complicated question to answer. Probably room acoustics are going to influence the the final sound of what comes to your ear from speaker more than the individual speaker, at least in terms of how they will affect the outcome of your mix. Also if a set of sounds appear enticing on one set of speakers you may decide to make that your focus in sculpting the sound and to know which speaker before hand is going to have a slight focus on a set of sounds is difficult to know.

There is a process that happens over time once you have the speakers in your setup and you start working with them. You eventually become really "used" to them to the point where you don't think about the sound per se. Your mixes will translate from your near field monitors to larger speakers and the mix will "just work".

The difficult issue when you are previewing the speakers before you buy them is you are listening for "musicality", accuracy, imaging, detail in the highs, bass that is smooth and not boomy which you hope is going to translate into getting an accurate mix in the end. You should go through this process. If you buy them without hearing them you are going continually wonder "did I make the right choice".

Looks like Montreal is the closest large city to where you live. Where I live in Canada I go to music instrument stores. They store chains we have here on the West Coast don't seem to exist in Montreal. Not sure of what is in Montreal but google can probably help you out or other musician related forums. I know there is a chain in Quebec called Archambault. I don't know the extent of their inventory and how far they go into "gear". They are musician focused so that would be a place to start. Also look at dealer listings on the speaker manufacturer websites.

It took me about 6 weeks of serious listening, going into stores a couple of times a week before I made my decision. I think if you went around to at least 2 places with different acoustical environments you would be able to make an informed decision. And don't forget to consider the sub. Adam makes an 8" sub for the A7's. Many of the manufacturers will recommend a 10" sub. If I were to do it again I would probably go for a 10" but I am quite happy with the 8".

Great resource, Dan. I've grabbed the PDF. Thanks.

One topic that HASN'T come up yet is make sure you have a set of "less than perfect" consumer style speakers in your editing space as well to make sure there isn't something BIZARRE happening when you play stuff on "normal" speakers. Mix on the reference, CONFIRM on the consumers.

Shaun, I do have ordinary speakers. But that raises a good question. What would you do if you knew everyone in your audience was going hear your video on the speaker of a $100 TV? I mean, are we assuming high-end sound in a world that's mostly low-end?

make sure you have a set of "less than perfect" consumer style speakers in your editing space as well to make sure there isn't something BIZARRE happening...

Really good point. A buddy of mine who has been in the biz over 40 years doesn't want big speakers. He prefers to hear the sound out of lousy speakers like the ones you hear on older TVs. I think there is a degree of credence to this however, in the era of HD and home theater systems one shouldn't ignore "good sound".

Another point is having a good set of headphones. My preference is for the Sennheiser HD600. They are an open air designed headphone, not the sealed kind that many camera operators use like the Sony MDR-7506. The Sennheiser's have a VERY neutral sound stage and are considered to be among the best headphones available.

My position, for what it's worth coming from a 20 year bass player in his late 30's who worked around construction and high pressure air for 10 years is:

-I mix for video using small not-quite-reference bookshelf speakers in my edit bay. I do mostly documentaries and training/promo videos so the majority of my content is human voice OVER wild sound or a music bed. I don't PROFESSIONALLY mix music.

-After my mix is done, I burn a copy to DVD and listen to it on my 27" Toshiba CRT TV to see what it sounds like to the "average" listener.

-I don't record or mix very much material that has excessive bass content (either musical, music effects OR heavy equipment-style noises) so I'm LESS concerned with unexpected bass issues than others here may be. I don't do dramatic pieces (think cinematic) so I believe this is less of an issue for me than it may be for you.

-I also "mono down" my audio via an RCA "combiner" on critical mixes to make sure there aren't strange things going on with phase that may only become apparent on end-user's systems that have been set up by Luddites.

-What I've found is that by the time my content has been through the AC3 compressor before going to DVD, a LOT of the minor mix niggles that I had have disappeared. I'm not saying there isn't a place for critical mixing for critical ears; I LOVE a good high fidelity musical recording as much as anyone. I'm just saying that not everyone will have the "luxury" of accurate monitors and we need to make sure we accommodate ALL or AS MANY end users as time, willingness and budget permit.

CAVEAT EMPTOR: If you are mixing for a client with higher end sound delivery than my clients PLEASE DISREGARD most of the above. Most of my material is either for broadcast OR viewing on TVs either in boardrooms/training rooms.

-I also "mono down" my audio via an RCA "combiner" on critical mixes to make sure there aren't strange things going on with phase that may only become apparent on end-user's systems that have been set up by Luddites.

By this I mean AT THE QUALITY CONTROL LISTENING STAGE, not at any sort of distribution stage. Sorry if that caused any confusion.

Your approach makes sense to me, but I'd go beyond saying "not everyone" to say that almost no one will have accurate monitors, unless you're dealing with a very small and unusual segment of the general population.