The best advice is take NO one's advice on near-field monitors until
you have mixed over them yourself.

In my experience the better a set of near-fields sound, particularly
those with "a bit more bottom", the less you can trust them initially
and the more mixing time you need on them to get them to translate
well. That is not to say that you can't *learn* to mix effectively
over ANY set of near-fields ... but the learning curve needs to be
experienced for every different pair you use.

Just be aware that the industy is "ripe with hype" on this subject
and you'll likely find that most of what you are going to get is
ultimately the result of marketing BS, paid endorsements, and well
meaning folks who have mixed Susie Songwriter's demo tape.

A local supplier who will let you demo at your locaton, even if you
have to pay a bit more, is a godsend. In short, you'll do better to
trust only those two receptors that separate your hairdo than most
well meaning recommendations.

Just my $.020000000

KAC ...

David W. Ruby wrote:
>>Also why and what model no.We are looking at poss. the
>>event 20/20 or 5s?
>>Need something with a bit more bottom.
>>Let's hear about what users suggest
>>Thanx!!!!
>>:0

Monitors.....Smonitors, It really doesn't matter what monitors you
buy. It's more important to get familiar with the monitors that you
do buy. Listen to CD's that you know are mixed well and see how they
sound over your monitors and learn to duplicate the response with
your mixes. Actually, asking clients what are the best monitors to
buy is actually a better thermometer, rather than an engineers
because they're the one's paying for the studio time. Prime example
is the NS-10's, most engineers will agree that NS-10's are crappy
monitors to mix with, but they created such a buzz through people
talking about them, that they became an industry standard. It's best
to have 3 monitors. Monitor 1= "small monitors" (prime example the
aurotone), this gives you the opportunity to audition mixes, to make
sure it will sound good over a very small crappy speaker system.
Monitor 2= "Standard nearfields" (ie NS-10's,Genelecs, Alesis Monitor
One's, Mackies, Events,krok). These are your main mix monitors (ie
middle of the road monitors), the one's the engineer should become
most familiar with. In my opinion, it's more important to have a
better amp hooked up to this monitor system, than the actual monitor
quality. I use the Alesis Monitor One's hooked up to a Hafler amp.
These are not my favorite monitors, but they seem to be replacing the
NS-10's (ie they have client recognition) and sound great hooked up
to a hafler amp, not so great hooked up to an Alesis amp. This is
probably why self powered monitors are becoming so popular also.
Monitor 3= "The client awe factor monitors" (ie far field monitors),
these are your loud jamming monitors, which usually have a sub
woofer connected to it. I use these monitors for nothing more than
to crank up the clients mixes and have it rip their face off, and it
leaves them sitting in their seats in a pool of piss with a big grin
on their face. Any large monitor will work for this, just get the
loudest your budget can handle, that has a lot of bass. Again with
these speakers, have a good loud clean amp. I actually use a Mackie
1400i, which is very loud (550watts/side rms) and low noise. This
amp is actually designed for live applications, but serves well for
cranking it up in the control room, because it has a variable speed
fan, which means it's quiet when you're not cranking it up.

There's my 2 pesos,
Brian Franz

Karl Caillouet wrote:
>>The best advice is take NO one's advice on near-field monitors
until
>>you have mixed over them yourself.
>>
>>In my experience the better a set of near-fields sound,
particularly
>>those with "a bit more bottom", the less you can trust them
initially
>>and the more mixing time you need on them to get them to translate
>>well. That is not to say that you can't *learn* to mix effectively
>>over ANY set of near-fields ... but the learning curve needs to be
>>experienced for every different pair you use.
>>
>>Just be aware that the industy is "ripe with hype" on this subject
>>and you'll likely find that most of what you are going to get is
>>ultimately the result of marketing BS, paid endorsements, and well
>>meaning folks who have mixed Susie Songwriter's demo tape.
>>
>>A local supplier who will let you demo at your locaton, even if you
>>have to pay a bit more, is a godsend. In short, you'll do better to
>>trust only those two receptors that separate your hairdo than most
>>well meaning recommendations.
>>
>>Just my $.020000000
>>
>>KAC ...
>>
>>David W. Ruby wrote:
>>>>Also why and what model no.We are looking at poss. the
>>>>event 20/20 or 5s?
>>>>Need something with a bit more bottom.
>>>>Let's hear about what users suggest
>>>>Thanx!!!!
>>>>:0

David,

Go to a music store that has all the different monitors you've been
looking at and give them the old ear test. Take a CD you are familiar
with and find the monitors that give you a wide frequency response
and good stereo placement of sounds with little ear fatigue. That's
the best advice I got when I was looking for monitors. I chose the
Mackie HR824's. You can hear the highest hi's, the lowest low's. The
stereo placement of each sound is unbelievable and you can mix for
long periods of time with very little ear fatigue. The frequency
response is flat as a pancake. But you be the judge.

I would also suggest a small set of speakers and the pair of speakers
you are most familiar with, like your home stereo or your car stereo.
I use my old 1984 ghetto blaster for small speaker monitoring and my
stereo speakers for crankin it up. When I think I have my final mix I
check it out in the car.

Good luck,

Brad

David W. Ruby wrote:
>>Also why and what model no.We are looking at poss. the
>>event 20/20 or 5s?
>>Need something with a bit more bottom.
>>Let's hear about what users suggest
>>Thanx!!!!
>>:0

Ok, can someone explain ear fatigue to me, as it being speaker
dependant? As I always understood ear fatigue, it came from mixing
for a long period of time, and was significantly increased by
monitoring at loud levels for long periods of time. So how does this
vary from speaker to speaker? It seems like I can listen to a pair
of NS-10's for 24hours straight at very low levels and not really
have any ear fatigue. It seems like this is some kind of sales
marketing "buzz" word to me, so can anyone explain this to me? And
how one speaker can have better ear fatigue than the other? Do you
actually go to the music store and listen to a pair of speakers and
say.....(yawn)..."wow...those speakers really made me tired, it's
time
for my ears to take a nap." :-)

Brad Holbrooks wrote:
>>David,
>>
>>Go to a music store that has all the different monitors you've been
>>looking at and give them the old ear test. Take a CD you are
familiar
>>with and find the monitors that give you a wide frequency response
>>and good stereo placement of sounds with little ear fatigue. That's
>>the best advice I got when I was looking for monitors. I chose the
>>Mackie HR824's. You can hear the highest hi's, the lowest low's.
The
>>stereo placement of each sound is unbelievable and you can mix for
>>long periods of time with very little ear fatigue. The frequency
>>response is flat as a pancake. But you be the judge.
>>
>>I would also suggest a small set of speakers and the pair of
speakers
>>you are most familiar with, like your home stereo or your car
stereo.
>>I use my old 1984 ghetto blaster for small speaker monitoring and
my
>>stereo speakers for crankin it up. When I think I have my final mix
I
>>check it out in the car.
>>
>>Good luck,
>>
>>Brad
>>
>>David W. Ruby wrote:
>>>>Also why and what model no.We are looking at poss. the
>>>>event 20/20 or 5s?
>>>>Need something with a bit more bottom.
>>>>Let's hear about what users suggest
>>>>Thanx!!!!
>>>>:0

Baaaahahaha!
Actually, I think (if I'm not mistaken) that he meant how some
speakers (NS-10s in your case) are easier to listen to than others
due to their sound characteristics. This may vary from listenter to
listener on what's considered a pleasing sound or not. Ever crank up a
set of speakers, whether monitors or home/car speakers, and go 'Yeow!
I can't listen to those things anymore!'? I'm not sure, but if you
listen to those type of speakers for too long, wou will actually black
out and do things to mixes that you'd normally would not do...


Brian Franz wrote:
>> Ok, can someone explain ear fatigue to me, as it being speaker
>>dependant? As I always understood ear fatigue, it came from mixing
>>for a long period of time, and was significantly increased by
>>monitoring at loud levels for long periods of time. So how does
this
>>vary from speaker to speaker? It seems like I can listen to a pair
>>of NS-10's for 24hours straight at very low levels and not really
>>have any ear fatigue. It seems like this is some kind of sales
>>marketing "buzz" word to me, so can anyone explain this to me? And
>>how one speaker can have better ear fatigue than the other? Do you
>>actually go to the music store and listen to a pair of speakers and
>>say.....(yawn)..."wow...those speakers really made me tired, it's
>>time
>>for my ears to take a nap." :-)
>>
>>Brad Holbrooks wrote:
>>>>David,
>>>>
>>>>Go to a music store that has all the different monitors you've
been
>>>>looking at and give them the old ear test. Take a CD you are
>>familiar
>>>>with and find the monitors that give you a wide frequency response
>>>>and good stereo placement of sounds with little ear fatigue.
That's
>>>>the best advice I got when I was looking for monitors. I chose the
>>>>Mackie HR824's. You can hear the highest hi's, the lowest low's.
>>The
>>>>stereo placement of each sound is unbelievable and you can mix for
>>>>long periods of time with very little ear fatigue. The frequency
>>>>response is flat as a pancake. But you be the judge.
>>>>
>>>>I would also suggest a small set of speakers and the pair of
>>speakers
>>>>you are most familiar with, like your home stereo or your car
>>stereo.
>>>>I use my old 1984 ghetto blaster for small speaker monitoring and
>>my
>>>>stereo speakers for crankin it up. When I think I have my final
mix
>>I
>>>>check it out in the car.
>>>>
>>>>Good luck,
>>>>
>>>>Brad
>>>>
>>>>David W. Ruby wrote:
>>>>>>Also why and what model no.We are looking at poss. the
>>>>>>event 20/20 or 5s?
>>>>>>Need something with a bit more bottom.
>>>>>>Let's hear about what users suggest
>>>>>>Thanx!!!!
>>>>>>:0

Well, yes I kinda understood that, I guess what my questions is,
What is the actual "characteristic" that would make similar speakers
have more or less ear fatigue. It seems like, every monitor trys to
make a "flat" response speaker, so it probably isn't frequency
dependant otherwise if that was adjusted, then the monitor wouldn't
have a "flat" response.

Jim wrote:
>>Baaaahahaha!
>>Actually, I think (if I'm not mistaken) that he meant how some
>>speakers (NS-10s in your case) are easier to listen to than others
>>due to their sound characteristics. This may vary from listenter to
>>listener on what's considered a pleasing sound or not. Ever crank
up a
>>set of speakers, whether monitors or home/car speakers, and
go 'Yeow!
>>I can't listen to those things anymore!'? I'm not sure, but if you
>>listen to those type of speakers for too long, wou will actually
black
>>out and do things to mixes that you'd normally would not do...
>>
>>
>>Brian Franz wrote:
>>>> Ok, can someone explain ear fatigue to me, as it being speaker
>>>>dependant? As I always understood ear fatigue, it came from
mixing
>>>>for a long period of time, and was significantly increased by
>>>>monitoring at loud levels for long periods of time. So how does
>>this
>>>>vary from speaker to speaker? It seems like I can listen to a
pair
>>>>of NS-10's for 24hours straight at very low levels and not really
>>>>have any ear fatigue. It seems like this is some kind of sales
>>>>marketing "buzz" word to me, so can anyone explain this to me?
And
>>>>how one speaker can have better ear fatigue than the other? Do
you
>>>>actually go to the music store and listen to a pair of speakers
and
>>>>say.....(yawn)..."wow...those speakers really made me tired, it's
>>>>time
>>>>for my ears to take a nap." :-)
>>>>
>>>>Brad Holbrooks wrote:
>>>>>>David,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Go to a music store that has all the different monitors you've
>>been
>>>>>>looking at and give them the old ear test. Take a CD you are
>>>>familiar
>>>>>>with and find the monitors that give you a wide frequency
response
>>>>>>and good stereo placement of sounds with little ear fatigue.
>>That's
>>>>>>the best advice I got when I was looking for monitors. I chose
the
>>>>>>Mackie HR824's. You can hear the highest hi's, the lowest
low's.
>>>>The
>>>>>>stereo placement of each sound is unbelievable and you can mix
for
>>>>>>long periods of time with very little ear fatigue. The
frequency
>>>>>>response is flat as a pancake. But you be the judge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I would also suggest a small set of speakers and the pair of
>>>>speakers
>>>>>>you are most familiar with, like your home stereo or your car
>>>>stereo.
>>>>>>I use my old 1984 ghetto blaster for small speaker monitoring
and
>>>>my
>>>>>>stereo speakers for crankin it up. When I think I have my final
>>mix
>>>>I
>>>>>>check it out in the car.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Good luck,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Brad
>>>>>>
>>>>>>David W. Ruby wrote:
>>>>>>>>Also why and what model no.We are looking at poss. the
>>>>>>>>event 20/20 or 5s?
>>>>>>>>Need something with a bit more bottom.
>>>>>>>>Let's hear about what users suggest
>>>>>>>>Thanx!!!!
>>>>>>>>:0

And, a question I've ALWAYS had is: What is a "flat response"? How do
you measure this? Isn't this subjective to each person's opinion?
'Flat' compared to WHAT? My best guess would be to 'assume' that a
'flat response' speaker accurately represents the sound as it was
picked up at the microphone...BEFORE any EQ and effects were added. In
another words, it should sound EXACTLY as if it were live.

Anyway, I'll stop this discussion since Sonic Foundry doesn't make
monitors and this topic doesn't fit this forum.


Brian Franz wrote:
>>Well, yes I kinda understood that, I guess what my questions is,
>>What is the actual "characteristic" that would make similar speakers
>>have more or less ear fatigue. It seems like, every monitor trys to
>>make a "flat" response speaker, so it probably isn't frequency
>>dependant otherwise if that was adjusted, then the monitor wouldn't
>>have a "flat" response.
>>
>>Jim wrote:
>>>>Baaaahahaha!
>>>>Actually, I think (if I'm not mistaken) that he meant how some
>>>>speakers (NS-10s in your case) are easier to listen to than others
>>>>due to their sound characteristics. This may vary from listenter
to
>>>>listener on what's considered a pleasing sound or not. Ever crank
>>up a
>>>>set of speakers, whether monitors or home/car speakers, and
>>go 'Yeow!
>>>>I can't listen to those things anymore!'? I'm not sure, but if you
>>>>listen to those type of speakers for too long, wou will actually
>>black
>>>>out and do things to mixes that you'd normally would not do...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Brian Franz wrote:
>>>>>> Ok, can someone explain ear fatigue to me, as it being
speaker
>>>>>>dependant? As I always understood ear fatigue, it came from
>>mixing
>>>>>>for a long period of time, and was significantly increased by
>>>>>>monitoring at loud levels for long periods of time. So how does
>>>>this
>>>>>>vary from speaker to speaker? It seems like I can listen to a
>>pair
>>>>>>of NS-10's for 24hours straight at very low levels and not
really
>>>>>>have any ear fatigue. It seems like this is some kind of sales
>>>>>>marketing "buzz" word to me, so can anyone explain this to me?
>>And
>>>>>>how one speaker can have better ear fatigue than the other? Do
>>you
>>>>>>actually go to the music store and listen to a pair of speakers
>>and
>>>>>>say.....(yawn)..."wow...those speakers really made me tired,
it's
>>>>>>time
>>>>>>for my ears to take a nap." :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Brad Holbrooks wrote:
>>>>>>>>David,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Go to a music store that has all the different monitors you've
>>>>been
>>>>>>>>looking at and give them the old ear test. Take a CD you are
>>>>>>familiar
>>>>>>>>with and find the monitors that give you a wide frequency
>>response
>>>>>>>>and good stereo placement of sounds with little ear fatigue.
>>>>That's
>>>>>>>>the best advice I got when I was looking for monitors. I chose
>>the
>>>>>>>>Mackie HR824's. You can hear the highest hi's, the lowest
>>low's.
>>>>>>The
>>>>>>>>stereo placement of each sound is unbelievable and you can mix
>>for
>>>>>>>>long periods of time with very little ear fatigue. The
>>frequency
>>>>>>>>response is flat as a pancake. But you be the judge.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I would also suggest a small set of speakers and the pair of
>>>>>>speakers
>>>>>>>>you are most familiar with, like your home stereo or your car
>>>>>>stereo.
>>>>>>>>I use my old 1984 ghetto blaster for small speaker monitoring
>>and
>>>>>>my
>>>>>>>>stereo speakers for crankin it up. When I think I have my
final
>>>>mix
>>>>>>I
>>>>>>>>check it out in the car.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Good luck,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Brad
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>David W. Ruby wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>Also why and what model no.We are looking at poss. the
>>>>>>>>>>event 20/20 or 5s?
>>>>>>>>>>Need something with a bit more bottom.
>>>>>>>>>>Let's hear about what users suggest
>>>>>>>>>>Thanx!!!!
>>>>>>>>>>:0

No!!! "Flat" is actually an engineering frequency response. The
term "Flat" is referred this way, because if you look at a monitors
frequency response graph, it will be "flat" (ie a straight line).
This means it reproduces frequencies equally within a 2dB range at
all frequencies. No monitor is truly "Flat", but most good monitors
come very close. So the term "Flat" is not subject to anyone's
opinion, this is an actual measurement of the speakers frequency
response characteristics. This intern, means basically what comes
into the monitor, comes out without altering it's frequency
characteristics.

So if anyone else can give me an explanation of what characteristics
of a monitor actually cause "less ear fatigue", it would be greatly
appreciated. Otherwise, I will have to assume this is nothing, but a
bunch of sales marketing lies. I can think of nothing using my
electrical engineering background, which would characterize a speaker
to have less ear fatigue, other than comparing apples to oranges.

Any Sonic Foundry engineers or techs have any input on this?

Jim wrote:
>>And, a question I've ALWAYS had is: What is a "flat response"? How
do
>>you measure this? Isn't this subjective to each person's opinion?
>>'Flat' compared to WHAT? My best guess would be to 'assume' that a
>>'flat response' speaker accurately represents the sound as it was
>>picked up at the microphone...BEFORE any EQ and effects were added.
In
>>another words, it should sound EXACTLY as if it were live.
>>
>>Anyway, I'll stop this discussion since Sonic Foundry doesn't make
>>monitors and this topic doesn't fit this forum.
>>
>>
>>Brian Franz wrote:
>>>>Well, yes I kinda understood that, I guess what my questions is,
>>>>What is the actual "characteristic" that would make similar
speakers
>>>>have more or less ear fatigue. It seems like, every monitor trys
to
>>>>make a "flat" response speaker, so it probably isn't frequency
>>>>dependant otherwise if that was adjusted, then the monitor
wouldn't
>>>>have a "flat" response.
>>>>
>>>>Jim wrote:
>>>>>>Baaaahahaha!
>>>>>>Actually, I think (if I'm not mistaken) that he meant how some
>>>>>>speakers (NS-10s in your case) are easier to listen to than
others
>>>>>>due to their sound characteristics. This may vary from
listenter
>>to
>>>>>>listener on what's considered a pleasing sound or not. Ever
crank
>>>>up a
>>>>>>set of speakers, whether monitors or home/car speakers, and
>>>>go 'Yeow!
>>>>>>I can't listen to those things anymore!'? I'm not sure, but if
you
>>>>>>listen to those type of speakers for too long, wou will
actually
>>>>black
>>>>>>out and do things to mixes that you'd normally would not do...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Brian Franz wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ok, can someone explain ear fatigue to me, as it being
>>speaker
>>>>>>>>dependant? As I always understood ear fatigue, it came from
>>>>mixing
>>>>>>>>for a long period of time, and was significantly increased by
>>>>>>>>monitoring at loud levels for long periods of time. So how
does
>>>>>>this
>>>>>>>>vary from speaker to speaker? It seems like I can listen to
a
>>>>pair
>>>>>>>>of NS-10's for 24hours straight at very low levels and not
>>really
>>>>>>>>have any ear fatigue. It seems like this is some kind of
sales
>>>>>>>>marketing "buzz" word to me, so can anyone explain this to
me?
>>>>And
>>>>>>>>how one speaker can have better ear fatigue than the other?
Do
>>>>you
>>>>>>>>actually go to the music store and listen to a pair of
speakers
>>>>and
>>>>>>>>say.....(yawn)..."wow...those speakers really made me tired,
>>it's
>>>>>>>>time
>>>>>>>>for my ears to take a nap." :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Brad Holbrooks wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>David,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Go to a music store that has all the different monitors
you've
>>>>>>been
>>>>>>>>>>looking at and give them the old ear test. Take a CD you
are
>>>>>>>>familiar
>>>>>>>>>>with and find the monitors that give you a wide frequency
>>>>response
>>>>>>>>>>and good stereo placement of sounds with little ear
fatigue.
>>>>>>That's
>>>>>>>>>>the best advice I got when I was looking for monitors. I
chose
>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>Mackie HR824's. You can hear the highest hi's, the lowest
>>>>low's.
>>>>>>>>The
>>>>>>>>>>stereo placement of each sound is unbelievable and you can
mix
>>>>for
>>>>>>>>>>long periods of time with very little ear fatigue. The
>>>>frequency
>>>>>>>>>>response is flat as a pancake. But you be the judge.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I would also suggest a small set of speakers and the pair
of
>>>>>>>>speakers
>>>>>>>>>>you are most familiar with, like your home stereo or your
car
>>>>>>>>stereo.
>>>>>>>>>>I use my old 1984 ghetto blaster for small speaker
monitoring
>>>>and
>>>>>>>>my
>>>>>>>>>>stereo speakers for crankin it up. When I think I have my
>>final
>>>>>>mix
>>>>>>>>I
>>>>>>>>>>check it out in the car.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Good luck,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Brad
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>David W. Ruby wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>Also why and what model no.We are looking at poss. the
>>>>>>>>>>>>event 20/20 or 5s?
>>>>>>>>>>>>Need something with a bit more bottom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Let's hear about what users suggest
>>>>>>>>>>>>Thanx!!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>:0

David W. Ruby wrote:
>>Also why and what model no.We are looking at poss. the
>>event 20/20 or 5s?
>>Need something with a bit more bottom.
>>Let's hear about what users suggest
>>Thanx!!!!
>>:0

I use NS-10's for nearfield and Westlake BBSM-12's for mains(sort of,
the speakers have been soffitted and all the components changed for
JBL and focal speakers, but stilll they are housed in the westlake
boxes)

the smaller Westlake BBSM-10's are unreal asskickers for
nearfields,you should definitly give them a listen...we have Ns-10's
because other users need a familiar speaker, not because anyone here
is a big fan of them

Brian Franz wrote:
>> Ok, can someone explain ear fatigue to me, as it being speaker
>>dependant?

Tio experience ear fatigue, go get a set of Yamaha NS-10's and hook
them up to an Alesis RA-100 power amp..now put in any
modern "alternative rock" or country CD and play it real loud for
hours....do not move, just sit there...then play quake for a couple
of hours still at full blast, then listen to some more of the same
CD's, last to finish it off, play the new Microsoft Motocross Madness
game, I recommend the 125 cc bike for its mutated gigantic insect
engine sound.....

your ears will be fatigued

Aaron ya goof ball, I know what ear fatigue is and know how to
acquire it. I experienced it last night at a Marilyn Manson Concert.

Aaron Carey wrote:
>>
>>
>>Brian Franz wrote:
>>>> Ok, can someone explain ear fatigue to me, as it being speaker
>>>>dependant?
>>
>>Tio experience ear fatigue, go get a set of Yamaha NS-10's and hook
>>them up to an Alesis RA-100 power amp..now put in any
>>modern "alternative rock" or country CD and play it real loud for
>>hours....do not move, just sit there...then play quake for a couple
>>of hours still at full blast, then listen to some more of the same
>>CD's, last to finish it off, play the new Microsoft Motocross
Madness
>>game, I recommend the 125 cc bike for its mutated gigantic insect
>>engine sound.....
>>
>>your ears will be fatigued

NS-10's inarguably sound like unmitigated dog crap ... especially
that first few seconds you switch BACK to them from almost anything
else. Nonetheless, and despite their mid-rangy harshness, I've mixed
about 60 commercial, stereo CD releases over NS-10's in the past 11
years.

The ten years before that (somewhere early in that period, and if I
recall correctly, the term "near-field" had yet to be coined, or
gained much acceptance) I sucessfully used a combination of Auratones
and JBL 4401's as near-fields.

All that only further proves to me that it is not necessarily the
speakers, but what you get used to.

I've learned that if I can hammer out a satisfying mix on the NS-10's
I can be reasonably sure that it will come back from mastering
sounding, on other most speakers outside the studio environment, more
representative of what the client heard and liked in the control room.

That is, after all, my ultimate goal. I have spent years, countless
hours, and beaucoup dollars insuring that I rarely hear the dreaded
phrase: "Well, it sounds great in the studio, but different at home."
and "different" is never good in this context.

Up top we have vintage JBL's (modified), along with a pair of powered
JBL's a couple of years old that lie like hell about bottom end but
sound good as an "ear candy" treat for the client. And, as almost any
engineer will admit to, I have also been known to make some minor
tweaks down through the years based on what a mix sounded like in a
car, van or truck.

Some say that a foible of mine is that I will not let a subwoofer
anywhere near a conrol room I have anything to do with, nor will I
turn one on while guest engineering ... I personally have no use for
the suckers thus far.

Again, it's a matter of what you are used to ... and the undeniable
fact that you can get used to about anything.

I will say this as far as listening for pleasure goes: While I did
bring the aforementioned 4401's, re-coned twice, to my home office
years ago and still enjoy listening to them, there is NO way I would
ever do so with a pair of NS-10's.

KAC ...


Aaron Carey wrote:
>>...we have Ns-10's because other users
>> need a familiar speaker, not because
>> anyone here is a big fan of them

I don't know what ear 'fatiue' is. But as far as ear fatigue goes,
purchase a pair of Mackies and give them a listen. I think you will
hear a difference.

I mix at around 75dB to 80dB and give my ears a rest every 2hrs.
Other monitors I have used this way and experience ear fatigue. But
using the Mackies I experience little or no ear fatigue. How does
this happen?...if I knew that I would be designing my own monitors!

Brad


Brian Franz wrote:
>> Ok, can someone explain ear fatigue to me, as it being speaker
>>dependant? As I always understood ear fatigue, it came from mixing
>>for a long period of time, and was significantly increased by
>>monitoring at loud levels for long periods of time. So how does
this
>>vary from speaker to speaker? It seems like I can listen to a pair
>>of NS-10's for 24hours straight at very low levels and not really
>>have any ear fatigue. It seems like this is some kind of sales
>>marketing "buzz" word to me, so can anyone explain this to me? And
>>how one speaker can have better ear fatigue than the other? Do you
>>actually go to the music store and listen to a pair of speakers and
>>say.....(yawn)..."wow...those speakers really made me tired, it's
>>time
>>for my ears to take a nap." :-)
>>
>>Brad Holbrooks wrote:
>>>>David,
>>>>
>>>>Go to a music store that has all the different monitors you've
been
>>>>looking at and give them the old ear test. Take a CD you are
>>familiar
>>>>with and find the monitors that give you a wide frequency
response
>>>>and good stereo placement of sounds with little ear fatigue.
That's
>>>>the best advice I got when I was looking for monitors. I chose
the
>>>>Mackie HR824's. You can hear the highest hi's, the lowest low's.
>>The
>>>>stereo placement of each sound is unbelievable and you can mix
for
>>>>long periods of time with very little ear fatigue. The frequency
>>>>response is flat as a pancake. But you be the judge.
>>>>
>>>>I would also suggest a small set of speakers and the pair of
>>speakers
>>>>you are most familiar with, like your home stereo or your car
>>stereo.
>>>>I use my old 1984 ghetto blaster for small speaker monitoring and
>>my
>>>>stereo speakers for crankin it up. When I think I have my final
mix
>>I
>>>>check it out in the car.
>>>>
>>>>Good luck,
>>>>
>>>>Brad
>>>>
>>>>David W. Ruby wrote:
>>>>>>Also why and what model no.We are looking at poss. the
>>>>>>event 20/20 or 5s?
>>>>>>Need something with a bit more bottom.
>>>>>>Let's hear about what users suggest
>>>>>>Thanx!!!!
>>>>>>:0

Kewl! I just learned something new. Thanks.


Brian Franz wrote:
>>No!!! "Flat" is actually an engineering frequency response. The
>>term "Flat" is referred this way, because if you look at a monitors
>>frequency response graph, it will be "flat" (ie a straight line).
>>This means it reproduces frequencies equally within a 2dB range at
>>all frequencies. No monitor is truly "Flat", but most good monitors
>>come very close. So the term "Flat" is not subject to anyone's
>>opinion, this is an actual measurement of the speakers frequency
>>response characteristics. This intern, means basically what comes
>>into the monitor, comes out without altering it's frequency
>>characteristics.
>>
>>So if anyone else can give me an explanation of what characteristics
>>of a monitor actually cause "less ear fatigue", it would be greatly
>>appreciated. Otherwise, I will have to assume this is nothing, but
a
>>bunch of sales marketing lies. I can think of nothing using my
>>electrical engineering background, which would characterize a
speaker
>>to have less ear fatigue, other than comparing apples to oranges.
>>
>>Any Sonic Foundry engineers or techs have any input on this?
>>
>>Jim wrote:
>>>>And, a question I've ALWAYS had is: What is a "flat response"? How
>>do
>>>>you measure this? Isn't this subjective to each person's opinion?
>>>>'Flat' compared to WHAT? My best guess would be to 'assume' that a
>>>>'flat response' speaker accurately represents the sound as it was
>>>>picked up at the microphone...BEFORE any EQ and effects were
added.
>>In
>>>>another words, it should sound EXACTLY as if it were live.
>>>>
>>>>Anyway, I'll stop this discussion since Sonic Foundry doesn't make
>>>>monitors and this topic doesn't fit this forum.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Brian Franz wrote:
>>>>>>Well, yes I kinda understood that, I guess what my questions is,

>>>>>>What is the actual "characteristic" that would make similar
>>speakers
>>>>>>have more or less ear fatigue. It seems like, every monitor
trys
>>to
>>>>>>make a "flat" response speaker, so it probably isn't frequency
>>>>>>dependant otherwise if that was adjusted, then the monitor
>>wouldn't
>>>>>>have a "flat" response.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Jim wrote:
>>>>>>>>Baaaahahaha!
>>>>>>>>Actually, I think (if I'm not mistaken) that he meant how some
>>>>>>>>speakers (NS-10s in your case) are easier to listen to than
>>others
>>>>>>>>due to their sound characteristics. This may vary from
>>listenter
>>>>to
>>>>>>>>listener on what's considered a pleasing sound or not. Ever
>>crank
>>>>>>up a
>>>>>>>>set of speakers, whether monitors or home/car speakers, and
>>>>>>go 'Yeow!
>>>>>>>>I can't listen to those things anymore!'? I'm not sure, but if
>>you
>>>>>>>>listen to those type of speakers for too long, wou will
>>actually
>>>>>>black
>>>>>>>>out and do things to mixes that you'd normally would not do...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Brian Franz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ok, can someone explain ear fatigue to me, as it being
>>>>speaker
>>>>>>>>>>dependant? As I always understood ear fatigue, it came from
>>>>>>mixing
>>>>>>>>>>for a long period of time, and was significantly increased
by
>>>>>>>>>>monitoring at loud levels for long periods of time. So how
>>does
>>>>>>>>this
>>>>>>>>>>vary from speaker to speaker? It seems like I can listen to
>>a
>>>>>>pair
>>>>>>>>>>of NS-10's for 24hours straight at very low levels and not
>>>>really
>>>>>>>>>>have any ear fatigue. It seems like this is some kind of
>>sales
>>>>>>>>>>marketing "buzz" word to me, so can anyone explain this to
>>me?
>>>>>>And
>>>>>>>>>>how one speaker can have better ear fatigue than the other?

>>Do
>>>>>>you
>>>>>>>>>>actually go to the music store and listen to a pair of
>>speakers
>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>>say.....(yawn)..."wow...those speakers really made me tired,
>>>>it's
>>>>>>>>>>time
>>>>>>>>>>for my ears to take a nap." :-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Brad Holbrooks wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>David,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Go to a music store that has all the different monitors
>>you've
>>>>>>>>been
>>>>>>>>>>>>looking at and give them the old ear test. Take a CD you
>>are
>>>>>>>>>>familiar
>>>>>>>>>>>>with and find the monitors that give you a wide frequency
>>>>>>response
>>>>>>>>>>>>and good stereo placement of sounds with little ear
>>fatigue.
>>>>>>>>That's
>>>>>>>>>>>>the best advice I got when I was looking for monitors. I
>>chose
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>>>Mackie HR824's. You can hear the highest hi's, the lowest
>>>>>>low's.
>>>>>>>>>>The
>>>>>>>>>>>>stereo placement of each sound is unbelievable and you can
>>mix
>>>>>>for
>>>>>>>>>>>>long periods of time with very little ear fatigue. The
>>>>>>frequency
>>>>>>>>>>>>response is flat as a pancake. But you be the judge.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I would also suggest a small set of speakers and the pair
>>of
>>>>>>>>>>speakers
>>>>>>>>>>>>you are most familiar with, like your home stereo or your
>>car
>>>>>>>>>>stereo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>I use my old 1984 ghetto blaster for small speaker
>>monitoring
>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>>my
>>>>>>>>>>>>stereo speakers for crankin it up. When I think I have my
>>>>final
>>>>>>>>mix
>>>>>>>>>>I
>>>>>>>>>>>>check it out in the car.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Good luck,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Brad
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>David W. Ruby wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Also why and what model no.We are looking at poss. the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>event 20/20 or 5s?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Need something with a bit more bottom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Let's hear about what users suggest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Thanx!!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:0

Speaker manufacturers overuse the term "ear fatigue", as they overuse
any term that is subjective enough not to get them into trouble. You
can bet that a team of lawyers look over every word of an ad campaign
looking for terms susceptible to innunedo and that the term "ear
fatigue" has been found to be benign in this regard because of its
subjectivity.

Marketing hype *implies* that ear fatigue is mainly the result of the
nonlinear frequency response of a transducer, applied to the ear
over a period of time ... IOW, partly the result of the antithesis of
your "flat" definition.

Since people vary so much in their response to stimuli, you can bet
this is not the whole ball of wax. Taking into account your "flat"
definition - accurate reproduction of input - and the reference to
the "Marilyn Manson concert", you can make a strong case that it has
as much to do with content, or other components in the chain, as it
does with the transducer.

Apparently, if you are susceptible to ear fatigue, wearing headphone
and ear monitors can exacerbate the problem, so the transducer, with
its function solely dependent upon its ability to reproduce input,
has got to play a big part in the phenomenon whether you can quantify
the contributing factors are not.

The Marketeers take if from there.

KAC ...


Brian Franz wrote:

>>So if anyone else can give me an explanation of what
characteristics
>>of a monitor actually cause "less ear fatigue", it would be greatly
>>appreciated. Otherwise, I will have to assume this is nothing, but
a
>>bunch of sales marketing lies. I can think of nothing using my
>>electrical engineering background, which would characterize a
speaker
>>to have less ear fatigue, other than comparing apples to oranges.
>>
>>Any Sonic Foundry engineers or techs have any input on this?