Budget Studio Monitors: Do They Work?

[elmagoo]

I use a set of Event TR-8 (Tuned Reference series) which are $499. I absolutely recommend these monitors, everything comes through clearly and defined so you can really hear what you're doing. Although I do agree with all the comments about how you should really consider tuning your room (after all, it's also a part of your monitoring system). It would usually take me several attempts to get a good mix, but I finally treated my room this weekend and boy can you tell the difference. I played a mix on my living room setup, and it sounded exactly (or damn close) as it did through my Event's in my studio. I'm very much looking forward to doing new material and seeing how it fully translates.

BTW, and real handy method for listening to your mixes on your living room stereo system without burning a CD. If you have a PS3 or an Xbox 360, you can stream your .WAV file to your system via your home network using them as a media extender. It's so convienient to export the mix and just go in the other room and call it up .

[jay jay]

Originally Posted by elmagoo

It would usually take me several attempts to get a good mix, but I finally treated my room this weekend and boy can you tell the difference. I played a mix on my living room setup, and it sounded exactly (or damn close) as it did through my Event's in my studio. I'm very much looking forward to doing new material and seeing how it fully translates.
.

What type of room and what did you do to treat it?

[elmagoo]

Originally Posted by jay jay

What type of room and what did you do to treat it?

I figured Brandon probably wants this thread to remain on topic about monitors, so I started a new one to answer your question

Break out from Budget Monitor thread: How I treated my studio

[jerrybob]

I recently purchased 2 Roland CM-30 cube monitors for my home studio setup, and I think they work great, not costing a whole lot.

[ietje]

Hi,

We recently bought KRK powered rokit 5 monitors for our little studio and what a difference it made compared to what I had before... (computer speakers... ) I'm very happy with the sound and the mixing I've done so far.. (and they look great too ) But I'm still dreaming about some genelecs... (maybe for my next studio, which is going to be a little bigger)

Ietje (finding my way in home-recording-land)

[String7th]

I thond know if I would call my monitors budget, I got them both for $400, but it was when a Brook Mays was closing down and a year ago. They sell for $500 a pair now.

Event TR8


When I got these, I had nothing to compare them to, as they were my first pair of real studio monitors. I thought they were monsters and sounded awesome. Over time I found them to be a bit distorted on the highs and cause ear fatigue. The highs and lows being off were about 90% my room reflection problems, but I still had a hard time tuning them. It got even harder to tune after I got a 10" powered sub. I debated on a sub very heavily, but I decided I don't want to guess on the lows.

After a year and a half of use and acoustically tuning my room, I have the truest, real-to-the-outside-world set up I can get with my equipment. But it's mainly because of extensive moving and tuning of the monitors, corner bass absorbers, side/ceiling reflection traps, and lots patience. The only complaint I have is the ear fatigue from the highs. I may choose an ADAM ribbon system if I get the option to do so.

[leng7271]

I use a set of M-Audio BX8s which I love but tend to be a little low end heavy in my room.
I recently learned I really cool trick though that I will share because it may help out everyone no matter what monitors you are using. Here goes -

Okay, the main purpose of studios monitiors ( as far as I know ) is to give a true and accurate representation of what is being played so that you can mix it appropriately. However, we all know that is rarely the case because it also depends on the music you are mixing, the monitors you are using, the room you are in and a hundred other factors. Which is why most of us mix, then burn cd's, listen to them on other systems, then re-mix and repeat the process. Arrrrrgggghhhh!!!!!
For me I have found that my car stereo and my home stereo are pretty good for me to listen to my mixes on and decide what levels need to be changed, so find yourself a good source for that. Then, heres the trick -
Mix down your song where it sounds right to you on your studio monitors, then burn a cd of it listen to it on your other sound sources (car, home stereo etc.) and figure out what needs to change. Is the bass guitar too hot, are the highs too bright, etc. Try to listen in terms of frequencies on an eq, (in other words 6k though 12k need to be cut back, like that).
Now go back to your monitors and patch an eq into your monitoring chain. Now this is going to sound backwards but trust me. If the frequencies for your bass guitar were too hot, boost them more on the eq. If your mids werent coming out strong enough cut them back more on the eq. In other words, if it was too hot, boost it if it was too soft make it softer with the eq.
Now go back and remix your song with the eq adjusted.
Everywhere that the eq is boosted you will now hear it too strong and you will compensate for it by lowering it in the mix. Everywhere you are dropping the freqs on the eq you will automatically boost it in the mix.
Essentially you are eqing your monitors to your room and your mix. Do this a few times with a few different songs.
What will eventually happen is you will get an eq setting that you can use on your monitors whenever you are mixing that will give you a more true representation of what is going on in your mix.
Now when you burn a cd, and go listen to it somewhere else, it will sound just like it did in the monitors, which is the goal.
Hope it works for others the way it works for me.

[Charlie_M]

Originally Posted by brandondrury

....how do you know if tones are there in the first place without a good studio monitoring system.

That's a fairly chicken-egg question, but really you can bootstrap it with quality heaphones. I doubt that anyone would put headphones out there as a "quality monitoring system" but even with my modest headphones I can judge whether or not I have a good tone in a given track. I have found through bitter experience that I cannot tell how it's getting on with the rest of the tracks using phones, but for assessing whether I have something I can really work with or not in a guitar, bass, drum, or vocal track, I 'm happy enough with my ability to make the call using phones.

Originally Posted by brandondrury

I've heard way too many times from bands I've worked with that a given effect, trick, or thingy sounded badass on my monitors and flat out stupid on other systems.

Could be that their system is crap. I'm not compelled to make an AM radio sound good. I want everything to sound balanced no matter what kind of POS the user may play it on but... the user gets what he pays for on audio quality just like me.

But really I wasn't talking so much about effects. When I talk about the creative aspect of making the song interesting for the listener, I was talking more about dynamics on a macro scale... making the listener listen to the part of the song I want him to listen to, and allowing that to change throughout the song. Effects are part of that I guess, but when I think about making it interesting for the listener, I'm thinking primarily about dynamics and the interplay between the various instruments and voices. Tension/release, that kind of stuff. To me that is the creative aspect.

Originally Posted by brandondrury

Interesting. I have some high end mics and preamps and I consider them nearly useless without great monitoring.

OK... "uncle!" I'm really not into having the preamp debate any more. You're either on board with the idea that having a range of high quality mics and preamps at your disposal is a big deal (even with modest monitors) or not. What I have heard so far tells me it unquestionably is. In my mind it is beyond the realm of debate. I prioritize that over upgrading my monitors any day. I still don't even own a really top shelf mic, but that is higher on the list than upgrading monitors. Nothing says all people engaged in recording have to agree on how to prioritize things. That's just how it breaks down for me. Everyone follows their own path I guess. In the end you kinda want to have it all good stuff anyway (monitors, mics, preamps, outboard, etc...) no?

Originally Posted by brandondrury

It's clear that your monitoring system is way better than you let on.

I wish... but no.... it's crappy Behringer Truth monitors in a spare bedroom. Soon it will be crappy Behringer Truth monitors in a shed! I have some flimsy foam on the walls to keep the echoes down while singing but I don't own a single bass trap. No shit. I don't feel compelled to go for those yet. I may some day of course, but for now, between those modest monitors, "bootstrapping" tracks (as I described earlier) with headphones, and listening on a few different systems plus down the hall, it's working out pretty well I think. I don't know how to rate my monitoring systems relative to that of others. But I do notice that when I play my music on other systems, 7 or 8 out of 10 systems I play it on sound better than my monitors. I think that means my monitors kinda suck. Also... aren't there a lot of "name" engineers who swear by their NS-10's, the POS of the ages?

Charlie

[brandondrury]

. I mean I can get a good mix on computer speakers if I go reference it on 3-4 different systems and make adjustments, why should I pay a bunch of money for studio monitors to still have to do the same thing?

What about during tracking? Are you going to move a mic, record a 10 second part, listen, not trust your studio monitors, burn a cd, listen on your home stereo, move the mic 1" and then repeat the whole process? There is a HUGE advantage to having accuracy from the beginning.

I've heard way too many times from bands I've worked with that a given effect, trick, or thingy sounded badass on my monitors and flat out stupid on other systems.

Could be that their system is crap. I'm not compelled to make an AM radio sound good. I want everything to sound balanced no matter what kind of POS the user may play it on but... the user gets what he pays for on audio quality just like me.

You are using 2-dimensional thinking in regard to speakers. I have a big section on this in my upcoming home recording book. The speaker situation is much more complicated than cheap vs expensive.

Effects are part of that I guess, but when I think about making it interesting for the listener, I'm thinking primarily about dynamics and the interplay between the various instruments and voices.

You can pick and choose aspects of a mix that you may feel important, but everything effects everything. The idea is to present the music in a flattering way, but the human brain only has so much tolerance for distraction. The issue of accurate studio monitoring is not limited to just frequency response, effects, or relative levels. Any factor in a mix can change from one system to another. This "tension/release" thing you are talking about is exactly what I'm talking about. If you haven't noticed that a given piece of music wasn't more effective on your studio monitors than it was elsewhere, you either have an accurate sounding system or you haven't listened on enough stereos.

I think the "tension / release" concept you are referring to is the most sensitive to accurate studio monitoring. It's the most sensitive to distraction.

Maybe I'm more aggressive on this topic because I have to answer to bands who take the mixes out to 20 stereos and find each and every issue. (Kick drum is too loud in my car but not loud enough at home... is a common one.) A dude recording his music and selling it won't be getting mixing critiques from people buying the cd or whatever.

You're either on board with the idea that having a range of high quality mics and preamps at your disposal is a big deal (even with modest monitors) or not. What I have heard so far tells me it unquestionably is.

Is the "what you've heard" from your studio monitors (and other listening systems) or hearsay? I'm curious if you would draw the same conclusion from listening without outside bias. You've clearly never recorded a $6k guitar rig through a $1k mic, $2k preamp, and $1k converter thinking you've got something that sounds great just to play the mix for a friend and found out what you have a complete piece of shit. I'm talking full out embarassment. I have. So much for Rivera, Neve, Royer, and Mytek.

Your studio monitoring is obviously excellent. In that case, the fun toys are recommended.

It's clear that your monitoring system is way better than you let on.

I wish... but no.... it's crappy Behringer Truth monitors in a spare bedroom.

You are judging your studio monitoring system by the apparent quality of the gear and not the quality of the resulting work from using those tools. It's VERY easy for us to say "Behringer sucks", but if your mixes translate better than mine, I'll have to eat my words. I expect this is how you've came to your decisions on preamps and other gear. There is no reason to question the status quo if it has worked out for you, I guess. Again, when you do everything the way you are supposed to and the results are substandard what do you blame? What do you fix?

Brandon

[Charlie_M]

Originally Posted by brandondrury

You are using 2-dimensional thinking in regard to speakers.

OK that's not very nice. No hard feelings... I get that you're jsut trying to be clear but geez man ... I think everyone with more than 5 brain cells understands that a lexus is very different from a mercedes which is itself worlds away from a caddy. Yet they are all very much in a different league (in a good way) from my volkswagen.

Originally Posted by brandondrury

You can pick and choose aspects of a mix that you may feel important, but everything effects everything. The idea is to present the music in a flattering way, but the human brain only has so much tolerance for distraction.

Agreed. This is the "focus" aspect. It has taken me a long time to incoorporate the idea that no matter how good a job you do on a given part (voice, lead, whatever) you MUST give it a nice empty stage to sit on if you want the listener to appreciate it (even better if they appreciate it without you knowing you called it to their attention!). I consider this more an arrangement issue than a mixing issue, but clearly both have to cooperate to get there.

Originally Posted by brandondrury

Is the "what you've heard" from your studio monitors (and other listening systems) or hearsay?

Mainly my headphones, but also enough other systems that I'm satisfied I'm hearing accurately.

Originally Posted by brandondrury

I think the "tension / release" concept you are referring to is the most sensitive to accurate studio monitoring. It's the most sensitive to distraction.

Could be... rather than hashing it out abstractly any further, let me get a mix together and post it for review. I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts on it, and those of the rest of the crew. Might take me a while - we just began a move this morning so my stuff is going to be dismantled shortly, to be put back together some time down the road - we're moving into a smaller house so I won't have a spare bedroom to record in any more, but the LOT is bigger so I can build my own little shed to record in. It'll be great but will take a certain amount of time to get building permits and whatnot. I may set up a temp rig in the garage in the meantime... not sure.

Charlie