|
|
Has anyone used Ferguson Hill speakers?
I checked out the Ferguson Hill speaker system for my Mac Pro Book and they are truly amazing... the science behind this system is incredible as they use little voltage and are loud and clear. They also look amazing. Seriously cool. PhilK
Haven't tried it. My usual test for a speaker is to play the CD for Drive by the Cars, a few symphony and concerto recordings that I am familiar with, and listen closely for coloration on the sound. Low energy consumption sounds like a bad thing for good bass response, which requires large diaphragms and lots of energy.
www.strypesinpost.com
That is where the genius comes in... low energy consumption does not hinder the power. I only have the desk top set up and it kicks. I think they do big systems also. It's weird and wonderful and worth a bit of research. Phil UK
For music and looking cool on your desktop sure- but they don't look particularly useful/accurate for editing. Now the Salisbury Hill speakers- those rock.
Noah
Final Cut Studio Training, featuring the HVX200, EX1, EX3, DVX100, DVDSP and Color at [ www.callboxlive.com]!
Author, RED: The Ultimate Guide to Using the Revolutionary Camera available now at: [ www.amazon.com].
Editors Store- Gifts and Gear for Editors: [ www.editorsstore.com]
Hate to say it but all of these are style over substance PC speakers. Noah definitely has it right, they look cool, sound fine for playing iTunes but for mixing edited projects or any semblance of accuracy, not really going to cut it.
None of the radically shaped or engineered designs have proven to be superior or even equal to the good old box cavity design that we have had for a hundred years and they have been trying to have style with accurate sound since the 60's but it hasn't really achieved success, even with high end audiophiles that buy stuff like the B&W Nautilus [ www.bowers-wilkins.com] They sound good but you don't see them in recording studios. Still using the good old Dynaudios, Adams, Genelecs, etc.
Dan
So Dan, which speakers do you think that will work for editing audio on the computer. I am an audiophile and was loooong before I got into video production, yet, still can't determine a good editing audio monitor that won't bring with it a 2nd mortgage. (personally I like Aerial Acoustics for home theater and music but iTunes downloads suck in range anyway, so I wouldn't waste my time trying to get music to sound good off them.)
Steve
steve-sharksdelight
[ www.fergusonhill.co.uk] uses the same Lowther DX3 I use in my hifi speakers. I have no doubt that they'd sound quite incredible.
There are oh-so-many ways to build loudspeakers, not least because no one design is perfect. Single drivers like the above that I use, need no cross-over so you hear no cross-over. Because the horn acts as a transformer to match to a room, you're not using resonance to do the bass, and although it doesn't go deep, it is clean.
Boxes that are sealed are not using resonance for the bass (like a bass reflex ported box), but are generally very in-efficient necessitating large amplification. You may hear the bass cross over to the treble, you may also hear the box itself.
Planar speakers like the Quad ESLs have been used a lot in professional environments for classical music monitoring. They don't go loud, don't do deep bass, but do sound incredibly transparent.
Monitor loudspeakers are generally active designed with separate amps for the drive units, which can really help by putting the cross-over on the input signal, rather than after the main amplifiers.
Graeme
[ www.nattress.com] - Plugins for FCP-X
Steve Douglas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So Dan, which speakers do you think that will work
> for editing audio on the computer. I am an
> audiophile and was loooong before I got into video
> production, yet, still can't determine a good
> editing audio monitor that won't bring with it a
> 2nd mortgage. (personally I like Aerial Acoustics
> for home theater and music but iTunes downloads
> suck in range anyway, so I wouldn't waste my time
> trying to get music to sound good off them.)
> Steve
Look for an active studio monitor- such as Tannoy, Alesis, Mackie. Be prepared to spend up to $1K a pair for something decent. Also proper audio monitors are XLR input so you'll need a good digital to audio interface from say MOTU or M-Audio.
Noah
Final Cut Studio Training, featuring the HVX200, EX1, EX3, DVX100, DVDSP and Color at [ www.callboxlive.com]!
Author, RED: The Ultimate Guide to Using the Revolutionary Camera available now at: [ www.amazon.com].
Editors Store- Gifts and Gear for Editors: [ www.editorsstore.com]
I've had fairly good luck with KRK VXT6's. They're really inexpensive, at less than $500 each list. I've seen them street for under $400 each. Good for basic mixing.
Everyone I guess has their own tastes - what I like about Ferguson Hill is their clarity and for desk top editing they are great.
Hi Steve:
The first thing to do is to avoid buying any PC speakers. All video is edited on a computer these days and all sound is mixed on computers but that has nothing to with wanting to put a pair of cute little speakers next to your computer.
The purpose of audio monitors for mixing sound is to present that sound to you in an unbiased way with as little "coloration" or distortion to the true sound as possible. Most video editors buy home, PC or very colored audio monitors and call it day, it sounds "good" to them so everything is fine. The problem with this approach is identical to monitoring the video signal. Unless you have a broadcast grade video monitor, whatever you are seeing, color correcting and putting effects on is distorted from the signal that is truly there. Audio works the same way. If your speakers color the sound with their own various bass enhancements and treble boosts, the audio that your monitors is presenting to you is distorted beyond the reality of the signal that the project contains so you are not able to make accurate creative and or engineering decisions about that signal because you are not hearing what is really there.
The purpose of studio monitors is to present the audio to you without enhancing the sound. All PC speakers are created for enhancing the sound, typically by boosting the bass and treble, the equivalent of a "U" shaped curve on a graphic EQ that your roommate in college had on their stereo. Fine for non-critical listening, terrible for sound mixing. No audio monitors are truly neutral. When you think about it, it becomes a philosophical question, "what does my audio REALLY sound like?". The goal is to hear the baseline sound with no enhancements, warts and all, so that you as a sound mixer can begin to problem solve and enhance the sound intelligently. Without hearing the sound as close as to what it really is, how can you accurately solve problems and enhance the sound?
Graeme has some good points of what to look for, mainly about the amplification for self-powered monitors. They are the standard. The rule of thumb has been generally that fairly accurate monitors BEGIN at about U.S. $1,000.00 per pair and go up from there. That means that anything you buy that costs less than that may sound "good", but it won't sound accurate.
In my experience, the following can be good sounding monitors, but none of them will ever be considered capable of accurate, uncolored sound:
Any speakers sold at home audio outlets
Any PC speakers
Any speakers that try to present themselves as studio monitors but upon examination and test measurement, turn out to be home audio speakers masquerading as studio monitors. These are brands like Event, KRK, low end Tannoy, low end JBL consumer, Behringer, Yamaha, Mackie (borderline on Mackie, some of the larger models are not too bad but their lower end models don't cut it), Roland, M-Audio, Alesis, etc. This list could go on forever, there are literally hundreds of models and brands that play this game. Pick up an issue of EQ or Guitar Player and you will lots of glossy, full page ads for these brands. They sell a lot of them. They are not bad gear but they are not accurate studio monitors.
True studio monitors generally come from companies you may have not heard of because they don't sell hundreds of thousands of pairs of them. They are expensive, they don't have huge advertising budgets and they are specialized. The average musician or video editor would think that these monitors have a tendency to sound "flat", not "good", which is exactly the point. Audio monitors are not supposed to make music, voices, effects sound "good", that is what speakers are for. Brands in this category are Genelec, Dynaudio Acoustics, Hafler, JBL Pro, Tannoy high end, Adam, etc. There not nearly as many manufacturers in this category as there are in the previous category. Read audio engineering magazines like EQ, Recording, Studio Monthly, etc. and you will see what real recording engineers use. If you need/want accurate monitoring, that is what you buy.
Ironically, the most important thing about audio monitors is not which monitor you buy, but the environment in which you use them. Unfortunately, 98% of all edit bays are setup for terrible audio, lots of reflective, hard surfaces, slapback echo, parallel walls with lots of 90 degree corners, standing bass wave issues, etc.
As far as your editing/mixing environment, buying accurate monitors is a waste of money unless you are willing to modify your sound mixing environment. A good place to begin is [ www.acoustics101.com] to learn about room characteristics and how to tame them. You also need to either hire an audio engineer or audio builder to accurately "tune" your room. In actuality, when sound people say tuning the room, they also mean tuning the output of your audio monitors to minimize room anomalies. This is done through using a noise generator/spectrum analyzer with a microphone and with a graphic EQ. I have one of each, they are not that expensive, perhaps a few hundred dollars each, but without them, you are still at the mercy of the room characteristics. Using the spectrum analyzer, you can "see" where the audio problems are in the room and EQ the monitor output to boost or cut the offending frequencies until you end up with a pretty flat and accurate sound in the room you are mixing in. Hardly any video editor will ever do this, it is too much hassle, work and money but it is what real sound mixers do when the mixing rooms and stages are built. It is also the only way to ever hear close to a true representation of what your sound really sounds like. It is the only accurate way you can take a single project and turn out separate mixes for web, home video and theatrical mixes.
The best method is to leave all of this to the pros. I have worked on all of the great sound and mixing stages at all of the studios, I have worked with and interviewed all of the best dubbing mixers in LA and NY. We, as video editors will never even come close to what the audio pros can do, but most corporate, web, low budget films will never have the budget to use these artists to create their soundtrack so we have to do it ourselves. The least we can do is to try to emulate what they are capable of, beginning with playing on a level field in being able to hear our audio accurately.
Dan
Very good points which Dan brought up.
I won't exactly use the word "flat" to describe a studio monitor. To me, they sound fabulous. Sure, there's no "rock" or "pop" equalizer preset, but that's the whole purpose- unbiased sound with GREAT transparency and clarity. You can hear an 18 khz distortion on the right channel and it sounds as obvious as a fly buzzing next to your ear. You can clearly recognize the position of each and every stringed instrument in an orchestra, and they don't "fuse" together as one bunch of stringed instruments. You can hear each note from the double bass, down to the string buzz, you can even hear a mild room tone in a studio recording. Perspective, good separation of frequencies, etc.. You need that kind of clarity to do any proper EQ-ing. Why? Because if you can't hear it, you can't get rid of it, you can't shape it, and those sounds may pop up somewhere else on someone's speakers.
Professional monitoring systems are designed like this- mix to it, and it'll sound great across the board, across the general spectrum of consumer speakers in the market. If consumer speaker adds lots of bass, then all the professional music mixes will sound very bassy. Just like consumer TV sets- if something looks washed out on a consumer set, all professionally graded shows will look washed out on that set.
Just like you need to grade in a good room- no mixed lighting, no bright colored walls.. The same goes for audio- sufficient soundproofing, nicely tuned, not too much reflective surfaces, etc..
www.strypesinpost.com
Dan, You should turn this into an article for everyone to see and read. Very informative and helpful to most everyone. While my home theater is very high end and was only recently reset with real time analyizers for monitor output and distance from the main listening point, I am still using PC speakers, JBL, that while fine for PC speakers, don't cut it to really monitor audio. I have been in ancharic chambers before and it is a mind expanding experience to hear a speaker as it really sounds uncolored and affected by a normal environment. I know that this may sound stupid, but how are the monitors actually connected to the computer for output? Will I need to buy a separate amp or preamp which then goes into the computer? I really need to research this before I actually go out and procure speakers for reviews and such. Much thanks for such a thoughtful response
Steve
steve-sharksdelight
> how are the monitors actually connected to the computer for output?
Most of them would go out through a D/A convertor through analog XLRs into a graphic equalizer into the speakers. There may be some systems that support AES/EBU signals.
www.strypesinpost.com
Everything Dan said is pretty much right, but in audio more so than video, the editor has to make compromises. Sure, you could do your offline in a million-dollar, professionally designed and insulated room with theatrically balanced sound, but nobody does. Cause that's just overkill. Likewise, you could do your offline with a grade-one God monitor, but lots of people opt not to, using something like a $5,000 Panasonic HD-SDI LCD instead. Cause it's good enough.
The decision really has to be made in response to the question, "What's sufficient?" For most offline rooms, KRKs or low-end Genelecs are fine, in my experience. The monitors have to be transparent enough for the clients not to complain. That means powered studio monitors fed by a good-quality signal, but you don't have to drop three grand on them either.
Bad news is that just as there's no perfect video monitor, there is no perfect audio monitor. What you have to learn to do is have seen enough monitors, heard enough speakers to see/hear through the deficiencies in what you're using.
Indeed, what is worse still, is that unless you have a reference to what is "typical" for the end user, you could actually be making a worse picture by using a reference monitor rather than some crappy TV from the big box store. Now, I'm sure to get the details on this wrong, but the reference monitors for NTSC had different primaries to the TVs used by everyone at home, so if you got the colors right on your reference, they were practically guaranteed to be wrong for the home user, and this also had something to do with the design of the NTSC color primaries, but I'm fuzzy on the details....
If you master audio flat on a well designed monitor speaker, it could be too harsh and aggressive on a cheaper speakers typical of the end user. Or you might put in too much bass and have it boom on cheaper gear if you have strong notes where they typically resonate.
So, it's always good to use the best monitoring gear that you can as a diagnostic tool, as a reference, as a telescope or microscope on what you're doing. But I'd always "double check" on lesser or more typical gear too. For audio, check on a good pair of headphones as well as your monitors and a typical home hifi for instance.
Graeme
To piggyback on what Graeme says, I totally agree. You should always have a pair of Yamaha NS10s or Auratones or even the cheap speakers on a video monitor or TV to do a reality check on what it will sound like on a low quality system. But if all you use to mix your audio on is a low end system, you may be in for a nasty surprise when someone plays your program back on a decent quality system.
Music levels, in particular, are a big stumbling point. Mix your music levels, especially behind dialogue, on quality monitors and you will hear the music perfectly. Check that same mix on some bad quality speakers and the music may disappear. These days, you may need to turn out several different mixes if your work is seen on the web, DVD, broadcast and theatrical. Those venues all require different levels and different mixes to sound good.
Dan
That said Dan, is there a consensus as to what the best PC models of speakers might be?
steve-sharksdelight
A pair of these are less than U.S. $600.00 [ www.bhphotovideo.com]
I had my producing partner buy a pair and they are not bad, pretty accurate with a neutral sounding environment but you really will eventually have to lay out the cash for the matching subwoofer.
Dan
|
|
All the news now and in your digital future
