Mix advice needed!

octatonic · August 2019

Freebird said:

octatonic said:

WiresDreamDisasters said:

I don't really believe in EQ correcting monitors tbh. Fix it at the source - the room. It isn't hard to get a passable monitoring space in this day and age. A few hundred quid spent on DIY broadband absorbers will get you 90% of what you need.

Controlling uber lows is very difficult. But 100hz and upwards is pretty easy.

I ignored it for years myself. Trained on a pair of Tannoy reveals in a reverberated room. It's a surprise my mixes were any good back then tbh!

Precisely.

You don't need to spend loads of money on monitors in order to produce great sounding mixes, although I enjoy working on the Kii Three's a lot more than I did on my old Dynaudio's.
Before I had Dynaudio's I had some passive JBL's with an Alesis 100w power amp and various other things before that.
They were all broadly fine.

I'm not against DSP (obviously, owning the Kii's) but it cannot be a replacement for the usual real world stuff that needs to happen.
DSP on top isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it won't solve fundamental problems, or even mitigate them that well.

Except the MTMs only have a 3.5" woofer, and they operate at a lower output volume about a meter in front of your ears, which means they are throwing out less low frequency material that dissipates earlier. Obviously its a trade-off, but that is the idea behind them.

This shows you believe the marketing without looking deeper at the science/engineering behind it.
Do you own these?
Have you ever heard them?

Yes it has a 3.5" woofer, which means it has less excursion and can reproduce less bass but you know what else it has?
A big-ass rear port.

Cover that rear port up (like you can with a pair of ATC SCM25a's) and then tell me how much bass you are getting.
I've done this with the MTM.
Most of it goes.

The IK Multimedia marketing folks (and I say this as the owner of the iLoud's) seems to conflate a bunch of currently hip and fashionable audio marketing terms (point source, phase coherence, DSP controlled) and aim them at hobbiest without really demonstrating the efficacy of their claims.

Let's take one- 'point source'.

Here is a definition of a point source monitor:

"https://www.sweetwater.com/insync/point-source-monitor/

"A type of studio monitor or loudspeaker system in which sound only radiates from one location. One type of point source system would be one that has only one loudspeaker. In order to produce a high fidelity “full range” signal, one that can adequately cover the human range of hearing more than one driver is generally required. These are normally positioned across the face of a loudspeaker system, which causes different parts of the frequency range to emanate from slightly different spots. An example of a point source monitor would be a coaxial design where the tweeter sits in the center of the woofer, or on top of the center of the woofer, the full range of sound all comes from one place. The advantage of a point source design can be minimal phase cancellation of common frequencies reproduced by both drivers due to an overlap of energy around the crossover point due to path length differences from the two (or more) devices to your ear."

This is what a point source monitor looks like:

Image: https://www.genelec.com/sites/default/files/styles/product_gallery/public/media/8331ap-k01_0.jpg?itok=ztNt4-Wa

FWIW, these are also rear ported.
I'm not against ported designs- it is a good way to get low end out of a box, if the rest of the design is right.

IK Multimedia seem to be claiming 'point source' for their MTM: 'provides ultra precise, defined, point source sound'.
Why I do not know.
They aren't a point source monitor as much as I can see.
The marketing seems to reply on people who buy this sort of thing not knowing what point source is, maybe they have just read about it and seeing the words usually associated with much more expensive monitors make consumers feel good.
They are not using an established term correctly and in my opinion trying to confuse consumers and make something that is a decent prosumer product appear much more sophisticated than it is.

There is (and I say this knowing that it is falling on deaf ears) no free lunch here.
The MTM's are, what £350 in the UK.

Whilst it is true you don't need to spend thousands on high end monitors to produce finished records you still need to accurately assess the marketing claims of companies selling gear.

Anyway, we are quite a way off topic now.

Stuckfast · August 2019

Freebird said:
Except the MTMs only have a 3.5" woofer, and they operate at a lower output volume about a meter in front of your ears, which means they are throwing out less low frequency material that dissipates earlier. Obviously its a trade-off, but that is the whole idea behind their design philosophy. I am waiting to see what people are able to mix on them before I judge their capabilities.

If that was all there was to it, you could achieve the same benefits by positioning almost any nearfield monitor closer to your ears and operating it at a lower level. The point about the MTMs is that they each have two 3.5-inch drivers mounted one above the other. The interference pattern created by this arrangement gives them a different dispersion pattern from a conventional two-way monitor. In effect they become more directional in the mid-range, which can be useful in an untreated room, but as far as I know their bass radiation is still basically omnidirectional.

The idea of a super-nearfield monitor that is heavily DSP equalised to offer a flat low-frequency response at quiet listening levels isn't new -- check out the Abacus C3.

Freebird · August 2019

Stuckfast said:
If that was all there was to it, you could achieve the same benefits by positioning almost any nearfield monitor closer to your ears and operating it at a lower level. The point about the MTMs is that they each have
two 3.5-inch drivers mounted one above the other. The interference pattern created by this arrangement gives them a different dispersion pattern from a conventional two-way monitor. In effect they become more directional in the mid-range, which can be useful in an untreated room, but as far as I know their bass radiation is still basically omnidirectional.

The idea of a super-nearfield monitor that is heavily DSP equalised to offer a flat low-frequency response at quiet listening levels isn't new -- check out the Abacus C3.

The MTMs have been tuned down to 40Hz to bring out the low-end, which is also an inefficient design for a speaker of this size, but it works for it's it's intended purpose. This is a very niche product designed for a specific application. If you go outside of it's narrow operating boundaries, you will get distortion and a nasty port noise. I would not recommend these speakers for general purpose use. They are designed for mixing at moderate volume levels in the nearfield position.

I've looked at Abacus speakers, and I made a thread about them on here. They certainly lack the built-in DSP room correction & phase control, which makes the MTMs a unique product.

Freebird · August 2019

octatonic said:
This shows you believe the marketing without looking deeper at the science/engineering behind it.

Do you own these?
Have you ever heard them?

Yes it has a 3.5" woofer, which means it has less excursion and can reproduce less bass but you know what else it has?
A big-ass rear port.

Cover that rear port up (like you can with a pair of ATC SCM25a's) and then tell me how much bass you are getting.
I've done this with the MTM.
Most of it goes.

The IK Multimedia marketing folks (and I say this as the owner of the iLoud's) seems to conflate a bunch of currently hip and fashionable audio marketing terms (point source, phase coherence, DSP controlled) and aim them at hobbiest without really demonstrating the efficacy of their claims.

Let's take one- 'point source'.

Here is a definition of a point source monitor:

"https://www.sweetwater.com/insync/point-source-monitor/

"A type of studio monitor or loudspeaker system in which sound only radiates from one location. One type of point source system would be one that has only one loudspeaker. In order to produce a high fidelity “full range” signal, one that can adequately cover the human range of hearing more than one driver is generally required. These are normally positioned across the face of a loudspeaker system, which causes different parts of the frequency range to emanate from slightly different spots. An example of a point source monitor would be a coaxial design where the tweeter sits in the center of the woofer, or on top of the center of the woofer, the full range of sound all comes from one place. The advantage of a point source design can be minimal phase cancellation of common frequencies reproduced by both drivers due to an overlap of energy around the crossover point due to path length differences from the two (or more) devices to your ear."

This is what a point source monitor looks like:

[image snip]

FWIW, these are also rear ported.
I'm not against ported designs- it is a good way to get low end out of a box, if the rest of the design is right.

IK Multimedia seem to be claiming 'point source' for their MTM: 'provides ultra precise, defined, point source sound'.
Why I do not know.
They aren't a point source monitor as much as I can see.
The marketing seems to reply on people who buy this sort of thing not knowing what point source is, maybe they have just read about it and seeing the words usually associated with much more expensive monitors make consumers feel good.
They are not using an established term correctly and in my opinion trying to confuse consumers and make something that is a decent prosumer product appear much more sophisticated than it is.

There is (and I say this knowing that it is falling on deaf ears) no free lunch here.
The MTM's are, what £350 in the UK.

Whilst it is true you don't need to spend thousands on high end monitors to produce finished records you still need to accurately assess the marketing claims of companies selling gear.

Anyway, we are quite a way off topic now.

I'd believe everything what Bob Mueller had to say before I would pay any attention to the IKM marketing folks

I will listen to the comments of the real world users, and then I will try a pair for myself. I am operating in a domestic environment, and I won't be going down the full monty bass trap and multiple wall and ceiling panel route. I just need something to check my mixes at low volume in a true stereo image, while sitting in front of my computer. I would never pay £350 for the MTMs, and I can't see the price staying at that level for such a niche product (IKM are box shifters). I also have no desire to emulate Bob Clearmountain or one of the Lord-Alge twins, but should my asperations change then so will my budget and my room environment, and everything else music equipment related.

Yes, we are a bit off topic here, but it also offers a glimpse into the delights that await those who want to progress past the simple act of plugging their guitar into an amp, and thrashing the hell out of it. For my current environment, decent prosumer eqipment is perfectly fine for me if it can do the job.

andyoz · August 2019

I've got the Genelec 8351 and once you hear a true point source near field it's hard to move back. Scary good. Also the intermodulation distortion is very low. They are priced too high though (I didn't pay full price)

I looked at the MTM as a second pair of comparison monitors but I know I would be tempted to wind up the volume and I am fairly sure they would get into the region of bass distortion fairly quickly. Wonder when matching sub comes out?

Image: https://www.absolutemusic.co.uk/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/800x/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/g/e/gen8351_3.jpg

WiresDreamDisasters · August 2019

Is it really that huge a difference? I'm pretty happy with my Focal Alpha65's to be honest. Been in studios many many times over the years and used everything from KRK's, Yammy NS10's, and higher end Focals, Adams, Gennies... only ones I hated were the Gennies. Wayyyyyyy too basssy!

andyoz · August 2019

Yeah I compared to the normal Genelec two ways and you can tell the difference in the near field straight away.

I've never heard things like reverb trails laid out as clearly. Monitoring in the near field in my less than perfect (although pretty dead) room helps with that. Definitely less phase issues at the crossover points...moving your head barely changes the sound.

There's things I don't like about the 8351 (can get edgy at louder levels I like to listen at) but they can definitely rip a mix apart. Can be a bit edgy in the HF but I need to play around with it.

I need to try them with a sub as not enough balls there at times for me.

Branshen · September 2019

Have been busy with other projects so only got round to this tonight. Made the following changes:

lowered bass overall and added volume automation to lower bass even more during verse
raised volume electric guitar fills
compressed rhythm acoustic guitar to tame transients
lowered reverb on acoustic guitar abit

I've more or less run out of things I want to do to this track (mix-wise!). Really appreciate all the feedback!

https://soundcloud.com/brandon-shen-shi-han/best-part-marjo-mixdown-792019-tfb-feedback-6/s-lZ1Ii

Heartfeltdawn · September 2019

Sounds good to me.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Become a Subscriber!

Mix advice needed!

Comments