This YT video might be interesting (the making of a studio monitor, beware of the usual 'best' clickbait in the title ....). They are revealing the drivers in the (upcoming) second part, but most likely Bliesma dome mid and tweeter, Hypex DSP and amps.
I have this book kicking around somewhere - will dig it out again.
I am in general a bit trial and error natured and then learning as I go / make mistakes. Fully aware that getting into the science of things first would be a more efficient way of approaching a project like this but also I tend to find that I learn the lessons better with a somewhat trial and error approach. Also have reasonable maker / construction skills so can play around with things in a relatively inexpensive way.
So If cabinet size is not an issue and there are other effective ways to reduce cabinet vibrations when not limited by cabinet size / materials there are no significant advantages of side firing and indeed some quite significant disadvantages? Are there other reasons the barefoot implementation sounds so good then to my ears - I really like how they are on the low end and would just want to extend the range down lower. Definitely would want a DSP crossover so as to have the ability to freely experiment and this speaker is not something I would ever want to put into production.
Have heard some high end scm300 soffit installations but would not even know where to start with building something fully custom from scratch ... definitely have the abilities to make something though as the studio itself I will be building from scratch using a design for a surround studio initially developed for me by Recording Architecture. To be honest its also hard to find information on studio construction from scratch - so many people are working with solving the problems of existing structures - very few people building a completely new dedicated space.
Thanks for the link - will definitely follow their work. But also want something a bit more substantial - as mentioned I have no limit on cabinet size and as they are trying to develop an atmos system I guess that will be one of the major constraining issues for them ...
With enough budget I wouldn't be looking at plate-amps; instead I'd be looking at multi-channel digital preamps (and likely those designed for crossover use) along with the amplifiers I'd want for each respective driver. (..and while the amp's can have certain audible character, even from an objective perspective, there is the option for "current" amplifier use - and most notably for tweeters (and some mid-ranges) that can have objective results superior to most common "voltage" amplifiers.)
miniDSP is the most obvious, more costly is DEQX:
https://www.deqx.com/
If you have enough space I'd strive for a full-range floor-standing system about 65% of the way *into the room and the listener/mastering about 8 feet away from each loudspeaker ("stereo triangle") and almost 80% of the way into the room.
*into the room equating to the distance from the "front wall" (ie. the wall behind the loudspeakers: the one the listener is facing).
I'd start into 4" rockwool (fabric-covered) about 70% of the way into the room and covering the wall's and ceiling (with a very thick carpet and multiple carpet pads in that same portion of the room) all the way to (and including) the "rear wall".
At the loudspeakers and behind them I'd have a "live" symmetrical space without diffusion or absorption (like hardwood floors and double/triple walled sheet-rock with a skim-coat of Weicon 310 M in-between the sheet-rock) for good specular reflections at the front line of the loudspeakers and behind them.
Finally I'd look into active (anti-phase) bass "absorbers" located in the corners of the "front wall".
Ideally you'd do it all in VR with virtual consoles so that you don't have a real console in front of your loudspeakers that also needs to be largely covered with 4" rockwool.
Last edited:
While there's a lot of information available online....there are a lot of pitfalls that take experience to avoid.
You'll need to define listening distance, output requirements, coverage pattern, room treatment, etc.
I'm sure there are budget constraints as well.
This is the current design - coffin shaped and with roof and floor tapering as well. Room will be totally deadened (with 1.6m of rockwool behind the main speakers 1m on the rear wall and 20cm floor / ceiling / side walls) and then strategically brought back to life. Total footprint is 13m long x 8mwide at the widest point and 3.5m high tapering to 3.2m at the rear. In the middle of nowhere so no issue with sound spillage - only needing to get it right internally so no need for floating floor etc.. This could be scaled / adjusted though.
So the primary goal is to have a full range mastering monitor setup, so optimising for that from the point of view of listening distance output requirements, coverage pattern, room treatment, etc. but I would also like to have to have the ability to turn it up to an enjoyable level.
In regards to budget dont really want to go into extreme esoteric territory but happy to spend whatever it takes to produce something that meets a premium standard in regards to the mastering objectives.
Attachments
I believe the OP asked about mastering monitors……that’s a very different thing than studio mix monitors. Baffle wall is out of the question. Extremely low power compression is essential…..the ATC mid checks that box. An even power response is beneficial but very hard to achieve without extensive analytics. From here, it’s ALL about a trained ear…….a speaker won’t do it alone.
If your a mix engineer……keep it that way……you won’t be able to stay in your own lane.
If your a mix engineer……keep it that way……you won’t be able to stay in your own lane.
While not as sexy as using ribbons and mid domes, the designs below are good recipes for highly dynamic accurate speakers with even coverage.
Some of these are linear phase as well. I think it's a benefit but it's still debatable to many people.
https://meyersound.com/product/bluehorn-system/
https://www.qsys.com/products-solut...ce-monitors/reference-monitor-system/rsc-112/
https://jblpro.com/en-US/product_families/m2
https://www.aia-cinema.com/active-speakers/black-swan.html#swan-anchor
https://www.genelec.com/1236a
My project will be a bigger uglier version of these if I ever finish it.
https://www.alconsaudio.com/product/crms/
There are some really nicely optimized waveguides being developed using Marcel's ATH software. Good option if you have a nice 3D printer.
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/acoustic-horn-design-the-easy-way-ath4.338806/
My dream speaker would be a larger ATH optimized version of this multiple entry horn equipped with small Purifi mids and a Beryllium compression driver. Crossed to BMS woofers covering the midbass.
http://redspade-audio.blogspot.com/2014/04/pse-144-launch-update.html?m=1
Just some ideas.
Some of these are linear phase as well. I think it's a benefit but it's still debatable to many people.
https://meyersound.com/product/bluehorn-system/
https://www.qsys.com/products-solut...ce-monitors/reference-monitor-system/rsc-112/
https://jblpro.com/en-US/product_families/m2
https://www.aia-cinema.com/active-speakers/black-swan.html#swan-anchor
https://www.genelec.com/1236a
My project will be a bigger uglier version of these if I ever finish it.
https://www.alconsaudio.com/product/crms/
There are some really nicely optimized waveguides being developed using Marcel's ATH software. Good option if you have a nice 3D printer.
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/acoustic-horn-design-the-easy-way-ath4.338806/
My dream speaker would be a larger ATH optimized version of this multiple entry horn equipped with small Purifi mids and a Beryllium compression driver. Crossed to BMS woofers covering the midbass.
http://redspade-audio.blogspot.com/2014/04/pse-144-launch-update.html?m=1
Just some ideas.
Seems some kind of LEDE setup, isn't it? I think studio design has evolved since then.
The Barefoot MM27 uses cone midrange drivers, where the crossover frequency can be much lower than with a midrange dome, even if it's a monster like the ATC dome.
And if you read the respective technical descriptions, you will find that the crossover frequency between woofer and midrange is 380 Hz for the ATC SCM300ASL (which is already very low for a dome) and 100 Hz for the Barefoot MM27.
Reasons why you should rather separate low in a sidefiring configuration have already been mentioned by @Hydrogen Alex.
Many greetings,
Michael
Translated with the help from www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
True, its a niche market with only a few companies to choose from, but the bricks and mortar Studio community is a close knit bunch and they are usually to happy to give advice and or a demo... Esp if you go in with the attitude of collaboration ie any jobs you cant take on you are happy to pass their way and visa versa... Metropolis can demo the "old sckool" PMC monsters Vs the superb neumann monitors (if you like ATC you will love these!) and in their Dolby mastering room they have built them into the walls.... You can build almost any "conventional" monitor into the walls if you use DSP for crossover/Eq...I heard the Atmos demo disk in there (thanks Matt!) and its very gob smackingly fab!!
https://www.thisismetropolis.com/3d/#gallery-1
Neumann design with time domain accuracy and dispersion as the top priorities... The frequency domain is easy peasy as you can Eq the sound in any room/desktop/in-wall situation very easily... Plus/minus 1dB over most of the frequency range is achievable in most rooms.
Reduced power compression is one of the key benefits of in-wall mounting! You can take any speaker and measure it in freespace (usually stand mount behind the console) and measure it... Assume 1 watt in and 90 dB SPL at one meter. Take the same speaker and flush mount it in the wall and you will gain a 3db from boundary reinforcement and totally eliminate baffle step compensation (good for about 2dB more SPL in power band ) plus, you totally eliminate the rear wall reflection issues... This last point is huge as the clarity of the sound is mission critial in any mixing or mastering scenario...Accuracy is what counts and reducing / eliminating time domain errors is number one, then eliminating reflections and dispersion errors then finally Eq'ing to a flat frequency response in the room... Easy really when you say it quickly!!
PS Theoretical differences between mastering and mixing are insignificant in the real world and there are no rules about "staying in your lane"... The vast majority of music is now created, mixed and mastered by young artists in bedroom studios using lap tops and headphones, with maybe a $300 pair of (disgusting!) Genelec desk top "monitors" to check how it sounds if any "old guys with audio systems" listen!!
I fully concur with all the points about flush mounting.
In my previous studio, I had a big absorber behind the speaker (60 cm, whole wall) and the difference with proper flush-mounting is astonishing.
We always think about the bass, but the clarity you get in the mids and above with a redirecting geometry to avoid - by design - early reflections from front and side walls entirely is also stunning. It really gives what I would call a sort of "immediacy" to the sound, for lack of a better word.
Also, under the Schroeder frequency of the room, velocity absorbers are not as good as you may see on an absorption calculator (which are derived from absorption in very big reverb chambers with statistically diffuse field in theses frequencies). With proper flush-mounting, you need proper pressure absorbers (like membranes).
In my previous studio, I had a big absorber behind the speaker (60 cm, whole wall) and the difference with proper flush-mounting is astonishing.
We always think about the bass, but the clarity you get in the mids and above with a redirecting geometry to avoid - by design - early reflections from front and side walls entirely is also stunning. It really gives what I would call a sort of "immediacy" to the sound, for lack of a better word.
Also, under the Schroeder frequency of the room, velocity absorbers are not as good as you may see on an absorption calculator (which are derived from absorption in very big reverb chambers with statistically diffuse field in theses frequencies). With proper flush-mounting, you need proper pressure absorbers (like membranes).
If you were mastering with proper monitors, you wouldn’t need boundary compensation to avoid power compression…..that’s a first aid measure when you shouldn‘t have gotten cut in the first place.
Yes…..the vast majority of music is produced today just as you described……thousands of songs and productions tethered to mediocrity at best. Think on that for a moment and where music is today…….you feed a pen of hogs corn mixed with their own $h!t…..sooner or later they can’t tell the difference. It’s this same logic you prescribe that have destroyed the music industry inside out….good job!
My point re in wall is that any monitor be it "proper" or not will perform way better when its in-wall...
Dispersion. Plus any 15" driver would have to be crossed very low anyway to avoid dispersion problems.
In a mix situation….maybe?…..in a mastering suite?……absolutely NOT if you’re doing a proper job of mastering. The mastering process has to account for a sense of space for users across multiple listening devices and platforms and the room matters during the process…..that’s not going to happen with a baffle wall.
Mayhem, out of curiosity, would this be based on the same reasoning as to have playback speakers placed out from the front and side walls to achieve the layered depth in the soundstage, and placement of the imaging to get that more 3d effect, versus left right placement in a mix? Glenn.