What pair of Studio monitors do you use? Set up questions

[lonewolf5460]

We have a pair of Adams audio tfv5 on my cousins set up and I love it. Been looking at these bookshelf speakers and other solutions to my set up just looking for ideas don't want to spend more than the pair of tfv5 @ $400. Also is it crazy to go sans DAC just use a 3.5 mm to RCA to the monitors? I mean its not the biggest deal just curious if anyone here has tried it. 

[emosun]

i use alesis monitor one's. they've been pretty good

[KawaiiNacho]

Im using mackie's but looking to upgrade to Klipsch. Heard only good things of them.

19 minutes ago, lonewolf5460 said:

Also is it crazy to go sans DAC just use a 3.5 mm to RCA to the monitors? I mean its not the biggest deal just curious if anyone here has tried it. 

If the signal does not need to be converted from analog to digital or vice versa, you won't need a dac. I ran my bookshelf speakers through a 3.5mm before and it worked just fine.

[Stormseeker9]

1 hour ago, lonewolf5460 said:

We have a pair of Adams audio tfv5 on my cousins set up and I love it. Been looking at these bookshelf speakers and other solutions to my set up just looking for ideas don't want to spend more than the pair of tfv5 @ $400. Also is it crazy to go sans DAC just use a 3.5 mm to RCA to the monitors? I mean its not the biggest deal just curious if anyone here has tried it. 

I’ve got mackies and also use aux to rca for connecting phones etc. for my decks obviously rca rca 

[vanished]

Was recently at a store where many units were up on display and I was able to A/B the same song on all of them.  Tried JBL 305P MkII, found them to be a bit muddy and with more bass than the rest but not in a good way - think quantity in the "mid bass" range rather than reaching really low to 20 Hz.  Tried some KRK Rokit, they were "good", don't remember any particular standouts for greatness or shortcomings.  Tried some Yamaha HS series (all sizes), found them a bit thin and hollow.  There were some other brands as well but they didn't leave enough of an impression that I remembered them.  Finally decided to try some from this brand I'd never heard of before called Focal (specifically the Alpha 50) and was immediately taken aback by the off-axis performance.  You could stand directly in front of them or move significantly off to the side and it sounded the same - a mark of a good speaker.  Besides that though, they also just sounded great.  It was a bit more than the rest we had been looking at but well worth it.  After playing some more Focals that cost 2 or 3x as much, it was clear that these sounded far closer to the $1000+ models that were 2 or 3x more than they did to the $200 ones that were half as much, or even the $300 offerings. (all prices in "per speaker", so double for the pair).

[theonlyratatoskr]

Best thing to do, go to an pro audio store near you and test them yourself!

 

Otherwise:

Take a look at the price-bracket you can afford and don't look at any others, they're just a distraction. Try these for more ideas:

https://www.thomann.de/gb/active_nearfield_monitors.html?pg=3&ls=25&oa=pra

 

Or, any of these will be amazing, too:

https://www.guitarfella.com/best-studio-monitors/under-500/

 

I would definitely try to buy a monitor that suits your current set up - from interface, to connectivity, to room. What interface do you currently have, how big is your room?

 

Finally, is this for audio production or enjoyment? You don't really want studio monitors for audio enjoyment.

[Derkoli]

4 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Was recently at a store where many units were up on display and I was able to A/B the same song on all of them.  Tried JBL 305P MkII, found them to be a bit muddy and with more bass than the rest but not in a good way - think quantity in the "mid bass" range rather than reaching really low to 20 Hz.  Tried some KRK Rokit, they were "good", don't remember any particular standouts for greatness or shortcomings.  Tried some Yamaha HS series (all sizes), found them a bit thin and hollow.  There were some other brands as well but they didn't leave enough of an impression that I remembered them.  Finally decided to try some from this brand I'd never heard of before called Focal (specifically the Alpha 50) and was immediately taken aback by the off-axis performance.  You could stand directly in front of them or move significantly off to the side and it sounded the same - a mark of a good speaker.  Besides that though, they also just sounded great.  It was a bit more than the rest we had been looking at but well worth it.  After playing some more Focals that cost 2 or 3x as much, it was clear that these sounded far closer to the $1000+ models that were 2 or 3x more than they did to the $200 ones that were half as much, or even the $300 offerings. (all prices in "per speaker", so double for the pair).

Focal are pretty damn popular in the audiophile world. But some of their studio stuff is still in the process of getting recognised if that makes sense. They make amazing stuff. I was considering getting a pair of their sopra 2's, they are extremely good for the money.

[Derkoli]

7 hours ago, lonewolf5460 said:

We have a pair of Adams audio tfv5 on my cousins set up and I love it. Been looking at these bookshelf speakers and other solutions to my set up just looking for ideas don't want to spend more than the pair of tfv5 @ $400. Also is it crazy to go sans DAC just use a 3.5 mm to RCA to the monitors? I mean its not the biggest deal just curious if anyone here has tried it. 

The studio i master at use genelec's and a few pairs of yamaha NS10's, i enjoy both of them.

[theonlyratatoskr]

1 hour ago, Derkoli said:

The studio i master at use genelec's and a few pairs of yamaha NS10's, i enjoy both of them.

Genelecs are great, very expensive though.

 

Speaking of - I'm playing a gig at the end of the month in an auditorium and they have (on top of a 16.4 surround system) six Genelec 1032C 's. They're £2,000+ each man, it's mad. Never mind the money spent on designing, building and treating the room. Link to venue 

[The Torrent]

a7x's in house with gaming rig for light music production, z8x's and adam sub8,

rme fireface 800 and ufx 2

[Lady Fitzgerald]

I'm using a pair of JBL 305p MkII 5" monitors and a JBL LSR310s subwoofer. I can feed them from the 3.5mm jack on my computer and they sounded ok but they really woke up when I fed them from a Dragonfly Red USB DAC.

[Derkoli]

2 hours ago, theonlyratatoskr said:

Genelecs are great, very expensive though.

 

Speaking of - I'm playing a gig at the end of the month in an auditorium and they have (on top of a 16.4 surround system) six Genelec 1032C 's. They're £2,000+ each man, it's mad. Never mind the money spent on designing, building and treating the room. Link to venue 

That's pretty cool. I can sense the reverb from that floor though lol. Genelec's are pretty nice. We use the 8341 SAM, 6000 usd if i remember correctly. Coaxial and dig pretty deep for the size. And i'm sort of missing my old surround sound setup now (15.2.5 Atmos), i still have the receiver and it has pre-outs so i could set up a 5.1 or 7.1 system with some spare speakers and power amps, hmm..

[theonlyratatoskr]

19 minutes ago, Derkoli said:

That's pretty cool. I can sense the reverb from that floor though lol. Genelec's are pretty nice. We use the 8341 SAM, 6000 usd if i remember correctly. Coaxial and dig pretty deep for the size. And i'm sort of missing my old surround sound setup now (15.2.5 Atmos), i still have the receiver and it has pre-outs so i could set up a 5.1 or 7.1 system with some spare speakers and power amps, hmm..

I was always confused by that. What's the third or middle number in that number sequence to denote speaker set-up?

 

2.1 = Left, Right, sub

16.4 = 16 speakers for surround location, 4 sub speakers for location

 

What the crap is the third number? haha

 

That's cool though, but very over the top. Between the expense and complication with cables and set-up, there's extremely limited B-format content, unless you produce your own, that you can listen through these set-ups. Plus, I still prefer 2.0 (not even 2.1) over the 5.1, 7.1, 16.4 research studios I've been in.

[vanished]

24 minutes ago, theonlyratatoskr said:

I was always confused by that. What's the third or middle number in that number sequence to denote speaker set-up?

 

2.1 = Left, Right, sub

16.4 = 16 speakers for surround location, 4 sub speakers for location

 

What the crap is the third number? haha

 

That's cool though, but very over the top. Between the expense and complication with cables and set-up, there's extremely limited B-format content, unless you produce your own, that you can listen through these set-ups. Plus, I still prefer 2.0 (not even 2.1) over the 5.1, 7.1, 16.4 research studios I've been in.

If it's anything like Dolby Atmos setups I think they are overhead/ceiling speakers

[lonewolf5460]

10 hours ago, theonlyratatoskr said:

Best thing to do, go to an pro audio store near you and test them yourself!

 

Otherwise:

Take a look at the price-bracket you can afford and don't look at any others, they're just a distraction. Try these for more ideas:

https://www.thomann.de/gb/active_nearfield_monitors.html?pg=3&ls=25&oa=pra

 

Or, any of these will be amazing, too:

https://www.guitarfella.com/best-studio-monitors/under-500/

 

I would definitely try to buy a monitor that suits your current set up - from interface, to connectivity, to room. What interface do you currently have, how big is your room?

 

Finally, is this for audio production or enjoyment? You don't really want studio monitors for audio enjoyment.

Your not wrong Thats why I picked the Adams audio tfv5 that ribbon tweeter makes the highs very crisp for the price. Really was more curious about the dac issue and was curious to see what you all are rocking. 

 

https://www.fluance.com/powered-2-0-bluetooth-active-6-inch-bookshelf-speakers-white-walnut

 

Looking at these really considering them for the connectivity and size.

I really could just do the safe bet and get another pair of TFV5s but that is boring lol plus these are good looking and 100 less for the pair.

[lonewolf5460]

6 hours ago, The Torrent said:

a7x's in house with gaming rig for light music production, z8x's and adam sub8,

rme fireface 800 and ufx 2

mann thats a set up if what I truly want the sub is just gravy I could only imagine. If I had the funds one monitor is a rtx2080 lol, shoot maybe if I deal hunt I can find them used for 400 each and pick them up one at a time lol.

Best thing to do, go to an pro audio store near you and test them yourself!

 

Otherwise:

Take a look at the price-bracket you can afford and don't look at any others, they're just a distraction. Try these for more ideas:

https://www.thomann.de/gb/active_nearfield_monitors.html?pg=3&ls=25&oa=pra

 

Or, any of these will be amazing, too:

https://www.guitarfella.com/best-studio-monitors/under-500/

 

I would definitely try to buy a monitor that suits your current set up - from interface, to connectivity, to room. What interface do you currently have, how big is your room?

 

Finally, is this for audio production or enjoyment? You don't really want studio monitors for audio enjoyment.

 

Mix of both my cousin makes beats, I think 13x13 feet. It is a focusright DACalso the set is more for pleasure/ video work.His computer is the one beats are made on. Really?? I love the sound of the studio monitors I have we listen to a lot of lofi. 

[Derkoli]

5 hours ago, theonlyratatoskr said:

I was always confused by that. What's the third or middle number in that number sequence to denote speaker set-up?

 

2.1 = Left, Right, sub

16.4 = 16 speakers for surround location, 4 sub speakers for location

 

What the crap is the third number? haha

 

That's cool though, but very over the top. Between the expense and complication with cables and set-up, there's extremely limited B-format content, unless you produce your own, that you can listen through these set-ups. Plus, I still prefer 2.0 (not even 2.1) over the 5.1, 7.1, 16.4 research studios I've been in.

 

5 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

If it's anything like Dolby Atmos setups I think they are overhead/ceiling speakers

Basically what ryan said. 15.2.5 means 15 surrounds at ear level, 2 subwoofers (left and right), and 5 surround speakers above you for height effects, like a bubble of speakers around you if that makes sense. It is very over the top, unless you can find the right content for it. Anything decoded into auro 3d will scale up to 128 channels i believe. other than that it's pretty over the top, most games only support up to 7.1, but it can be upscaled, just not into atmos. I wouldn't even touch upscalers that try to add height information into non-atmos mixes.

[Derkoli]

5 hours ago, theonlyratatoskr said:

2.0 (not even 2.1) over the 5.1, 7.1, 16.4

2.0 can be plenty enough for alot of stuff, if they image well and have a nice broad/wide soundstage, Then they can replicate 3.0 really well, its called a phantom centre channel. My B&W diamond's image really well where if i do go for surround, I'm not even going to bother with a centre channel, unless i can find a B&W one for cheap, otherwise it will sound really weird when stuff pans from side to side (if i use a different brand for the centre channel, different sound signatures etc.)

[theonlyratatoskr]

6 hours ago, Derkoli said:

phantom centre channel

Speaking of center channel, have you seen the Sony A9G? The monitor panel is the speaker diaphragm essentially.

Sony's website: LINK

LTT youtube video: LINK

Not sure about it's mixing capabilities, but definitely very cool for content consumption.

One could potentially set up a 360 room of these monitors have locational audio as well.

 

And, true about the mismatch of center speaker.. However, if you have great treatment in your room and good monitoring, then the center channel can be perfectly emulated by the two stereo ones. As long as they are equidistant and the same speaker, it should perfectly represent a mono sound in the 'center'. Just like headphones do. The problem is if you ever should move at all from that sweet spot. haha

 

6 hours ago, Derkoli said:

above you for height effects

Ah, gotcha. I should've inferred that. Although, I had height speakers above and below but I guess it depends on the studio how they call their set up. Also, it's more important that it's set up correctly in software than what it's named - I know that should go without say :D

[Derkoli]

8 hours ago, theonlyratatoskr said:

Ah, gotcha. I should've inferred that. Although, I had height speakers above and below but I guess it depends on the studio how they call their set up. Also, it's more important that it's set up correctly in software than what it's named - I know that should go without say

That is true. A 7.1/7.2 when setup correctly will be more immersive than a 15.2.5 setup really badly. Placement and calibration will do alot for immersion, and soundstage and imaging