Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Cables, Power, Tweaks, Speakers, Accessories (DBT-Free Forum) › Anybody else using studio monitors?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Anybody else using studio monitors? - Page 5

post #61 of 172
What about Blue Sky Media Desk 2.1 system?

Supposedly blows away much more expensive speakers in terms of accuracy and detail.
post #62 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by natnut View Post
What about Blue Sky Media Desk 2.1 system?

Supposedly blows away much more expensive speakers in terms of accuracy and detail.
I've heard those claims about the Media Desk many times, but I'm still not sure whether I believe them... 4" woofers with an 8" subwoofer might sound good when compared against other 2.1 computer speaker systems, but there are reasons why they won't be able to perform like full-sized monitors.

The manual includes the specifications. The subwoofer is underpowered, even if it has a digital amplifier: 65 watts @ 4 ohms. It's crossed over at 110 Hz, which is high for a subwoofer; this signifies that the subwoofer is being asked to handle part of the lower-midrange (the fundamental frequencies). This suspicion is confirmed by looking at the frequency responses of the satellites: +/- 2.5 dB @ 300 Hz to 10 kHz. For "full-range speakers," those specs aren't so good. They're almost 25% softer than flat at 300 Hz and 10 kHz. Basically, there will be a hole in the lower-midrange where neither the subwoofer nor the satellites can play the information.

For $600, there are better, more accurate options.
post #63 of 172
using a pair of Dynaudio Acoustic BM6P.
post #64 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Loi View Post
using a pair of Dynaudio Acoustic BM6P.
What kind of power amp?
post #65 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by infinitesymphony View Post
What kind of power amp?
an Odyssey Stratos is powering them. Love to have a Bryston doing the job but Bryston price's for the sst series is ridiculous compared to the st. Should have gotten the BM6A but then again, studio monitors are an love/hate affair. You love them sometimes, and hate them sometimes. So its always nice to have another stage in cause u wanna soften the sound.
post #66 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by infinitesymphony View Post
I've heard those claims about the Media Desk many times, but I'm still not sure whether I believe them... 4" woofers with an 8" subwoofer might sound good when compared against other 2.1 computer speaker systems, but there are reasons why they won't be able to perform like full-sized monitors.

The manual includes the specifications. The subwoofer is underpowered, even if it has a digital amplifier: 65 watts @ 4 ohms. It's crossed over at 110 Hz, which is high for a subwoofer; this signifies that the subwoofer is being asked to handle part of the lower-midrange (the fundamental frequencies). This suspicion is confirmed by looking at the frequency responses of the satellites: +/- 2.5 dB @ 300 Hz to 10 kHz. For "full-range speakers," those specs aren't so good. They're almost 25% softer than flat at 300 Hz and 10 kHz. Basically, there will be a hole in the lower-midrange where neither the subwoofer nor the satellites can play the information.

For $600, there are better, more accurate options.
I dunno but if professional musicians trust them for their mixing work,how bad can they be. After all, this is their livelihood we're talking about.

After all, if they're as bad as their specs supposedly are, why do they get good real life reviews from pro-musicians(for instance,go to Gearslutz, a musician's forum and search for reviews on Blue Sky).
post #67 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by natnut View Post
I dunno but if professional musicians trust them for their mixing work,how bad can they be. After all, this is their livelihood we're talking about.

After all, if they're as bad as their specs supposedly are, why do they get good real life reviews from pro-musicians(for instance,go to Gearslutz, a musician's forum and search for reviews on Blue Sky).
I guess it depends on whom you ask, but I wouldn't consider the majority of people on that forum to be professionals.

Technically, you can mix on anything as long as you're familiar with the speakers' sound signature and sonic deficiencies. This is why some oldschool engineers mix on Yamaha NS10s, even though they sound bright and have poor extension--they make a good reference simply due to familiarity. I once knew a guy who mixed on a set of $35 Logitech 2.1 computer speakers.

Mastering, on the other hand, requires the best set of speakers one can afford. A mastering engineer would never use something like the Media Desk for a main reference set.
post #68 of 172
I recently built a decent computer for my girlfriend's home 'editing suite' (she's a video art student), and ended up deciding on M-Audio DX4s. There was some confusion in shipping and billing, so I believe I'll have to reorder them. Has anyone heard these? The consensus I could find was that they were stellar for the money (not much).

The main intent is to have something of a neutral reference for basic video sound work, but they'd have to serve the day-to-day needs of music listening and movie watching as well. Comments? If I were to choose another set, they'd have to be easily available in Canada and cannot be more than $200 CAD.
post #69 of 172
I have a pair of DX-4s and I quite enjoy them. Not much bass punch to start with, but they will open up with more use. (probably the only time I've actually heard something burn-in) Rather neutral, as should be expected, but good for listening to music, especially for critical listening or if you just like a neutral sound signature. Think ER-4s for what their sound is like. They're nothing special, but I definitely enjoy them for music, especially at the price compared to some other options I've heard for the money out there.

*Not sure what your experience is with Grados, but they have a sound that is pretty similar to those. At least the SR-60s, though there is less bass with the Grados.
post #70 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by infinitesymphony View Post
I've heard those claims about the Media Desk many times, but I'm still not sure whether I believe them... 4" woofers with an 8" subwoofer might sound good when compared against other 2.1 computer speaker systems, but there are reasons why they won't be able to perform like full-sized monitors.

The manual includes the specifications. The subwoofer is underpowered, even if it has a digital amplifier: 65 watts @ 4 ohms. It's crossed over at 110 Hz, which is high for a subwoofer; this signifies that the subwoofer is being asked to handle part of the lower-midrange (the fundamental frequencies). This suspicion is confirmed by looking at the frequency responses of the satellites: +/- 2.5 dB @ 300 Hz to 10 kHz. For "full-range speakers," those specs aren't so good. They're almost 25% softer than flat at 300 Hz and 10 kHz. Basically, there will be a hole in the lower-midrange where neither the subwoofer nor the satellites can play the information.

For $600, there are better, more accurate options.
I e-mailed Blue Sky about their supposedly inferior specs and I got this reply:

Hello:

I read the post:

Here are my comments:

1) The amplifier for the subwoofer is conservatively rated at 65 Watts and we feel this is more than enough power for the near field application it is designed for.

2) The crossover point for the subwoofer is designed to sum properly with the MediaDesk SAT. The crossover is slightly higher than our typical 80Hz, but again in a near field application we have found this not to be an issue.

3) With regard to the frequency response spec: The person who posted that comment is not fully understanding the specification correctly. The manual states the following:
+/- 2.5dB 300 to 10 kHz
+/- 3.0dB 110 to 20 kHz

Note that the overall frequency response is 110 to 20kHz, +/-3dB. However across a majority of the passband (300 to 10kHz), the frequency response is smoother @ +/- 2.5dB. In general the response is extremely smooth both on and off axis.

Here is some actual measurement data:
MediaDesk SAT
MediaDesk SUB



I hope this helps.

Cheers!
__________________
Pascal Sijen
Co-Founder
post #71 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by natnut View Post
Note that the overall frequency response is 110 to 20kHz, +/-3dB. However across a majority of the passband (300 to 10kHz), the frequency response is smoother @ +/- 2.5dB. In general the response is extremely smooth both on and off axis.

Here is some actual measurement data:
MediaDesk SAT
MediaDesk SUB
I did see the other measurement, but didn't think that 0.5 dB was a significant improvement, especially when that range didn't include the majority of fundamental frequencies (i.e. under 300 Hz).

It's up to you to do the research about low power ratings, high crossovers, and poor extension. But ultimately, the choice is yours. For $600, it's not difficult to find a pair of active monitors that have more power, flatter frequency response, and bass extension without the aid of a subwoofer (ex. Event TR8 XL, Mackie MR8).
post #72 of 172

Just thought I would chime in...

Quote:
Originally Posted by infinitesymphony View Post
I did see the other measurement, but didn't think that 0.5 dB was a significant improvement, especially when that range didn't include the majority of fundamental frequencies (i.e. under 300 Hz).

It's up to you to do the research about low power ratings, high crossovers, and poor extension. But ultimately, the choice is yours. For $600, it's not difficult to find a pair of active monitors that have more power, flatter frequency response, and bass extension without the aid of a subwoofer (ex. Event TR8 XL, Mackie MR8).
Hello infinitesymphony:

I hope you and others don't mind me posting here. I just thought I would chime in.

First, it is important to understand that our design philosophy requires the use of a subwoofer with all of our systems. This includes our larger mid-field systems, such as Big Blue. If you are interested why we do this, you can follow this link to our website, where discuss in greater detail our general design philosophy.

With regard to "low" power ratings and high crossover etc; our system designs are application driven and for this given application, this system design works extremely well. We have many thousands of these systems in the field, being used for music, TV, post & game production, by companies such as Electronic Arts, Apple, ESPN, Lucasfilm, to name but a few. Our users and numerous reviewers seem more than satisfied.

But without listening for yourself, it would seem to be hard to convince you.

Just another biased opinion!

Cheers!
post #73 of 172
I'm using Genelec 1029A + a 7050A sub with a Presonus CS. Sounds great when I'm in the sweet spot (just in front of my computer monitor).
post #74 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by aBlueSky View Post
First, it is important to understand that our design philosophy requires the use of a subwoofer with all of our systems. This includes our larger mid-field systems, such as Big Blue. If you are interested why we do this, you can follow this link to our website, where discuss in greater detail our general design philosophy.
Thank you for commenting. It's true that specifications aren't everything, and it's not possible to know exactly how a system will sound just by looking at numbers.

The higher-end models look nice, so I'll limit my comments to the Media Desk. It seems that such a small set, even with sealed enclosures and nice drivers, will still have frequency reproduction problems. A crossover frequency of 110 Hz is high enough that the subwoofer will be playing directional frequencies. The threshold of directionality is roughly 100 Hz, and given that the low-pass filter is set to 110 Hz, even higher frequencies will be played as the filter slopes downward. The satellites' nominal operation frequencies are between 300 Hz - 10 kHz. Above and below that, they begin to roll off. The subwoofer begins to roll off at 35 Hz. In other words, the speakers are not full-range.

I love smaller 2.1 systems for computer areas, and I've owned and heard a fair number of them. But in my experience, none of them were accurate. However, most of them still managed to sound good, just as I'm sure many people find the Media Desk to sound great.

This isn't my thread, so I apologize to the OP and others for the slightly off-topic post.
post #75 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by vulc4n View Post
I've not really heard much about them.

Why do they interest you? If its purely the price I think I'd consider KRK's first.
I am using the HS50M and they are awesome, I am using them with the Mackie Big Knob (like the central station) but more analog. Anyway they are great.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Cables, Power, Tweaks, Speakers, Accessories (DBT-Free Forum) › Anybody else using studio monitors?