Monitor Question

[Peter Batah]

Hello all. I picked a pair of Focal Solo6 Be a few days ago. I will be going out to pickup the appropriate audio cables.

Will this do: https://www.digiflexcables.com/products/nxms


Forgive the noob question. They are going to be used as the main monitors in my small recording / listening room. So, am I correct in assuming that they should be connected to the balanced CR monitor output connectors at the back of my 4800.

This text directly from the owners manual:

Audio connections: general
The audio signal is to connect to the XLR inlet. This is a balanced input, which use the standard cabling scheme, namely:
Pin 1 = Gr
ound (shield)
Pin 2 = In phase voltage (“hot”)
Pin 3 = Out-of-phase voltage (“cold”)
If the audio source is unbalanced, common practice is to link “cold” and ground pins (pins 3 and 1 respectively).
This is generally achieved within the cable.

As always, your time and assistance is greatly appreciated. Peter

 

[Arjan P]

@Peter Batah That type of cable should be the correct one indeed, even though the Digflex text wrongfully says going from an XLR output to a balanced 1/4" input..

Nice monitors, BTW!

 

[skier]

Peter,

Nice monitors! I’ve read several reviews of them over the last year or so and the only bad thing I’ve ever heard is that a few people find them a little too forward; but they’ve otherwise really liked them And everyone else just loved them. I’ve thought of them for myself if I should change. I actually like forward speakers and I want them to express every bit of good AND BAD sound in my recordings so I can fix any bad sounds that exist.

However, you are asking a question here: the monitor outputs of the DM definitely ARE BALANCED, and as Arjan pointed out, while the description is confusing, it is the right cable and can also go from a balanced TRS output, such as on the DM, to an XLR input on your monitors - that's exactly what I have on my A20s that we've discussed before. The DM puts out a +4dBu output from these jacks, so make sure the Focals are correctly set to that level because they can also be set to -10dBv which would likely distort if you turned the monitor output level on the DM too high. You’ll also get a better signal to noise ratio with +4dBu. That’s why it’s the standard for professional equipment.

Enjoy those great monitors! And let us know how you like them.

Jerry

 

[Peter Batah]

Thank you @Arjan P + @skier I will make sure to get clarification regarding the proper cable specs. As I had stated in an earlier, and I'm sure lengthy post these would be the first real monitors of any significance that I have purchased since 1985 (JBL 4340)

I had to stop myself from reading what people thought about the monitors that interested me. If not, I probably would have gone another decade or so without ever taking the plunge. I also had my eye on the Twin 6BE (three way) but truth be told they were simply out of reach ($$$)

The company behind the product was somewhat of an allure as well. Incredible attention to detail. @skier Thanks for the heads-up on setting the Focals to the proper level.

 

[Peter Batah]

@skier One day when you have absolutely nothing else to do with your time but educate me. Perhaps, you might indulge me and define / help me understand what you meant when you described the Focals as "A little too Forward" You've really peaked my interest! Thanks again. By the way, I hope that you and the Family (goes for @Arjan P as well) are doing well and staying safe given the current state of affiars.

 

[Arjan P]

I guess the Digiflex text was simply a copy paste mistake, cause Male XLR is always an output - balanced 1/4" jack can be either ofcourse..

 

[snafu]

Hey Peter, if you don't mind - I'd love to hear your opinion on the Focals, as soon as you are familiar with them. What did you use before them? I fell for Focal many times, but they were (financialy speaking) always out of reach...

 

[skier]

Hey Peter,

Ok, here you go. But first, let me apologize for doing something I always complained about, namely, using language that is not clear. I really hate it when an author describes some experience in terms that are non-standard and of which everyone generally has their own interpretation - how can that help anyone? And here I’ve gone and done it myself… must be seductive. Examples of such language I hate are, “it’s very musical” - What does that mean? What’s a non-musical speaker? The speaker either reproduces the electrical signals it receives properly or it doesn’t. And if it doesn’t, that doesn’t mean it’s not musical, it means it’s distorting the output. Another example, “it’s organic”. This term is used in everything from wine production and food descriptions to music and the general way of doing something. I have no idea what something organic means unless it’s growing properly or they’re referring to organic as opposed to inorganic chemistry, where organic refers to compounds containing carbon. And so it goes, and this is where my rant ends. (But it was fun to have an excuse to express my rant).

Be that as it may, a “forward sounding” speaker is a phrase usually used to mean that the primary tracks (lead singer, lead guitar or other instrument taking the lead) are out front of the rest of the band or orchestra, and may even sound as if their sound is in front of the speakers. Conversely, a “laid back” sound is not nearly as prominent, may sound behind the speakers or more distant in some way. Some refer to this as meaning it’s hard to hear the lead participants. Others mean the listener is experiencing a peaceful and calming piece of music. Others still, mean the listener is pulled in or invited into the music - pick your definition.

If speakers are said to sound “too forward”, that generally means that it might sound somewhat harsh or aggressive. A little extra midrange in the EQ will often bring the track forward, treble also. But if overdone, it’s in your face, fatiguing, and can be downright unpleasant.

If the description of “forward” explicitly were defined the way “fortissimo” is, or even the word “loud” - we all know what that means, and everyone followed that description, it’d be much better. But variations by different authors and speakers because they’re not all on the same page is why I dislike it. I like standards that everyone can comprehend - human communications are hard enough. (Wow! I’m getting some good mileage from this rant!)

Finally, and FWIW, I believe use of the word "forward" goes back to the time when all instruments were acoustic and each instrument that would be highlighted next would step forward, play their lead out front, and then step back to make room for the next instrument about to become more "forward". Obviously this technique is still used with acoustic ensembles today, but the term's meaning has diverged depending on how the author uses it, and that is what causes confusion or even a complete lack of comprehension by the reader of exactly what the author might mean in that situation.

Hope this is helpful. I know I feel better.

 

[Peter Batah]

@skier Your posts / replies (I never consider rants) are always insightful and downright educational. I am so thankful for and always welcome your valuable input It's been so long since I have recorded / played back anything musical onto any type of media that I wouldn't know what the terms "forward, musical, warm, bright, etc. would be if they hit me in the face. But, I am very eager to find out.

 

[snafu]

So, the say is true: "Talking about music is like dancing to architecture"

I find it very refreshing to think about it, and realise that even technical terms have their limit to the mind - it's as if we almost search expressions for feelings where words fail to describe. By "it has a warm sound" we instantly have a feeling for what is happening though this may differ completely when put to the test. On the other hand "it accentuates 500 Hz by a factor of 0.7 @ 3dB" leaves us somewhat cold, because we can't connect a feeling with it

 

[Peter Batah]

Hey Peter, if you don't mind - I'd love to hear your opinion on the Focals, as soon as you are familiar with them. What did you use before them? I fell for Focal many times, but they were (financialy speaking) always out of reach...

I would be glad to provide feedback once I am actually using the Focals. Unfortunately, I have no timetable that I can adhere to at the moment as I am still in "Studio Build" mode. Treatment to be more specific. It's one of those things that never seems to get done quickly enough. But, it was sure nice to pull them out of their respective boxes for a few minutes, gawk at them, then back into their slumber they went.

In so far as to what I used prior to the Focals. I had mentioned in a couple of earlier posts that the last monitors that I had owned / used that were of any substance were the JBL 4340. And that would have been back in the '80's. They made quite the impact back in the "Disco Duck" era

 

[Peter Batah]

I did have another question for you my dear audio friends. I don't know if I mentioned this in an earlier post or not: I also picked up a pair of ISOAcoustics isolation stands

https://isoacoustics.com/iso-200-isolation-stands/

and these monitor stands:

https://www.k-m.de/en/products/spea...ders/monitor-stands/26740-monitor-stand-black

To be honest with you I would much prefer placing the Focals and isoacoustic stands directly on my Argosy Series 70 desk. Any thoughts? Thank you

 

[Mark Richards]

To expand a bit using some technical concepts regarding speakers:

Professional reference speakers are "flat"/"neutral"; that is, they've been designed to reproduce the audio spectrum in an anechoic chamber to a measured 20Hz to 20kHz +/- 3 dB or better at a distance of 1 meter at a stated SPL/RMS level.

"Musicality" is the accurate reproduction of instruments and voices; accurate reproduction of the sound stage breadth and depth (imaging); and accurate reproduction of the frequency range of each instrument/voice; all without harmonic and other distortion.

Recording studios, and serious audiophiles, tune the listening position to compensate as much as possible for the influence of room acoustics, but with different goals in mind:

• Audiophiles seek a room acoustics/speaker audio reproduction system balance that yields an accurate reproduction of a live performance - the "musicality" of the recording as it would be heard in a live performance venue.

• Studios seek to retain the flat response of the speakers at the listening position so the "musicality" of the performance captured in the studio can be determined accurately during the recording/mixing/mastering process.

Controlled studies over a number of years have determined that the "musical" frequency response of an audio reproduction system using good speakers in a good room (the audiophile's goal) has certain characteristics.

Using 1 kHz as a 0 dB reference point, most informed/knowledgeable listeners sitting at an ideal listening position in a well tuned room equipped with good speakers playing well-recorded music desire a frequency response characterized by:

• A mid-range that's +/- 0 dB between 100 Hz and 1 kHz
• A low end that has a gradual rise from 100 Hz to +3 dB at 50Hz
• A high end that has a gradual rise to between +3 and +5 dB at 3-5 kHz
• A very high end that falls gradually from 5kHz to 0 dB again at 10 Khz and then continues dropping gradually beyond the 10 kHz/0dB point to -3 dB at 20kHz.

(remember 20Hz - 20kHz +/- 3dB is considered a "flat" or "neutral" frequency response)
​

Slight variations in frequency response in various ranges will color slightly the overall character of a speaker, making it sound "warm" / "laid back" (mild emphasis of the lower mids); or "bright" (mild emphasis of the highs); or "forward" (mild emphasis of the mids).

None of the following speaker characteristics are suitable for monitoring, mixing, and mastering, for obvious reasons:

• An undesirably "forward sounding" speaker will have an unnatural mid-range response vis a vis the low and high ends, either through roll-off of the low and high end frequencies; or a boost of the mid-range frequencies, or both.

• An undesirably "laid back" or "warm" sounding speaker will have an unnatural lower mid-range response vis a vis the high end.

• A "harsh sounding" speaker will unnaturally emphasize the high end in the 3kHz - 6kHz range, and cause listener fatigue.

• A "muddy sounding" speaker will unnaturally emphasize frequencies below about 200 Hz.

Here’s a link to an independent testing laboratory that provides objective, scientific measurement of loudspeakers:
https://soundstagenetwork.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16&Itemid=140

 

[Mark Richards]

To be honest with you I would much prefer placing the Focals and isoacoustic stands directly on my Argosy Series 70 desk. Any thoughts? Thank you

Ideal placement for near-field monitor speakers is at ear level, equilateral from each other and the listening position (e.g. 1 meter apart Left/Right, and each 1 meter left and right from the listening position. Placing the speakers on the console is fine if that criteria is met. The Focal OM should have some suggestions on optimum placement for that particular speaker.

 

[snafu]

Well, Peter, I see you're moving into a new studio or build one yourself (or got it build?) - so, about speaker placemenat and audio conditions within the room: I just finished building my studio earlier this year (two rooms, room in room). 99% I got covered myself - the rest (electricity and acoustic optimization) I left to the pros. Especially optimizing the rooms!

It was by far the most expensive part, but I'm glad I did it - I doubt I could have get this tackled myself. First both rooms where measured (by size and acoustic status), calculated, and then measured an calculated again with each treatment I made.

e.g my listening position does not fit for a 100% perfect equilateral triangle, so I had to do some compromise there. But - I was glad I was adviced

@Mark: I see you have a lot of insight here - I feel tempted to upload my measurement results just to hear what someone not involved in the process might say ...

Have a great day, y'all and stay healthy!
snafu

 

[Peter Batah]

@Mark Richards Thank you so much for chiming in Mark. Very insightful indeed. When sitting at the "sweet spot" (38 percent of the room from the front wall) I can safely say that I am covered in so far as the geometry goes (equal trilateral distance)

When you say earl level.

1) I can always adjust for angle when using the IsoAcoustic isolation stands that I referred to in an earlier post.

2) I have read, and please correct me if I am wrong. The speaker's tweeter should be directed at the listeners ear.

 

[Peter Batah]

@snafu From the sound of it your studio space is far more sophisticated than my small home project studio. Which, until further notice, should be suitable for the only occupant (ME). All I am really doing is building the absorption panels myself. I really enjoy working with wood. Measurements will follow. At which time I too shall welcome some valuable advice. By the way, did you take measurements in your room without absorption at first?

 

[skier]

To expand a bit using some technical concepts regarding speakers.....

Now this is one of the best descriptions I've yet heard on musicality and reference points in a listening space. It can be measured and it's reproducible.

As for the unsuitable speaker characteristics, again Mark, you've defined them in ways that I can understand and use with you and others in discussion. Could you possibly point us to a compendium of definitions of these and other recording audio terms to which professionals agree? That would be most helpful.

Because speakers definitely sound to me to be more different among themselves than most other components in the audio chain (pre-amps, amps, etc.), I feel that we all become accustomed to our monitors and develop a feeling as to how they'll translate in the world on other systems. If we don't, it's hard to believe that anyone would want to hear the music we produce.

I second Peter's thanks for your insights!

 

[Mark Richards]

...definition of these and other recording audio terms to which professionals agree...

THE AUDIO ENGINERING SOCIETY
Established in 1948, the Audio Engineering Society draws its membership from engineers, scientists, other individuals with an interest or involvement in the professional audio industry. The membership largely comprises engineers developing devices or products for audio, and persons working in audio content production.

Generally, in their numerous studies, professional publications, etc.
Example, presentation at the 135 AES conference:
"Listening Preferences for In-Room Loudspeaker and Headphone Target Responses".
You can find the paper in the AES Library on line.

Here's an AES publication:
https://www.amazon.com/Sound-Reproduction-Psychoacoustics-Loudspeakers-Engineering-ebook/dp/B074CHY128/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=sound reproduction floyd toole&qid=1590451061&sr=8-1
Scroll the Amazon page for other books in the series (18 in total)


Also here for lot's of technical definitions:
https://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/glossary-technical-terms

Here's one that objectively measures loudspeakers:
https://soundstagenetwork.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16&Itemid=140
(Compare the 'Focal 836/Prestige' with the 'Monitor Platinum Audio PL 100'. Which would be the better reference monitor?)

The DP-24/32 Forum has some more info here.

...become accustomed to our monitors and develop a feeling as to how they'll translate in the world on other systems...

Absolutely agree.

 

[Mark Richards]

@Mark Richards
...covered in so far as the geometry goes (equal trilateral distance)...ear level...tweeter should be directed at the listeners ear.

Generally, yes. Depends on the type of tweeter and dispersion arc - some are narrow - very directional; others are wider - as much as a 120° arc. Follow the OM for the speaker.