Not sure that's right. It may well give a little something to the sound which is pleasing, but it will be an output with a dip in the high mids played back over a harsh sounding speaker.
I suppose that it is theoretically possible to compensate using eq as that's how a various 'room correction' type things work. But opinion seems to be split about how well they work (otherwise we would all be doing it).
Remember, one man's 'harsh' is another man's 'forward' or 'strident' so we tend to take reviews like this as a starting point rather than the final word. Me? I actually loved the sound of NS10s but I'm wierd. I now love my AE22s.
I guess the best way of understanding your monitors is to spend time with them and learn how any mix you do on them translates to other systems. Sorry - not sure there are any good shortcuts..
EQ-ing the monitor speaker signals can be done, obviously, and it used to be a common technique in the 70s and 80s to try and compensate for the poor speaker and room acoustic designs of the day.
But it is not without unwanted side effects -- technical in the form of unwanted phase shifts, and practically in compounding one inaccurate system with another, unless care is taken to make objective before/after measurements.
As Dave says, digital room correction systems apply a form of EQ into the monitoring chain, but the digital FIR filters typically used allow amplitude changes to be made without the corresponding phase changes inherent in analogue EQ.
But fundamentally, if the speaker is 'aggressive' sounding, it really isn't a monitor-grade speaker.
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound...
(But generally posting my own personal views and not necessarily those of SOS, the company or the magazine!)
In my world, things get less strange when I read the manual...
Hugh Robjohns wrote:EQ-ing the monitor speaker signals can be done, obviously, and it used to be a common technique in the 70s and 80s to try and compensate for the poor speaker and room acoustic designs of the day.
So they did it 70s and 80s, good to know. Since linear-phase EQs introduced latency, I wonder they used mixed type EQs?
Then I got an other question. In theory if monitors are deluxe and you want long long sessions, should you apply smiley curve or low tilt curve?
Last edited by soundproofed bob on Mon Dec 28, 2020 7:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
blinddrew wrote:Also you have to remember to cancel that EQ before you render your finished product - otherwise everyone hears that dip...
This is a very good point.
If you boost or attenuate frequencies in the mix to compensate for issues with your environment and/or your kit then think about what that resulting mix will sound like when played somewhere that doesn't have the same issues you do. It's not going to be good.
Surely that is why having a neutral mixing space is important (or, at least, one you know well enough to compensate)? If your monitors are over bright you would naturally produce dull sounding mixes so the corrective eq would be used to make your mixes more comparable not less?
Sam Spoons wrote:Surely that is why having a neutral mixing space is important (or, at least, one you know well enough to compensate)? If your monitors are over bright you would naturally produce dull sounding mixes so the corrective eq would be used to make your mixes more comparable not less?
Speaking from experience, absolutely. Visiting some of our forum friends over the last year or so who have treated environments was a huge ear-opener for me and that's no small part of the motivation behind my current project to build a decent environment in my converted roof space.
In my case it was refurbishing my studio that did it. I was forced into doing it by a minor flood but the difference is amazing, I wish I'd done it years ago.
article I find words meaning like "this monitor has in the face sound".
