.

From what I've read, the Auratone 5C had a very distinctive frequency response (mids pushed forward?) that had a very definite role in helping with mixing ... so my Dumb Question # 714 is: why buy the hardware (whether those, or the Behritones, or the other Clonetones) instead of just set EQ to mimic the response? Does it have to do with the "3rd dimension" of the waterfall plots (the time domain)?

Thanks in advance for disabusing me of what I'm sure is a very silly idea!

--------------------
Alexis -Cubase 6.5.0/SX3.1.1.944, XP SP2, 4GB RAM (1GB not accessible, but used just to balance the computer so it doesn't tip over); Delta 66 in Omni i/O Studio; Motif8; UAD-1

Well i'd imagine the way the cones respoond and move over time would be diferent to your monitors and change the way it sounds slightly. The way th speaker is shaped and the size of the cones etc would all change the sound in a way that an EQ curve surely couldnt mimic?

--------------------
www.myspace.com/michaeldow www.myspace.com/portasoundband

Spectral plot (waterfall graph with time) of a sealed enclosure is not eq-able, you still have the potential problems of a crossover introducing distortion and do not have a point source of sound (i.e. 1 driver vs tweeter and woofer). None of these issues relate to EQ.

I am oddly glad one of the drivers did not work that I had purchased in my DIY auratone. I now have the single driver in a box. I just blocked the other hole up and it is very handy.

Using my DIY one 5 mins ago in conjunction with my other speakers. It's simplicity has a lot going for it especially for mixing I would say. "Big up" Mike Senior for proliferating this view.

cheers

SafeandSound Mastering
mastering studio

Quote alexis:

---

From what I've read, the Auratone 5C had a very distinctive frequency response (mids pushed forward?) that had a very definite role in helping with mixing ...

---

That was part of it -- although it was actually a case of a lack of bass and extreme HF, rather than the mids being 'pushed' forwards. But other important aspects include the fact that it's a sealed cabinet, so no bass overhang from resonant ports; a single driver so no crossover filter phase smearing and comb filtering; and a very small cabinet for psuedo-point-source wavefront generation.

Quote:

---

so my Dumb Question # 714 is: why buy the hardware (whether those, or the Behritones, or the other Clonetones) instead of just set EQ to mimic the response?

---

Because a speaker is a three dimentional device that radiates sound in all three dimensions, each with different frequency responses. So would you equalise the to match the on-axis response, or the off-axis response, or the summed room energy response?

And how would you replicate the inherent time-domain contributions from internal relflections and resonances or, more importantly, remove the same from the speaker you are tyring to modify electronically?

Basically, it can't be done with any useful degree of accuracy, despite what some manufacturers claim -- not if you're starting from an inherently imperfect real world speaker. Devices like the Focusrite VRM can fair a little better, but only by trying to simulate both the speaker and an artificial room within a notionally artefact-free environment of a pair of headphones.

By all means EQ the mics to be a little more forward if you find that helps with a more analytical presentation, but be aware that the EQ you use is likely to add it's own veiling nad artefacts to the party...

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote SafeandSound Mastering:

---

"Big up" Mike Senior for proliferating this view.

---

To be fair, the idea has been around and in widespread professional practice for over forty years. Mike is simply amongst the latest to reitterate the recommendation -- and a suggestion well worth heeding of course, but not new or revolutionary.

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Thank you Michael Dow, Safe and Sound, and Hugh!

Hugh, you wrote:

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

... Devices like the Focusrite VRM can fair a little better, but only by trying to simulate both the speaker and an artificial room within a notionally artefact-free environment of a pair of headphones.
Hugh

---

Re: the word "devices" - is there now competition to the VRM? I initially was excited about the VRM, but decided to not purchase based on some reading I've done, including your review http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/nov09/articles/focusritesaffirepro24dsp.ht m , Sam Inglis' http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/apr11/articles/focusrite-vrmbox.htm , and Mike Senior's as well http://www.cambridge-mt.com/ms-ch2_FocusriteVRM.htm . I mix through DT 880 Pros in a small box bedroom, and on an older computer that I'm guessing would be quite subject to the "stuttering and falling over" of some Cubase mixes Sam and Mike noticed when they switched on the VRM (it imposes a "noticeable load" on the host is how Sam put it).

So, going by the above and your description of maybe doing only "a little better" with a VRM, I thought maybe waiting for the next generation of products might not be a bad idea. I was wondering from your post if that day has arrived!

--------------------
Alexis -Cubase 6.5.0/SX3.1.1.944, XP SP2, 4GB RAM (1GB not accessible, but used just to balance the computer so it doesn't tip over); Delta 66 in Omni i/O Studio; Motif8; UAD-1

The concept behind VRM is that of using convolution processing and/or modelling to simulate an acoustic environment -- meaning the speaker(s) and the room. The focusrite system is probably the most cost-effective around and it has little if any competition at the moment, but there have been other (and better) systems under development.

Studer came up with a phenomenal system called BRS (binaural room scanning) which was intended to allow professionals to mix surround sound programmes within ordinary stereo headphones and it was astonishingly good. It used a binaural dummy head to capture the real performance of a real monitoring system in a real room, as impulse responses, and then processed the input signals correspondingly and very effectively.

Needless to say the system was hugely expensive and Studer stopped development because it became clear that not enough potential clients could afford it, and all attempts to reduce cost also compromised perforamnce unacceptably.

Beyer's HeadZone system took some of the ideas, and Focusrite's VRM took others... neither are as good, but both have their uses....

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Sure, thats kind of what I meant Hugh. It's good he has brought it to forefront of peoples minds again for mixing because it is a great tool, I think it got lost a bit in music technologies complexity and bells and whistles culture. It might have been widely used in professional studios but for home studio which is what Mikes book is about, it is hardly a common (or even known) feature.

SafeandSound Mastering
mastering studio

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

The concept behind VRM is that of using convolution processing and/or modelling to simulate an acoustic environment -- meaning the speaker(s) and the room. The focusrite system is probably the most cost-effective around and it has little if any competition at the moment, but there have been other (and better) systems under development.

Studer came up with a phenomenal system called BRS (binaural room scanning) which was intended to allow professionals to mix surround sound programmes within ordinary stereo headphones and it was astonishingly good. It used a binaural dummy head to capture the real performance of a real monitoring system in a real room, as impulse responses, and then processed the input signals correspondingly and very effectively.

Needless to say the system was hugely expensive and Studer stopped development because it became clear that not enough potential clients could afford it, and all attempts to reduce cost also compromised perforamnce unacceptably.

Beyer's HeadZone system took some of the ideas, and Focusrite's VRM took others... neither are as good, but both have their uses....

Hugh

---

Thank you for that, Hugh. Your review http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/mar07/articles/headzonepro.htm was also very informative! Looks like (since the Headzone is for surround only) the only game in town for stereo or under $100 is the VRM. Well, since it is NOT the limiting factor in my music, I can live without it for a while!

Thanks again -

--------------------
Alexis -Cubase 6.5.0/SX3.1.1.944, XP SP2, 4GB RAM (1GB not accessible, but used just to balance the computer so it doesn't tip over); Delta 66 in Omni i/O Studio; Motif8; UAD-1