Reply to thread

Message

Hi,

Any self respecting studio will have calibrated the listening levels to a sensible reference to full scale. If you turn up any monitor past these, your call and hearing.

Actually, you may find that at a given SPL Level the "cheap PA Speaker will still have lower distortion. But at anmy extent, the X-10 is designed as low distortion device. the compression driver/horn combo does this as a amtter of fact, the woofer uses feedback to accomplish the same. For some background on the Meyer X-10 and why it actually embodies in certqain areas the "state of the art" you might enjoy some reading:

http://www.meyersound.com/news/press/sos_x10_800.htm

I have had the chance to hear them on two occasions and they are genuinely "one step beyond", try have a listen yourself.

Their waveguide is not only very shallow, but also of small diameter. This implies that it operates only over a fraction of the range covered by the driver (boty the tweeters and midranges). In order to retain any sensible radiation pattern control at 380 Hz (the crossover frequency) the waveguild would have to be around 1/2m (> 18") in diameter. Basic physics. Look at the O500 to see the kind of waveguide that provides SOME directivity control (directivity control on the O500C rates as barely adequate IMHO).

By now this is pretty much standard. Non of the systems I suggested use off the shelf drivers.

Not particulary, if you want to see a "state of the art" phaseresponse compare to Meyer's X-10 or the K+H O500C, the MEG is not QUITE AS GOOD, but still essentially flat.

As it so happens, in my times in Pro Sound (actively up to the mid 90's) I have heard about any common monitor on the planet, most of those ranged between adequate and real bad (and I'm only talking about the mains here) approximating the situation in HiFi Speakers at that.

I have heard a number of the larger ATC's installed (including SCM300) and felt them to be comprehensively outclssed by the UREI Passives which where common at the same time. These where arguably pre "SL" ATC's but from what I have heard since at dealers, studios and tradeshows the SL's are very much alike to the earlier ones. As I said, for a "quality control" monitor barely par for the course.

As for direct comparisons, nope, I merely got frustrated quite often by all sorts of monitors when attempting to hear what I was actually recording. And ATC where no less frustrating than big old JBL's and at the same time Urei, tannoy, MEG and the like where not (BTW, MEG's Monitirs have been made virtually unchanged since the mid 1980's!).

Ciao T

<blockquote data-quote="3DSonics" data-source="post: 601307" data-attributes="member: 1907">Hi,Any self respecting studio will have calibrated the listening levels to a sensible reference to full scale. If you turn up any monitor past these, your call and hearing.Actually, you may find that at a given SPL Level the &quot;cheap PA Speaker will still have lower distortion. But at anmy extent, the X-10 is designed as low distortion device. the compression driver/horn combo does this as a amtter of fact, the woofer uses feedback to accomplish the same. For some background on the Meyer X-10 and why it actually embodies in certqain areas the &quot;state of the art&quot; you might enjoy some reading:<a href="http://www.meyersound.com/news/press/sos_x10_800.htm" target="_blank">http://www.meyersound.com/news/press/sos_x10_800.htm</a>I have had the chance to hear them on two occasions and they are genuinely &quot;one step beyond&quot;, try have a listen yourself.Their waveguide is not only very shallow, but also of small diameter. This implies that it operates only over a fraction of the range covered by the driver (boty the tweeters and midranges). In order to retain any sensible radiation pattern control at 380 Hz (the crossover frequency) the waveguild would have to be around 1/2m (&gt; 18&quot;) in diameter. Basic physics. Look at the O500 to see the kind of waveguide that provides SOME directivity control (directivity control on the O500C rates as barely adequate IMHO).By now this is pretty much standard. Non of the systems I suggested use off the shelf drivers. Not particulary, if you want to see a &quot;state of the art&quot; phaseresponse compare to Meyer's X-10 or the K+H O500C, the MEG is not QUITE AS GOOD, but still essentially flat.As it so happens, in my times in Pro Sound (actively up to the mid 90's) I have heard about any common monitor on the planet, most of those ranged between adequate and real bad (and I'm only talking about the mains here) approximating the situation in HiFi Speakers at that.I have heard a number of the larger ATC's installed (including SCM300) and felt them to be comprehensively outclssed by the UREI Passives which where common at the same time. These where arguably pre &quot;SL&quot; ATC's but from what I have heard since at dealers, studios and tradeshows the SL's are very much alike to the earlier ones. As I said, for a &quot;quality control&quot; monitor barely par for the course.As for direct comparisons, nope, I merely got frustrated quite often by all sorts of monitors when attempting to hear what I was actually recording. And ATC where no less frustrating than big old JBL's and at the same time Urei, tannoy, MEG and the like where not (BTW, MEG's Monitirs have been made virtually unchanged since the mid 1980's!).Ciao T</blockquote>

[QUOTE="3DSonics, post: 601307, member: 1907"] Hi, Any self respecting studio will have calibrated the listening levels to a sensible reference to full scale. If you turn up any monitor past these, your call and hearing. Actually, you may find that at a given SPL Level the "cheap PA Speaker will still have lower distortion. But at anmy extent, the X-10 is designed as low distortion device. the compression driver/horn combo does this as a amtter of fact, the woofer uses feedback to accomplish the same. For some background on the Meyer X-10 and why it actually embodies in certqain areas the "state of the art" you might enjoy some reading: [URL]http://www.meyersound.com/news/press/sos_x10_800.htm[/URL] I have had the chance to hear them on two occasions and they are genuinely "one step beyond", try have a listen yourself. Their waveguide is not only very shallow, but also of small diameter. This implies that it operates only over a fraction of the range covered by the driver (boty the tweeters and midranges). In order to retain any sensible radiation pattern control at 380 Hz (the crossover frequency) the waveguild would have to be around 1/2m (> 18") in diameter. Basic physics. Look at the O500 to see the kind of waveguide that provides SOME directivity control (directivity control on the O500C rates as barely adequate IMHO). By now this is pretty much standard. Non of the systems I suggested use off the shelf drivers. Not particulary, if you want to see a "state of the art" phaseresponse compare to Meyer's X-10 or the K+H O500C, the MEG is not QUITE AS GOOD, but still essentially flat. As it so happens, in my times in Pro Sound (actively up to the mid 90's) I have heard about any common monitor on the planet, most of those ranged between adequate and real bad (and I'm only talking about the mains here) approximating the situation in HiFi Speakers at that. I have heard a number of the larger ATC's installed (including SCM300) and felt them to be comprehensively outclssed by the UREI Passives which where common at the same time. These where arguably pre "SL" ATC's but from what I have heard since at dealers, studios and tradeshows the SL's are very much alike to the earlier ones. As I said, for a "quality control" monitor barely par for the course. As for direct comparisons, nope, I merely got frustrated quite often by all sorts of monitors when attempting to hear what I was actually recording. And ATC where no less frustrating than big old JBL's and at the same time Urei, tannoy, MEG and the like where not (BTW, MEG's Monitirs have been made virtually unchanged since the mid 1980's!). Ciao T [/QUOTE]

Verification