10B's called monitor for a reason? :)

dutchtowner
dutchtowner Posts: 15
edited December 2010 in Vintage Speakers
Hi all,

old poster here looking in to see if anyone has a similar experience...

I just recently started putting together a home recording studio and plan to use a recently acquired Boss BR1200 cd multitrack recorder (made by Roland) as the center unit. When I considered buying studio monitors for the system I rememberd my old 10B's in the basement and wondered if there's any truth to the 'monitor' name? Most every forum relating to studio recording advises against using stereo speakers as monitors due to alleged sound coloring, etc. but I know those 10B's are top notch at reproducing and am here wondering if anyone else has tried them as monitors for recording?

Anyone? :)

Thanks in advance!

Dutchtowner
Post edited by dutchtowner on

Comments

  • nadams
    nadams Posts: 5,877
    edited November 2010
    I don't believe they were ever intended for use as studio monitors. After all, Polk still has a "Monitor" line, and they are definately NOT studio monitors.
    Ludicrous gibs!
  • nguyendot
    nguyendot Posts: 3,594
    edited November 2010
    If you want studio speakers, buy some B&W Nautilus.....lol
    Main Surround -
    Epson 8350 Projector/ Elite Screens 120" / Pioneer Elite SC-35 / Sunfire Signature / Focal Chorus 716s / Focal Chorus CC / Polk MC80 / Polk PSW150 sub

    Bedroom - Sharp Aquos 70" 650 / Pioneer SC-1222k / Polk RT-55 / Polk CS-250

    Den - Rotel RSP-1068 / Threshold CAS-2 / Boston VR-M60 / BDP-05FD
  • halo71
    halo71 Posts: 4,603
    edited November 2010
    I have no advice on using the 10's as true studio monitors. But....That BR1200 is a solid unit! I have the BR1180 CDRW in my guitar room. Great unit! I need to replace the HDD in it though.
    --Gary--
    Onkyo Integra M504, Bottlehead Foreplay III, Denon SACD, Thiel CS2.3, NHT VT-2, VT-3 and Evolution T6, Infinity RSIIIa, SDA1C and a few dozen other speakers around the house I change in and out.
  • phocion
    phocion Posts: 157
    edited November 2010
    Most of the true recording rooms that I have seen include a number of different monitors because they want to examine tracks under a variety of playback conditions, and studio monitors have their own brand and model characteristics, even though they are supposed to be tonally neutral or flat.

    In my experience, the real advantage to monitors come within the integrated amps and robust speaker designs, which have protection built in for unmastered tracks that may include frequency/volume abnormalities that could damage an average amp/speaker. They are also a lot smaller than polk monitor 10's because they want to keep them "near field" next to a sound board, so the sound you hear is the speaker, and not bounce from walls etc.

    So, my guess would be that they would work as a monitor in a near field setting just fine, if you have the room. Just make sure that you master out any abnormal volume/frequencies from the tracks before you run them hard.
    The secret for harvesting from existence the greatest fruitfulness and greatest enjoyment is to live dangerously. - Nietzche
  • Joe08867
    Joe08867 Posts: 3,919
    edited November 2010
    I recorded at a studio that used Polk Monitor 10's for playback into the studio not the control room. Gave a more realistic sound, or more what most people would hear at home. I don't think they would work very well near field at all but for playback and talk back they would be a sound choice.

    I have used a set of Monitor 5's for recording and I would say they did a good job of not coloring the sound much. I think the problem is the passive. I don't think I have ever seen a Studio Monitor with a Passive. Might be a time delay, or tuning issue.

    As far a studio Monitors are concerned I love the new Adam stuff (The tweeter in these is key) or Yamaha Monitors (The older big ones 10" more than the new little guys). Although the HS80M 8" is nice just not as full sounding to me.
  • phocion
    phocion Posts: 157
    edited November 2010
    5's would probably be a better choice, as 10's will take up a lot of room.

    I have a pair of un-modded 10's at my computer desk, near ear level, 6' between. They are decent at that range. Mids are good, highs are a little bright, and the bass kicks in when you sit farther away and get the reflection from the walls. Highs also blend better with a little distance. Toeing them in a little helps the near field even out, but I usually work ~ 10 feet away at another desk, so they stay flat to the walls.
    The secret for harvesting from existence the greatest fruitfulness and greatest enjoyment is to live dangerously. - Nietzche
  • audio_alan
    audio_alan Posts: 770
    edited November 2010
    phocion wrote: »
    Most of the true recording rooms that I have seen include a number of different monitors because they want to examine tracks under a variety of playback conditions, and studio monitors have their own brand and model characteristics, even though they are supposed to be tonally neutral or flat.

    ....

    Bingo. Playing your mixes on multiple speakers or "monitors" (and in multiple environments - a car, living room, etc) helps give you an "average" experience. Technically you can learn to mix/monitor on any set of speakers. It just takes a while to get the hang of it. For example, say you only had a pair of XYZ speakers (which happen to be a little bright) near your mix station. Burning your mix and playing it on other speakers would help reveal your mix is too bright. After a while you'd start to compensate by mixing slightly less bright mixes on your XYZ speakers. Of course, mixing on nice speakers where you don't need to compensate works best...
  • dutchtowner
    dutchtowner Posts: 15
    edited December 2010
    Thanks for the input everyone!

    I've decided to get a decent set of smaller 'nearfield' monitors and will keep the Polks nearby for comparing.

    Appreciate it!