M-Audio LX4 5.1 studio monitors: First impressions

RichMacDonald wrote on 1/18/2004, 9:21 PM
Picking up from a previous thread: http://mediasoftware.sonypictures.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=242378. BusterKeaton asked me to post my impressions, so here goes.

First, thanks MyST, PAW and Spot for pointing me to these speakers. I would have done something really stupid without your help.

As background, I bought the M-Audio LX4 5.1 studio monitor setup. I paid $400. This after spending 2 weeks visiting every computer and audio store in town.

These speakers have fantastic clarity. I hooked them up, placed them where I could, ran some basic calibration, and they sound SUPERB. Everything is very clear and spatially positioned. IMHO, the latter is the mark of a great speaker and these have them (off the shelf with the ugliest setup you can imagine, see below). These are definitely the speakers to get for the low-end budget (<$500). Far superior to anything you'll find in a stereo/video store. Simply put, store systems make the room sound good and sacrifice accuracy. They don't sound good when your ear is right next to the speaker. These M-audios let you sit close and they make that little audio world in your head clear as a bell. In fact, if you're a solo editor sitting in a small room working on a computer, I'll bet these things are superior to a $1,000 store-bought "home theater system". Maybe more. Definitely go the studio, near-field monitor setup instead. If you have more $$$ to spend, buy higher-end studio monitors with more power.

It'll take some time to measure and position these guys. Currently I have a horrible setup: I work in the corner of a room with an L-shaped desk. I have two 21" monitors in my face in the corner of the ell. So until I can mount the speakers on the walls, I now have a 90 degree angle for FL and FR and am sitting 2' from them. My rear speakers can only go to 180 degree. So I basically have an "ultra-wide stereo" setup instead of a 'surround" :-)

I'll be able to properly re-position the front 3 speakers on the wall over the computer monitors and facing down at me.. But I'm doomed to a max 180 degree position for the rear speakers. If I didn't have youngsters who'd poke a hole in a woofer as soon as listen to it, it might be different. So since I don't want to be bought up for child-slaughter, these speakers must live on the wall and out of reach.

These speakers also sit back on the desk right now, so I'm getting reflections from the desktop. This is causing some phase cancellation, so they're sensitive to head movement, i.e., off-axis coloring. If I move my head 3" up and down, the sound changes. I'm pretty sure I can eliminate this problem. Still, the sweet-spot in the room is going to be pretty small.

I haven't cranked them yet (need to wait till post-burn-in), although I did briefly push to the point of distortion. Yes, these are not loud, piss-off-the neighbor speakers. And if you bring in all your friends to sit around and watch/listen to your mix, they're going to have to crowd in and take turns in the sweet-spot. But they're plenty loud enough for solo mixing.

Now going OT to the thread title: I'll pick up on this later, but some initial thoughts for now since it ilustrates the newbie impression. Spot, some ideas for your next book. I've been a little disappointed that your current book doesn't delve into 5.1 editting more. On first read it was very useful. On second read with app in hand, I couldn't understand it at all :-) pg 195-198: Yes I get it, but no I don't *get* it. I looked on your CD for an example 5.1 veg and there wasn't one. That would be very useful. Now I'm scouring the audio forum trying to learn about advanced busses. Since I can't send bus->bus, I can't yet see how I'm going to turn 2 channel into 5.1. Elegantly, that is. Basically, I have two mixing scenarios for the amateur stuff I want to do: (1) Adding some stereo music source and converting to 5.1, so as to override the silly surround fx those home-theater players insert. (2) Taking some basic sound and dialog from my on-board camera mic and adding music as background. So simple stuff. But its eluding me right now.

To illustrate, take a simple approach for 2->5.1: Send the stereo to front-left-right, mono the stereo and send to the front-center, send the stereo through some reverb for the rear-left-right speakers, pull all the low-end and send it to the LFE. But this requires the same audio track duplicated 4 times. And I have to manually add matching lo/high passes for the LFE and non-LFE channels. Hardly elegant, although I could at least develop a reusable veg template.. Or I can use the surround panner and get signal to 5 channels, but they're the same signal so no fx on the rear/center. And the surround panner sends nothing to the 5 channels *and* the LFE, so the latter *has* to be created separately.

Alternatively, I thought I'd mirror the 6 speaker channels with 6 busses. But I can't send a track to more than one bus, and I can't route a bus to another bus.

Anyway, I'm lost right now but fun is in my future as I work it out :-)

The other thing that occurred to me as I was playing around is that 5.1 is going to be a nightmare to mix in general for a wide population. There is a huge variation in the setups of the various listeners, i.e., the majority of home setups stink. I can definitely see myself making a brilliant mix at home and having it sound like sh*t at my friends house :-) Even if I didn't overdo my "guitar flying around the room" too-many-new-toys mixing effort :-)) And there are many gotchas lurking for the 5.1 mixer, e.g., ensuring the stereo and mono mixdown sounds ok, or more subtle, e.g., see a very interesting thread at http://mediasoftware.sonypictures.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=19&MessageID=185980.

Comments

Spot|DSE wrote on 1/18/2004, 9:58 PM
Just a very quick comment to a long thread..
As mentioned in the book and in about every audio 'how to;'
DON'T mount speakers to the wall if you want to keep them accurate. For the LX's, they need to be at least 12" away from the wall, and they should be:
set on foam for best isolation
Acoustic foam behind them for best isolation
www.auralex.com has some really good info on this as well, but the book sorta delves into it.
I'm doing a short tutorial on 2 channel to 5.1, but it's not a typically advisable thing to do.
farss wrote on 1/18/2004, 11:29 PM
Stupid question here maybe, has anyone heard a good 5.1 mix?
I'm thinking mainly of movies, it always sounds to me like a 2.1 mix with a few FXs thrown in. The way I figure it either you're in a surround field the whole time or you're not. Surely sound is arriving at the ear from all directions all the time, not just when a plane flies overhead or a bullet nicks your ear.

Another question here, anyone tried the Bose suround headphones.? Someone I knew bought a pair and after spending a lot of time getting them setup to match his ears claimed they were pretty awesome. Quite useless for sharing as they have to be matched to each listeners ears.

Most impressive thing I heard at IBC last year, one 'speaker' that'll fill a small auditorium with surround sound. When I say one speaker it's actually around 100 pistons mounted in the one plane that can steer a beam of sound. Truly freaky experience listening to the thing, the sound was coming from right behind you, yet there is only one speaker dead in front of you. Cost was a bit of a killer, $20,000 but then they spent years on the design and it has a lot of processing power in it.
craftech wrote on 1/19/2004, 5:33 AM
In my home theatre setup I have a 5.1 speaker setup, but for music concert DVDs I always route them through my old Wharfedale W60D stereo speakers which are also hooked up to my old stereo system and play them in normal stereo. Simply put, to my ears the music sounds better.

I never liked surround sound for music listening probably because over the last 40 years of concert going I was never invited to sit on the stage to listen. I was always in the audience.

John
Jay Gladwell wrote on 1/19/2004, 7:41 AM
Wish the M-Audio LX4 5.1 system was available when I bought the system six months ago. If I could sell them, I'd buy the M-Audio in a heart beat!

J--
Spot|DSE wrote on 1/19/2004, 8:22 AM
Farss, I"ve heard LOTS of great 5.1 audio mixes. One in particular is the "Eagles; Hell Freezes Over" CD, plus lots from Steve Vai, POD, Madonna, and others. Not to mention lots of great film mixes. "BAD BOY'S II" has got to be a good one, "Patriot Games" is another, with many more between. Of course, there is a lot of crap, too.
5.1 is misunderstood. It's not about having audio in the back speaks all the time. It's funny that we're having this discussion again, as when I was in school, Quadrophenia was huge, and these very same discussions took place. If you can locate any back issues of Sound on Sound from back then, you'll find many articles, plus a monthly column on mixing for quad. Basically the same discussion. Hystery and mystery repeat themselves constantly, I guess. :-)
At NAB, I'm doing a class on surround, but I know it's a long way for you to travel....
filmy wrote on 1/19/2004, 9:12 AM
The terms have changed, but the idea of a 'good surround mix' ,I think, can be many different things. For me it isn't about the obvious, it is about the not so obvious - sort of like watching a 3-d movie. Yeah there is the 'gimmick' - as you say when a plane flys over. But there are also the basic things - a scene when someone is walking through the jungle and you, the viewer, are *in* that jungle because of the ambience that surrounds you.

Having said that - have I heard a good 5:1 mix. I have heard good mixes that were surround yes. "Twinkle, Twinkle, Killer Cane" was the first film I saw that impressed in terms of "surround", more so because the terms "5:1" or 7:1" weren't really being used...nor was the term "Surround". This film was shown using "6 tracks of audio". Ironicly the other film being pushed that way at the same time was "Apocalypse Now", a film that really brought the term "Sound Design" to the forefront of topics like this. I saw AN in the same theatre and it was shown only in stereo. Go Figure. I think "Frankenhooker" had a nice surround mix, although It wasn't "5:1". I saw the remastered/remixed verison of "Woodstock" at the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood about 13 (?) years ago because it was in surround sound. It was ok, but I was was expecting to have the music 'surround' me but really it seemed as though all they did was take the stage annoucements and put them into the sourrounds....but it was still impressive considering the when the film was first done they didn't think about issues like "surround".

Overall I think right now "Surround" is moving away for "5:1 mixed" much the way "Stereo" sort of moved on to "Surround". I have, and see, seen all these films and concerts clearly saying "5:1" because it is sort of like this "ohhhhhhh, aaaaaaaaahhhh" thing...but I can't say I have heard too many things that make me go "ooooohhhhhh, aaaaaaahhhhh". But I have to take the times in whcih we live into account - like I say - "5:1" is just the sell point of the times. Remember when TV started to really push stereo and all the shows would have the little "In Stereo (Where available)" overlays popping up? Now those are gone because it is just assumed everything is in stereo - now we see "Broadcast in Hi Definition (Where available)" overlays. And we also see "Surround" on some stations and the pay channels will pop up the "Available in 5:1" card at times. I think the bottom line is that mixing is the 'same' as it was always - I remember supervising a mix of a film where the Producers decided to mix in 'Ultra Stereo'. I had not cut anything for that - so I really wasn't thinking about it. At one point the mixer said to me "We really should put something into the surrounds because thay are paying for the Ultra Stereo encoder rental" So he found an effect that had more than 2 tracks and tossed it into the surrounds. I think that was about the only thing that was actually in the surrounds...but the film went out as being in "Ultra Stereo". My point is that a lot of these things in "5:1" are the same...they weren't really 'designed' to be in anything but stereo but because 5:1 is so..."accessable" I guess would be a good term...accessable now they just do it. Doesn't mean it really is.

Ironicly I just got an email yesterday asking if I could do a 5:1 mix of a feature...not only that but also the Stereo mix and the M&E mix. I am thinking about it but I know that when a producer says "All the tracks will be cut and finished, all you need to do is mix" what that will end up being is "Can you fix this section? Can you EQ that section? Can you re-work that section" and for the money they are offering - well, I don't think it is worth it. But after typing out what I typed out above I could re-think because all I would have to do is put a few things into the surrounds and be done with it...hmmmm.
filmy wrote on 1/19/2004, 9:25 AM
>>>One in particular is the "Eagles; Hell Freezes Over" CD<<<

Charlie did the location stuff for that, Le Mobile - it all starts at the root recording and engineering level for live recordings I think. The Steve Vai stuff - you mean the "Live at Astoria London" DVD? I have not heard it it, got it a few weeks ago. But Vai is such a geek when it comes to mxing anyway so it doesn't suprise me. I see it says "5:1 Surround and Stereo mixes by Mr. Vai" on the DVD.

>>>...Quadrophenia was huge...<<<

You mean Quadrophenia by the Who or do you mean "Quad sound"? Or both? I remember hearing this "Quad demo" off an 8-track in like Sears or something where they had music coming out of one set of speakers and an army boot camp DI comng out of another set. He he...somewhere I have the stereo demo 8-track that was used to demo "stereo" and I shoudl so digitize it and burn it to CD. LOL! God I remember loving one section - I think it was called a "trip to the store" and it consisted of a ride in the elevator and a stop on each floor, when they came to the toy section the doors opened and you heard machine gun fire, screaming, bombs, babies crying..it was so awesome. LOL. Now I would LOVE to hear that sort of thing done for 5:1 - because the stuff was actually designed and not just tossed in the surrounds "because..."
craftech wrote on 1/19/2004, 10:31 AM
>>>...Quadrophenia was huge...<<<

You mean Quadrohina by the Who or do you mean "Quad sound"? Or both?

==============================
"Quadrophenia" was by THE WHO. The audio term is quadrophonic sound.

John
farss wrote on 1/19/2004, 1:19 PM
SPOT,
I'll have to be VERY nice to the boss!
He sprung for my trip to IBC, maybe I can swing a ticket to Vegas.
Spot|DSE wrote on 1/19/2004, 7:17 PM
True on both counts, except that the craze for quadraphonic sound was called "Quadrophenia" There was also a film by that name.
There was even a magazine by that name at the time. I don't remember who published it though. Those were the days...
I miss my DCM Time Windows tonight.
busterkeaton wrote on 1/19/2004, 8:24 PM
Rich,

That is an awesome review. Nice to hear the reputation of these speakers is warranted.

I think the LX's are my next speaker purchase. The film version of Quadrophenia is one of my favorite films. The first two DVDs I bought were Quadrophenia and Yojimbo. There's a really nice director's commentary by Franc Roddam on Quadrophenia.

filmy wrote on 1/19/2004, 9:46 PM
The film is based on the album by the Who - one of my fav bands and albums. The movie was so so but still far ahead of it's time - male frontal nudity! **GASP** And hey - sting as a mod. How cool is that? As for the album - you said you would be three inches taller but you only became what we made you! God I love that album.

Hey - I have a cassette that is marked as Tommy but is really Quadrophenia. At the time a friend of mines mother worked over at a MCA duplicating plant/distribution center (Now UNI - part of the univeral music group...isn't that part of Time Warner now too?) and they screwed up and caught it before they shipped, but I managed to get one. Course at the time I never thought about "Hey this will have HUGE resale value if I leave it shrink wrapped and never open it or play it"
RichMacDonald wrote on 1/20/2004, 9:12 AM
Forgot to mention the additional $40 you'll be spending at Radio Shack. And to avoid my 3 trips to the store, here is what you'll need to connect them to an audigy or other sound card with 5.1 analog out via 3 stereo 1/8" plugs:

(3) of part 42-2551, which gives you 6' from the computer to the subwoofer. Output via RCA male plugs.

http://www.radioshack.com/product.asp?catalog%5Fname=CTLG&category%5Fname=CTLG%5F007%5F002%5F003%5F009&product%5Fid=42%2D2551

(6) of part 274-884, which converts the RCA male to 1/4".

http://www.radioshack.com/product.asp?catalog%5Fname=CTLG&category%5Fname=CTLG%5F007%5F002%5F001%5F001&product%5Fid=274%2D884


AVOID: Those "one-piece" adapters (see a pic at http://www.radioshack.com/product.asp?catalog%5Fname=CTLG&category%5Fname=CTLG%5F011%5F003%5F001%5F003&product%5Fid=274%2D369) will NOT work, because you cannot fit three of them side-by-side on your sound card.)
Catwell wrote on 1/20/2004, 11:04 AM
Hosa makes cables that will do the job without the adapters. they have 3.5mm stereo connector on one end and 2 - 1/4" mono phone plugs on the other.

CMP-153 (3')
CMP-159 (10')
rique wrote on 1/20/2004, 11:33 AM
Thanks for the tip. I found those HOSA cables online in 3 and 10 foot lengths for $5 & $6 each.

http://www.musiciansfriend.com/srs7/sid=040120112740068037075124715426/g=home/search/detail/base_pid/333053/
RexA wrote on 1/20/2004, 1:18 PM
"Hey this will have HUGE resale value if I leave it shrink wrapped and never open it or play it"
---

Maybe not in this case. How would anyone know that it was mislabeled without playing it?
MyST wrote on 1/20/2004, 5:45 PM
It's nice to (jealous) hear that you enjoy (jealous) them. I'd seen (jealous) great things written about (jealous) them. Myself, I'm happy just (jealous) using my good-ol' (jealous) Benwin 2.1 set-up for (jealous) now. Maybe if I put twice as (jealous) much foam under/behind my Benwins, they'll (jealous)sound professional?!?

M
busterkeaton wrote on 1/20/2004, 6:56 PM
MyST, (laughing) how do you like your (that was funny) like your Benwins?
MyST wrote on 1/21/2004, 2:17 PM
I think they're (bullsh*t) really accurate at (bullsh*t) reproducing the sound in all it's (bullsh*t) detail. ;)

M