Monitor discussions can get fairly religious, so be sceptical of anyone’s advice. While an argument can be made for an ideal flat frequency response (and monitor a specs out better than monitor b), monitor choice is subjective and boils down to a matter of taste.
I tell people that monitors are a musical instrument. You have to practice. What you’re shooting for the ability to listen to your monitors, and understand how your mix will translate to a variety of environments. Thankfully, the best training you can do, at least initially, is listen to all your favourite music.
You can’t make decisions about frequencies you can’t hear, so, obviously you want something that represents a wide of range as possible. This is kind of tricky though. My favourite monitors could effortlessly reproduce a very beautiful range of the frequency spectrum (the lower mids, not the super lows). Unfortunately, that range collapses to absolute mud on most people’s systems, so I had to learn to be very careful there.
Low end is interesting. I see a lot of people impressed by super lows and high SPLs. What I look for is smoothness in frequency response from the lower mids to the lows, but more specifically, low end with definition, not ‘boom’
Anyway, as long as you know your monitors like an instrument, it doesn’t matter what brand you use, what matters is your skill and knowledge.”
I decided to create a patch in Pure Data for my live chiptune performance. I wanted to trigger effects & receive visual feedback on the arduinome to avoid having to look at my laptop.
Four chords over four octaves selected & synthesised at random intervals in Pure Data. A modern computer music box.
I’m back at home for a week and there isn’t much to do here. This music is based on four chords over three octaves which are selected by a pseudo-random process inside Pure Data.