digit-life.com wrote: "KRK takes up the lead in sound saturation with low frequencies, but its MF and HF quality is worse than in both competitors. Roland DS-5 monitors are the best at high and medium frequencies." They suggest Roland DS-5.
KRK would be WAAAY better than any similar priced Roland monitor... but to be honest if its ONLY video your going to be editing ie NOT sound, then practically anything will do.
editing video and editing sound are two different things
KRK would be WAAAY better than any similar priced Roland monitor... but to be honest if its ONLY video your going to be editing ie NOT sound, then practically anything will do.
editing video and editing sound are two different things
Video editors can't completely excise themselves from audio though. Maybe the video editor wants to be sure that the acquired sound is the best it can be, it can be a factor in deciding which take is best, or what takes need to be sent to the audio editor for clean-up work.
Either one is probably fine for the job. Most of the KRK's I've come across have a definite sound to them. I like it, some do not. The best thing to do is go someplace that has both monitors and bring a couple of cd's and audition them to see which seems better to you.
We tested a bunch of studio monitors in the musicstore in germany, it became clear for us that the krk's has the best sound coming out of it.
On low volumes the frequency response is a lot like when playing at high volume.
Most speakers need quite a lot of power before getting an evenly frequency response.
They are small in size and big in sound.
As said before, it's best to have a listen yourself, we make dancemusic so we might have chosen the krk's for the firm bottom-end + the balanced character on different volumes.
Take care of your monitoring room too, it makes a lot of difference when u treat your listening room...
Either one is probably fine for the job. Most of the KRK's I've come across have a definite sound to them. I like it, some do not. The best thing to do is go someplace that has both monitors and bring a couple of cd's and audition them to see which seems better to you.
Picking a studio monitor based on how much you like its sound might not be a good idea, as you will think that the recording has that sound in it, when really it is the monitors adding the coloration.
I know that the Thiel 3.6 is very popular monitor for testing out high end audio amps - not because it sounds good, but because it shows every flaw in glaring 3D.
While you don't want monitors or amps that flatter the sound no two monitors sound alike, yet they are all supposed to be flat. The things to look out for are stereo imaging, detail, low end response and how the mix translates to different speakers. A lot of monitors hype the bass which leads to a bass deficient mix. You also want to be able to hear how everything sits in the mix and how it is affected by different treatments. The listening enviorment also impacts all of this.
Of course monitors for a picture suite don't need to be nearly as good as those for a mix suite. Most avid/FCP rooms have low end Genelecs. Nice monitors, but not what you would want in a mix room. Personally I'm fortunate enough to have a pair of Spendor monitors in my home studio. I can hear every detail and the stereo imaging is almost 3D.
Comments
editing video and editing sound are two different things
KRK would be WAAAY better than any similar priced Roland monitor... but to be honest if its ONLY video your going to be editing ie NOT sound, then practically anything will do.
editing video and editing sound are two different things
Video editors can't completely excise themselves from audio though. Maybe the video editor wants to be sure that the acquired sound is the best it can be, it can be a factor in deciding which take is best, or what takes need to be sent to the audio editor for clean-up work.
We tested a bunch of studio monitors in the musicstore in germany, it became clear for us that the krk's has the best sound coming out of it.
On low volumes the frequency response is a lot like when playing at high volume.
Most speakers need quite a lot of power before getting an evenly frequency response.
They are small in size and big in sound.
As said before, it's best to have a listen yourself, we make dancemusic so we might have chosen the krk's for the firm bottom-end + the balanced character on different volumes.
Take care of your monitoring room too, it makes a lot of difference when u treat your listening room...
Either one is probably fine for the job. Most of the KRK's I've come across have a definite sound to them. I like it, some do not. The best thing to do is go someplace that has both monitors and bring a couple of cd's and audition them to see which seems better to you.
Picking a studio monitor based on how much you like its sound might not be a good idea, as you will think that the recording has that sound in it, when really it is the monitors adding the coloration.
I know that the Thiel 3.6 is very popular monitor for testing out high end audio amps - not because it sounds good, but because it shows every flaw in glaring 3D.
Of course monitors for a picture suite don't need to be nearly as good as those for a mix suite. Most avid/FCP rooms have low end Genelecs. Nice monitors, but not what you would want in a mix room. Personally I'm fortunate enough to have a pair of Spendor monitors in my home studio. I can hear every detail and the stereo imaging is almost 3D.