There have been some really good tried-and-true suggestions offered here!
Since the original query was about monitoring, I'll keep out of subjective processing conversation (for now anyway, LOL!).
My keyword for monitoring would be "neutral." That is, IMHO the more neutral-sounding your main listening location is, the more useful it will be.
I learned a new word the other day from, get this, an audiophile (!) That word is "euphonic." It means "having a pleasing sound."
Believe it or not, I would NOT want a 'euphonic' monitor! Being euphonic is in direct conflict with having a neutral sound. To my thinking, the monitor's purpose is not to make bad-sounding audio sound good, but rather to offer you an accurate, almost clinical sonic picture of your signal.
Mr. Foti suggested that you should built a top-notch reference monitoring location, and learn its sound. I would completely agree, adding only that I would want it to have as little of its own sound as possible. And along with Cornelius, I would want an A-B switch to hear direct program, and a tuner to hear the competition.
Once you have a handle on your sound in a neutral location, you can then use a variety of lesser-grade receivers to decide upon subtle changes they might suggest, as Greg Strickland said. He, Goran and dannyscott101 said to be patient, and only make incremental changes, which I also think is wise.
I think Tom Wells' suggestion to listen at low levels is also a good one. Since most long-term office listening is done at low volume, clarity is vital.
And as Speakerman says, I find that a reliable set of headphones can be another good secondary reference.
Of course, when the PD's BMW radio is the only reference, all bets are off!
Kind Regards,
David
Since the original query was about monitoring, I'll keep out of subjective processing conversation (for now anyway, LOL!).
My keyword for monitoring would be "neutral." That is, IMHO the more neutral-sounding your main listening location is, the more useful it will be.
I learned a new word the other day from, get this, an audiophile (!) That word is "euphonic." It means "having a pleasing sound."
Believe it or not, I would NOT want a 'euphonic' monitor! Being euphonic is in direct conflict with having a neutral sound. To my thinking, the monitor's purpose is not to make bad-sounding audio sound good, but rather to offer you an accurate, almost clinical sonic picture of your signal.
Mr. Foti suggested that you should built a top-notch reference monitoring location, and learn its sound. I would completely agree, adding only that I would want it to have as little of its own sound as possible. And along with Cornelius, I would want an A-B switch to hear direct program, and a tuner to hear the competition.
Once you have a handle on your sound in a neutral location, you can then use a variety of lesser-grade receivers to decide upon subtle changes they might suggest, as Greg Strickland said. He, Goran and dannyscott101 said to be patient, and only make incremental changes, which I also think is wise.
I think Tom Wells' suggestion to listen at low levels is also a good one. Since most long-term office listening is done at low volume, clarity is vital.
And as Speakerman says, I find that a reliable set of headphones can be another good secondary reference.
Of course, when the PD's BMW radio is the only reference, all bets are off!
Kind Regards,
David