Bright monitors, BX8's, and passives...

Y

Yareek

New member
Okay, so I didn't want to hijack the other thread but I have some questions. If you want to skip to the point, just read the last paragraph :)

I need a pair of monitors for my bedroom studio. I was thinking BX5's becuase they come so highly recommended and they're at closeout prices lots of places (and used).

But, I listened to a pair of BX8's at a friends house and found that they had almost no lower mids (120 - 300 Hz) and very little bass until you REALLY cranked them. They also had pretty "forward" sounding highs from about 1 - 2k on up. Unfortunately, they always sounded too forward to me and I can't stand overly bright sounds (I cringe when I hear a tube TV fire up from 15 feet away).

However, they were incredibly detailed speakers. I listened to a few well-mixed CD's (including the new Copeland); you could hear exactly the panning of the toms, the placement of guitars, all that better than any monitor I've heard.

I A/B-ed them against the old Audix OM-1's I had borrowed for the past 3 years, which are sweet little 4" 2-way actives. Those guys had REALLY punchy low mids and smoother highs (read: dull). Unfortunately, I could never get a mix to translate well because of the lack of bass and the lack of clarity.

Do nearfield monitors need to be somewhat bright in order to mix precisely? Is that why studios have huge far-fields (to check the frequency response) AND near-fields (to check the imaging)? Can you at least get some kind of combination of both? I'm looking at maybe some KRK ST6's because they have a good reputation for having a little bit more on the bass side than the treble, but is that going to have poor mix translation compared to the BX5's? Also, is it okay for me to use in the short term a decent Sony stereo to power passive monitors until I can get a separate amp?

Thanks!
 
...just curious to see about any opinions or insight here.

By the way, I looked at the back of the BX5's, and they have both "High Cut" and "Acoustic Space" switches. Does anyone know what the acoustic space switch actually does? And is the high cut switch just a tweeter pad? And does it actually take out some of the highs of this speaker?

I just might have to try a pair to see if they really are different from the BX8's.
 
Yareek, some quick responses:

I think everyone would agree that the BX5 and 8 models have quite a different sound. From what I've seen, the BX5 seems to be the more popular model here, particularly when used with a sub (which I think is a necessity with such small monitors).

The acoustic space switch is a correction filter that cuts 2 or 4dB from the 500-900Hz range. It produces a subtle but noticeable change to the overall sound and is useful in setting up the monitors in a particular space. I used it with good results and especially liked the subtlety of the tonal change--less dramatic than adjusting the mid- or high-EQ switches.

The high-freq switch adds or subtracts 2dB beginning at 2kHz. There's a gradual cut/boost from 2-5kHz and then
consistent after that. I haven't needed it.

The low-freq switch is helpful in one primary way: you can cut the lows at either 80 or 100Hz when adding a sub (to help integration). Works great. Without a sub, I'd leave it set to full lows (56Hz), which are certainly audible but which led to a lot of guessing while mixing for me. There just ain't much low end there. A sub solves that problem and allows the BX5s' mids and highs to shine.

By the way, IMHO, the BX5 is a good fit for folks who prefer a slightly brighter monitor, which can really open up a mix. I seldom listen for more than an hour or two at a time, and my ears never feel fatigued. I can understand, though, how some people who listen for extended periods prefer a monitor with less pronounced mids and highs.

Gotta run. Good luck. Get out there and compare with your own ears if you can. Opinions on monitors differ wildly.

J.
 
Last edited:
Jeffree,

That was probably the best response to a question I've ever asked. Thanks!

Yeah, I can see how the two would differ, even with the same tweeter and electronics. I've noticed in cheaper woofers that the cone breakup on larger woofers can be kind of nasty. If people perceive the BX8's to be brighter, that's probably why. I'd love to see a response chart.

Anybody have any other inputs on the more "laid back" monitors?

Also, can anyone tell me whether or not it would be a terrible idea to run passives off a home stereo?

Thanks again.
 
I ve got a pair of bx5's, and yes they are much brighter than my main monitors which are KRK v6's.

I usually roll the bx5's off at 80hz and check the mix on them once in a while to see where the mids are.

Not that the KRK's dont do this fine allready.

But its always good to check.
 
bx8's

Hi, Depending on what genre of music you're recording is also a question on deciding which monitors to choose.
I own a pair of the BX8's and i found them to be perfect for the Hip Hop R&B musician/producer...I also use a Polk Audio powered sub and cutoff the BX8's low frequency @ 80hz
Depending on how far a way you are from them room acoustic and genre in my opinion is a deciding factor on which way to go.
I'd say take all of that into consideration, everybodys situation is different use your own judgement and shop them all!(Monitors) Then make the decision on your own preference.
What sounds great to me may bite it to you.

Hope that helps.

I live music......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top