Monitor comparisons

[iqi616]

Behringer Truth B2030A vs KRK Rokit RP6

My initial impression was that the B2030A is bright but the RP6 is middly. Both are quite good in the bass. However, on more careful listening the quality of the RP6 shines through. It costs more but is clearly a flatter response speaker. The high frequencies are a lot clearer. Really there's no question that the RP6 is the better monitor.

My opinion on the B2030A is that it's okay as something to get you started but if you already have some okay speakers it would be better to save for higher quality.


M-Audio BX8a vs KRK Rokit RP8-G2

The initial impression of a side-by-side test was even more so that the KRKs are middly. Again, more careful listening reveals the true picture - the BX8a sounds unnatural. It lacks mids. The tweeters audibly distort. I wouldn't trust the results of a mix from these speakers to be translatable. Bass guitar was a key differentiator because the BX8a left out the tone and the character of the instrument. The KRKs have all the midrange available for inspection and like the RP6 seem to be very flat. Less bass than the BX8a but if I want to shake the room, I'll use a subwoofer.

My opinion on the BX8a is that it's not my kind of speaker. It doesn't even sound flat and with the distorted highs would be fatiguing to listen to for any reasonable length of time. My recommendation is to keep saving for something better if you want to do any mixing.


Mackie HR824 mk II vs KRK Rokit RP8-G2

The Mackies are nice sounding speakers however their frequency response is not flat - there is a brightness peak that makes it hard to hear if there is any air. There is also an in-your-face presence that you may or may not like. Midrange is okay and might even be flat but the strong high frequencies make it sound scooped. There is more bass on the Mackies than the KRKs as I expected from the reputation of these speakers. For many applications a subwoofer would not be necessary.

My opinion on the HR 824 mk II is that they are nice sounding speakers and if I bought them it would be to use to impress friends or customers. However, for mixing or mastering I'd be second-guessing what they're telling me about the high frequencies and that's not what I need from a monitor.

My opinion on the RP8-G2 and the RP6 is that they have a flatter response than the others. Maybe a bit round in the midrange but the +/- 1.5 dB frequency response claim is believable. It is good to be able to hear what's happening in the mids as that's where most frequency clashes between different instruments occur. Bass could be considered a bit lacking but I use a subwoofer anyway so that's not a big deal. What really sold me was the tweeters. They are so clean that they get dwarfed by the excesses of their competitors when doing comparisons and therefore get overlooked. There is a nice balance between the presence, brightness, and air and that is important because a lot of microphones these days seem to be bright but lacking in presence and air and that means careful EQ to sort out the high frequencies.

It would have been nice to compare the RP8G2 and the RP6 but that wasn't possible so all I can say from memory is that both speakers had a similar sound that I liked so I would be surprised if there was a significant difference in tone between them.

Unfortunately I'm not sponsored by KRK but if they did offer to pay me I would have no qualms associating my name with these speakers.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Let's see the measurements!

G.

 

[iqi616]

Hi Glen. I used my ears . I don't actually have the technology to make frequency response charts anyway. The differences between these speakers are plainly audible. KRK claim +/- 1.5 dB 45 Hz to 20 kHz and I didn't hear anything that made me question that. That is still a 3 dB range which is significant in terms of a single EQ boost or cut, but it does not seem to be focused into any peaks or dips.

I've not checked the figures on the other products but frankly didn't need to from what my ears were telling me. I used my loudness-levelled reference CD so I'm very familiar with what I was auditioning with on a wide range of gear. If it is dips in the frequency response giving me the illusion of flatness, that is less of a problem for me than peaks would be provided those dips are not potholes where problems can hide.

Having spent a week listening to a broad selection from my CD and vinyl collection, I don't regret my choice of buying the RP8-G2 instead of continuing to save for the HR824mkII. I believe that I'm getting as much an uncoloured frequency response from the KRKs as I could expect at this level - possibly better than I should expect considering the very reasonable price. I'm not interested in speakers that flatter the sound, I want to be able to trust my choices during tracking and mixing.

The highs are nice and clear to my ears, I can differentiate the sounds that are within that range - it doesn't turn to a harsh mush. I can hear the quality of the air and brightness in different recordings and that's very nice.

My initial impression of being them being middley has tempered a bit now that I'm hearing them on their own in my room. The midrange is definitely fully audible - the presentation of bass guitar (where I would expect to hear all the tone such as Jaco) is very clear. On tubby-sounding CDs such as The Chieftains' "Old Plank Road", the lower mid/upper bass lumps and bumps are clearly audible.

The only region I think they're lacking is in the deep bass. When I've finished rewiring my monitoring setup, I'll be able to set up my subwoofer. In any case, I use my MDR-7506 headphones as my main tool for checking what's happening in the deep bass.

I did a brief comparison to the ancient Sony hifi speakers I'd been using. I'd rate them above the Behringer and the BX8a in comparison to the KRKs so I've justified waiting until I could go beyond the basic cheapies. However the KRKs are a big step forward from what I had. Listening to old mixes I can hear some where the limitations of the Sonys led to poor EQ choices.

Of course the proof will be in the new mixes I do and how translatable they turn out to be

 

[NYMorningstar]

Monitors that work well for you may not work well for another person. That's why it's recommended that you take your favorite cd to a music store and listen to all the near fields to make the best choice for you personally. I equate it to using someone elses eye glasses. Also, the room your listening in and where you position yourself is going to make a difference.

What's important is learning what you need to do to adjust what you hear on your monitors, whatever they are, to relate to other sound systems.

 

[iqi616]

I agree to a certain extent. However, it's a question of degree. If the monitor isn't telling you the whole story, you'll be forever chasing your tail. I've been doing the "adjustment" with my Sonys for over 15 years and I couldn't justify spending a good amount of money on a speaker where I still have to take significant guesses about what I'm not hearing.

Of the five products that I compared, only the KRKs and Mackies would have taken me a step further than where I already was. I enjoyed the sound of the Mackies and could work with them but the clearer smoother high-end of the KRKs are what I need to analyze and control the brightness and clarity of my mixes.

Just for clarification, I'm not saying that the Rokits are better than the $500+ per speaker market segment but I do think they represent the start of where you are getting a tool that is fit for the job.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Hi Glen. I used my ears . I don't actually have the technology to make frequency response charts anyway. The differences between these speakers are plainly audible. KRK claim +/- 1.5 dB 45 Hz to 20 kHz and I didn't hear anything that made me question that. That is still a 3 dB range which is significant in terms of a single EQ boost or cut, but it does not seem to be focused into any peaks or dips.

Hey there, Mike,

My mistake, I thought you had some field measurements to go by.

There's a couple of questions I'd like to pose here, which give me real trouble every time someone does a speaker review like this (it's not just picking on you specifically at all):

Both KRK and Mackie claim +/- 1.5dB up to 20kHz - with Mackie going down to 37Hz, which is that extra bass you hear - and both provide lab measurements to back those claims up. (I'm not sure if they still do that or not, but I know that Mackie used to actually test each unit coming off the line and provide the actual response chart test for each specific unit in the box. I'm also not sure if KRK did or does this or not.)

Question #1 is, how do you reconcile your ear tests with their lab tests?

Question #2 is, how can you tell that the presence peak is in the monitor and not the ear? That is, with any source of reference or measurement, it is equally possible that there is a "presence dip" in the KRKs which is compensated for a presence peak in your ear(s), making them sound flat and making a flat Mackie (or any other brand that's flat, I'm not singling out Mackie here) sound a bit hyped. We can't know the answer to that because we have no actual measurement of the frequency response of either monitor or of your ears.

Question #3 is, Just what *are* you using for a reference to determine "flatness"? How do you know what any given CD you use as test material is actually supposed to sound like when played through a known, tested and truly flat speaker? Do you know that you've ever listened to a truly flat speaker? Without calibration or reference, for all any of us know, either the KRKs and the Mackies could be right on or way off in terms of flatness, but in abstentia of a known reference, any judgment is only subjective at best.

Question #4 (my favorite):

that they are nice sounding speakers and if I bought them it would be to use to impress friends or customers. However, for mixing or mastering I'd be second-guessing what they're telling me about the high frequencies and that's not what I need from a monitor.

The old "these speakers sound better because they're hyped, but I don't need hype in the studio" position. This just begs this question:

If "hyped" speakers were so, wouldn't they sound worse instead of better? Think about it; if you or I made the perfect mix with just the right high end, the hyped monitor would push the high end past perfect, which would sound too sharp, shrill or sibilant. It wouldn't make the perfect mix sound better, it would make it sound hyped. Or to put it another way, if "hyped" sounded so good, why don't we hype our mixes?

The majority of us - and especially those of us born before disco - have spent almost all of our lives listening to speakers that have been deficient in their high end response. Whether it's been in home stereo speakers, car stereo speakers, headphones, boom boxes, or even studio monitors, anything resembling flat above 10kHz or below 50Hz was little more than a daydream for all but the rare exception of loudspeaker. It's what we're used to unless we're audiophiles or engineers of classical music. It has shaped our mental picture of what we think "flat" actually is or should be.

For those born as part of the MP3 generation, well, just look at what MP3 does to the high end and what earbuds do to the low end, and you'll see that while you're in a different boat than us old-timers, you're sailing much the same sea.

The bottom line is, while I do appreciate the detail you have put into your analysis, Mike, and you obviously have pretty good listening skills and have used them well to pick a monitor that works for you the best, you are making some broad stroke conclusions as factual that are really subjective without true reference or measurement, and that readers should understand that there is a very large YMMV missing at the beginning or end of it.

G.

 

[CIRO]

The initial impression of a side-by-side test ...

Side by side means monitor A distant ,let´s say, 10" L/R from B?
While I agree this way you obviously can feel the "vibe" of different speakers, at least on a small room like mine, just re-positioning the (same) monitors in very small steps (L/W/H) makes all the difference (frequency response)-usually a null point is very common moving just 3" or 4",even in a treated room.

Ciro