Blue Sky MediaDesk vs Rubicon 5a vs...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Psuper
  • Start date Start date
P

Psuper

New member
Well I've read up on monitors for the last 2 months. The only place I can listen to them physically is an hour and a half away, and they don't carry the two I'm most interested in at the moment.

I know both Rubicon 5a and Blue Sky Media desk are fairly new and get generally glowing reviews from respectable sources.

For my criteria without being able to hear them I see:

Bluesky Media Desk:
-Solid 2.1 expandable to 5.1. Important should I decide to expand at a later date, with monitors I'd be familiar with for translation.
- A sub. Most systems people have, have Subs. This should enable me to accurately mix freqs below 60hz.
-Wonderful support. "Publicly exposed" kind of attitude I respect(with their own public active forum). They are not afraid to let people ask questions via their forum and have really good information on their site.
- Lots of glowing reviews available online.
- UK company. I served in the Air Force at Croughton UK and my wife from Banbury. Not an audio kind of reason to buy, but a feel good one!


Samson 5a:
-Ribbon Tweeters. These are generally thought of being the pinnacle of tweeterish technology and can't be found in any lower priced studio monitors.
- Only a couple reviews, very little information to be found. One from SoS which is unavailable for the general public, a few from blogs. Positive nonetheless.

Both companies price are about the same. Bluesky is fairly new and Samson has been around awhile, but longevity vs. startup could be seen as a positive or negative depending on whom you ask.

I'm definitely leaning towards the Blue Sky Media Desk, but I'd love some extra insight. I've looked at (and haven't completely ruled out) many other affordable monitors (Wharfedale, Yorkville, Event, Tannoy, KRK, Yamaha, even Mackies and Dynaudio) and think Bluesky may be what I'm looking for. I like the company "sight unseen" and that, to me, means a lot. Their calibration and general information from their site would really help to solidify my purchase. The expandable 5.1 could be huge should I decide to venture in that area.

I can afford about $1k for studio monitors and am trying to keep it under $500.00. Mainly because I know if I concentrate on nearfields I can definitely make more than acceptable mixes in that price range, since I'm also quite used to listening the "finished" mixes I make now on a variety of other sources.

I also need to get a newer mixer. Any suggestions? I have an old 4 track Marantz tape mixer which is cool, but I need one to integrate with my PC DAW a bit better. I only need a basic one: a couple of inputs and support for my studio monitors. I'm not sure the Marantz would do the trick, maybe it would... but that's because I don't know what kind of connections I'll need yet.

Do you own either of these systems? What do you think of them?

P.S. I don't care about loudness; I want to totally focus on soft-listening mixing. I have some aged Carvins and a 300 lb(ok it's only 60lbs) tube amp/eq that will gladly blow out my windows should I need to hear stuff loud.

Thanks!
 
Sorry, i dont have any experience with those two specific monitors, but you should definately check out the dynaudio bm5a studio monitors.. i just got a pair and they are awesome (not even totally broke in yet)--definately a nice improvement from my old wharfedale 8.2a's. they're really well spoken about as well.

i got mine for $850 via ebay (most places sell for $900-1000) but its brand new... if you see a pair on ebay being sold by jrr shop or something do the 'best offer' feature for that and he might take it.


good luck

dan
 
Yea if I were to spend the full 1k I'd opt for those. They definately got amazing reviews and the most common comment I see about them are "they are in a class of their own". Reveared up with the Adams and stuff. Course then most people who listen to them say the 6a's offer better bass, and you should realistically get a sub for them as well.

So even though I think the majority of freqs would translate well and the mixes in those freqs would be terrific, it's pricey and it would be weak on the sub 60hz freqs.

But I've not ruled them out, if I were to plunk down 1k today it would be for those exact speakers.

Thanks for the reply.
 
I have a few comments to make that, when taken together, might sound more negative than I intend them to be. All I ask is that you hear me out and consider each point seperately.

First, it's impossible to compare speakers by featureset and spec. If you can't actually hear them, other comparisons are useless. Go with the gut.

Second, "2.1 expandable to 5.1"? All it takes to be "expandable to 5.1" is the addition of three more matched speakers. There is no "advantage" to one brand there. Plus, if you eally wanted to consider upgradingto 5.1, the cost increase in the rest of your gear would be so huge that you'd probably want to consider a greater budget for your initial monitors than what you're wanting to spend now.

Third, "most systems people have, have subs". On what planet? If you're talking public and consumer playback systems, the percentage of subwoofer-equipped systems is probably somewhere on the order of 0.1%. If you're talking about project studios, the ones mixing for 5.1 or hip-hop may be likely to have subs, but for other specialties I think you'd be lucky to find one out of three them are sub-equipped, on a good day. And those that are equipped may not necessarily have decent-quality main drivers; they have sacrificed budget for the subs.

Fourth, what good is having hyped response below 60 Hz if your 60-250Hz response sounds like molassas, or your 400-2kHz response is honking, etc? Spend your money on decent monitors in the human hearing range and make sure your room has a decent response first, otherise your mixes will suck, subwoofer or not. Get those right first and if you feel the need, add a sub later. Especially since your talking about wanting to do low-volume mixing. At low volumes, that sub is going to trick you; you run the real risk of getting very bass-deficient mixes.

Fifth, the fact that one brand is using some form of "ribbon" technology does not necessarily by definition indicate superior high frequency characteristics. This is like saying that digital sounds better than analog (or vice versa). It's a meaningless statement that depends upon a million different variables. There are a lot of variables involved; just a short list would include questins like whether the ribbon is a true open dipole (probably not), if it's not what the design of the cavity in which the ribbon sites is like, how is the actual high frequency dispersion of the ribbon/cavity design, what is the quality of the damping/backing material (if any) used in the ribbon construction. The lesson is it is just as easy to make a poor-quality ribbon or ribbon-like design as it is a high-quality one. And at lower prices ranges it likely to be designed more for marketing hype than for major advantage over a dome of equal cost.

Sixth, you are already ready to plunk your money down on the Blue Skys. If you're waiting for someone on this forum to give you the go/no go on that purchase, you've come to a bad place. You are going to ge a whole crowd who think the Blue Skys are the best thing since the Bic lighter (whether they've actually used them or not), another crowd who think they suck (whether they've personally used them or not), and a third set of independants like myself who know better than to make or take a recommendation on something as subjective as transducer sound, (whether we've actually used them or not). Just buy the Blue Skys with a money back guarantee. If you like them, great; if not return them and move on. But what we say thumbs up or thumbs down should have zero effect on that.

G.
 
I appreciate your response and disclaimer on how it may come across. But I'd have to add a few points.

It’s quite possible and realistic to judge speakers by reviews and other people’s opinions. I definitely realize you'd want to hear them to get the best possible understanding of what you already researched, but how do you know what "flat" sounds like? How do you know what colored sounds like? If you are searching for a graphically flat response, perhaps your ears tell you the "colored", less accurate studio monitor sounds best. The store you are listening to them in certainly all have different acoustics. I personally think other people's experience with a brand and company is worth more than my ears will enjoy. My ears will learn any system I feel is technically and statistically fit for mixing, and I don’t want what sounds the best; I want the most technically accurate and proven to translate well.

As far as the expandable, the advantage is already what I stated. An ear that is trained on the speakers you are expanding with. And although I agree it’s easy enough to add speakers, it’s not as cost effective as this system. So it’s a small point, but one that would only cost a fraction if I went with more expensive speakers and needed 3 more to match.

Most people do have subs; those who actually enjoy music, movies, and computer. It’s about knowing your audience/market. My audience will likely have a sub. Almost every decent hi-fi car stereo has a sub, most consumers use subs with their computers, most movie buffs have subs. I’m not trying to appeal to kids with boom boxes or some 20 dollar computer speakers (which usually have subs). Now some of them have 2:1, some have 5:1, but all of them, even if they don’t have a sub, will benefit if I mix well with the bass correctly and not guessing whats going on in the lower frequencies. And for the majority who do have a sub, it would be detrimental not to mix with one.
On your fourth point about a sub I couldn’t agree more. But let’s not assume I or anyone asking about decent studio monitors wants crappy mids and highs and overblown base. I want an equal freq response across the board and will very well get there once I set it up, test it out, and run some mixes.

The ribbon technology was only a point I’ve read about. Though you make good points about how meaningless it is to compare, its one of the few features that, if not a “marketing hype” and implemented correctly, are supposed to offer great results (which supposedly they do with the Samsons). Perhaps they are, perhaps they aren’t, I’m looking to know how they work in the Rubicon 5a from someone who may have them.

I’m ready to buy something for sure. It's between a Yorkville, an Event, and the two I'm asking about here. A forum is a place you bounce your own internal thoughts to others who hopefully nudge or pull you away based on your own interpretation of their qualifications and response. You hope for people who have experience with your subject, but in the very least you hope for support – positive or negative. This is human nature. That was my purpose and I stated as such. I’m well aware of the many different views, and that’s what I hope to get. Since both of these monitors are new, there is no better place to ask about them than the online community.
 
Psuper said:
I appreciate your response and disclaimer on how it may come across. But I'd have to add a few points...I’m ready to buy something for sure. It's between a Yorkville, an Event, and the two I'm asking about here. A forum is a place you bounce your own internal thoughts to others who hopefully nudge or pull you away based on your own interpretation of their qualifications and response. You hope for people who have experience with your subject, but in the very least you hope for support – positive or negative. This is human nature. That was my purpose and I stated as such. I’m well aware of the many different views, and that’s what I hope to get. Since both of these monitors are new, there is no better place to ask about them than the online community.
Click to expand...
I understand and appreciate your replies as well. But I still have to ask which planet has internet access, this planet where most sound systems have subs. The ideas that "almost every decent car hi-fi has subs" and that "most consumers use their computers with subs" is just so far from any reality anywhere near my corner of the universe as to make me believe that on that planet I might also have a real chance to hook up with Claudia Schiffer. Which is exactly why I want to know where that is. ;)

And as far as getting opinions, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with that. But I gotta say that in my experience - everywhere from selling high-end loudspeakers, to being in several studios and working with other engineers, to (perhaps most importantly) participating in general access Internet forums like this one - that getting opinions from strangers (incuding me) on the sound of specific transducers including microphones, monitors, and headphones, is next to useless.

There was a thread in here just a few weeks ago where almost the exact same question was posed about the Blue Sky monitors. If you do a forum search on Blue Sky, you should hopefully be able to find it. And if you do find it you'll see exactly what I mean; there were just as many people who thought they sucked like an open chest wound as there were who thought the Blue Skys were an angel from heaven. I run across the same thing with my own Mackies; I love the things, but I have read people on here who didn't like them in the least. Still others wouldn't go near any near field at all and think they don't even belong in studios. If I listened to those folks before I bought, I'd be missing out on what I consider to be one of the strongest and most important links in my signal chain.

What makes this even more of a wash out is that none of us know each other. You have no idea what my ears are like and how my tastes in response are, and vice versa. Without that baseline knowledge, my saying that the Mackie 824 is an excellent-sounding monitor is meaningless to you. All you know is that they sound excellent and do the job well for one guy's ears and tastes (and his room), which may be nowhere near yours. Now if you knew me for a while and knew what sounded good to me and what didn't, and how that related to what you heard and thought, then perhaps you'd have a reference to extrapolate from. But without that you're grabbing at straws.

And finally, about the subs vs, the mains idea. My point was for ~$500 a pair for mains alone, you're already talking about some comprimise in sound no matter what brand you get. The amount of "comprimise" may not be great, you can of course get some darn good speakers for $250 a pop. But to be able to throw in a sub in that same price range, they gotta be sacrificing something in the mains. I'm just suggesting that it might be worth considering the idea that sacrificing the quality of what happens from 60Hz up just to get a representation of what's happening below 60Hz is like sacrificing the quality of the apples because you like the more expensive bushel basket they come in. Get the best monitors and room acoustics you can afford first, and worry about the sub freqs with you next paycheck.

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
I understand and appreciate your replies as well. But I still have to ask which planet has internet access, this planet where most sound systems have subs. The ideas that "almost every decent car hi-fi has subs" and that "most consumers use their computers with subs" is just so far from any reality anywhere near my corner of the universe as to make me believe that on that planet I might also have a real chance to hook up with Claudia Schiffer. Which is exactly why I want to know where that is. ;)
Click to expand...

G., I may be wrong here and apologize up front if I am, but I have a feeling he's talking rap/hip-hop music here as his 'audience.' Those are the only people I know who carry subs in the trunks of their cars in place of spare tires...

;)
 
subwoofers? hmmm

The Blue Skys sound interesting. I'd like to hear your inputs on these.
the sub.

subwoofers?hmmm
a subwoofer test article by Bob Hodas in MIX,
*Main message-Sub can help with 3 things: Loud listening (some clients just want it louder), low-end weakness of a speaker (soffit mounted speaker standing freely= weakened bass),
and to hear more deep bass when working with small monitors.
*Mono subs symetrically in the center.

interesting was he said the "old" tale that bass is omnidirectional is a misconception derived from the old masters. they were required to place everything 200hz and below in mono on the vinyl discs(lathe cuting head jumping)...in short. which isn't the case anymore.

also said, To prove it, place your bass around and see if you can hear it..to the left or right..this proves bass isn't omnidirectional.

I tend to agree with the logic,
that nowadays we need to at least check the mix with a sub...
to avoid any surprises and check for farting crap sounds in the low-low hz and below....

Almost everyone that listens to music or theater has a sub these days..in the car and home. (most PC's will or do also). Thats what they'll play your mix on. Its hard to believe 1 of 3 studios use a sub?? except maybe their MAINS are so awesome they don't need a sub becuase the 15"woofs already there?
 
Glen, I’m trying to see your angle and where you are coming from, but your replies are less than helpful and quite incorrect in many statements. Without going over each point to blur this thread I'll simply refer you to my last post in this thread, since many of your new arguments simply restate what you already stated. I have no problem if you don’t wish to offer an opinion on what I asked about. But I’d appreciate you try a bit less to discourage me from asking, or someone else from replying. I’ve been an active help to more people you could ever know, in many fields of expertise on forums and bbs’s for years. The guy who says “your question or our answers are useless” is 100% correct... for his own self.

I ask for opinions on two new products that there is not much information to be found on, in a forum that has quite a lot of users. There are other forums I’ve posted on with related subjects, and part of posting on multiple forums with different questions garners the larger majority of “in the know” professionals and consumers.

I saw just about every thread on Rubicons and Blue Sky that I could find. Not just searched on forums, not just searched in review sites, not just googled, not just subscriptions to magazines, not just newsgroups, not just at my local dealer, I’ve done as much research as possible. And now I’m posting about it. It’s a new field to me, studio monitors, but I’m far from new to gathering knowledge and learning a new trade, especially online.

And I rarely go with what the majority say. I go with experience first - mine or others.

I write orchestral, choir, and ballads - all with a heavy emphasis on vocals. I’m a writer and a performer before I’m anything else. I’m also a professional photographer, network engineer, website designer, freelance writer, father, and could be considered retired at 35 if that helps the other guy know what I’m about and who my audience would be.

And I know if I had a pair of Rubicons or Blueskys, I could authoritatively give a review with my experience, which is exactly what I’m looking for.
 
Well I spent the last couple of weeks hitting the virtual books, contacting the manufacturers and picking the brain of a few people who I feel gave solid information on how to choose monitors "without" hearing.

I'm starting with the Blue Sky Media Desk 2:1.
Here's why:

* They were by far the most highly regarded on the net as far as reviews go, and the music shops I spoke with (I called 5 of them from around the country, one in the UK) all gave definite thumbs up with no problem.

* Their support staff had no equals; they answered every question personally and within 15 minutes which was just flooring.

* Their website has no equals; it has an active "open" forum that hides nothing. It offered a ton of information on their products and how to maximize the monitoring process. It offered authoritative information on the technology of mixing, monitoring and mastering with regard to many things like Room Acoustics and Placement.

* $500.00 is reasonable as a starting monitoring solution, and will give me the full range of frequencies to monitor, and another $500.00 at a later date will net 5:1 with a system I'll be intimately familiar with (unless I upgrade to System One, but I'll be building a studio before I do that).

So they’ll arrive on Thursday hopefully. I’ll run them through the gauntlet and give my honest opinion in a couple of weeks. So far it’s been a very positive experience with the company, but I’m not blinded. I’ll give the real scoop on what I think about them once I use them for awhile. And I won’t overuse the phrases “use your ears” or “don’t mix with headphones”, or even “Audigy’s are for gamers”… I promise.
 
Alright..Blue Skys cometh

yes impressive group. the larger "Studio One" or whtever..those have gone into a lot of big time studios.

acoustic suspension too...tighter bass control. it's probably a sweet sat/sub set surely.. :)

will be reading your thread soon on the Blue Skys...
give it to us straight... $500

what kind of music do you mix? or is it movies?
 
Yea Cat, I'm pumped about it. Will gladly provide that review.

My love is writing composing and performing a variety of styles. I grew up in choirs and rock bands, and my music reflects it. I prefer and am more capable at two styles in particular, ballads and orchestral hybrids. For ballads my music would be classified as emotionally charged and focused though the style varies. For orchestral hybrids it’s a cross of vocal, orchestral, and electronic. The majority of my hybrid music is similar to E.S. Posthumus, with the exception that I have yet to use real string sections and I perform all the male vocal parts. Ballads are a very generic term, and truthfully pretty hard to describe who I sound like. People have said Simon and Garfunkle, Michael W Smith, and Enya.

I have several dozen “polished” songs and virtually complete ideas at the moment that span over 20 years. I have hundreds of “good” ideas unrefined but very usable for a variety of outlets. They’ve been saved on tapes and I spent the last 4 months moving every one I have to DvDs for safer archiving. I never exposed or promoted myself, and once I feel completely comfortable with mixes, I’ll have them mastered and begin my newest journey.

I have some pretty solid marketing ideas and I know the direction I want to go, but until I start I won’t know what doors will open, but they will open I’m certain.
 
i think the sats and subs are the future,
like going from auratones to ns10 to sat/subs... full 20-20K

the Blue Skys are a designed crossover set,
acoustic suspension which is tighter control for bass...

your an adventurer!! an explorer!!
 
I don't see how the ability to hear the entire spectrum with a flat response could hurt for mixing, that's for sure. To omit audible frequencies in a mixing environment isn't acceptable to me now that I've researched it.

And the bass from the subs apparently give people the same impression. Evident yet controlled: a uniform loudness and balance you'd expect from a monitoring system.

I'm really looking forward to the whole process. I may not be an explorer, but I rarely take the well-worn paths.

Does putting a coffee on top of your Kurzweil count as adventurous tho?
 
first of all many monitors feature now the ribbon technology but has nothing to do with the adam ART ribbon technology, so unless you go with a7 the least, forget about ribbon. the rubicon 5a is certainly way more accurate than media desk, that's for sure. listen to the tannoy reveal 5a at about the same price. they used to ship around $800 but now they ship around $400. the best bargain out there. accurate and flat. generally i don't trust 2.1 systems for critical audio monitoring as no studio rely on this technology. for PCs are great though. the blue sky prodesk really worth the money, but i wouldn't trust the mediadesk.. since you don't care about loudness, and your budget is around $500, listen to Yamaha MSP 5 STUDIO, Fostex PM-1 MKII, Tannoy reveal 5a, KRK VXT 5, or the 'biggies' PRODIPE Pro 8, SAMSON RESOLV A8

Psuper said:
Well I've read up on monitors for the last 2 months. The only place I can listen to them physically is an hour and a half away, and they don't carry the two I'm most interested in at the moment.

I know both Rubicon 5a and Blue Sky Media desk are fairly new and get generally glowing reviews from respectable sources.

For my criteria without being able to hear them I see:

Bluesky Media Desk:
-Solid 2.1 expandable to 5.1. Important should I decide to expand at a later date, with monitors I'd be familiar with for translation.
- A sub. Most systems people have, have Subs. This should enable me to accurately mix freqs below 60hz.
-Wonderful support. "Publicly exposed" kind of attitude I respect(with their own public active forum). They are not afraid to let people ask questions via their forum and have really good information on their site.
- Lots of glowing reviews available online.
- UK company. I served in the Air Force at Croughton UK and my wife from Banbury. Not an audio kind of reason to buy, but a feel good one!


Samson 5a:
-Ribbon Tweeters. These are generally thought of being the pinnacle of tweeterish technology and can't be found in any lower priced studio monitors.
- Only a couple reviews, very little information to be found. One from SoS which is unavailable for the general public, a few from blogs. Positive nonetheless.

Both companies price are about the same. Bluesky is fairly new and Samson has been around awhile, but longevity vs. startup could be seen as a positive or negative depending on whom you ask.

I'm definitely leaning towards the Blue Sky Media Desk, but I'd love some extra insight. I've looked at (and haven't completely ruled out) many other affordable monitors (Wharfedale, Yorkville, Event, Tannoy, KRK, Yamaha, even Mackies and Dynaudio) and think Bluesky may be what I'm looking for. I like the company "sight unseen" and that, to me, means a lot. Their calibration and general information from their site would really help to solidify my purchase. The expandable 5.1 could be huge should I decide to venture in that area.

I can afford about $1k for studio monitors and am trying to keep it under $500.00. Mainly because I know if I concentrate on nearfields I can definitely make more than acceptable mixes in that price range, since I'm also quite used to listening the "finished" mixes I make now on a variety of other sources.

I also need to get a newer mixer. Any suggestions? I have an old 4 track Marantz tape mixer which is cool, but I need one to integrate with my PC DAW a bit better. I only need a basic one: a couple of inputs and support for my studio monitors. I'm not sure the Marantz would do the trick, maybe it would... but that's because I don't know what kind of connections I'll need yet.

Do you own either of these systems? What do you think of them?

P.S. I don't care about loudness; I want to totally focus on soft-listening mixing. I have some aged Carvins and a 300 lb(ok it's only 60lbs) tube amp/eq that will gladly blow out my windows should I need to hear stuff loud.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
 
Psuper said:
Well I've read up on monitors for the last 2 months. The only place I can listen to them physically is an hour and a half away, and they don't carry the two I'm most interested in at the moment.

I know both Rubicon 5a and Blue Sky Media desk are fairly new and get generally glowing reviews from respectable sources.

For my criteria without being able to hear them I see:

Bluesky Media Desk:
-Solid 2.1 expandable to 5.1. Important should I decide to expand at a later date, with monitors I'd be familiar with for translation.
- A sub. Most systems people have, have Subs. This should enable me to accurately mix freqs below 60hz.
-Wonderful support. "Publicly exposed" kind of attitude I respect(with their own public active forum). They are not afraid to let people ask questions via their forum and have really good information on their site.
- Lots of glowing reviews available online.
- UK company. I served in the Air Force at Croughton UK and my wife from Banbury. Not an audio kind of reason to buy, but a feel good one!


Samson 5a:
-Ribbon Tweeters. These are generally thought of being the pinnacle of tweeterish technology and can't be found in any lower priced studio monitors.
- Only a couple reviews, very little information to be found. One from SoS which is unavailable for the general public, a few from blogs. Positive nonetheless.

Both companies price are about the same. Bluesky is fairly new and Samson has been around awhile, but longevity vs. startup could be seen as a positive or negative depending on whom you ask.

I'm definitely leaning towards the Blue Sky Media Desk, but I'd love some extra insight. I've looked at (and haven't completely ruled out) many other affordable monitors (Wharfedale, Yorkville, Event, Tannoy, KRK, Yamaha, even Mackies and Dynaudio) and think Bluesky may be what I'm looking for. I like the company "sight unseen" and that, to me, means a lot. Their calibration and general information from their site would really help to solidify my purchase. The expandable 5.1 could be huge should I decide to venture in that area.

I can afford about $1k for studio monitors and am trying to keep it under $500.00. Mainly because I know if I concentrate on nearfields I can definitely make more than acceptable mixes in that price range, since I'm also quite used to listening the "finished" mixes I make now on a variety of other sources.

I also need to get a newer mixer. Any suggestions? I have an old 4 track Marantz tape mixer which is cool, but I need one to integrate with my PC DAW a bit better. I only need a basic one: a couple of inputs and support for my studio monitors. I'm not sure the Marantz would do the trick, maybe it would... but that's because I don't know what kind of connections I'll need yet.

Do you own either of these systems? What do you think of them?

P.S. I don't care about loudness; I want to totally focus on soft-listening mixing. I have some aged Carvins and a 300 lb(ok it's only 60lbs) tube amp/eq that will gladly blow out my windows should I need to hear stuff loud.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

i'm a professional active musician [pianist, theorist, musicologist] and i have worked close to a sound engineer in a prestigious studio. i have mixed in main systems (such as Klein+Hummel O 410, Genelec1038, ADAM S5 A MK 2), mid systems (such as DYNAUDIO AIR 20, ADAM S4X-H, Klein+Hummel O 300) and near systems (such as ADAM S3X-H, Genelec 8250A, JBL LSR 4328PAK).

all in all, adam/k&h rule every time in nutrality and overal balance. genelecs are flat enough for mixing, but more one the pleasing side. dynaudios & jbls are decent but more on the hi-fi side. that is why most people like them.

monitors like m-audios, fostex, tascams, tannoys, yamahas, samsons, events, mackies and krks (except expose), are hi-fi systems. you can't rely on them for critical auditioning/mixing. of course 90% of the people listen to music in ipods, car stereos and mini/micro home hifi systems. those will even find m-audio monitors great. but that's because they never listened before to music as they should. unless you listen to monitors that costs around $10,000, you can't really understand the huge difference in audio reproduction.

in general, the more you like a monitor, the less accurate it is. for home studio recording and small rooms, you need clarity & imaging at low listening levels. not much power.

if you want to spend something like $500-700 then the options are really few and clear

Adam A5 Pro
http://www.dv247.com/studio-equipment/adam-a5-studio-multimedia-monitor-in-matt-black--50641

BlueSky Media Desk
http://www.dv247.com/studio-equipment/blue-sky-media-desk-2-1-desktop-monitoring-system--22959

if you spend something like $700-1200 you have more options

Focal CMS 50
http://www.dv247.com/studio-equipment/focal-cms-50-powered-reference-monitoring-system--62339

Adam A7
http://www.dv247.com/studio-equipment/adam-a7-active-nearfield-monitor--35780

Yamaha MSP 7
http://www.dv247.com/studio-equipment/yamaha-msp7-studio-biamp-2-way-powered-speaker--38245

BlueSky Prodesk
http://www.dv247.com/studio-equipment/blue-sky-pro-desk-2-1-monitoring-system--3201

Focal CMS 65
http://www.dv247.com/studio-equipment/focal-cms-65-powered-reference-monitoring-system--62340

the focals are clearly the best choice even if you had to spend around $2000
the bluesky solutions are also cost-effective, and expandable. if you do film scoring, then it is bluesky. go with the prodesk and never bother again to upgrade you monitors in the future
 
klapatas said:
in general, the more you like a monitor, the less accurate it is.
Click to expand...
Never mind the fact that the OP probably solved his problem and bought his speakers four years ago when this thread was active; but the above statement is pure hooey. Whether one "likes" a monitor or not is so purely subjective to both individual anatomy and preferences as to make any generalization on preferences impossible.

There is also - for the exact same reason - not necessarily a direct correlation between accuracy and suitability to task. There are some perfectly qualified folks out there with plenty of cred who would much prefer to mix on NS-10s over Adam A7s, and the NS-10s are awful on the accuracy scale.

And finally, categorizing by brand name is useless. There are some Genlec models with levels of accuracy 2-3 times that of their brother models. And have you even put an A7 and an A5 next to each other? It's like putting Alec and Steven Baldwin next to each other; the only thing they really have in common is their last name. This is going to be true with every and any brand you mention. Oh, and BTW, Focal *is* a consumer hi-fi brand; does that mean that all those brands you dissed as being hi-fi sound like Focals? Or does that mean that Focal sounds like Advent, since they are both "hi-fi" lines? Of course not. Then again you'd have to specify just which Focal you're comparing to, since they make a line that is just as all over the map in sound characteristics as anyone else's.

G.
 
personaly, i dont care about brands., what kind of tweeters, or what the cones are made of. Which ever Monitors you get, you will have to adjust to them, and learn to mix on them. My rules of thumb to picking monitors are......

- wide frequency responce (at least 60hz-20k, but if it can get even lower on the lows, great)

- 8" monitors (woofer), anything below that, you probably will consider getting a sub, which i feel is a waste, .......just get the 8"ers

With my search for new monitors.....I ended up getting a used Old (but a goodie) pair of 8" EVENT BAS active monitors, and i dont regret it.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
I understand and appreciate your replies as well. But I still have to ask which planet has internet access, this planet where most sound systems have subs. The ideas that "almost every decent car hi-fi has subs" and that "most consumers use their computers with subs" is just so far from any reality anywhere near my corner of the universe as to make me believe that on that planet I might also have a real chance to hook up with Claudia Schiffer. Which is exactly why I want to know where that is. ;)
Click to expand...
No need to go to another planet, just move to LA, although, compared to Chicago, LA probably IS on another planet :D
 
noisewreck said:
No need to go to another planet, just move to LA, although, compared to Chicago, LA probably IS on another planet :D
Click to expand...
Well, things have changes a bit in the 4 years since I wrote that, I'll admit. There are more honkers out there now, I'm sure.

I can't speak for the land of medical marijuana (I'm jealous ;) ) but here in the land of the Italian beef sandwiches which are prescribed by law to be eaten after you've smoked your illegal marijuana, subs tend to be - at least in the orbit of my own personal planet - on the home entertainment systems. The funny thing is, very few people I know actually use their HE systems to actually listen to music; they'll watch some crappy Will Ferrel movie in 5.1 surround, but they listen to their music on iPods. The days where the "home stereo system" was the focal point for plyaing music seem to have disappeared around these parts.

Sure, you have computer gaming systems with "subwoofers", and there's probably more music being listened to on there than on HE systems, but calling those things subwoofers is like kissing your sister. ;)

G.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top