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!
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!