KRK rockit 5 vs ???

  • Thread starter Thread starter sk8a123
  • Start date Start date
S

sk8a123

New member
I didn't know if this post should go here, or the newbies forum, but since it is related to monitors, I'll post it here until otherwise. Anyhow, are there monitors better thank the KRK rockit 5's but in the same price range?
 
I personally don't think so. The $300 range monitors you don't get much in terms of quality except for the KRK rokit 5's. They were the best out of what I could get (Behringer's, M-Audio's, Fostex.....) IF you have over $500 I'd try the Adam's but if you've only got 3 or 400 bucks, get the KRK's......
 
hmmm arlight. Because I've been hearing a lot of talk about M-Audio BX5a vs the KRK rockit 5. and am not sure which one to get.
 
I actually considered the 8's at one point, but soon realized i was out of my budget. So i'm hoping to keep it within the KRK rockit 5's budget
 
sk8a123 said:
I actually considered the 8's at one point, but soon realized i was out of my budget. So i'm hoping to keep it within the KRK rockit 5's budget
Click to expand...


From experience I like the 6's the best.

I heard all 3 side by side. My partner got the 5's over a year ago, and I got the 6's not too long ago. We both agreed the 8's where too big for what we wanted to do. And we BOTH like the 6's now.


He got the 5's with the sub, I got the 6's by their self AND my mixes translate very well to other systems.

I record, produce, and mix hip hop.
 
Alright, thats probably what I'll do. Start out with 5's and as i progress, upgrade
 
I'd save 'n wait. You're going to "outgrow" those things in about 2 hours.

Don't get me wrong here - It's no big secret that I'm generally not a big fan of nearfield monitoring. But there are speakers that are "capable" and there are speakers that are "tiny little speakers with horrible frequency response" (and IMO, these are the latter).

Two "rules" of audio -- Two of the ONLY "rules" of audio --

1) No matter your experience, no matter your level of listening skills, you will only ever be as good and consistent as your monitoring chain allows you to be (period).

2) Your monitoring chain will only ever be as accurate and consistent as the space allows them to be.

Buy cheap, buy (at least) twice. And your speakers are far too vital. Wait until your budget increases even if it takes a year. After two years, you'll be so far better off that you wouldn't believe it.
 
Massive Master said:
I'd save 'n wait. You're going to "outgrow" those things in about 2 hours.

Don't get me wrong here - It's no big secret that I'm generally not a big fan of nearfield monitoring. But there are speakers that are "capable" and there are speakers that are "tiny little speakers with horrible frequency response" (and IMO, these are the latter).

Two "rules" of audio -- Two of the ONLY "rules" of audio --

1) No matter your experience, no matter your level of listening skills, you will only ever be as good and consistent as your monitoring chain allows you to be (period).

2) Your monitoring chain will only ever be as accurate and consistent as the space allows them to be.

Buy cheap, buy (at least) twice. And your speakers are far too vital. Wait until your budget increases even if it takes a year. After two years, you'll be so far better off that you wouldn't believe it.
Click to expand...

I would argue your point concerning the Rokit 5's, but I'm more intrigued by your stance on near-field monitoring. If you've elaborated on this before, can you point me to it? I'm really interested in your viewpoint.
If not, can you give me your rationale for avoidance of near field monitors?

Thx!
 
make your budget work for you...my mixes never finish with the monitors anyway, they go through phones, bookshelf speakers, mp3 player, the car...somewhere along the line you should notice whats missing or what needs to be done to balance the mix

I have 5"monitors as well as 8's...Id say the 5's would be ideal for that bedroom studio..but really although it seems to come down to what seems like a few Hz on the bottom end..the woofer size does make a difference


you wont waste money on the 5's and there's a thriving 2nd hand market out there, especially in this climate, if you did decide to upgrade later...but Id push for as large as you can get...in the long run you'll probably need it

and btw heavy metal, hip hop, whatever...I dont think monitors are designed for specific genres...your kick and bass still need to be heard dont they :)


all imho of course
 
I believe I weighed in on your other thread about this ..... the 5's will be fine for starting out.
Personally, I'd go for the 8's but the 5's will be way better than many people start out with.

As for Massives' contention that you should just wait .... a year or two ......
while I agree that more money will get you WAY better monitors.

The fact is that if you wait say, two years to get decent monitors ..... that's two years you're not learning anything. For many people it's either cheap or nothing.

I have to believe cheap is better than nothing. Waiting a year or two, in some cases, could even result in just not doing it at all ..... gotta get started some kind of way while you're still interested in doing it at all.

The 5's or 6's all you can afford? ..... get 'em. I have several pairs of monitors .... some old cheap ones that I still use for the purpose of hearing mixes on cheaper stuff ..... the same reason many studios had/have those awful Yammie NS-10s.
 
I'd look at used high quality home stereo speakers from Goodwill or Savers. I would go that route before buying budget monitors.
 
TeyshaBlue said:
I would argue your point concerning the Rokit 5's, but I'm more intrigued by your stance on near-field monitoring. If you've elaborated on this before, can you point me to it? I'm really interested in your viewpoint.
If not, can you give me your rationale for avoidance of near field monitors?
Click to expand...
Speakers that are actually designed to be less accurate with shorter throws and narrow dispersion along with a limited frequency response?

Nearfields were never made to sound "good" -- They were made to be reasonably consistent under a wide variety of circumstances (i.e., bad or poorly designed and treated spaces). Sure, some of them certainly cross over into the "Wow, those actually sound pretty nice" category (many Dynaudio, ADAM, Genelec, etc.). But I'd like to throw most of them into a tire fire and roast marshmallows over the rising ashes.

But again - I'm not arguing against the OP getting nearfields - I'm arguing against getting the smallest, cheapest speakers he can. That one mistake (and I've seen that mistake made dozens if not hundreds of times) could set him back far more than simply a dollar figure.
 
Lt. Bob said:
I believe I weighed in on your other thread about this ..... the 5's will be fine for starting out.
Personally, I'd go for the 8's but the 5's will be way better than many people start out with.

As for Massives' contention that you should just wait .... a year or two ......
while I agree that more money will get you WAY better monitors.

The fact is that if you wait say, two years to get decent monitors ..... that's two years you're not learning anything. For many people it's either cheap or nothing.

I have to believe cheap is better than nothing. Waiting a year or two, in some cases, could even result in just not doing it at all ..... gotta get started some kind of way while you're still interested in doing it at all.

The 5's or 6's all you can afford? ..... get 'em. I have several pairs of monitors .... some old cheap ones that I still use for the purpose of hearing mixes on cheaper stuff ..... the same reason many studios had/have those awful Yammie NS-10s.
Click to expand...

Yeah, at the moment the 5's or M-audio Bx5a are all i can afford. Telling me to save up and then get better monitors is easier said then done for me because I want to start learning :O
 
TeyshaBlue said:
I would argue your point concerning the Rokit 5's, but I'm more intrigued by your stance on near-field monitoring. If you've elaborated on this before, can you point me to it? I'm really interested in your viewpoint.
If not, can you give me your rationale for avoidance of near field monitors?

Thx!
Click to expand...
I know you asked this of John specifically, but I'd love to chime in with my own anecdote on this subject.

I've been using my nearfields (HR 824s) for some 11 years, and I love them. But my first generation of home studio before that - inferior in so many ways that I can't count them - I had a set of three way room monitors set off the far wall across the room from the mix position. I also had a friend who has a mixing setup in a spare bedroom with two different sets of two way far fields.

I would frankly now give my nearfelds away for either set up - hands down, no question. My current room situation does not allow it - yet; otherwise I'd make the retro change in a heartbeat. I'm chomping at the bit for the opportunity to set up a farfield CR room though.

If you've never mixed in a farfield situation, it's hard to explain; but for me there's a luciousness, a luxuriousness, a natural comfort in mixing in a far field that I've never been able to get in any of the nearfield situations I've worked with. Somehow, expanding the stereophonic image to a closer to more real-life size out in front of me instead of having everything right in my face just makes a huge difference (for me anyway).

G.
 
Side-noting -- Mackie 824's, although personally not my cup o' tea, are barely able to be considered near-field monitors. Sure, the dispersion might be a little narrower than typical, but they throw pretty well and they actually reproduce lower frequencies without threatening to liberate the woofers with every kick.
 
Yes...agreed, the Mackie 824's are closer to mid-field monitors than near-field. They are actually funky sounding in real small rooms and when placed to tightly together.

I've got mine set at about 5.5’ apart, which allows me to move away from them nicely, and I get what Glen is saying...a more spacious feel without that in-your-face, boxy thing that you get when the monitors are 2' apart and you can reach out and touch the from your mix position, like you see in a lot of home "bedroom" setups, which is the direct result of DAW and small control surfaces, which have allowed/forced folks to "shrink" their physical mixing area to just a fraction of how it is when you have a more traditional mixing console...which automatically spread out the mixing area in many cases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top