Mackie Hr824 Mk1...whats your input?

[masteringhouse]

Which Dynaudio's did those colleges buy?

The one switched to dynaudio BM15As, the other (where I'm teaching this semester) is still using the Mackies. We had a critical listening exercise this week where we used them, I guess that's one reason I was so sensitive to this thread. What I was hearing from them was definitely not cool, but then that room isn't perfect either.

For the college that switched, the head of the department chose the dyns over the Mackies as well as the students (they didn't like NS-10s either). I believe they are still using a pair of Mackies in studio B, so I guess they preferred them over NS-10s

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Would I use them for mastering? No, but I know of a local mastering engineer here in Philly who has worked for years that does. There are others as well. Of course I wouldn't use Mackies either

No, I wouldn't use Mackies for mastering either . (I can't afford to be an ME .)

When I take a master and play it elsewhere it is what I would expect things to sound like. That's what I look for in a monitor to do my gig. They are also great monitors to listen to music on and I use them for "pleasure listening" as well.

Bingo. This is how I would describe the way the 824s work for mixing for me. Glad to see you did find that marriage of pleasureable and functional as well .

To each their own, and the only way to find out what works is to try it. And showrooms don't even count for as much as we'd like because there are a bunch of extra variables there adversely affecting the outcome. When I first brought my 824s home, I was all ready to return them. I honestly didn't expect to necessarily like them; I actually figured I'd have to - like shoes - try out several pair before I found one that I liked. I got suprisingly lucky in that the 824s happened to work well for me out of the box.

Again, I'm not tying to sell them to anybody; it's to each their own. It just gets a little fatiguing every time I hear them being used as the butt of a joke or as the poster child example of bad gear just because that's become the "wisdom" based as much upon stereotyping and prejudice as anything else.

G.

 

[CoolCat]

here's a pro dewd...I found this humouros in a way.

Pro Audio Engineer- Mariah Carey etc..
While Ben's a fan of tracking through a large and powerful soffit-mounted Tannoy system, he never fails to use his Mackie HR824's for a reality check at mixdown time. "There's nothing like the power of a big system for inspiration while we're laying down parts, but at the end of the day, the Mackies are what I use to get a really accurate perspective on my mixes. It's fun to get loud in the studio, but no one's got huge studio monitors in their home stereos. I like to call my Mackies a reference to the real world."

So this insinuates Tracking uses the "flat-mirror like monitor" super soffits etc...
The nearfields translate and mix. the Nearfields can be whatever works for translation?

and Mastering goes back to HighEnd B&W's or whatever? I mean I don't see auratones in mastering room pictures or nearfileds.

Its what I'm coming to believe... but its getting late, I think at $400 the Mackies are a great deal. The debate seems to come in at a much higher level, like being compared to $1500 speakers. Masteringhouse comparing HR824 to DYN BM15's is a compliment.

but I'm comparing to the KRK RP5 or MA-5x or Alesis or YSM1p or at $400, the Mackie HR824 would hopefully do quite well? as its supposedly a "$1,000+ range built unit.

I know it won't guarentee anything, but it should be a well built and pro-level quality product.

I might go see if I can buy one single now, that'd fhk up the pair and then no one would probably be buying a single....give me time until next month to grab the other one?

ok..... off to the races. thanks for all the inputs!

 

[CoolCat]

ok deal went south.

upon testing the monitors one of them decided to stop powering ON.

I offered $300 for the pair thinking I'd risk it was a fuse and the GC sales dewd said "no way..."

I said the same thing then and left....oh well.

Also one was a China made one and the other was a US made one?
It's clearly stamped on the back in fine print.

Anyway if anyones looking for a single back up or a broken one....its the GC in Plano, maybe you can get it for $200?

I still think the design is very cool on those speakers and cabinet.....frkn torrodial coil is frkn HUGE on those ...thats very impressive imo.

over and out...

 

[SonicAlbert]

You would definitely not want one Chinese and one USA made. The chances of them matching are very small. It's actually pretty nervy of that GC to sell them as a matched pair. Sounds like they had a couple defective spares that got returned and they need to get rid of them at practically any price.

I use a pair of USA made HR824's, which I bought soon after they were initially released. They were built on the same day and the serial numbers are just a few apart. This is the kind of thing you look for if you want two of anything to match. They also sound good to me, although they did take some getting used to at first.

Monitors are another one of those things I always buy new.

 

[masteringhouse]

Here's a a pretty good article on these monitors. It rates them well, and has a few tips on what to watch out for when using them to mix:

http://www.studio-central.com/review_of_the_mackie_hr_824.htm

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

That is a very good review which I think describes the monitors of my experience quite well.

The one exception is that I don't have the same high frequeny issue he describes; i.e. I have never noticed that I have had to make the vocals or anything else sound too shrill in order to get them to translate, nor have I had to switch my Hi Freq sensitivity switch (it's at 0). That could be a difference in monitoring environment, perhaps, as I am getting virtually no HF first reflections in my current room setup, which keeps the high end pretty tight for me. In addition, mine are positioned a bit closer to my head than he has his, which might make a bit of difference there too.

If anything, the main translation issue I have is almost exactly what you alluded to earlier, Tom, and that has to do with the infamous upper mids around 4k. Hell, those frequencies are so touchy that I think everybody has that at the top of their worry list anyway. And you're right, because the 824s remain *relatively* flat there as compared with many playback speakers, I do often have to make those freqs sound just a bit more notched than I'd like to make them translate out OK. But it's not a great amount, and it's often - not always - an easy frequency range to remove stuff from becuse so much in those freqs can sound like crap anyway.

But other than that difference, I think he describes the character of the monitors quite well.

He mentions their price point and product position as being an advantage. I actually think that is part of what has given them their bad reputation. They fall in the middle between the low-end stuff and the high end stuff. The gear sluts think they are too cheap and the bedroom recorders think they are too expensive!

G.

 

[CoolCat]

That is a very good review which I think describes the monitors of my experience quite well.

The one exception is that I don't have the same high frequeny issue he describes; i.e. I have never noticed that I have had to make the vocals or anything else sound too shrill in order to get them to translate, nor have I had to switch my Hi Freq sensitivity switch (it's at 0). That could be a difference in monitoring environment, perhaps, as I am getting virtually no HF first reflections in my current room setup, which keeps the high end pretty tight for me. In addition, mine are positioned a bit closer to my head than he has his, which might make a bit of difference there too.

If anything, the main translation issue I have is almost exactly what you alluded to earlier, Tom, and that has to do with the infamous upper mids around 4k. Hell, those frequencies are so touchy that I think everybody has that at the top of their worry list anyway. And you're right, because the 824s remain *relatively* flat there as compared with many playback speakers, I do often have to make those freqs sound just a bit more notched than I'd like to make them translate out OK. But it's not a great amount, and it's often - not always - an easy frequency range to remove stuff from becuse so much in those freqs can sound like crap anyway.

But other than that difference, I think he describes the character of the monitors quite well.

He mentions their price point and product position as being an advantage. I actually think that is part of what has given them their bad reputation. They fall in the middle between the low-end stuff and the high end stuff. The gear sluts think they are too cheap and the bedroom recorders think they are too expensive!

G.

I think they have done well keeping at a price point (like the Shure SM57 and 58)...apparently,

other than one GC salesman saying a higher return fail rate, I haven't quantified any issues with the China builds to date having more issues.

the new "egg" design coming out this year is yet to be known. now here is a paradigm shift in design...

as I get it the original had no THX stamp, then the THX certified and then the Made in China with same parts...now the HR824 "egg" design. some plug changes over the years but minimal changes for over a decade on the HR824.

I admit it was the cabinet/passive radiator that got me, the fact they use the Vifa-Denmark speakers was a plus.

here's a bleep :
Another type of enclosure utilizes a Passive Radiator in addition to the speaker, instead of a port, to increase efficiency and preciseness. Passive radiators can either be speakers with the voice coil removed, or a flat diaphragm.

I agree, a sealed cabinet even better for "precision bass"...maybe it doesn't measure with a mic as low, but its a precise bass note.

 

[MessianicDreams]

The evolution of the "market opinion" or the 824s is actually quite interesting. A number of years ago they were being really hyped on internet forums. I remember seeing tons of posts claiming how great the 824s were in places like GearSlutz etc.

Now, everone's bashing them.

The studio i work at has a fantastic set of ns10s (bryston amp), ATC t16s, HR824 and the smaller 624. I've actually compared them all side by side, and on a seperate occasion compared 824 to 624 (my flatmate has the 8s, i have the 6s).

My opinion is i wouldn't trust the 824s. I find that the low end is VERY hyped, to the point that making mix decisions on them, without knowing them, could prove to be misleading. The top end is OK in my opinion, but they do sound a bit scooped in the low-mids region. The 824s are never in the control room, they're in a storage closet. The only time they were used in the past year that i've worked there was when i did the comparison. both myself and the other engineer there agreed that we'd prefer to mix on the 624s than the 824s simply because the low end on the 8s is too unreliable.

the ATCs are coupled with a 16" sub, so it's because we had nothing to compare it to (in terms of low end) that we found the hyped..


YMMV

 

[CoolCat]

The 824s are never in the control room, they're in a storage closet.

I'll give you $400 for the pair....dang... the closet?

I was just reading an article on Samson Rubicon 6A, Sound on Sound magazine, and the reviewer compared the new Ribbon Rubicons to his Mackie HR824's.

they've been around for years and are as controversial as the NS-10's it seems.

Were the Mackies the first mass marketed powered monitors?

 

[MessianicDreams]

I'll give you $400 for the pair....dang... the closet?

Yeh it seems a shame, however the desk in the studio only has 3 monitor switches so there'd be no point in having 4 of them there!

 

[CoolCat]

YSM1P vs Mackie HR824 Mk1

Well, stopped by GC again today. The other "dead" monitor was the STANDBY switch was on. Both Mackie 824 powered up this time.
I asked for $350pair and the sales dewd declined quickly. Actually he caught my excitement and didn't want to sell for $400 now that he saw them working. He asked the manager for $350. The manger declined also and siad its $260 below their cost...which insinuates they pay $660 for Mackie HR824?
The GC dewd said both are under full Mackie Warranty...so thats cool. GC return policy 14days.
Anyway, I grabbed them for a test drive at the least. 14days....start the counter.

disclaimer..this is all IMO, so no offense meant just a HR gear comparison. A solo scruff songwriter HR hobbyist in a bedroom the size of a 2car garage and a 16ft ceiling. A HR bedroom test drive, room has a 16 ft ceiling and is very large size of a 2 car garage. Nice, maybe a tiny bit larger than many HR rooms, but nothing professional either.

These are the MK1, and even more interesting for this test! One is made in China (EL61106) and the other is in the US (EL61299).

Set one YSM1P opn the left and the Mackie HR824 on the right. Powered up the monitors. and playback- Just The Girl Click Five..pop, guitar band with harmonys etc..

The Mackies immediately shrilled my ears somewhat and the -2cut was done on the hi freq. The vocal clarity wasn't up to where my YSM1P's were either so I cut the bass switch 80hz. After reading articles I moved the Mackies out to 5ft also, this seemed to help a lot on the treblys...it helped a lot. So this si a "pro" line monitor I thought...the $1200 level...too cool. very nice. I forget my YSM1P setup but its there when I posted about the DYNBM5A comparison.

So various music was used and also placed into mono mode on the "virtual mixer" providing each speaker the same tones being thrown at it. Dance Mix, Spanish, Beatles ballads and Beatles Nowhere Man and some fine recorded material on the M-Audio disc of new artists which includes every kind of music.

After I tamed the shrills I noticed slight mid's were missing on the Mackies versus the YSM1P's. However, the Mackies rocked when I heard complete bass lines and drum kicks and toms I hadn't heard at all in the YSM1P's. Pauls bass on Rubber Soul really jumped out for example. So this was a huge plus for the Mackies vs YS1MP. I admit I had been missing something! wow.

Back and forth, back and forth..YSM1P on the Left, Mackie on the Right, then vice versus...music placed into MONO.back out...back and forth...flipping switches.

Summry of the first few hours....
I'd have to use SouthsideGlen's freq chart but I could hear more clarity in the upper mids on the YSM1P's, a small band of freqs seem to been missing on the Mackies like when the upper piano notes were hit, and the YSM1P's missing the lower end bass lines, lower piano chords and low drums/toms. Yet the Mackies had more of a wider range of high freq's too, imo.

I wondered? had the bass masked some of the upper mids? or is it the 6" versus 8"...anyway, it was noticeable....made me want to merge the two of the speakers! I admit the bass and gorgeous lower end was very nice to hear but missing the upper hi end of the mid freqs bothered me. Of course we want it all..

By cutting the bass and the A-b_C selector switch more bass was removed on the Mackies and a bit more upper mid was heard. It was sounding more how I like it.

There was the Mackies, ala a $1200 set of speakers retail, versus a $375-$400 set like the YSM1P's.
So the first short session was just the first few hours. I plugged both Mackies in and listened to a few songs.

***Ergonomics & Build***********
the Mackies are well built,no one can argue that...wow. So are the YSM1P's. A solid feel, pro feel and nice construction. I don't care for the hidden plug housing on the Mackies but then who really unplugs their montiors often....still not needed and I like the YSM1P's plug arrangement better as you can kind of see where your plugging into. small stupid stuff.

Very similar amp package, almost a copied look? as far as cosmetics between the two brands, however I'll be opening up the Mackies soon. More of a China vs US build curiosity....

***China vs US sounds...

As far as listening to the China assembled one and a US assembled one I heard absolutely no difference. It is very evident as posted the parts are exactly the same between the two as far as the cabinet and amp housing and the speakers. (which aren't made by Mackie anyway). The post fomr someonme that works there said "each and every monitor is tested in the chamber".

Next stop..... is taking the amps apart and looking under the hood.....I have a feeling the amps will be identical because the amps are probably outsourced too, like the drivers are.

Another test I want to compare is a YSM1P with a sub to the Mackie HR824.

its all in fun.,..
The Mackies are cool, its like a industry standard in my room, been around and used by many all over the place.

I'd say the positioning was the largest "tonal" factor..imo.
My YSM1p's didn't seem so temperamental, maybe its the back bass thing?? where as the YSM1P's ports are on the front so placement is less effect.

In this specific case Mackie HR824's at a demo set price of $400 ....not really a question of value, thats a slamdunk.

 

[CoolCat]

US vs China Mackie 824

Just for the HR 824 archives...

the MK1 824 were opened up, US and China assembled 824's. Both have the identical amp, boards and every component is identical. I was going to take pictures of both but there was no reason as they are identical.
This myth is busted..imo. At least on the MK1's I have.

bonus link: a great article with specs for data hungary gearheads.
http://mixguides.com/studiomonitors/Reviews/mackie-hr824-monitors-498/


From LOUD archives...2002 ...........the biz side of Loud,
Engen <CEO bean counter> commented, "Our customers look to Mackie for superior value professional audio products and we, as a market leader, are committed to meeting their expectations. We are also dedicated to building value for our shareholders by achieving our goals for revenue and earnings growth. By taking advantage of advances in audio technology, the cost benefits associated with offshore manufacturing initiatives, as well as lower-cost designs and components, our uncompromising new product program targets both of these objectives.

Very nice innards I must say.....there's some metal in these here engines...check out the pics form under the hood!

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I think this thread has led me to understand somethng important which I have never understood before; just where the myth of "hype" comes from. I menioned this a bit earlier, but it has now been driven home for me.

I always thought of hype as being over-boosted highs or lows. This is why I never understood the myth of hyped consumer speakers, because one glance at their response curves usully shows that most models are anything *but* that. I have now come to understand that what many perceive and believe to be "hype" is in fact nothing more than extended relative flatness. This is especially true for those who like the NS10-ish type of curve or think that 6x9 coaxials actually sound good. Hear me out...

If one is used to a boosted midrange and a quick rolloff on the top and/or bottom, then a flatter response will - relative to that reference - sound like it's "missing" midrange or that it's too hyped on the ends of the spectrum.

The NS10, for example has a very hyped midrange (and here I DO mean hyped) with quick roll off. To quote Bob Speer from his own website:

Actually, the NS10's have a 7dB peak around 1500Hz. Then, of course, there's the bass response problem. There isn't much there to work with.

Compare that to something like the 824s, about which Mix magazine wrote in their field test

Mackie asserts that the HR824s are “smooth from 39 to 20k Hz (±1.5 dB),” and our tests corroborated the claim.

(In fact that is a very good field test/review all aorund. Check it out here.)

If you are used to a midrange bias, truely flat is going to sound hyped in comparison. In reality, though, it's (as that feild test refers to it) "the truth".

It comes down to how your ears can translate. For my ears, I want my monitors to give me the whole truth so I know exactly what I'm dealing with. Understandably, others who find it easier to translate more presence and less width will not like something like the 824.

And, of course, none of this even begins to consider the room in whcy they are used...

G.

 

[CoolCat]

honest speakers

I might even think its the actual presence of "the whole truth"= the presence of the entire range including the ugly upper mids humans don't like, that many people don't like and is why they offer the switch to reduce this area of noise. It makes logical sense.

what most refer to as "pretty sounding monitors" or "average consumer" are partially refering to being scooped= upper mid freqs gone/ reduced. These scooped mids are in the ear piercing freq range, right? I mean the designer wants a nice sounding speaker so they scoop the ugly mids to make them sound pretty....the ugly area distortion occurs, piercing highs of the finger nail on the chalkboard area we humans don't like....design it out...or add a switch to drop it out.

The scoop is like putting makeup on, hides the real thing a bit I guess. So imo, it makes logical sense that a FLAT TRUTH speaker would have some shrilliness, some harsh high mids there.....to most people who do their majority of listening in a car.
but for the masses, they add a -2 db switch so we can get them to sound the way we like them.

The real noiticeable difference I've heard is the reverb tails. A speaker without the scoop seems to reveal reverb tails more. I heard it with the Mackies and the JBL's I had. Probably any speaker with the mids there, non scooped monitors would have a bit of shrilliness and the reverb tails present.
And like the JBL's I had it was too much for me. I flipped the -2db switch. Very hard on the ears imo.

now for the bass on the Mackies...it must be relevant.
People who think its flabby seem to listen to DYN15's and ADAM 22's and other upper end. The KRKV8 and ASP8 have the low end covered it reads.

On the low end range the Mackies were kind of tromping my YSM1P's....I must admit some defeat...er.....just to keep it honest. It was a pleasent defeat though to hear the beautiful bass lines McCartney was laying down, he really seemed to put in more effort on other peoples songs than they did his. He added a lot of bass notes and interest to the song...

but its all for fun...its all good.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

what most refer to as "pretty sounding monitors" or "average consumer" are partially refering to being scooped= upper mid freqs gone/ reduced. These scooped mids are in the ear piercing freq range, right? I mean the designer wants a nice sounding speaker so they scoop the ugly mids to make them sound pretty

The problem with that idea, though, is that such scooping of the middle does not actually exist in the vast majority of louspeakers, consumer or prosumer. Nor is a similar "smiley face response curve" acheived by "hyping" the low and high ends. The average response curve is going to be more NS10-ish in character, with most of it's energy concentrated in the mids, a limited bass response that typically rolls off fast somewhere below 60Hz. Hi frequency response varies greatly depending on type of high freq driver they're using.

The only thing that even comes close to a "mid scoop" in most speaker designs is the common dip of a couple of dB that can occur at the crossover frequency on two-way speaker designs. This crossover point is usually somewhere around 2k, +/- 500Hz, if I remember right (someone correct me on that if I'm wrong). But that's a limited-Q pothole of only about 3dB max or so, and is riding below the harsher upper mids, which tend to reside around 4-5k. Hardly an upper mids scooping even when that is there. Compound that with the fact that there are as many, if not more, 3-way crossover designs in consumer loudspeakers as there are 2-way designs, and that kind of washes out even that explanation even more.

If they made loudspeakers to be purposely "hyped" or "scooped, there'd never be a need for the preamp "Loudness" button .

I find it most likely at this point that those that find flat=smiley face are those that are used to or like listening to frowns (so to speak), and those that find frowns=harsh are those that are used to or like listening to relative flatness.

now for the bass on the Mackies...it must be relevant.
People who think its flabby

I have heard the term "flabby" used for the 824's bass response several times. I'm not sure just what "flabby" means, but it seems like it should mean sloppy, the opposite of tight. By that definition I have to honestly say that my first reaction (and still is) to the bass when I started using the 824's was kind of the opposite - at least in one way.

My main reaction to the bass was that I was amazed that I could hear the bottom end of the bass and where it actually "ended". With many loudspeakers, the bass just kinds of gets muddy and murky as it fades to oblivion somewhere below 50Hz or so. With these, I get the distinct impression - it's hard to put into words - that instead of the low end just fading into a muddle, that it almost sounds like there is still room in the speaker's response below the end of the response of the signal itself. No mud, just the clean bottom of the bottom with room to spare.

Now I know that it probably not a technically accurate description and is a poor way to word it, and that that feeling it doesn't happen at 15-20 Hz - these are not subwoofers, nor are they intended to be . But at 40 Hz, I have not heard anything sharper and more defined, especially from a pissant little two way . If that's "flabby", then I guess I just love flabby.

G.

 

[CoolCat]

If they made loudspeakers to be purposely "hyped" or "scooped, there'd never be a need for the preamp "Loudness" button .

G.

good point. I'm a bit confused on the whole Tracking with "perfection speaker", Mixing with "anything goes speaker" and Mastering I don't even think about those speakers.

For humble HR and comparing the YSM1P's to the Mackies is still tough.
Money aside...

the Mackie bass is very very nice from my shallow experience and comparison.
Ok its a 8"...and some great amps and more power, and there isn't much of a competition imo.

the Mackie upper end is easily enjoyed, but I hear some missing mids and kind of prefer the YSM1p's. moving away from the 3ft EE triangle adds the room as they say, and for me this may not be a good thing.

as far as translating, skills and the obvious...its not good to change speakers all the time, and would take even more time to tell.

still I want to try the YSM1P's with a sub and side-by-side.

12days left.

 

[CoolCat]

I have heard the term "flabby" used for the 824's bass response several times. I'm not sure just what "flabby" means, but it seems like it should mean sloppy, the opposite of tight. By that definition I have to honestly say that my first reaction (and still is) to the bass when I started using the 824's was kind of the opposite - at least in one way.

My main reaction to the bass was that I was amazed that I could hear the bottom end of the bass and where it actually "ended". With many loudspeakers, the bass just kinds of gets muddy and murky as it fades to oblivion somewhere below 50Hz or so. With these, I get the distinct impression - it's hard to put into words - that instead of the low end just fading into a muddle, that it almost sounds like there is still room in the speaker's response below the end of the response of the signal itself. No mud, just the clean bottom of the bottom with room to spare.

Now I know that it probably not a technically accurate description and is a poor way to word it, and that that feeling it doesn't happen at 15-20 Hz - these are not subwoofers, nor are they intended to be . But at 40 Hz, I have not heard anything sharper and more defined, especially from a pissant little two way . If that's "flabby", then I guess I just love flabby.

G.

I came across a discussion using that term.

Its funny, many pro's and users recommending the Mackies, especially at first, and even more credible is the data from the likes of Mix and MixGuide and SOS....

and yes, I see what you mean about the flabby basher's.
From what I read, most flabby bashers have no data and possibly not more than a short listen. just their opinion to bash. Which is cool, speakers being very subjective...and who knows what their room looks like.

I heard a wonderful bass compared to the YSM1P's.

The 824's are probably the most written about active speaker, debated about. A "standard" or "inkblot" as you posted, SG. a good way to put it.

Some use the Mackie 824 for their expensive speakers, the mains...
some use them for their cheap-reference, in comparison to their $25,000 soffit's saying they sound like a common mans speaker...

ah..gear lust..gear addicts...gearslutz...gear whores....gearheads...
and then there's Barefoot MicroMains. watched the video on those, really interesting sealed cab, 500watt to the sub etc..

wonder if he has demo scratch and dent units $400?

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Its funny, many pro's and users recommending the Mackies, especially at first, and even more credible is the data from the likes of Mix and MixGuide and SOS....

Yep, back when I got mine, they were considered the perfect tits, both in print and on-line.

Then, slowly, some high-end gear lovers who think of Mackie as little more than Behringer's drug-dealing pimp started finding the 824s only along the long axis of their noses, GC sales whores started realizing that the 824s were just like the 1604 mixers in one important way; their profit margins just weren't as high as other companys, so they started finding reasons to swith the customer to other brands, and entry level newbs on limited budgets found rationalizations for finding that $1400 for a pair of speakers was simply too much to spend, surely they could get something just as good for $400/pair.

The reality, though, I think, is that while they are knocked as making mixes "sound too good", in reality the biggest problem I see with them is that they reveal bad tracking for what it is. Throw bad tracking on lesser speakers, and it sounds like you are already halfway home. Throw it on good speakers and every flaw is heard. This isn't as much of a problem on a "pro" level, because they already for the most part have the tracking chops. But in home recording, unless you are ready for it, hearing the truth in one's tracking can be very deflating. When many home wreckers say they don't like the sound of 824s what they're really hearing is the sound of their tracks

G.

 

[CoolCat]

Yep, back when I got mine, they were considered the perfect tits, both in print and on-line.

Then, slowly, some high-end gear lovers who think of Mackie as little more than Behringer's drug-dealing pimp started finding the 824s only along the long axis of their noses, GC sales whores started realizing that the 824s were just like the 1604 mixers in one important way; their profit margins just weren't as high as other companys, so they started finding reasons to swith the customer to other brands, and entry level newbs on limited budgets found rationalizations for finding that $1400 for a pair of speakers was simply too much to spend, surely they could get something just as good for $400/pair.

The reality, though, I think, is that while they are knocked as making mixes "sound too good", in reality the biggest problem I see with them is that they reveal bad tracking for what it is. Throw bad tracking on lesser speakers, and it sounds like you are already halfway home. Throw it on good speakers and every flaw is heard. This isn't as much of a problem on a "pro" level, because they already for the most part have the tracking chops. But in home recording, unless you are ready for it, hearing the truth in one's tracking can be very deflating. When many home wreckers say they don't like the sound of 824s what they're really hearing is the sound of their tracks

G.

BWWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAA .....

as far as good tracking its interesting you mentioned that, I was listening to some various music and some sounded much better than others, one pop sounded really ear bleed like but Rubber Soul was very nice even with the switches at Flat response.

Tracking is brought to light....I agree.

Auratones man..... or just get any old 5" speaker and its all the same.