Mackie: HR824 vs HR624

  • Thread starter Thread starter spectrescape
  • Start date Start date
S

spectrescape

New member
Does anyone have any experience with Mackie HR624 monitors? I've used 824's and love them (great low end), and the 624's advertise the same sound in a more compact design, but I don't know if I buy that. Anyone with firsthand experience?

Edit: Yes, I realize that the published specs have the 824 going down to 39Hz, while the 624 only says 52Hz. I'm just interested in the overall sound, and sound difference.
 
Personally, I like the 624's better. The 824's are a little too much like mixing on tower stereo speakers to me. In fact, the low and low mid range of the 824's is what as see as their big shortcoming. The lows on the Mackie 824's seems very mucky and pronounced to me. The highs sound OK, but aren't really "pleasent" or "extended". The 624's sound just like the 824's to me, but without the low and low mid muckiness. Personally, i think there are a lot of better options available within a similar price bracket.
 
Chris,

> I realize that the published specs have the 824 going down to 39Hz, while the 624 only says 52Hz. <

I have a 624 for the center channel of my home theater, and all my friends have 824s, so I know both models well. I've never put them side by side, but they both sound excellent to me. I usually advise people to get the 824s because they go low enough to mix accurately, and without needing a subwoofer to hear the lowest octave of the bass range. That is, a pair of 824s costs less than a pair of 624s plus a good sub.

I'll also mention that the 824s are capable of a huge amount of very clean low end. I often see people indict the 824s as being too bassy or too muddy, but the problem is really their room and lack of bass trapping. Lesser speakers may sound "better" in an untreated room, but only because they are lacking at the deepest frequencies. In a good room with proper acoustic treatment a pair of 824s is hard to beat.

--Ethan
 
Ethan,
Great to hear. I'm especially concerned about the low frequencies, as I would be using them for sound-for-picture work, as well as music. And I would definitely like to avoid getting a sub if possible. I have heard the "too much bass" shortcoming a lot with the 824's, as stated by xstatic, but I've never really heard that in the room I've used them in. My concern was that I was simply mistaking "a lot of bass" for "good bass."

Anyone else wanna weigh in on the muddiness/bass issue?
 
Ethan Winer said:
In a good room with proper acoustic treatment a pair of 824s is hard to beat.
Click to expand...

Finally! A positive comment for the 824's. I've enjoyed mine ever since I got them. I've had a lot of improvement in my low end after mixing a few songs on these speakers. It took a little while to understand how they translate, but I've found it to be worth the wait.
 
Well, I personally don't consider my Dynaudio BM15's to be a "lesser speaker". I also am certainly not the only who has noticed the same problem with the Mackie 824's. There are also TONS of them for sale used. They seem to have really been a shortlived trend.

All that aside though, that certainly does not mean you can't do a good mix on them. It just means that you have to learn them that much more and be that much more careful. Personally, if you do want a pair, I might suggest buying them used. That way you can get them for half price.
 
RhythmRmixd:

> It took a little while to understand how they translate, but I've found it to be worth the wait. <

Again, this is a classic example of working in an untreated room. Once you have proper bass trapping, all of a sudden you can actually hear what you're doing when mixing.

xstatic:

> I personally don't consider my Dynaudio BM15's to be a "lesser speaker". <

I did not intend that remark at you! It was a general comment more aimed at people who prefer, for example, NS10s over 824s. :eek:

> I also am certainly not the only who has noticed the same problem with the Mackie 824's. There are also TONS of them for sale used. <

Okay, but every time someone indicts the 824s as being too bassy and having "floppy" bass, when I ask if they have any acoustic treatment or bass traps, the answer is inevitably No.

Do you have bass traps or other treatment?

--Ethan
 
Not currently:D However, every other place I have worked at with them did. Even the people working on them admitted the same thing. I certainly agree though that a bad sounding room is very likely to enhance those same problems. As to why i have not treated my room.... First, I still have carpet. Second I have 4 large windows that each have real velvet curtains and backings. Third, I have a 14'x19' room with WAY too much gear and other stuff which I imagine is helping to saok up a lot of crap. Many times have I considered adding some treatment to my room, but everytime I get worried that it will not help, but maybe even make it worse. I have had several different people work in my room that have all been pretty surprised at how it sounds. What I love right now is that when clients sit at the back of the room, it sounds almost like it does in the "sweet spot".

Personally, I would certainly rather work on Mackie monitors than ns-10's. However, for those people who have been succesfuly using them for years, I can certainly understand why they would not want to stop using them:) Every good engineer develops his/her own process and likes/dislikes.
 
I prefer the HR824's as they seem to give a very reasonable reproduction of the source. The HR624's have an excellent realism to them - they're a monitor you have to take and use for a few minutes to notice things about. At first, they seem a bit hyped in the mids, and a bit rolled off on the highs and lows. Shortly you learn to appreciate the way that they DON'T color the sound much. They do lack bass and it's likely that you'll mix too much super lows into your mixes until you get used to compensating a bit for them by "imagining" what it sounds like below 50Hz with them.
 
X,

> I still have carpet ... 4 large windows that each have real velvet curtains and backings ... WAY too much gear and other stuff which I imagine is helping to saok up a lot of crap. <

Understand that none of those do anything at all at bass frequencies.

Since it sounds like you're still not convinced you even have a problem, here's an easy test: Start an 80 Hz sine wave playing at a medium loud level, then walk around the room and listen for places where the level changes. Let me know what you find. :eek:

--Ethan
 
I should run some response tests in my mixing room this summer when I'm set up there again... I think it's pretty good, although it's "untreated". Big garage, carpet under me, TONS of stuff in there. The ears tell me it's pretty dead of reflections and standing waves.... too dead for tracking, in my taste.

There's not much reflective surface around, lots of mass, and I'm pretty sure the low end just goes straight through the walls to piss off the neighbors. Thin walls, exposed fiberglass insulation, stuff in all the corners as well as a lot of stuff in the middle of the room.

Should be interesting. Perhaps I'll get some treatment in the kitchen where I like to track, but it already has stuff in the corners... and bass traps are pretty much the only thing I'd want.. dont care about high frequency reflections, it's got the ones I want and not too many of the ones I dont.

Anybody have opinions on 624's vs the dynaudio bm5/5a?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top