sounding good vs the truth

L

lapieuvre

Member
Hi,

As you probably know from my previous post, I am planning to buy reference monitors in the 1000-1400$ pricerange. I went to listen to Adam A7, Mackie HR824MKII, genelec 8030A, Dynaudio BM5A.

My first impression on A7 was good, but in an A/B test they are awful... they lack a whole bootom frequency range... reviews says they have very good definition...

Mackie sounds strong on bass, strong on mid and very pleasant on hi. I have not seen a seller liking those, and the forums are 50/50 on them, but I like them!

Genelec sounds amazing, how can such a small seaker sound so good? Anything boosted in there?

Dynaudio sounds as good as genelec, but the song I listened to had a bass part playing a descending scale, and the notes went to normal bass sound, to very present bass, to very light bass... Cheaters!!! No wonder with a 5" woofer/mid speaker.

So companies are making speakers that sound good before doing speakers that sounds the truth...

I have never been more confused about chosing my pair of studio monitors... I will stay with my samson resolv65a for a while (I know they are horrible, how could I buy this pair? I still don't know why I made that choice... hope I won't feel the same if I get those Mackies :o/)

Thanks, your opinion counts

T
 
lapieuvre said:
Mackie sounds strong on bass, strong on mid and very pleasant on hi. I have not seen a seller liking those, and the forums are 50/50 on them, but I like them!
Click to expand...

Sounds like you've made your choice :)

There are many people who have bought the Mackies and are very happy with them.
 
just shows to go ya... ya never can predict some of these things... i'm pretty sure the mackies would be my least fav of those...
 
For a long time, Yamaha NS10's were a studio staple, and still are in a bunch of studios, even though they are discontinued. The reason the NS10 was so popular isn't because they were the most accurate, nor were they the most pleasent sounding monitors, but because when an experienced engineer did a mix on them, he/she knew how that mix would translate to other play-back systems, simply because they were in so many studios, and the experience with them was easy to come by. That's all that matters in the end. Get yourself some monitors, get to know them, and how your mixes will translate, and you'll be off on the right foot, IMO.

Peace!

~Shawn
 
the DYN BM5A are not 5" speakers...its really a bad marketing nomenclature on their part.

the NS10's "concept" is a really interesting read.
the Auratone before the NS10's...
Now its subwoofers and Ipods.


Lol...it can be a fun hell choosing monitors. You did a serious shootout though.

There's many other things, like prefering front or rear ports, or no ports, or the power on in the front or back ..many ergo issues too.im.

I admit for all the bad press I read about Mackies, I found them really enjoyable too.

DYN's are still my favorites, but it wasn't a large enough difference from my YSM1's to spend the extra money...never tried the Adam's, they've been getting a lot of interest and have a great reputation.

You tried the JBL's? They have a different sound to me and seems they're really well done...never tried the new ones at home.
 
eyema_believer said:
For a long time, Yamaha NS10's were a studio staple, and still are in a bunch of studios, even though they are discontinued. The reason the NS10 was so popular isn't because they were the most accurate, nor were they the most pleasent sounding monitors, but because when an experienced engineer did a mix on them, he/she knew how that mix would translate to other play-back systems, simply because they were in so many studios, and the experience with them was easy to come by. That's all that matters in the end. Get yourself some monitors, get to know them, and how your mixes will translate, and you'll be off on the right foot, IMO.

Peace!

~Shawn
Click to expand...

You are right!!

You can say whatever you want about my Alesis M1 mkll's..but I know them so well I rarely have to come back in and fix the mix!!..I am just so used to how they sound.
 
I agree with eyema_believer and jarrydee.

Also take in to account the comfort factor. You're likely to be listening to your chosen speakers for hours at a time.
 
You might want to check out the Blue Sky ProDesk before you spend your money.

Cheers,

Otto
 
Never judge small monitors by how much low end they can put out. Heavy bass is not their intent and never will be. If you want strong and rich low end you either need to buy larger monitors or add a sub.

I hate to see smaller monitors get blown-off or rejected for lack of bass when it is not really their downfall. That is like insulting a tiny sports car because it cannot haul a full stack of drywall.

Read more here. Want more bass from your tiny monitors?
 
I'lll check those blue sky...

As for NS10, the reason why the were so popular is because the frequency response of those was more in the mid, creating a V shape eq when mixing. (naturally you'll push the basses, push the hi, bring down the mids).

I want a flat monitor, something true. As for the reviews, Mackies have a -+ 1.5db frequency response. That is flat. Need to see the others now.

This week I'll go test
Blye sky Prodesk
Mackies
A7
and Dyn BM5a
 
RawDepth said:
Never judge small monitors by how much low end they can put out. Heavy bass is not their intent and never will be. If you want strong and rich low end you either need to buy larger monitors or add a sub.

I hate to see smaller monitors get blown-off or rejected for lack of bass when it is not really their downfall. That is like insulting a tiny sports car because it cannot haul a full stack of drywall.
Click to expand...

Small monitors often suffer in performance because they are generally made so that they can be used alone, which forces design compromises, from an audio perspective. Ported designs sound beefier right around their resonance, which can help make a small speaker sound bigger, but they fall off quicker below resonance and phase response suffers in the bottom octave, which makes adding a subwoofer (or subwoofers) more complex.

The reason I recommended checking out the Blue Sky monitors is because the sub is an integral part of the design of all their systems, not an add-on, option or afterthought. Because of that, they don't have to try to get every last dB out of the satellites on the low end. Thus, the satellites and subs can be sealed, not ported, which helps with transient response and improves the phase and frequency response in the transition from satellite to sub.

Cheers,

Otto
 
Several folks I've discussed this with suggest that subwoofers are superior to full-range speakers. Assuming that low end capability of the speaker units is comparable, the reason is that the optimal location of the subwoofer(s) generally doesn't match up with the optimal location of the drivers covering frequencies over 100 Hz. But the satellites do need to have bass down to 100 Hz.

Also, I've heard the case for multiple subwoofers, rather than just one, from several folks.

Bob Katz suggests using two subwoofers driven in "stereo", i.e. by the separate stereo channel signals, vs. a mono signal. I'm not sure what research he has to back that up, but evidently his system is working quite well for him.

For further amusement, you might want to check out the paper presented in the link below. It shows why you might want multiple subwoofers driven by a mono signal:

1) More output: Doubling the number of powered subwoofers, gives you 6dB more output.

2) To improve low frequency response and increase the size of the sweet spot:

The Blue Sky folks suggest that you should run multiple subwoofers in mono, not in stereo. The link below by Harman's Todd Welti shows the benefits of using multiple subwoofers. They found that 4, in a proper configuration, is the "optimal number" for minimizing modes (no real benefit to using more than 4), though two subs in optimal locations (but not where you would put satellites!) do almost as well and actually provide better low end support:

http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/multsubs.pdf.

(FYI, the good stuff is about at the very end of the slide show.)

Cheers,

Otto
 
ofajen said:
Several folks I've discussed this with suggest that subwoofers are superior to full-range speakers. Assuming that low end capability of the speaker units is comparable, the reason is that the optimal location of the subwoofer(s) generally doesn't match up with the optimal location of the drivers covering frequencies over 100 Hz. But the satellites do need to have bass down to 100 Hz.

Also, I've heard the case for multiple subwoofers, rather than just one, from several folks.

Bob Katz suggests using two subwoofers driven in "stereo", i.e. by the separate stereo channel signals, vs. a mono signal. I'm not sure what research he has to back that up, but evidently his system is working quite well for him.

For further amusement, you might want to check out the paper presented in the link below. It shows why you might want multiple subwoofers driven by a mono signal:

1) More output: Doubling the number of powered subwoofers, gives you 6dB more output.

2) To improve low frequency response and increase the size of the sweet spot:

The Blue Sky folks suggest that you should run multiple subwoofers in mono, not in stereo. The link below by Harman's Todd Welti shows the benefits of using multiple subwoofers. They found that 4, in a proper configuration, is the "optimal number" for minimizing modes (no real benefit to using more than 4), though two subs in optimal locations (but not where you would put satellites!) do almost as well and actually provide better low end support:

http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/multsubs.pdf.

(FYI, the good stuff is about at the very end of the slide show.)

Cheers,

Otto
Click to expand...
Nah, you're going overboard here.

That article is concerning live venues and larger listening rooms with an audience of listeners. Not once in there does it mention recording studios. Most of us here at HomeRecording.com do mixing and playback in smaller rooms. A single sub is usually sufficient. One way to tell is to use an SPL meter and measure test tones at the mix position. You want your lows to be close to flat along with your mids and highs.

If you exceed the capability of a single sub in a small room then you may be monitoring a little too loud.
 
RawDepth said:
Nah, you're going overboard here.

That article is concerning live venues and larger listening rooms with an audience of listeners. Not once in there does it mention recording studios. Most of us here at HomeRecording.com do mixing and playback in smaller rooms. A single sub is usually sufficient. One way to tell is to use an SPL meter and measure test tones at the mix position. You want your lows to be close to flat along with your mids and highs.

If you exceed the capability of a single sub in a small room then you may be monitoring a little too loud.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter that much whether the article talks about studios or other monitoring uses, the physics of good subwoofer placement to minimize modes at the listening position (and to create a bigger sweet spot to work in) is the same.

And of course, I agree with you one would want to choose a sub designed to work properly in actual room volume at actual monitoring distance and nominal volume. However, if you're using multiple subs to minimize modes, you might be able to use cheaper, smaller units and get adequate volume while also getting better low end response in the room. Two 8" subs on the floor at the front and back wall midpoints, for example, could deliver adequate volume just like a single 12" sub, but with better modal response.

Personally, I still use the same amp and full range monitors I've used for the last 25 years, so I don't have the option here to optimize the location of the bass drivers without messing up the monitoring triangle.

However, I do manage monitoring volume. I tried RP200 levels and it was too loud for my ears (and my amp and speakers, too), so I turned my nominal level down about 6 dB and that works much better. :) I think that is a typical experience working in smaller rooms and with shorter monitoring distances.

Cheers,

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