Wharfedale Pro Dia 8.2 Powered + Hardy preamps or Dynaudio BM6A. What would you do?

[acousitc_kid]

I have enough cash for the Wharfedale and a pair of JOHN HARDY M-1 Mic Preamps ?(used from a friend) or forgetting the preamps and going straight to the Dynaudio BM6A. Both = about $1600.

Being I'm concerned more about monitoring than preamps at the moment, I was thinking the Dynaudio may be a better choice. What I'd like to know from you Dyn or Wharfedale users is "What will be lacking in the Wharfedales" that the Dyn will give me and/or "what will the Dyns do that the Wharfedale won't" and "will the Dyns do it that much better"?

By the way, I'm nor trying to impress anyone I know, I'm just trying to get the best/most for the money and get the job done right.
What would you do?

 

[p13]

I have the Wharfs and Hardy M1. Haven't heard the other monitors. The Hardy M1 is a great preamp and most everyone that can afford them should have one in their arsenal. The Wharfs don't sound that great as enjoyment listening speakers but I've never had a problem with mixes translating when using them. Until you get up into the Adams category, I think the Wharfs hold their own (for mixing purposes).

 

[acousitc_kid]

I can only wish that the Wharfs will hold up as you say till you reach the ADAM category, that would be great. From the poll so far everyone seems to point in that direction.

Can anyone tell me what the Dyns would have sound-wise that the Wharfs wouldn't, aside from a higher price tag?
What about the Wharf Quad's?

 

[xstatic]

p13's comments may have just made this decision a little harder. I haven't used the Wharfedales, but I have used Mackie's, Genelecs (for this post I will refer to 1031's), KRK's, Event's, Alesis etc... The Dynaudio's are MUCH more monitor than the others I mentioned. The Genelec's are pretty expensive, but for some reason I have never really liked their overall scooped (in my opinion) sound and have always had a hard time with them. The reason that p13's statement may make this decision harder is that in my opinion (and many many others) the Dynaudio's are most certainly right up there with the ADAM monitors. Personally, I would look into passive BM6's, at only $800 a pair they are a steal. But then I have heard some decent things about the Wahrfedales and getting a nice pair of preamps at the same time could make a huge difference. What ohter outboard/console do you curretly have?

 

[acousitc_kid]

I'm lacking in the preamp department, I currently use FMR, I have the 002 which converters I do not like and would like to pick up a decent 2 channel A/D for. I'm fine in the mic department.

I see many people considering the Dyn passives and I'm sure they are great but the real question would be are they THAT much greater then the Wharfs? I like what I've read on the Wharfs translating to outside systems nicely. I've recently worked wit the Yorkville and was not overly impressed with them, to me they sounded like a beefed up powered NS-10.

 

[p13]

Where I'm coming from is; If your tracking is not up to snuff, the monitoring is not going to fix it. "Crap in equals crap out"

As long as you know your monitors, you can make the recording translate. I find it pretty easy to learn the monitors; mix a cd with your monitors, try it in various systems (boom box, car stereo, home theater, computer speakers, etc...). Critically listen on each system, and Now The Important Part, document, on paper, what freq/instruments standout and sound like on each system compared to the monitors. Keep that paper handy when you're mixing and all will be well.

PS You can add a sub to your monitors at a later date for not a whole lotta money and make another big step up in your monitoring capability

 

[dxl]

bm6a are easy to listen, but i donno about the warfedale with an extramly expensive amp
i choose 824, because i like its bass better over bm6
anyway, for the price of the Wharfs i'm not expecting much from them, VS. bm6.... i wont even dream about it... but
i'm really interested to hear from those who owns, 824, or maybe even the bm6a/15a, Genelec 1029/31 or some other mid end speaker users have to say about with the Wharfedale Pro Dia 8.2 hype within this forum~
cya~
hahaha

 

[acousitc_kid]

The BM6P with amp is a highly recommended choice just about everywhere. The price on the Wharfs is incredible but I see no mention of them comparing favorably to the Dyns. I wonder about HYPE too being most positive posts are within this forum but for a few hundred bucks it's probably worth a shot.

As far as the 824, I've mixed on them quite a lot at a friends studio and we found them to be TOO bass heavy...all a subjective thing. He would up with Dynaudio BM6A and they do kick butt with a much truer bass.

 

[xstatic]

The Wharfedale's have gotten really good hype on this board, but I really haven't heard of them anywhere else. At their price I have no reason to not believe that they may be a great "value" monitor. However, please remember (no offense intended to anyone on this board or others) that most people who are buying and reviewing the Wharfedale monitors are used to some pretty nasty setups and are comparing them to some pretty cheap monitors. The Dynaudio's are a very reputable, fairly affordable set of monitors that can stay with you for years to come. I have used the Mackie's on far too many occasions for my taste. I certainly would not say that they are bad monitors, but I would take a pair of Dynaudio BM6's in a heart beat over them. I find the Mackie's to be pretty overpriced considering some of the advancements in the low end monitor category.

I personally owned a pair of BM6's for almost a year and a half. They were an amazing step up from Alesis, KRK, Mackie etc... In fact, the Dynaudio's actually have a more usable low end than the larger Mackies, but the low mids aren't so out of proportion like the Mackie's are. The muffled highs and extra low mids are probably what make the Mackie's translate so well to outside systems since most end user listening environments are tilted this way as well. I recently sold my BM6's and instantly turned around and bought BM15's. I decided to do this because i felt that my control room was a little too large for the way I used the BM6's. I also still prefer to go with passive monitors. there are good arguements for passive and for active. For me, the ability to change amps outweighs all the active arguements.

In defense of Wharfedale, I don't think it would be fair to compare the Wharfedales to the Dynaudio's. The Dynaudio monitors are considerably more expensive and they have tried and true designers.

 

[Dr.Grace]

The muffled highs and extra low mids are probably what make the Mackie's translate so well to outside systems since most end user listening environments are tilted this way as well. I recently sold my BM6's and instantly turned around and bought BM15's.

I haven't used either Mackies or Dynaudio, but I'm a little curious about why you use the Dynaudios if you find that the Mackies translate better to the average sound system. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you?

Don

 

[wheelema]

Mercenary Audio has the A.D.A.M. ANF-10 for $750 a pair. You might keep those under consideration also.

 

[xstatic]

I didn't actually say that the Mackies translate better, I just said that those may be reasons why they do translate. Buying monitors is not really about just getting something that translates. If that was the only goal, why not just use cheap home speakers and amps in the first place? The reason I use the Dynaudio's is because they sound better, are more accurate, less fatiguing, better seperation and width, better response etc... In the end all those advantages end up helping me to translate my mixes. I can make mixes translate on most any speaker system out there. It just takes a little learning. However, my Dynaudio's allow me to hear things in a way that the Mackie's are not capable of. For me that means that I can lay better tracks, make better decisions, and do better mixes.

 

[fernandoesmaron]

xstatic

i believe that the dynaudios are really good monitors. Did read it everywhere on the web.

But do you really think that mixing is only possible on dynaudios ?

don´t forget - this is an homerecording forum. Not an prorecording forum.

Most homerecordler want to make demo cd´s and not full albums. Yes the demo quality must be really good now but dynaudios are not the solution to get a deal with an label.

I know a lot of people who are sitting in front of their adams - genelecs etc and think that they are better musicians. They are waiting and waiting and waiting for the next high end component to have the money for it and after 3 years they don´t know why they can´t make music !

why ?

Do you believe that those musicians are very rare ?

If you want to earn money with your dynaudios than you are right with them but for homerecording you don´t need dynaudios.

sorry for this posting.

 

[dxl]

huh... he isn't saying u have to have them...."For me " is a very important word in this world.. but anyway
of coz u dont need pro recording insturments to produce music and for monitoring~

i know people who have the ability to aford the topend gears but can't making anything better than semi pro level... or can't making anything, but to showoff their room only
i know people who only have midend gears, but their cd sales.... da da da ahhhh

homerecording .... well... if u have the passion.... well.... money... well.. huh...
you will need something at that price level if ... you want to get to that level with stability
yeah i know, how much u know what u are doing is very important!!
Knowing the speakers is very important!!

but if you want to make music with lots insturments and drums within the mix, low budget wont cut!
well... if you are only making a solo insturment albam, that might do
hoever, you simply can't hear cleanerly what in going on with just one cheap set of speakers. with low complexity, you might make ur guesswork sound ok
yet, you simply can't get that sonic quality during recording and processing with most of the cheapos (but as effects, cheapo are great for adding differnt flavors)

 

[fraserhutch]

xstatic
But do you really think that mixing is only possible on dynaudios ?

Where did he say that? I must have missed it.

If you want to earn money with your dynaudios than you are right with them but for homerecording you don´t need dynaudios.

No one said you did, but the original poster did ask for recommendations as to which would be the better setup, and xstatic gave his reasoned (as usual) opinion. I too am interested in this, as I am considering Dynaudios. We want to know what the best is we can do with the funds we have available. I cannot afford ADAMs, so I am researching other options as well.

 

[beezelbubba]

I'm in my first day w/my Wharfedales and I love 'em!I'll admit I was mixing on a pair of turds before but never the less,I'm digging the Wharfedales just fine!I'll have to see how my mixes translate on other systems.

 

[xstatic]

Thanks guys. No where in my post did I say that Dynaudio's are a necessity for making a good mix. In fact I would never insinuate that gear itself is responsible for a good mix. The most important thing in a good recording is good musicians and a good engineer. However, more often than not, those same people with better gear will produce a better result. I am extremely opinionated in my gear selection as far as what i do and don't like. I for one understand that and always do my best to make it clear that it is just my opinion. My opinions however are based on lots of experience. I do sound whether it be live or in the studio for on average between 40 - 80+ hours a week. In that time I experience many different things so in many ways I feel qualified to add my input.

I do understand that this is a "homerecording" website. However, nowhere in the description of "home recording" does it mandate that your setup has to be cheap. I know of more than a few really really serious home recording set-ups.

Not only is there all that, but I was actually directly addressing previous posts. I was not intending to sound elitist. I also did not just blindly reccomend a pair of expensive monitors when people were asking about cheap ones. The original poster asked about Dynaudios and someone else mentioned Mackies so I purely related my experience's with all of them. I clearly stated that I personally had not used the Wharfedales, but that even considering my love for my Dynaudio monitors, I could still see a valid reasoning for purchasing the Wharfedales instead.

Years ago I had some cheap little Alesis monitors. I have also had KRK's Event's and Mackie's. I have worked on yamaha's, Genelec's, Truth Audio's (which I really like) Quested, and even one pair of Adam's. I felt like my experiences with such a broad range of monitors lent so credibility and foundation for me to make some assesments.

I guess some times I don't always manage to communicate my actual intent accurately enough just typing on a web board. If that was the case here, i apologize. It was never my intent.

I still hold to the opinion though that better monitors will in general assist anyone, be it pro or home with a better mix

 

[CoolCat]

?????

XSTATIC...Any B&W? or DYNAUDIO 5's?
and do you use subwoofer these days for mixing?

 

[SonicAlbert]

The Wharfedale's have gotten really good hype on this board, but I really haven't heard of them anywhere else. At their price I have no reason to not believe that they may be a great "value" monitor. However, please remember (no offense intended to anyone on this board or others) that most people who are buying and reviewing the Wharfedale monitors are used to some pretty nasty setups and are comparing them to some pretty cheap monitors. The Dynaudio's are a very reputable, fairly affordable set of monitors that can stay with you for years to come.

This is exactly right. If you read the threads about the Wharfdale's carefully you'll see that for many users these are their first "good" monitors. I have no doubt that comparisons to the speakers they are coming from are highly favorable to the Wharfdale's. Wharfdale is known as a maker of speakers for home stereo systems, so I personally would want to see and hear their Diamonds before spending my money on them for reference monitor use.

Dynaudio has been making pro monitors for a very long time and know their stuff. It seems like just fairly recently they got more of a buzz going about their products than in the past, though I've seen their speakers all over the place for years in pro studios.

It's also important to remember that there are a lot more choices than just the Wharfdale's with a Hardy preamp or Dynaudio's. You might be able to get a passive Dynaudio with the Hardy for example. Friends of mine have the Event Precision 8's and love them. And there's all the smaller monitors that you can couple with a sub, which can work really well too.

The point being, ideally you can get that Hardy preamp along with a good pair of monitors that you'd want to keep for years. A great preamp is very important too.

 

[xstatic]

I have never used the Dynaudio BM5's. I currently use BM15's, but for 2 years used the BM6's. The BM15's just suit my control room better. As of right now I am not using a sub, nor do I need one. I can actually hear what the Dynaudio's are doing down to 60 hz or so so can use them to accurately judge the low stuff. Mixes have been translating great. It's amazing what you can hear on the Dynaudio's when compared to what you hear on the Mackie's and other monitors like that. Not only do mixes translate, but you can hear little details that other monitors just don't reproduce. I still want to add a sub, but that is more for my own enjoyment and for clients. Regardless of the monitors used, clients love to hear that overemphasized low end. i don't really have any experience with B&W so I can not comment on those. I personally think that the Dynaudio's are definately in the same league as a comparable pair of ADAM's.

As far as preamps go, I personally believe that great monitors with regular preamps will impact tracking and mixing even more than just decent monitors and a nice preamp. It is a little bit of a tough call though. But then i think to myself... what use is a good preamp when you can't totally hear just what it is doing for you? Are you really maximizing the potential of a good preamp if you can't hear all the little things going on with it? I feel that having a really nice set of monitors allows a person to maximize the potential of the gear that they already own. I feel the same way about converters as well. When those things are in line, then all the other little gear purchases will go a longer ways for the user. Of course this is all just my opinion. I have to say, all of my clients really seem to love the Dynaudio's. I know when I sold my Dynaudio's to a friend that was using tannoy's, he was amazed at just what the difference was and until that point really did not fully understand just how big of a difference it made. I took my Dyn's to his studio and ran a 3 day session while I was there. During that time one of his friends who had some studio gear came over. He too was so impressed at the differnce that now he owns a pair as well So careful, it's not necessarily cheap, but it is contagious