A good question for you

[[email protected]]

Hi,

Until now, I've been mixing/mastering all my stuff on an old BA-3000
amp and a pair of Quest speakers. The problem is, my amp stereo mode
has died recently and I'm forced to mix in mono . So, I'd like to buy a
new pair of studio monitors that could a WAY better job as my old kit
and use my Quest speakers for my TV set.

I'm looking in the 300$ price range for monitors. But I have no idea
what is good or not since I don't know much about monitors. I'd like
powered ones so I wouldn't have to use an external amp, but maybe
that's not the best choice?

I've hear JBL, Yorkville and Mackie were good. But I'm looking for a
good deal. Best bang for the bucks you know... Thanks!

[David Grant]

> I've hear JBL, Yorkville and Mackie were good. But I'm looking for a
> good deal. Best bang for the bucks you know... Thanks!

The only good deals as far as monitors go, that I'm aware of, is the rare
instance where you pick up a pair of them at a garage sale for cheap because
the seller doesn't know their value.

Seriously, it's not like other types of gear where there's occasional
product that is a really good bargain. You pretty much always get what you
pay for. If it looks too good to be true, it's probably just marketing.

I moved from mixing on home theatre speakers a while back... thought to
myself, just like you, that I'd buy a low end "studio monitor" and expected
that it would blow the pants off my hi-fi speakers for the purpose of sound
production. I might as well have kept my hi-fi speakers.




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Scott Smith]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Hi,
>
> Until now, I've been mixing/mastering all my stuff on an old BA-3000
> amp and a pair of Quest speakers. The problem is, my amp stereo mode
> has died recently and I'm forced to mix in mono . So, I'd like to buy a
> new pair of studio monitors that could a WAY better job as my old kit
> and use my Quest speakers for my TV set.
>
> I'm looking in the 300$ price range for monitors. But I have no idea
> what is good or not since I don't know much about monitors. I'd like
> powered ones so I wouldn't have to use an external amp, but maybe
> that's not the best choice?
>
> I've hear JBL, Yorkville and Mackie were good. But I'm looking for a
> good deal. Best bang for the bucks you know... Thanks!

Well, considering your price range I'd look into the KRK RP-5's. They're a
little mid heavy but they'd be a major improvement over hi-fi speakers and
will likely offer the most bang for your buck.

[[email protected]]

I've looked at the KRK monitors and they seem pretty good for the
price.
Though I'd like another advice on another company or model.
Or even better, another take on these monitors.
Thanks!

[jakdedert]

wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Until now, I've been mixing/mastering all my stuff on an old BA-3000
> amp and a pair of Quest speakers. The problem is, my amp stereo mode
> has died recently and I'm forced to mix in mono . So, I'd like to buy a
> new pair of studio monitors that could a WAY better job as my old kit
> and use my Quest speakers for my TV set.
>
I can't imagine anything that would make me mix in mono...don't you have
'some' temporary alternative....?

> I'm looking in the 300$ price range for monitors. But I have no idea
> what is good or not since I don't know much about monitors. I'd like
> powered ones so I wouldn't have to use an external amp, but maybe
> that's not the best choice?
>
Are you looking for powered units? If not, what are you going to drive
them with?
jak

[mfreak]

> Until now, I've been mixing/mastering all my stuff on an old BA-3000
> amp and a pair of Quest speakers. The problem is, my amp stereo mode
> has died recently and I'm forced to mix in mono . So, I'd like to buy a
> new pair of studio monitors that could a WAY better job as my old kit
> and use my Quest speakers for my TV set.
>
> I'm looking in the 300$ price range for monitors. But I have no idea
> what is good or not since I don't know much about monitors. I'd like
> powered ones so I wouldn't have to use an external amp, but maybe
> that's not the best choice?
>
> I've hear JBL, Yorkville and Mackie were good. But I'm looking for a
> good deal. Best bang for the bucks you know... Thanks!

I'm sure I'll get slammed for this, but you did say "Best bang for the
buck", so... I have a pair of Behringer 2031A truth's, they're fine for
sitting around your house doing home projects or whatever.. They're
great for $300. I never had genelecs or 824's or anything high end,
but the truths sound better than anything else I listen to music on..

[Mike Rivers]

jakdedert wrote:

> I can't imagine anything that would make me mix in mono...don't you have
> 'some' temporary alternative....?

You should try it some time. You might learn something new about
mixing. Do you ever listen to your mixes in mono? Lots of people listen
in mono. Ever see a TV set?

> Are you looking for powered units? If not, what are you going to drive
> them with?

I would assume so since the problem was that one channel of the
amplifier died.

[studiorat]

my 2 cents (euro),
If you are mixing in glorious mono, use only one speaker. Check the
stereo in cans. I nearly always start balancing stuff in mono, I dunno
if it's just habit at this stage but it works for me. Also, I can
always tell when an instrument is too loud from the other room too.

I think you would be very lucky to get a really good pair of boxes for
that.
HHB circle 5's might be worth looking at, Event?, I would try KRK
monitors (they look like they would last a while) and Quested F-11's
sound really good. If you see these in your price range go for it. I
find that the cheaper monitors don't seem to last as long. If it's not
a life or death situation I would hang on a bit and try spend a bit
more for a better set. My 2nd hand monitors were in various studios for
15 years and only needed new drivers recently, after I'd bashed them
around for 3 years.

As my friend the carpenter says "Ya buy cheap, Ya buy twice"

Dave

[studiorat]

my 2 cents (euro),
If you are mixing in glorious mono, use only one speaker. Check the
stereo in cans. I nearly always start balancing stuff in mono, I dunno
if it's just habit at this stage but it works for me. Also, I can
always tell when an instrument is too loud from the other room too.

I think you would be very lucky to get a really good pair of boxes for
that.
HHB circle 5's might be worth looking at, Event?, I would try KRK
monitors (they look like they would last a while) and Quested F-11's
sound really good. If you see these in your price range go for it. I
find that the cheaper monitors don't seem to last as long. If it's not
a life or death situation I would hang on a bit and try spend a bit
more for a better set. My 2nd hand monitors were in various studios for
15 years and only needed new drivers recently, after I'd bashed them
around for 3 years.

As my friend the carpenter says "Ya buy cheap, Ya buy twice"

Dave

[jakdedert]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> jakdedert wrote:
>
>> I can't imagine anything that would make me mix in mono...don't you have
>> 'some' temporary alternative....?
>
> You should try it some time. You might learn something new about
> mixing. Do you ever listen to your mixes in mono? Lots of people listen
> in mono. Ever see a TV set?
>
I think everybody *checks* mixes in mono. Mixing there would only be a
preliminary step, IMO...before spreading the mix out for spacial
reasons. Assuming the OP is building stereo mixes, what's the point?
(I guess he could be waiting for his new monitors to do the panning and
final mixdown.)

I guess I'm just looking from the perspective of one who could put up
any of a half a dozen different stereo amps temporarily if my main one
went down. I suppose not everyone has that luxury; but in a pinch I
could pop down to a pawn shop and pick up a decent-sized stereo receiver
to get me by, for probably less than $50.

>> Are you looking for powered units? If not, what are you going to drive
>> them with?
>
> I would assume so since the problem was that one channel of the
> amplifier died.
>
Yeah, but that wasn't specified.

jak

jak

[Romeo Rondeau]

> You should try it some time. You might learn something new about
> mixing. Do you ever listen to your mixes in mono? Lots of people listen
> in mono. Ever see a TV set?

Most TV's are in stereo these days, Mike. Although, there's not much
seperation between speakers (sometimes less than a foot). I always looked at
the need to mix in mono to make sure things didn't disappear when the
listener is far from the speakers like this. Mono is important, but less now
than in past years. It is really good to check for phase problems if you
don't have a phase meter...

[Mike Rivers]

jakdedert wrote:

> I guess I'm just looking from the perspective of one who could put up
> any of a half a dozen different stereo amps temporarily if my main one
> went down. I suppose not everyone has that luxury; but in a pinch I
> could pop down to a pawn shop and pick up a decent-sized stereo receiver
> to get me by, for probably less than $50.

We get all kinds here.


> > I would assume so since the problem was that one channel of the
> > amplifier died.
> >
> Yeah, but that wasn't specified.

>From the original message: "The problem is, my amp stereo mode
has died recently"

That may not be a highly technical analysis, but it sounds to me like a
channel is dead. Or maybe the knob fell off the stereo/mono switch and
the inputs are summed to both channels. But it's clear that Julie is
looking to get rid of that amplifier, and that means either replacing
it with another and using the existing speakers, or getting powered
speakers.

[Laurence Payne]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 22:17:55 GMT, "Romeo Rondeau" >
wrote:

>
>Most TV's are in stereo these days, Mike. Although, there's not much
>seperation between speakers (sometimes less than a foot).

A lot aren't though. I got caught recently. Ran off a batch of video
DVDs of a musical performance. The original had somehow contrived to
be two-channel mono with one side opposite polarity. People with
stereo TVs didn't notice. But I was surprised just how many came
back.

[Mike Rivers]

Romeo Rondeau wrote:

> Most TV's are in stereo these days, Mike.

Geez, now I gotta buy a new TV set to keep up with you guys? The 1981
Zenith is still going strong. Maybe because I turn it on only about 4-5
hours a month. <g> I'll admit to occasionally turning on Austin City
Limits and listening to the audio from my VCR, which has a stereo
tuner. But then I used to watch baseball games with the TV sound muted
and get the sound from the radio because they did a good enough job of
describing what was happening so that I could understand it.

> I always looked at
> the need to mix in mono to make sure things didn't disappear when the
> listener is far from the speakers like this.

You also have to watch out for what stereo effect processors do to you
in mono. If they involve inverting the polarity of a channel, the
sound, or at least the effect, goes away when you sum the channels. I
remember a famous Korg synth patch that simply disappeared in mono.

Still, while you might not actualy use it, mixing in mono (one speaker,
please) is a good exercise because it forces you to get separation by
frequency range, delays, and ambience. You can't get away with just
panning something way off center to get it out of the way of what's
masking it or vice versa. And if you start with a good mono mix and
just turn the pan pots, you're well on your way to a good stereo mix.

[Romeo Rondeau]

> Geez, now I gotta buy a new TV set to keep up with you guys?

Not at all, but you are more the exception and not the rule, most folks
don't keep a TV that long :-)

The 1981
> Zenith is still going strong. Maybe because I turn it on only about 4-5
> hours a month. <g> I'll admit to occasionally turning on Austin City
> Limits and listening to the audio from my VCR, which has a stereo
> tuner.

So it doesn't matter what the TV sounds like, even you don't listen to it's
output :-)

But then I used to watch baseball games with the TV sound muted
> and get the sound from the radio because they did a good enough job of
> describing what was happening so that I could understand it.
>
>> I always looked at
>> the need to mix in mono to make sure things didn't disappear when the
>> listener is far from the speakers like this.
>
> You also have to watch out for what stereo effect processors do to you
> in mono. If they involve inverting the polarity of a channel, the
> sound, or at least the effect, goes away when you sum the channels. I
> remember a famous Korg synth patch that simply disappeared in mono.

I generally only use effects patches that I know exactly what they are
doing... that's if I don't write them myself. Some of the "stereo" chorus
patches from the older processors would invert the phase of the wet signal
and disappear in mono. I use mostly mono chorus programs for this reason and
also because it doesn't kill the localization in the mix... oh yeah, and it
sounds closer to the classic ADT type effect.

>
> Still, while you might not actualy use it, mixing in mono (one speaker,
> please) is a good exercise because it forces you to get separation by
> frequency range, delays, and ambience. You can't get away with just
> panning something way off center to get it out of the way of what's
> masking it or vice versa. And if you start with a good mono mix and
> just turn the pan pots, you're well on your way to a good stereo mix.

This is true, but you still have to tweak volumes and such in a stereo mix a
little bit either way. I like to listen to the mix down the hallway
(basically a mono mix), I can really tell what's going on as far as balance
is concerned when I can't hear the pristine studio monitor sound. Some guys
do the car stereo thing, I do the hallway thing...

[jakdedert]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> jakdedert wrote:
>
>> I guess I'm just looking from the perspective of one who could put up
>> any of a half a dozen different stereo amps temporarily if my main one
>> went down. I suppose not everyone has that luxury; but in a pinch I
>> could pop down to a pawn shop and pick up a decent-sized stereo receiver
>> to get me by, for probably less than $50.
>
> We get all kinds here.
>
>
>>> I would assume so since the problem was that one channel of the
>>> amplifier died.
>>>
>> Yeah, but that wasn't specified.
>
>>From the original message: "The problem is, my amp stereo mode
> has died recently"

Yeah, I didn't know what to make of that. Sounds reasonable to believe
a channel died. But he didn't specifically state powered monitors,
which is why I asked.
>
> That may not be a highly technical analysis, but it sounds to me like a
> channel is dead. Or maybe the knob fell off the stereo/mono switch and
> the inputs are summed to both channels. But it's clear that Julie is
> looking to get rid of that amplifier, and that means either replacing
> it with another and using the existing speakers, or getting powered
> speakers.
>
You read between the lines better than I....

jak

[Lorin David Schultz]

Romeo Rondeau > wrote:
>
> Most TV's are in stereo these days, Mike.

So what? Most of the time what it's getting isn't.

If you're the featured artist in a story running on the six o'clock
news, your material is gonna be in mono. Hell, even if you're featured
in a documentary chances are better than even that the music will be
mono. If you're lucky, the editor summed L+R. If it was a newbie, we
may hear just one channel.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

[Romeo Rondeau]

"Lorin David Schultz" > wrote in message
news:mIxJg.56$Mh7.25@edtnps90...
> Romeo Rondeau > wrote:
>>
>> Most TV's are in stereo these days, Mike.
>
> So what? Most of the time what it's getting isn't.

What does this have to do with what we were talking about?

>
> If you're the featured artist in a story running on the six o'clock news,
> your material is gonna be in mono. Hell, even if you're featured in a
> documentary chances are better than even that the music will be mono. If
> you're lucky, the editor summed L+R. If it was a newbie, we may hear just
> one channel.

So we need to mix everything in mono, because someone might **** it up
later? Mono compatibility is fine, I was commenting that most TV's were
stereo now. What part of that don't you understand?

[Lorin David Schultz]

Romeo Rondeau > wrote:
>
> So we need to mix everything in mono, because someone might **** it
> up later? Mono compatibility is fine, I was commenting that most
> TV's were stereo now. What part of that don't you understand?

ME not understanding, huh? How the hell do you not get the really
painfully obvious relationship between what you wrote and my response?
So TVs are stereo -- so what? If what the TV is RECEIVING is in *mono*,
it doesn't matter if the TV can decode twenty-seven surround channels
with quad subs... the listener will still be getting MONO.

But ****, whatever, never mind. All I did was suggest that staying
"mono friendly" is prudent and you respond with insults. I got better
things to do than read this ****.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
ups.com
> Hi,
>
> Until now, I've been mixing/mastering all my stuff on an
> old BA-3000 amp and a pair of Quest speakers. The problem
> is, my amp stereo mode has died recently and I'm forced
> to mix in mono . So, I'd like to buy a new pair of studio
> monitors that could a WAY better job as my old kit and
> use my Quest speakers for my TV set.
>
> I'm looking in the 300$ price range for monitors. But I
> have no idea what is good or not since I don't know much
> about monitors. I'd like powered ones so I wouldn't have
> to use an external amp, but maybe that's not the best
> choice?
>
> I've hear JBL, Yorkville and Mackie were good. But I'm
> looking for a good deal. Best bang for the bucks you
> know...

Don't forget to take a listen at the powered larger Berhinger Truths. For
about $350 you not only get the speakers, you get the power amps.

[Romeo Rondeau]

> ME not understanding, huh? How the hell do you not get the really
> painfully obvious relationship between what you wrote and my response? So
> TVs are stereo -- so what? If what the TV is RECEIVING is in *mono*, it
> doesn't matter if the TV can decode twenty-seven surround channels with
> quad subs... the listener will still be getting MONO.
>
> But ****, whatever, never mind. All I did was suggest that staying "mono
> friendly" is prudent and you respond with insults. I got better things to
> do than read this ****.

Who insulted whom? I got better things to do as well. What I did do was
mention to Mike that most TV's were mono and the fact that the importance of
mono compatibility was decreasing over time (perfectly valid and true), and
what I got from you was an intern's lecture of how stupid video guys will
**** up my product. Gimmie a ****ing break, dude. Next thing you'll be
explaining to me how phase cancellation works... thank you so much...

[[email protected]]

Whoa dudes, I never though such a topic would raise all those questions
LOL.
Allright. Finally I checked some power amplifiers and it look I'll keep
my passive speakers as monitors. I looked at some ART power amps.

The SLA1 and SLA2.

Thing is: I can have the

SLA1 USED for 150$US and the
SLA2 NEW for 350$US

I'll check out the used version, but am I better off with the SLA2 in
your opinions?

[[email protected]]

First off, my name is JulieNNNNNNNNNNNNN
and second: It's not the button, it's surely a wire IN the amp. And I
don't want to risk opening it and destroy everything. I'll leave that
to an electrician.
I wanted active monitors, but now as I explained, I'm looking for a
power amp instead.

jakdedert wrote:
> Mike Rivers wrote:
> > jakdedert wrote:
> >
> >> I guess I'm just looking from the perspective of one who could put up
> >> any of a half a dozen different stereo amps temporarily if my main one
> >> went down. I suppose not everyone has that luxury; but in a pinch I
> >> could pop down to a pawn shop and pick up a decent-sized stereo receiver
> >> to get me by, for probably less than $50.
> >
> > We get all kinds here.
> >
> >
> >>> I would assume so since the problem was that one channel of the
> >>> amplifier died.
> >>>
> >> Yeah, but that wasn't specified.
> >
> >>From the original message: "The problem is, my amp stereo mode
> > has died recently"
>
> Yeah, I didn't know what to make of that. Sounds reasonable to believe
> a channel died. But he didn't specifically state powered monitors,
> which is why I asked.
> >
> > That may not be a highly technical analysis, but it sounds to me like a
> > channel is dead. Or maybe the knob fell off the stereo/mono switch and
> > the inputs are summed to both channels. But it's clear that Julie is
> > looking to get rid of that amplifier, and that means either replacing
> > it with another and using the existing speakers, or getting powered
> > speakers.
> >
> You read between the lines better than I....
>
> jak

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>Whoa dudes, I never though such a topic would raise all those questions
>LOL.
>Allright. Finally I checked some power amplifiers and it look I'll keep
>my passive speakers as monitors. I looked at some ART power amps.
>
>The SLA1 and SLA2.
>
>Thing is: I can have the
>
>SLA1 USED for 150$US and the
>SLA2 NEW for 350$US
>
>I'll check out the used version, but am I better off with the SLA2 in
>your opinions?

I would suggest looking at mid-grade home stereo amps. Something like
the Adcom GFA-555 or the Parasound amps. I think you'll find they are
a big step up.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[g1mike]

Ok but I though a "studio" power amp would be better for studio
recording. The only problem I see is that it has fans, so it could
induce some noise. But I never listen to music @ 200W, and from what I
see, it is "smart" fans which goes on only if I boost the wattage.
Anyway I'll take your advice, but I need some others...

[g1mike]

In fact I'd like some ART SLA1 and SLA2 reviews. It looked like a good
poweramp.

[Mike Rivers]

g1mike wrote:
> Ok but I though a "studio" power amp would be better for studio
> recording.

The Marketing department is who designates it as a "studio" amplifier.
What do they know? I've never heard the ART amplifiers you're looking
at, but I'd side with Scott on this one. Since you don't need a lot of
power, but you need clean power, you'll probably have better results
with a semi-audiophle amplifer than something that people will probably
buy for PA service because they think it must be really good because
it's designated as a "studio" amplifier. Whatever that means.

[Scott Dorsey]

g1mike > wrote:
>Ok but I though a "studio" power amp would be better for studio
>recording. The only problem I see is that it has fans, so it could
>induce some noise. But I never listen to music @ 200W, and from what I
>see, it is "smart" fans which goes on only if I boost the wattage.
>Anyway I'll take your advice, but I need some others...

The marketing department can put a sticker that says STUDIO POWER AMP
on anything they want, no matter what is under the hood.

Hint: studio power amps SHOULD NOT HAVE FANS.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[g1mike]

Thanks for the reply Mike.
I'll look at something else then. I'm now pretty lost. I think I
complicate things too much but now I'm not sure what should I do.

>From what I've red here, if I buy a powered monitor, it won't sound as
good as a "passive speaker with separate app" set at the 300$ price
range.

So from that, I should only buy a power amp. I though studio amps were
better, but again, I was wrong. So I should buy some mid-range "normal"
power amps. Well I think I'll go with your advices, plus I'll lift it
up to see if it's heavy. If it's not, it's a no-no. That's what I
learnt from experience.

Anyway thanks a lot, I'll try to find which p.amp is better suited to
my 125W speakers. I don't want to blow em neither. I'll look for some
amps in the 300$ range.

Any other suggestions?

(Yeah I could also repair my old BA-3000, but it would probably cost my
hundreds)
This amp has like 30 years old.

[David Grant]

>
> So from that, I should only buy a power amp. I though studio amps were
> better, but again, I was wrong.

Note that "studio amps" are power amps, the name just implies more accuracy
(although as Mike Rivers mentioned anyone can slap "studio amp" on their
product).



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[g1mike]

I think I'll wait to buy this amp finally. Maybe by putting more (in
the 500 range) I'll get something I really want and that will last a
lot longer than some low quality amps in the 300 price range...
I'm used to my old amp, so I'll stick to mono for now until I have more
cash.

[Mike Rivers]

g1mike wrote:

> I'll look at something else then. I'm now pretty lost. I think I
> complicate things too much but now I'm not sure what should I do.

Most people who are just getting started in this stuff do complicate
things too much, or at least worry too much that something that they
buy will compromise their sound. Not to worry - it will. But you buy
what you can afford and you work with it.

> >From what I've red here, if I buy a powered monitor, it won't sound as
> good as a "passive speaker with separate app" set at the 300$ price
> range.

Honestly, at $300, the differences are pretty small. It doesn't buy
much in the way of powered monitors, and it doesn't buy much in the way
of a decent power amplifier and decent speaker. At $300, your choice is
whether to buy a decent amplifier, crummy speakers, and plan to replace
the speakers as soon as you have a few hundred bucks more, or buy a
mediocre pair of powered monitors and work with them. It doesn't make a
lot of sense to buy a curmmy amplifier and the best speakers you can
afford - the speaker won't be improved much if you get a better
amplifier.

> So from that, I should only buy a power amp. I though studio amps were
> better, but again, I was wrong.

Again, there's no such thing as a "studio" amplifier as a category.
It's something that the marketing department dreamed up to make you
think it's what the professionals use.

> Anyway thanks a lot, I'll try to find which p.amp is better suited to
> my 125W speakers. I don't want to blow em neither. I'll look for some
> amps in the 300$ range.

Those Adcoms show up on eBay all the time for around $300. Or you could
look for a Hafler DH-220 for about half that price. It's an oldie but
goodie.

[Paul Stamler]

"David Grant" > wrote in message
...
>
> >
> > So from that, I should only buy a power amp. I though studio amps were
> > better, but again, I was wrong.
>
> Note that "studio amps" are power amps, the name just implies more
accuracy
> (although as Mike Rivers mentioned anyone can slap "studio amp" on their
> product).

And it practice, it doesn't even imply more accuracy. It does, however,
imply inputs that aren't RCA but rather XLR or at least TRS, and balanced.

It's still the case, however, that a decent amplifier with RCAs (Parasound,
Adcom, etc.) is preferable to a crappy amplifier with XLRs. Just use cables
with good-enough quality RCAs on them that they grab the jack tightly, so
they won't be likely to pull halfway out and blow your speakers.

Peace,
Paul