Opinions? Iwas really leaning tword the mackies until some people claimed
they had a very unaccurate low end, and I know they always sounded hyped...

In article ,
Zeppelin4Life wrote:
Opinions? Iwas really leaning tword the mackies until some people claimed
they had a very unaccurate low end, and I know they always sounded hyped...

Any speaker that actually _has_ low end will have an inaccurate low end
unless you set it up properly.

The only speaker that won't have low end problems without careful setup is
the speaker that has no low end at all.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article ,
Zeppelin4Life wrote:
Opinions? Iwas really leaning tword the mackies until some people claimed
they had a very unaccurate low end, and I know they always sounded hyped...

Any speaker that actually _has_ low end will have an inaccurate low end
unless you set it up properly.

The only speaker that won't have low end problems without careful setup is
the speaker that has no low end at all.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Opinions? Iwas really leaning tword the mackies until some people claimed
they had a very unaccurate low end, and I know they always sounded hyped...

I tracked an album on the Events some years back. The low end was hilariously
out of wack. Everything sounded monstrously huge (which was the point of this
particular CD) but that was not what was really on tape. Fun, but not a useful
tool in my book. Lacking realism & depth, but loud.
About the Mackies; I've been tracking orchestral sessions at a studio equipped
with Genelec 1031's. I keep going back to the 813's in the soffitts because the
Genelecs sounded so incredibly boxy, like I was never not aware that I was
hearing sound out of a small box. Last week the Genelecs had been taken to
Studio B & replaced by Mackies. I found I could listen all night to the Mackies
& never turned the 813's on at all. This is not to say that the Mackies are my
ideal speaker (I think they're missing some midrange detail, & the 3
dimensional thing I like so much about my KEFs) but they were way less
irritating than the Genelecs, much to my surprise.


Scott Fraser

Opinions? Iwas really leaning tword the mackies until some people claimed
they had a very unaccurate low end, and I know they always sounded hyped...

I tracked an album on the Events some years back. The low end was hilariously
out of wack. Everything sounded monstrously huge (which was the point of this
particular CD) but that was not what was really on tape. Fun, but not a useful
tool in my book. Lacking realism & depth, but loud.
About the Mackies; I've been tracking orchestral sessions at a studio equipped
with Genelec 1031's. I keep going back to the 813's in the soffitts because the
Genelecs sounded so incredibly boxy, like I was never not aware that I was
hearing sound out of a small box. Last week the Genelecs had been taken to
Studio B & replaced by Mackies. I found I could listen all night to the Mackies
& never turned the 813's on at all. This is not to say that the Mackies are my
ideal speaker (I think they're missing some midrange detail, & the 3
dimensional thing I like so much about my KEFs) but they were way less
irritating than the Genelecs, much to my surprise.


Scott Fraser

In article ,
(ScotFraser) wrote:

& never turned the 813's on at all. This is not to say that the Mackies are my
ideal speaker (I think they're missing some midrange detail, & the 3
dimensional thing I like so much about my KEFs) but they were way less
irritating than the Genelecs, much to my surprise.


Scott Fraser

Just curious Scott - what model KEFs? I use a pair of C30s as my remote rig.

--
Mike Clayton

In article ,
(ScotFraser) wrote:

& never turned the 813's on at all. This is not to say that the Mackies are my
ideal speaker (I think they're missing some midrange detail, & the 3
dimensional thing I like so much about my KEFs) but they were way less
irritating than the Genelecs, much to my surprise.


Scott Fraser

Just curious Scott - what model KEFs? I use a pair of C30s as my remote rig.

--
Mike Clayton

I tracked an album on the Events some years back. The low end was hilariously
out of wack.

I have a pair of Events I took in on trade from a band who couldn't afford to
finish a project. I tried using them on one project, but the crossover leaves
a hole the size and shape of a snare drum in the midrange. On both my Dynaudio
BM15a/BX30s and my Tannoy DMT12s the mixes sounded boomy in the low end and the
midrange was so full of crap that I had to remix everything I had done on the
Events.


Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

I tracked an album on the Events some years back. The low end was hilariously
out of wack.

I have a pair of Events I took in on trade from a band who couldn't afford to
finish a project. I tried using them on one project, but the crossover leaves
a hole the size and shape of a snare drum in the midrange. On both my Dynaudio
BM15a/BX30s and my Tannoy DMT12s the mixes sounded boomy in the low end and the
midrange was so full of crap that I had to remix everything I had done on the
Events.


Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

"Zeppelin4Life" wrote in message ...
Opinions? Iwas really leaning tword the mackies until some people claimed
they had a very unaccurate low end, and I know they always sounded hyped...

IMO, the 20/20's are cheap junk and hardly deserve to be called a
"studio monitor". Right on par with cheap pair of home speakers. It is
a bit of an unfair comparision, considering the Mackies are much more
expensive and self powered. They're also widely accepted for use on
mixing everything from TV and feature film tracks, to hit recordings.
The one experience I've had with the 20/20's lasted about 20 minutes
before they were removed. Guess what they were replaced with? ;-)

Rupert

"Zeppelin4Life" wrote in message ...
Opinions? Iwas really leaning tword the mackies until some people claimed
they had a very unaccurate low end, and I know they always sounded hyped...

IMO, the 20/20's are cheap junk and hardly deserve to be called a
"studio monitor". Right on par with cheap pair of home speakers. It is
a bit of an unfair comparision, considering the Mackies are much more
expensive and self powered. They're also widely accepted for use on
mixing everything from TV and feature film tracks, to hit recordings.
The one experience I've had with the 20/20's lasted about 20 minutes
before they were removed. Guess what they were replaced with? ;-)

Rupert

Just curious Scott - what model KEFs? I use a pair of C30s as my remote rig.


They're the 103.2's, long out of production. I've done a lot of tracks in
$200/hr studios, only to bring the tapes back here & hear all kinds of issues
(noise, dirt, smeariness, etc) that never was audible on the mains at the high
ticket places. I trust these KEFs.


Scott Fraser

Just curious Scott - what model KEFs? I use a pair of C30s as my remote rig.


They're the 103.2's, long out of production. I've done a lot of tracks in
$200/hr studios, only to bring the tapes back here & hear all kinds of issues
(noise, dirt, smeariness, etc) that never was audible on the mains at the high
ticket places. I trust these KEFs.


Scott Fraser

"Zeppelin4Life" wrote in message .. .

I was really leaning tword the mackies until some people claimed
they had a very unaccurate low end, and I know they always sounded hyped...


I think you made the right choice by buying the Mackies. YMMV...

DM