Have narrowed my choices down to these two Monitors for a studio upgrade.
Currently I'm used to my JBL 4208 monitors which are pretty brash on the top
end.
I don't have the opportunity to try the 1031A but am getting a demo of the
HR824. I know they have a forward top end and great bass extension. How
about the Genelecs. Or is all of this like trying to describe what things
taste like? Hard to get people to give you $2500 monitors to try for a few
days around here!

regards,

Martin

"Martin Quinn" wrote in message
...
Have narrowed my choices down to these two Monitors for a studio upgrade.
Currently I'm used to my JBL 4208 monitors which are pretty brash on the
top
end.
I don't have the opportunity to try the 1031A but am getting a demo of the
HR824. I know they have a forward top end and great bass extension. How
about the Genelecs. Or is all of this like trying to describe what things
taste like? Hard to get people to give you $2500 monitors to try for a few
days around here!

regards,

Martin

Mackie borrowed heavily from the 1031AMAG design when they put together the
HR824, even down to the DCW technology. That's no big secret. They wanted to
make a very similar monitor at half the US retail price, and that's exactly
what they did. HR824 is an excellent monitor but it has two flaws in terms
of accuracy. It has an exaggerated and slighlty sloppy low end response, and
a noticeable dip in the most fatiguing region of the upper mids. When I
A/B'ed the HR824's side by side with 1032AMAG's, the HR824 8" driver @ 150w
spat out considerably more bass than the 1032A 10" driver @ 180w.

BJ wrote:

It has an exaggerated and slighlty sloppy low end response, and
a noticeable dip in the most fatiguing region of the upper mids. When I
A/B'ed the HR824's side by side with 1032AMAG's, the HR824 8" driver @ 150w
spat out considerably more bass than the 1032A 10" driver @ 180w.

None of that low end exaggeration or mid stuff showed up in the anechoic
chamber when _Studio Sound_ (RIP) put the HR824's to the test. Low end
exaggeration seems dependent on placement and settings in my experience
with them. I have a friend who has them set such that the low end in his
room is actually astonishing. However, his mixes consistently lack even,
balanced bass. But I'm not blaming the speakers; he has wrought his own
mess.

--
ha

"hank alrich" wrote in message
.. .
BJ wrote:

It has an exaggerated and slighlty sloppy low end response, and
a noticeable dip in the most fatiguing region of the upper mids. When I
A/B'ed the HR824's side by side with 1032AMAG's, the HR824 8" driver @
150w
spat out considerably more bass than the 1032A 10" driver @ 180w.

None of that low end exaggeration or mid stuff showed up in the anechoic
chamber when _Studio Sound_ (RIP) put the HR824's to the test. Low end
exaggeration seems dependent on placement and settings in my experience
with them. I have a friend who has them set such that the low end in his
room is actually astonishing. However, his mixes consistently lack even,
balanced bass. But I'm not blaming the speakers; he has wrought his own
mess.

Did you compare the HR824's in this anechoic chamber with a pair of
Genelecs, or is this based on how you feel HR824's should sound? Just
curious. The acoustics in the room I auditioned the HR824's and 1032A's in
were excellent, and I've heard HR824's in several other rooms before and
after. I always come out thinking HR824's put out more bass then they
should, but what bothers me the most about the low end is that it's not as
fast and controlled as it should be. The dip I was referring to must have
been somewhere between 2 and 4 kHz. It was subtle but enough to make the
HR824's a little bit more pleasant on the ear, at the cost of accuracy.
There's no way I would notice that if I didn't have 1032A's for instant
A/B'ing.

Martin Quinn wrote:
Have narrowed my choices down to these two Monitors for a studio upgrade.

Why? Have you looked at the Genelec 8000 series, specifically the 8040A?

BJ wrote:

Did you compare the HR824's in this anechoic chamber with a pair of
Genelecs, or is this based on how you feel HR824's should sound? Just
curious.

No, if course not; I'm in northern California and the anechoic chamber
was in Britain. g

I had a pair fo HR824's here for a few months before they went to my
father in law's place and I found them interesting. I had to mess with
palcement int he room and with the varous settings on the back panel to
get them working well for me, but when all was done they worked nicely
in that mixes traveled well. I found them slightly obnoxious in the
midrange but that pushed me to get that part smoother in the mixes. I
wound up feeling that I'd worked with plenty of speakers I enjoyed more,
many of which didn't offer such translatable mixes, and that as a tool
the Mackies were entirely usable.

The acoustics in the room I auditioned the HR824's and 1032A's in
were excellent, and I've heard HR824's in several other rooms before and
after. I always come out thinking HR824's put out more bass then they
should, but what bothers me the most about the low end is that it's not as
fast and controlled as it should be.

Agreed up to a point, but once I got them placed and tweaked I lost
track of the feeling of sloppiness at the bottom.

The dip I was referring to must have
been somewhere between 2 and 4 kHz. It was subtle but enough to make the
HR824's a little bit more pleasant on the ear, at the cost of accuracy.
There's no way I would notice that if I didn't have 1032A's for instant
A/B'ing.

I can't say I found the Mackies so pleasant to the ear, but they turned
out to be accurate for me when mixing. My comments come in light of
having seen the measurement results and then often running into comments
about their "obvious smile curve", etc. It ain't there when tested. They
measured out as the most linear speakers of their size _SS_ tested, and
with the lowest extension. I found that interesting.

--
ha

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 06:26:38 GMT, (hank alrich)
wrote:

I can't say I found the Mackies so pleasant to the ear, but they turned
out to be accurate for me when mixing. My comments come in light of
having seen the measurement results and then often running into comments
about their "obvious smile curve", etc. It ain't there when tested. They
measured out as the most linear speakers of their size _SS_ tested, and
with the lowest extension. I found that interesting.

A really great local bluegrass/ classic-country band played at "my"
theater Friday night, in a terrible slate-floored room, half glass
walls, half air-handling noise. Five guys, one mic, nobody DI'd.

They brought a single 824 on a pole and sounded great (to me) with
a crowd of maybe 90. With a single mic they were largely acoustic,
but I'd still have judged their SR as excellent and appropriate.

Band's called Runaway Planet. Book 'em for your wedding rehearsal
dinner while you can still afford 'em. Work out of Little Rock.

Chris Hornbeck
"If that is git only stucco and Slotermeyer? Yes! Celebration dog that
or the Flipperwaldt gersput!" -the deadly WWII joke from Monty Python

In article writes:

I don't have the opportunity to try the 1031A but am getting a demo of the
HR824. I know they have a forward top end and great bass extension.

That sounds like you don't "know" but rather "have read." That's OK,
it's a starting point.

Or is all of this like trying to describe what things
taste like?

'zakly.

Hard to get people to give you $2500 monitors to try for a few
days around here!

It's hard to get anyone to give you a pencil any more. But it's not
hard to find a dealer who will let you buy one, take it home, try it
for a week, and then return it if you don't like it. Or even buy a
pair of each and return the pair you like least. All it takes is a
high enough credit limit on your card.

It's really pretty important to try monitors in your own studio, and
have a little time to play with positioning for the best sound. You
may find that they sound great in a place that's physically
inappropriate. It happens. You realy should listen to them yourself,
and spend enough time with them that you know you won't get tired of
listening to them after a long day's work. To my ears, the Mackies are
better about this than the Genelecs for pop music, but for jazz and
classical music, I don't find either fatiguing. Your sense may differ,
and probably should.




--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

"hank alrich" wrote in message
.. .
BJ wrote:

Did you compare the HR824's in this anechoic chamber with a pair of
Genelecs, or is this based on how you feel HR824's should sound? Just
curious.

No, if course not; I'm in northern California and the anechoic chamber
was in Britain. g

I meant if the Mackies and Genelecs were in the same room. :-)

The acoustics in the room I auditioned the HR824's and 1032A's in
were excellent, and I've heard HR824's in several other rooms before and
after. I always come out thinking HR824's put out more bass then they
should, but what bothers me the most about the low end is that it's not
as
fast and controlled as it should be.

Agreed up to a point, but once I got them placed and tweaked I lost
track of the feeling of sloppiness at the bottom.

Yeah, I think this applies to most people who know what they're doing. I
just happen to strongly believe Genelecs are marginally better, which is
reinforced by the fact that Mackie had a good look at Genelec when they
designed HR824.

The dip I was referring to must have
been somewhere between 2 and 4 kHz. It was subtle but enough to make the
HR824's a little bit more pleasant on the ear, at the cost of accuracy.
There's no way I would notice that if I didn't have 1032A's for instant
A/B'ing.

I can't say I found the Mackies so pleasant to the ear,

A good monitor is rarely pleasant on the ear, but HR824 is more pleasant on
the ear than the 1032A's, my favorite nearfield by far.

but they turned
out to be accurate for me when mixing. My comments come in light of
having seen the measurement results and then often running into comments
about their "obvious smile curve", etc. It ain't there when tested. They
measured out as the most linear speakers of their size _SS_ tested, and
with the lowest extension. I found that interesting.

I would love to take a look at that test. I had a look at calibrations and
measurements from countless nearfields done in a anechoic chamber in Finland
a couple of years ago, too, and Genelec took the price.

Either way they're both good monitors, but in some parts of Europe HR824
will cost roughly the same as 1031A making the latter a better choice. In
USA it's a completely different story.