[Ben - TheStudioRI.com]

I have a pair of Mackie HR824's and I'm really not too happy with
them. I just bought a pair of Sennhieser HD600 cans and I can really
hear that the Mackie's just arent for me. the mix in the headphones
sounds so much more acurate and clear and translates so much better.
So...

If I were to sell the Mackie's, which monitors should I replace them
with? I'm looking for real opinions, not hype. I've been engineering
long enough to know that high price does not necessarily mean "good
sound", but I'm also willing to spend money to get what I want, if
that's what I need to do. I'd love to have a subwoofer to go along
with the monitors as well.

Thanks!

[kooz]

On Mar 13, 5:37 pm, "Ben - TheStudioRI.com" wrote:
I have a pair of Mackie HR824's and I'm really not too happy with
them. I just bought a pair of Sennhieser HD600 cans and I can really
hear that the Mackie's just arent for me. the mix in the headphones
sounds so much more acurate and clear and translates so much better.
So...

If I were to sell the Mackie's, which monitors should I replace them
with? I'm looking for real opinions, not hype. I've been engineering
long enough to know that high price does not necessarily mean "good
sound", but I'm also willing to spend money to get what I want, if
that's what I need to do. I'd love to have a subwoofer to go along
with the monitors as well.

Thanks!

If your headphone mixes do indeed translate better than those done
over the Mackies, I would tend to believe you haven't learned the
acoustic of your mix room, or haven't treated the acoustical issues
within that room. It's quite possible that it's not a gear issue you
are describing.

But if you really want to sell the monitors, I'm sure you'll have
plenty of potential buyers.

I really like my Meyer HD-1s.

[Jay Kadis]

In article .com,
"Ben - TheStudioRI.com" wrote:

I have a pair of Mackie HR824's and I'm really not too happy with
them. I just bought a pair of Sennhieser HD600 cans and I can really
hear that the Mackie's just arent for me. the mix in the headphones
sounds so much more acurate and clear and translates so much better.
So...

If I were to sell the Mackie's, which monitors should I replace them
with? I'm looking for real opinions, not hype. I've been engineering
long enough to know that high price does not necessarily mean "good
sound", but I'm also willing to spend money to get what I want, if
that's what I need to do. I'd love to have a subwoofer to go along
with the monitors as well.

Thanks!

if you haven't heard them yet, check out the ADAM A7s. They're a little
smaller than the HR824s and don't do the extended bass, but the imaging
is excellent. If you're after accuracy and clarity, they might be the
ticket.

If money's no object, ADAM's whole product line is good and you might
like Westlakes as well.

-Jay

--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x ---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

[dnafe]

If you into the sound of B&W speakers then an off the beaten track brand
that is everything it says it is are Noteperfect Speakers out of Austrailia.
There are very few owners a in the US and Canada but if you contact Mike
Kontor at the company he may be able to arrange something. (try before you
buy)

I own a pair of Alpha Pro's and they blow away everything in their price
range by a country mile and for the record I demo'd JBL, Quested, Mackie,
Adam, Genelec, Dynaudio and Tannoy monitors in my hunt

The Alphas are about the size of the B&W 805's with (almost) the low end of
the 804's - basically a very smooth freq response.

Hope that helps


"Ben - TheStudioRI.com" wrote in message
oups.com...
I have a pair of Mackie HR824's and I'm really not too happy with
them. I just bought a pair of Sennhieser HD600 cans and I can really
hear that the Mackie's just arent for me. the mix in the headphones
sounds so much more acurate and clear and translates so much better.
So...

If I were to sell the Mackie's, which monitors should I replace them
with? I'm looking for real opinions, not hype. I've been engineering
long enough to know that high price does not necessarily mean "good
sound", but I'm also willing to spend money to get what I want, if
that's what I need to do. I'd love to have a subwoofer to go along
with the monitors as well.

Thanks!

[Scott Dorsey]

Ben - TheStudioRI.com wrote:
I have a pair of Mackie HR824's and I'm really not too happy with
them. I just bought a pair of Sennhieser HD600 cans and I can really
hear that the Mackie's just arent for me. the mix in the headphones
sounds so much more acurate and clear and translates so much better.

Accurate and clear does NOT mean it translates much better, and it almost
certainly means it translates worse, actually.

So...

If I were to sell the Mackie's, which monitors should I replace them
with? I'm looking for real opinions, not hype. I've been engineering
long enough to know that high price does not necessarily mean "good
sound", but I'm also willing to spend money to get what I want, if
that's what I need to do. I'd love to have a subwoofer to go along
with the monitors as well.

I would spend some money in fixing your room before looking at any
other monitors. Maybe you DO want to upgrade your monitoring, but
most monitor problems are really room problems.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Federico]

My two cents not properly on room treatment....
One thing I see often in home studios is a bad placement of monitor
speakers.
Try putting the tweeters at eye level or just below it.
Sometimes this can be achieved by turning the speakers upside down.
F.

P.S: of course do not use the speakers horizontally since there will be a
slight delay between the tweeters and the woofers.
F:

[Ben - TheStudioRI.com]

On Mar 13, 5:52 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Ben - TheStudioRI.com wrote:

I have a pair of Mackie HR824's and I'm really not too happy with
them. I just bought a pair of Sennhieser HD600 cans and I can really
hear that the Mackie's just arent for me. the mix in the headphones
sounds so much more acurate and clear and translates so much better.

Accurate and clear does NOT mean it translates much better, and it almost
certainly means it translates worse, actually.

So...

If I were to sell the Mackie's, which monitors should I replace them
with? I'm looking for real opinions, not hype. I've been engineering
long enough to know that high price does not necessarily mean "good
sound", but I'm also willing to spend money to get what I want, if
that's what I need to do. I'd love to have a subwoofer to go along
with the monitors as well.

I would spend some money in fixing your room before looking at any
other monitors. Maybe you DO want to upgrade your monitoring, but
most monitor problems are really room problems.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Thanks to all with some good leads on your favorite monitors. I will
definitely check them out. But First off, I've been engineering for
over 15 years. I know there are some problems with my room... mostly
due to size constraints, but it IS professionally treated. Also, for
those who commented about speaker placement, just visit my website and
look at the pics... the placement is textbook, but nice suggestion.
Third, while I do have a larger budget than many, money IS an object
hehehe. I cant spend $2k per speaker . Lastly, "accurate and
clear" is what sounds good to me, and is what helps me translate a mix
(hence "accurate"). If that's not what you like, that's cool... after
all, we have different sets of ears, but don't automatically ASSUME
that I don't know about acoustics. I just don't think that I like the
Mackies according to MY taste.

thanks again!

[Scott Dorsey]

Ben - TheStudioRI.com wrote:

Thanks to all with some good leads on your favorite monitors. I will
definitely check them out. But First off, I've been engineering for
over 15 years. I know there are some problems with my room... mostly
due to size constraints, but it IS professionally treated. Also, for
those who commented about speaker placement, just visit my website and
look at the pics... the placement is textbook, but nice suggestion.
Third, while I do have a larger budget than many, money IS an object
hehehe. I cant spend $2k per speaker . Lastly, "accurate and
clear" is what sounds good to me, and is what helps me translate a mix
(hence "accurate"). If that's not what you like, that's cool... after
all, we have different sets of ears, but don't automatically ASSUME
that I don't know about acoustics. I just don't think that I like the
Mackies according to MY taste.

Okay, what HAVE you liked in the past 15 years? And why have you liked
them? And what haven't you liked about the Mackies?

What do you want in a monitor? Is accurate vocal reproduction important
to you or is low end accuracy more important? Are you working on music
built around the vocals, or music built around guitars? Is accurate imaging
important to you or are you mostly doing panpotted stereo anyway? Do you
need to have a good sense of space or is that irrelevant?

I mean, I can tell you what monitors I like, but I come to the table with
a distinct set of prejudices: I think midrange accuracy and good vocal
reproduction is paramount and the ability to judge space is very important.
But I also tend to like a very distant presentation, not something in your
face, and I'd rather have no bass at all than lumpy bass. Extreme top end
extension isn't so important to me. But that's just me, and what is important
to you might be very different.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

On Mar 13, 7:21 pm, "Ben - TheStudioRI.com" wrote:
But First off, I've been engineering for over 15 years.

So why are you asking about what monitors to get? I'd think that
someone with 15 years of experience would know enough to do a little
research and a little listening. So much for your "qualifications."
Now let's talk about your problem.

I know there are some problems with my room... mostly
due to size constraints, but it IS professionally treated. Also, for
those who commented about speaker placement, just visit my website and
look at the pics... the placement is textbook

Textbooks only tell you how to solve problems, they don't give you the
solution. You know you have a problem. A different monitor won't solve
it. The reason why headphones seem to work for you is because they
take the room out of the equation. Get a different professional to
help you with your room acoustics. Almost any room can be made to work
if you figure out what to do with it.

Third, while I do have a larger budget than many, money IS an object
hehehe. I cant spend $2k per speaker

In that case, be happy with what you have. Lots of people are making
good mixes on those speakers. Instead of spending money on speakers,
spend it on a good consultant and fix your room. Then, when you're
able to spend more money on speakers, you'll hear an improvement.

Lastly, "accurate and
clear" is what sounds good to me, and is what helps me translate a mix
(hence "accurate").

Your description of "accurate and clear" may not be very accurate and
clear, but if you've learned to mix on headphones, then why worry
about speakers? Nothing will sound good in there. What you're hearing
on headphones has nothing to do with what you'll hear on speakers, any
speakers.

If you were a beginner, I'd have more sympathy with you, but you come
on like an "expert." you know what your problem is, and you refuse to
solve it properly. Save some money and get yourself some cheap
speakers. They won't sound any worse than your Mackies if your room
has bad problems.

[Bill Ruys]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
oups.com...

I know there are some problems with my room... mostly
due to size constraints, but it IS professionally treated. Also, for
those who commented about speaker placement, just visit my website and
look at the pics... the placement is textbook

Textbooks only tell you how to solve problems, they don't give you the
solution. You know you have a problem. A different monitor won't solve
it. The reason why headphones seem to work for you is because they
take the room out of the equation. Get a different professional to
help you with your room acoustics. Almost any room can be made to work
if you figure out what to do with it.

I think you're making an assumption that you don't have enough information
to make. If the O/P has "treated" his room, but admits he has size related
issues, I would suggest that those issues are low frequency issues. It's
fairly easy to treat a small room for flutter echos and early reflections,
but low frequency will always be a problem due to standing waves, modes,
etc.

So we need to hear from the O/P if his problems are low frequency, time
domain issues. You suggest he hires a different professional, but the truth
is, you can only do so much to solve small room syndrome. There is only so
much you can do, and anything more is flogging a dead horse.

I too have a room that is too small. My room lies to me hugely about what's
going on down low. However, it's treated with acoustic foam and bass traps.
My walls are even de-coupled from the framing. But, it's still a small room
and will never be accurate for low frequency mixing. I have learned how my
room sounds from the mix position by listening to hundreds of hours of
commercial recordings and so have learned to compensate somewhat. Having
said that, the low frequency build-up in different parts of the room make
things sound very different if I move too far away from the mix position.

What I'm saying here is that it's possible there is nothing further the O/P
can do to improve his room. But, it is still possible that his monitors are
sub-par and that there is room for improvement.

The O/P is also welcome to donate his Makies to a home studio in New Zealand
;o)



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

[Scott Dorsey]

Bill Ruys wrote:

I think you're making an assumption that you don't have enough information
to make. If the O/P has "treated" his room, but admits he has size related
issues, I would suggest that those issues are low frequency issues. It's
fairly easy to treat a small room for flutter echos and early reflections,
but low frequency will always be a problem due to standing waves, modes,
etc.

So we need to hear from the O/P if his problems are low frequency, time
domain issues. You suggest he hires a different professional, but the truth
is, you can only do so much to solve small room syndrome. There is only so
much you can do, and anything more is flogging a dead horse.

A lot of things can be wrong at higher frequencies too, though. I have
seen rooms that were "treated" so aggressively they were completely dead
in the upper registers... needless to say, playback didn't sound very
involving, there was a lack of perceived clarity, and the low end seemed
exaggerated in comparison.

I too have a room that is too small. My room lies to me hugely about what's
going on down low. However, it's treated with acoustic foam and bass traps.
My walls are even de-coupled from the framing. But, it's still a small room
and will never be accurate for low frequency mixing. I have learned how my
room sounds from the mix position by listening to hundreds of hours of
commercial recordings and so have learned to compensate somewhat. Having
said that, the low frequency build-up in different parts of the room make
things sound very different if I move too far away from the mix position.

BUT, you have things under control at higher frequencies.

What I'm saying here is that it's possible there is nothing further the O/P
can do to improve his room. But, it is still possible that his monitors are
sub-par and that there is room for improvement.

That's true. But I mixed for years on horrible sounding monitors, starting
out on Altec 604s, and got great mixes that translated well. Now, it's
scary playing some of those back on good speakers and hearing stuff that I
never noticed originally. But you can do fine work with sub-par monitors
if the room is good.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Carey Carlan]

"Ben - TheStudioRI.com" wrote in
oups.com:

If I were to sell the Mackie's, which monitors should I replace them
with? I'm looking for real opinions, not hype. I've been engineering
long enough to know that high price does not necessarily mean "good
sound", but I'm also willing to spend money to get what I want, if
that's what I need to do. I'd love to have a subwoofer to go along
with the monitors as well.

Add the Event ASP-8 to your list. Similar price, size, and (self) power as
the Mackies, but have a smoother and cleaner high end and still support a
similar bass experience. I use mine for classical, organ, and choral
recordings--complex content that must be analyzed on many levels. These do
a good job in conjunction with my large monitors and boom box.

[Bill Ruys]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Bill Ruys wrote:

A lot of things can be wrong at higher frequencies too, though. I have
seen rooms that were "treated" so aggressively they were completely dead
in the upper registers... needless to say, playback didn't sound very
involving, there was a lack of perceived clarity, and the low end seemed
exaggerated in comparison.

True. I guess we don't really know how his room was treated or by whom.
That said, small rooms almost always have low frequency issues and they are
the most difficult to fix. I knew my room's dimensions were not ideal when
I built it, but I have to say, I under-estimated how difficult it was going
to be to fix with acoustic treatment.

I too have a room that is too small...
BUT, you have things under control at higher frequencies.

Pretty much, yes. Interestingly, the low frequency problems become more and
more obvious as you treat your room for its other problems.

That's true. But I mixed for years on horrible sounding monitors,
starting
out on Altec 604s, and got great mixes that translated well. Now, it's
scary playing some of those back on good speakers and hearing stuff that I
never noticed originally. But you can do fine work with sub-par monitors
if the room is good.
--scott

Yup. If a genie jumped out of a lamp and offered me the worlds best studio
monitors -or- a great room, it would be no contest. I'd go for the room.
I'm stuck with the confinds of a small house and an even smaller studio.
But hey, we use what we've got. Being aware of the problem and
understanding how it effects your perception is half the battle I guess.

Bill.



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

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message


That's true. But I mixed for years on horrible sounding
monitors, starting out on Altec 604s, and got great mixes
that translated well. Now, it's scary playing some of
those back on good speakers and hearing stuff that I
never noticed originally. But you can do fine work with
sub-par monitors if the room is good.

Over the weekend I spent a few hours listening to a wide variety of classic
rock songs on a system with really wide frequency response and dynamic
range. There was clearly a range of years where the bass extension and
balance started varying all over the map - what one might expect if people
were using equipment that was capable of goodly amounts of bass extension,
but they had no idea what they were putting out for distribution. It seemed
like things got back under control to a great degree in the 1990s.

[Predrag Trpkov]

"Bill Ruys" wrote in message
.. .

What I'm saying here is that it's possible there is nothing further the
O/P
can do to improve his room. But, it is still possible that his monitors
are
sub-par and that there is room for improvement.


The monitors are Mackie HR824s, an industry standard. Personal taste aside,
they keep doing perfectly adequate job in many hi-end control rooms all over
the globe.

Is it really possible that it's these monitors that are sub-par in
somebody's control room if that somebody asks questions like "How do you get
that modern rock vocal sound?" and asks for recommendations of any mics or
techniques or websites that would point him in the right direction, while at
the same time invites clients through his studio website offering to educate
them on "how to tell the difference between a good studio/engineer and a
bad studio/engineer"?.

Predrag

[Ben - TheStudioRI.com]

Okay, what HAVE you liked in the past 15 years? And why have you liked
them? And what haven't you liked about the Mackies?

ok, I've liked the NS10's to mix on, but they were not detailed
enough. I also liked the event 20/20's, but they are not as good as
the mackie's IMHO when it comes to image. The mackie's just seem to
have this unnatural sound in the lower mids that throws off the rest
of the balance. I've got $50 computer speakers that I can get a
better mix on. I know I have some room issues that cannot easily be
fixed, but i'm thinking that these speakers just don't sound right to
my ears. I've tried them in three different rooms too, all with the
same complaints.

What do you want in a monitor? Is accurate vocal reproduction important
to you or is low end accuracy more important? Are you working on music
built around the vocals, or music built around guitars? Is accurate imaging
important to you or are you mostly doing panpotted stereo anyway? Do you
need to have a good sense of space or is that irrelevant?

I record everything from rap to rock to jazz. I need a versitile
system. I'd like to get a sub with the monitors too. Have you ever
just listened to a set on monitors and said "wow, I can really hear
the mix"? I never got that feeling with the mackies.

I mean, I can tell you what monitors I like, but I come to the table with
a distinct set of prejudices: I think midrange accuracy and good vocal
reproduction is paramount and the ability to judge space is very important.
But I also tend to like a very distant presentation, not something in your
face, and I'd rather have no bass at all than lumpy bass. Extreme top end
extension isn't so important to me. But that's just me, and what is important
to you might be very different.

ok, based on that, I can tell you that yes, I like a distant
presentation as well. a nice midrange is very important too. I don't
necessarily need extended highs and lows, but I want to hear them just
in case there is something there that needs to be addressed. I
don't know. I'm all flustered now since I started using those damned
headphones! lol.

I know monitors are kind of subjective, i'm just tryiung to get
opinions to weed out the hype. I bought the mackies on hype (yes, I
know I know.) and I don't want to do that again.

[Ben - TheStudioRI.com]

On Mar 13, 7:59 pm, "Mike Rivers" wrote:
On Mar 13, 7:21 pm, "Ben - TheStudioRI.com" wrote:

But First off, I've been engineering for over 15 years.

So why are you asking about what monitors to get? I'd think that
someone with 15 years of experience would know enough to do a little
research and a little listening. So much for your "qualifications."
Now let's talk about your problem.

Ok mike, let's cut the crap. you know as well as I do that technology
changes faster than most can keep up with and I can't listen to all
models of every monitor. just asking for ideas man.


I know there are some problems with my room... mostly
due to size constraints, but it IS professionally treated. Also, for
those who commented about speaker placement, just visit my website and
look at the pics... the placement is textbook

Textbooks only tell you how to solve problems, they don't give you the
solution. You know you have a problem. A different monitor won't solve
it. The reason why headphones seem to work for you is because they
take the room out of the equation. Get a different professional to
help you with your room acoustics. Almost any room can be made to work
if you figure out what to do with it.


you are correct. textbook is not always the way to make things sound
good. I've used 4 different types of headphones and I've never had
this opinion until I tried the HD600's. maybe i'm just trying to find
monitors that sound like those cans!

Third, while I do have a larger budget than many, money IS an object
hehehe. I cant spend $2k per speaker

In that case, be happy with what you have. Lots of people are making
good mixes on those speakers. Instead of spending money on speakers,
spend it on a good consultant and fix your room. Then, when you're
able to spend more money on speakers, you'll hear an improvement.

that's the point, I dont believe i NEED to spend all that money on
monitors. I'm sure that there is a pair out there in the same price
range that just fits my ears better. i'm talking PREFERENCE, that's
all. If I want to drive a cadillac over a lexus, there must be a
reason, right?

Lastly, "accurate and
clear" is what sounds good to me, and is what helps me translate a mix
(hence "accurate").

Your description of "accurate and clear" may not be very accurate and
clear, but if you've learned to mix on headphones, then why worry
about speakers? Nothing will sound good in there. What you're hearing
on headphones has nothing to do with what you'll hear on speakers, any
speakers.

I havnt "learned to mix" on these headphones. I've had these HD600's
for three days. I want monitors that sound like them. got any
suggestions?

[John L Rice]

"Ben - TheStudioRI.com" wrote in message
oups.com...
I have a pair of Mackie HR824's and I'm really not too happy with
them. I just bought a pair of Sennhieser HD600 cans and I can really
hear that the Mackie's just arent for me. the mix in the headphones
sounds so much more acurate and clear and translates so much better.
So...

If I were to sell the Mackie's, which monitors should I replace them
with? I'm looking for real opinions, not hype. I've been engineering
long enough to know that high price does not necessarily mean "good
sound", but I'm also willing to spend money to get what I want, if
that's what I need to do. I'd love to have a subwoofer to go along
with the monitors as well.

Thanks!

Check out PMC DB1S+ or TB2S+ monitors (or their hifi equiv DB1+ or TB2+ )
http://www.pmcloudspeaker.com/tb2s.html I recently got a pair of DB1+ and
so far I'm liking them a lot. (mine are passive and powered with an Adcom
GFA-545 amp. They also make powered versions too) Very nice midrange and
smooth highs. You'll probably want to get a subwoofer for them though if
usings as mains. I also have Dynaudio BM15As
http://www.dynaudioacoustics.com/Default.asp?Id=279 and the Dyns and PMCs
are fairly complimentary. The Dyns have impressive low end and high end bite
but lack something in the mid/low mid region.

There has been a lot of talk about the Focal SM6 series lately, especially
the Twin Be, so you might want to check those out :
http://www.focalprofessional.com/en/.../tween6Be.html

Best of luck!

John L Rice

[Mogens V.]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
What do you want in a monitor? Is accurate vocal reproduction important
to you or is low end accuracy more important? Are you working on music
built around the vocals, or music built around guitars? Is accurate imaging
important to you or are you mostly doing panpotted stereo anyway? Do you
need to have a good sense of space or is that irrelevant?

I mean, I can tell you what monitors I like, but I come to the table with
a distinct set of prejudices: I think midrange accuracy and good vocal
reproduction is paramount and the ability to judge space is very important.
But I also tend to like a very distant presentation, not something in your
face, and I'd rather have no bass at all than lumpy bass. Extreme top end
extension isn't so important to me. But that's just me, and what is important
to you might be very different.

Please excuse me for a divertion. WRT speakers, I'm interested in which
type of drivers/materials does what in studio monitors for my own needs.
And yes, I know it's a far too large subject, so a few pointers..

I'm on a budget, and having experience from building both hifi and live
gear (for rental), I may build my own monitors, especially as I have
some drivers readily at hand.


I'll be doing progressive rock and metal, and later also progressive
jazz/rock and gipzy jass.
Some material I expect to make for being listened to using good quality
home gear, not hi-end, but definetely not cheapo too.
Some will be ballad stuff which must be listenable on consumer gear.

My intended monitors will use a 5 1/4" polypropylene coated kevlar
driver and a 1" fabric dome driver, both medium priced.

Coated kevlar is self-dampening and IME can be slightly retracted in
tone. The 1" is unobtrusive. They don't hide detail, but also doesn't
reveal every little detail.
The idea is a monitor matching decent home gear.
Of cause it's difficult commenting on unknown drivers in a unknown box
and filter setup, plus not knowing my (claimed) abilities

I'll prooflisten partly on my homegear, which isn't hi-end, though
definitely above consumer level, and partly on two sets of headsets, an
old Denon AH-D300 and a studio quality headset, yet to be determined.

The above seems to match my intensions and fall in place with comments
in this thread. I may be wrong, and thus corrected...

--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article .com,
Ben - TheStudioRI.com wrote:

Okay, what HAVE you liked in the past 15 years? And why have you liked
them? And what haven't you liked about the Mackies?

ok, I've liked the NS10's to mix on, but they were not detailed
enough. I also liked the event 20/20's, but they are not as good as
the mackie's IMHO when it comes to image. The mackie's just seem to
have this unnatural sound in the lower mids that throws off the rest
of the balance. I've got $50 computer speakers that I can get a
better mix on. I know I have some room issues that cannot easily be
fixed, but i'm thinking that these speakers just don't sound right to
my ears. I've tried them in three different rooms too, all with the
same complaints.

Lower mid issues definitely make me think you have some room problems.
Try moving the mackies closer to the wall and farther from the wall and
see if the issues you've got change.

I can't imagine describing the NS10s as "not detailed enough" since they
have such an exaggerated top end. Maybe you want a more sharp, etched
kind of sound like the Adam monitors will give you?

I kind of find the Adams to be a little too pitched up, but they are not
harsh.

What do you want in a monitor? Is accurate vocal reproduction important
to you or is low end accuracy more important? Are you working on music
built around the vocals, or music built around guitars? Is accurate imaging
important to you or are you mostly doing panpotted stereo anyway? Do you
need to have a good sense of space or is that irrelevant?

I record everything from rap to rock to jazz. I need a versitile
system. I'd like to get a sub with the monitors too. Have you ever
just listened to a set on monitors and said "wow, I can really hear
the mix"? I never got that feeling with the mackies.

No, but I have listened to monitors and said, "wow, that sounds like it
did in on the other side of the glass."

Most of what gives me that feeling is midrange accuracy.

The subwoofer is a funny thing... it can give you better bass extension
if you have monitors that don't have good enough extension in the first
place. But if you have room problems and you KNOW you have room problems,
that bass extension may turn out to be a bad thing rather than a good thing.

You can also set a subwoofer up to be peaky and thumpy, which is a good
thing if you need to check your mix against a system built like that for
dance music. But doing that gives you a system that is less accurate,
though it might be useful.

ok, based on that, I can tell you that yes, I like a distant
presentation as well. a nice midrange is very important too. I don't
necessarily need extended highs and lows, but I want to hear them just
in case there is something there that needs to be addressed. I
don't know. I'm all flustered now since I started using those damned
headphones! lol.

Maybe you DO want NS-10s.

I know monitors are kind of subjective, i'm just tryiung to get
opinions to weed out the hype. I bought the mackies on hype (yes, I
know I know.) and I don't want to do that again.

The Mackies you can at least trade in for something else. I'd suggest
listening to the Adams and to the Blue Sky system and maybe to the
new Genelec 8000 series and the NHT A-20. But which one you wind up
liking I don't know. And you may just find yourself happier with the
NS-10 if that's the way you're used to working.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Heins]

On 2007-03-14, Bill Ruys wrote:
Yup. If a genie jumped out of a lamp and offered me the worlds best studio
monitors -or- a great room, it would be no contest. I'd go for the room.
I'm stuck with the confinds of a small house and an even smaller studio.

Out of curiosity, is there any general agreement on what makes a great room?

--
Mike Heins
Perusion -- Expert Interchange Consulting http://www.perusion.com/

Be patient. God isn't finished with me yet. -- unknown

[Scott Dorsey]

Ben - TheStudioRI.com wrote:

Ok mike, let's cut the crap. you know as well as I do that technology
changes faster than most can keep up with and I can't listen to all
models of every monitor. just asking for ideas man.

The technology actually changes pretty slowly. It's the marketing hype
that changes. If you liked something 15 years ago, try it and see if you
still like it today. Nothing wrong with using 15 year old gear if it
gets the job done.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Mike Heins wrote:
On 2007-03-14, Bill Ruys wrote:
Yup. If a genie jumped out of a lamp and offered me the worlds best studio
monitors -or- a great room, it would be no contest. I'd go for the room.
I'm stuck with the confinds of a small house and an even smaller studio.

Out of curiosity, is there any general agreement on what makes a great room?

No, but there IS general agreement on what makes a bad room.

Flutter echos make a bad room. Standing wave problems at low frequency
make a bad room. Slap echoes make a bad room. Rooms where the decay
time varies more than a few dB with frequency make bad rooms.

Now, back in the seventies there was a fad for making everything dead
as hell at high frequencies. I don't like that, but there are still
some people who did.

In the eighties the whole LEDE stuff came in, with a live section of the
room (using diffusion to avoid slap echoes) and a dead section of the
room (with absorption) where the speakers were placed. I like this,
but there are folks who don't.

There are varying tastes in room styles, but everyone can agree on the
room problems to avoid.
--scott


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

[Mike Rivers]

On Mar 13, 9:41 pm, "Bill Ruys"
wrote:
I think you're making an assumption that you don't have enough information
to make.

Of course I'm making an assumption. I haven't been in his room. But
his description points strongly toward room problems or at least
monitor positioning. Unless he's just being picky (and that's
certainly his right) there should be no reason why he can't work on
Mackie monitors if they sound like they were designed to sound. But in
his room, they apparently don't.

He needs to get some other speakers in there (other than NS10s) and
compare them. If I'm right, though he'll hear a different sound, he'll
hear the same kind of deficiencies as he hears on the Mackies. And if
I'm wrong, well, it's free advice. If he wants to pay me for a
consultation he might get better information.

If the O/P has "treated" his room, but admits he has size related
issues, I would suggest that those issues are low frequency issues. It's
fairly easy to treat a small room for flutter echos and early reflections,
but low frequency will always be a problem due to standing waves, modes,
etc.

But there are a lot of people who get workable sound in a small room.
He may have to accept less than he wants, continue mixing on speakers
or NS10s that he seems to like, or knock out a wall. But he can
probably (yet another assumption, I know) do a better treatment job
than he has now. Putting money into acoustic treatment or construction
will almost certainly help his situation. Putting money into new
speakers is less likely to improve things.

So we need to hear from the O/P if his problems are low frequency, time
domain issues. You suggest he hires a different professional, but the truth
is, you can only do so much to solve small room syndrome. There is only so
much you can do, and anything more is flogging a dead horse.

So what's your suggestion for him? But another speaker and put it in
the same problem room? Give up?

I have learned how my
room sounds from the mix position by listening to hundreds of hours of
commercial recordings and so have learned to compensate somewhat.

You do what you have to do. It's all about tricks if you can't afford
the ideal monitoring environment. But you and I know that no speaker
will compensate for a room that makes the speaker sound worse than it
does in a free field. .

Having
said that, the low frequency build-up in different parts of the room make
things sound very different if I move too far away from the mix position.

And that's another trick - you can't possibly learn all of the "modes"
so you learn where to sit when you mix. In my room (which I'm sure
could be helped considerably by bass trapping) I know how things sound
in the mix position, and I move back about six feet if I want to get
more "bass detail" because it's louder back there. But if I mixed from
back there, my mixes would be shy on bass.

What I'm saying here is that it's possible there is nothing further the O/P
can do to improve his room. But, it is still possible that his monitors are
sub-par and that there is room for improvement.

Neither of us knows that until it's properly measured and studied by
someone who understands these things, and I don't just mean someone
who's visited Ethan Winer, John Sayers, or the Acoustics First web
sites. There's room for improvement with the monitors, sure, but
other than his prejudice (he thinks they're inaccurate because he
doesn't have good results and bought them based on reputation rather
than listening), there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the Mackies.
He just doesn't know what they sound like because he's only heard them
in his room (or maybe worse).

[Mike Rivers]

On Mar 13, 10:30 pm, "Bill Ruys"
wrote:

Pretty much, yes. Interestingly, the low frequency problems become more and
more obvious as you treat your room for its other problems.

That's because low frequency problems take the most experience,
understanding, and materials to fix. They're the most expensive, and
they don't look really cool, so they're usually last on the list. They
should be first on the list, and then reverb time, flutter echos, and
high frequency comb filtering should be addressed. That's stuff that
can be fixed pretty easily just by hanging cool looking pieces on the
walls.

[Mike Heins]

On 2007-03-14, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Mike Heins wrote:
On 2007-03-14, Bill Ruys wrote:
Yup. If a genie jumped out of a lamp and offered me the worlds best studio
monitors -or- a great room, it would be no contest. I'd go for the room.
I'm stuck with the confinds of a small house and an even smaller studio.

Out of curiosity, is there any general agreement on what makes a great room?

No, but there IS general agreement on what makes a bad room.

Flutter echos make a bad room. Standing wave problems at low frequency
make a bad room. Slap echoes make a bad room. Rooms where the decay
time varies more than a few dB with frequency make bad rooms.

Now, back in the seventies there was a fad for making everything dead
as hell at high frequencies. I don't like that, but there are still
some people who did.

In the eighties the whole LEDE stuff came in, with a live section of the
room (using diffusion to avoid slap echoes) and a dead section of the
room (with absorption) where the speakers were placed. I like this,
but there are folks who don't.

There are varying tastes in room styles, but everyone can agree on the
room problems to avoid.

I have an empty room that is 16x20. It is bare paneling walls on a frame
structure. There is indoor-outdoor carpet. There are no significant
protuberances, and there are two small windows and one door.

Is this a room that might make a good vocal recording studio,
understanding that the console will reside along one wall?

Would I be better off putting in a wall with a picture window, splitting
the space? It seems way too small for that.

--
Mike Heins
Perusion -- Expert Interchange Consulting http://www.perusion.com/

Be patient. God isn't finished with me yet. -- unknown

[Mike Rivers]

On Mar 14, 9:45 am, "Ben - TheStudioRI.com" wrote:

Ok mike, let's cut the crap. you know as well as I do that technology
changes faster than most can keep up with and I can't listen to all
models of every monitor. just asking for ideas man.

No crap. If you were talking about microphones or A/D converters,
you'd be right - new developments several times a year, and you can't
listen to all of them. But speakers don't change very much because
they're based on laws of physics that don't change very much. If
someone came out with a speaker that didn't radiate bass all around,
I'd tell you to get some in right away. But they all do that, which is
why room acoustics are important. The biggest differences that you'll
find in speakers is in midrange and high frequency disbursion and
"smoothness."

Some of the problems that you're talking about ("clarity" for
instance) are mid-high problems and different speakers will sound
different. But I happen to think that the Mackies are pretty good in
that area. Scott has suggested Adam as an alternative. They're worth a
listen because they have a different type of tweeter than anyone else
and throws out the sound differently. But you should listen to them in
your own room, comparing them to your present speakers. You need to
figure out how to do this. You don't need to go to a music store tha
has a shelf full of monitors other than to hand them your credit card
and tell them that you might be returning them if you don't like them.
Don't try that at Guitar Center.


that's the point, I dont believe i NEED to spend all that money on
monitors. I'm sure that there is a pair out there in the same price
range that just fits my ears better. i'm talking PREFERENCE, that's
all. If I want to drive a cadillac over a lexus, there must be a
reason, right?

In that case, jump into the pool. Get something in there that's in the
same ballpark price (or what you can afford if you sell the Mackies at
the going eBay rates) and see what happens. Either they'll sound
better to you, sound worse, or just sound different.

I havnt "learned to mix" on these headphones. I've had these HD600's
for three days. I want monitors that sound like them. got any
suggestions?

Sure. Create a monitoring environment that approximates that of what's
between the headphone drivers and your ears. Accurate speakers, like
accurate headphones, are pretty easy to come by. I doubt that you'll
ever find what you're looking for just by swapping out the speakers.

[Scott Dorsey]

Mike Heins wrote:

I have an empty room that is 16x20. It is bare paneling walls on a frame
structure. There is indoor-outdoor carpet. There are no significant
protuberances, and there are two small windows and one door.

Is this a room that might make a good vocal recording studio,
understanding that the console will reside along one wall?

Well, for vocal recording, you can get away with some severe low frequency
problems in the recording space, although you still want to be avoiding
them in the control booth.

Would I be better off putting in a wall with a picture window, splitting
the space? It seems way too small for that.

Depends. How do you like to work? Are you going to be doing the VO yourself
and doing your own engineering, or are you going to have visiting folks
in tracking while you record?

For vocals, you can get away with a tiny recording space, which means you
have plenty of room for a big control booth.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Heins]

On 2007-03-14, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Mike Heins wrote:

I have an empty room that is 16x20. It is bare paneling walls on a frame
structure. There is indoor-outdoor carpet. There are no significant
protuberances, and there are two small windows and one door.

Is this a room that might make a good vocal recording studio,
understanding that the console will reside along one wall?

Well, for vocal recording, you can get away with some severe low frequency
problems in the recording space, although you still want to be avoiding
them in the control booth.

Would I be better off putting in a wall with a picture window, splitting
the space? It seems way too small for that.

Depends. How do you like to work? Are you going to be doing the VO yourself
and doing your own engineering, or are you going to have visiting folks
in tracking while you record?

Both. I am a singer and will be recording myself, and also I will be
recording others. The latter is more important.

For vocals, you can get away with a tiny recording space, which means you
have plenty of room for a big control booth.

Hmm. Perhaps dividing into 6x10, 6x6 closet, and 14x16 spaces with a
sliding glass door as the entrance to the vocal space.

--
Mike Heins

Be patient. God isn't finished with me yet. -- unknown

[Ben - TheStudioRI.com]

On Mar 14, 9:30 am, "Mike Rivers" wrote:
On Mar 13, 10:30 pm, "Bill Ruys"
wrote:

Pretty much, yes. Interestingly, the low frequency problems become more and
more obvious as you treat your room for its other problems.

That's because low frequency problems take the most experience,
understanding, and materials to fix. They're the most expensive, and
they don't look really cool, so they're usually last on the list. They
should be first on the list, and then reverb time, flutter echos, and
high frequency comb filtering should be addressed. That's stuff that
can be fixed pretty easily just by hanging cool looking pieces on the
walls.


Scott, you have a point about the sub. yes, I do have standing waves
a low frequencies. I'm going to start another post about that rather
than hash it out here. I think it's certainly an issue. However, I
really don't think it's going to make me love the mackies. hehe.

[David Grant]

I havnt "learned to mix" on these headphones. I've had these HD600's
for three days. I want monitors that sound like them. got any
suggestions?

In my experience a good pair of headphones sounds far more clear and way
more detailed than even a really expensive pair of monitors. Attempting to
acheive that level of sonic quality through a set of speakers is futile...
or maybe I just haven't had the privledge of hearing such a thing, but I
suspect the former.

To me, speakers and headphones are apples and oranges: you can't compare.

Also, 15 years of experience doesn't mean anything. I've been playing jazz
piano for 20 years, but what that doesn't tell you is that I've dabbled with
it on and off for most of that period of time and am ****ty compared to lots
of people who've studied seriously for 10 years. People are doubting your
experience because yours is a question that comes up here a lot from the
inexperienced.



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

[Scott Dorsey]

David Grant wrote:
In my experience a good pair of headphones sounds far more clear and way
more detailed than even a really expensive pair of monitors. Attempting to
acheive that level of sonic quality through a set of speakers is futile...
or maybe I just haven't had the privledge of hearing such a thing, but I
suspect the former.

Absolutely. BUT, the imaging is all wrong. And, that clarity and detail
is very illusory and of course doesn't translate when the customer tries
to listen on speakers.
--scott


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

[Edwin Hurwitz]

In article ,
Carey Carlan wrote:

"Ben - TheStudioRI.com" wrote in
oups.com:

If I were to sell the Mackie's, which monitors should I replace them
with? I'm looking for real opinions, not hype. I've been engineering
long enough to know that high price does not necessarily mean "good
sound", but I'm also willing to spend money to get what I want, if
that's what I need to do. I'd love to have a subwoofer to go along
with the monitors as well.

Add the Event ASP-8 to your list. Similar price, size, and (self) power as
the Mackies, but have a smoother and cleaner high end and still support a
similar bass experience. I use mine for classical, organ, and choral
recordings--complex content that must be analyzed on many levels. These do
a good job in conjunction with my large monitors and boom box.

I'll have to agree here. I tried a lot of the monitors in the $1k range
and ended up with these (replacing Dynaudio BM5as). Luckily, GC was
having a sale where they were only $300 apiece, so price did play a
role, but I've been really happy with how well they translate. I also
have subwoofers available (Dick Sequerra handmade 12s powered by a
McIntosh 2105) that integrate very very well, but I rarely use them, as
the Events go low enough. DO NOT judge them by previous experience with
Event speakers. No one was more anti-Event than me before I tried them.

I know this has been covered ad nauseum everywhere, but please do not
overlook the importance of room treatment. Building bass traps and
getting some first reflection treatment from GIK Acoustics made far more
of a difference than changing monitors. I don't think YMMV applies here!
:-)


Good luck!
Edwin

[David Grant]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
David Grant wrote:
In my experience a good pair of headphones sounds far more clear and way
more detailed than even a really expensive pair of monitors. Attempting to
acheive that level of sonic quality through a set of speakers is futile...
or maybe I just haven't had the privledge of hearing such a thing, but I
suspect the former.

Absolutely. BUT, the imaging is all wrong. And, that clarity and detail
is very illusory and of course doesn't translate when the customer tries
to listen on speakers.
--scott

Right... I meant to say imaging aside. The illusory clarity is why you can't
shop for speakers based on headphones.



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

[Edwin Hurwitz]

In article .com,
"Ben - TheStudioRI.com" wrote:



Thanks to all with some good leads on your favorite monitors. I will
definitely check them out. But First off, I've been engineering for
over 15 years. I know there are some problems with my room... mostly
due to size constraints, but it IS professionally treated. Also, for
those who commented about speaker placement, just visit my website and
look at the pics... the placement is textbook, but nice suggestion.
Third, while I do have a larger budget than many, money IS an object
hehehe. I cant spend $2k per speaker . Lastly, "accurate and
clear" is what sounds good to me, and is what helps me translate a mix
(hence "accurate"). If that's not what you like, that's cool... after
all, we have different sets of ears, but don't automatically ASSUME
that I don't know about acoustics. I just don't think that I like the
Mackies according to MY taste.

thanks again!


I don't doubt that you spent a bunch of money on treatment, but all I
see from the photos is Auralex style foam. Foam does not cut it,
especially for bass control. Believe me, I have been there and thought I
was dealing with it. Like so many others, I spent the money twice before
I did it right. Before I got it right, one thing I noticed was that rear
ported speakers tended to sound worse, consequently, my ASP8s sounded
great, while the Dynaudio BM5as had problems. After I put in real bass
traps and first reflection panels of OC703, the sounded came into much
clearer focus. It's still not perfect, but way way better. Now I can
really tell the difference between speakers, but I can also get better
mixes out of any speaker. When I finally decided to sell off the ones I
wasn't using, even my Tannoy Reveals, which I hadn't fired up in well
over a year, sounded very usable to me.

All that said, I don't like the Mackies, either, but I think that
monitors will continue to be unsatisfying until you do some real
treatment.

Have fun!
Edwin

[Edwin Hurwitz]

In article .com,
"Ben - TheStudioRI.com" wrote:


Okay, what HAVE you liked in the past 15 years? And why have you liked
them? And what haven't you liked about the Mackies?

ok, I've liked the NS10's to mix on, but they were not detailed
enough. I also liked the event 20/20's, but they are not as good as
the mackie's IMHO when it comes to image. The mackie's just seem to
have this unnatural sound in the lower mids that throws off the rest
of the balance. I've got $50 computer speakers that I can get a
better mix on. I know I have some room issues that cannot easily be
fixed, but i'm thinking that these speakers just don't sound right to
my ears. I've tried them in three different rooms too, all with the
same complaints.


This is exactly the problem I had with Dynaudios, Tannoys and Event
ASP8s until I got rid of the foam and started using real room treatment.
The lower mids drove me crazy, from the lower end of vocals and
guitars/keys to the upper end of bass and kick drums.

The computer speakers don't have this problem because they don't have a
huge passive radiator in the back bouncing off the walls.

Edwin

[Arny Krueger]

"Ben - TheStudioRI.com" wrote in
message
oups.com

I have a pair of Mackie HR824's and I'm really not too
happy with them.

Sounds like you have room problems.

I just bought a pair of Sennhieser
HD600 cans

Thus automagically avoiding your probable room problems.

and I can really hear that the Mackie's just
aren' for me.

Well, not Mackies in the place in the room you're using.

the mix in the headphones sounds so much
more accurate and clear and translates so much better.

If so, then your problem is solved, right?

So...

I guess your problem isn't solved, then.

If you're looking for something other than the HD600s then they must not be
working for you, too.

If I were to sell the Mackie's, which monitors should I
replace them with?

Fix the room and how you use it.

I'm looking for real opinions, not
hype. I've been engineering long enough to know that
high price does not necessarily mean "good sound", but
I'm also willing to spend money to get what I want, if
that's what I need to do. I'd love to have a subwoofer
to go along with the monitors as well.

A subwoofer will probably exacebate your room problems. Fix the room and how
you use it, first.