# Anybody else using studio monitors?



## vulc4n

Anybody else using studio monitors? If your not, maybe you should be. I just picked up some KRK ST6's today. They are absolutely awesome speakers.


----------



## GreatDane

I'm currently not using an active monitor but when I have space I'll be using my Central Station with either Mackie HR824mk2 or ADAM's A7.


----------



## Sovkiller

I used the Alesis Point Seven and later on the Monitor Ones MKII, both passive, my borther still ahs the ones and they sound very good for the money...


----------



## vulc4n

I'm thinking about trying the Alesis Monitor Ones MKII as well. I'd like to see how they compare. Even if they sound very similar I might go for those anyway. The ST6's have been discontinued which will make them hard to get later on when I want to go to 5.1

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *GreatDane* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm currently not using an active monitor but when I have space I'll be using my Central Station with either Mackie HR824mk2 or ADAM's A7._

 

If I had the money I probably would have gone for one of those.


----------



## solvexyz

I was using logitech z5300, and recently upgraded to a Dynaudio MC15, and it was a night and day difference.


----------



## fjf

Adam A7 user here. Awesome little speakers. Like my DT880 on steroids, with bass and soundstage!.


----------



## Jon118

I use some M-Audio DX-4s. I love them for music, but they can really make you notice flaws in the mastering of albums. Some are simply terrible on them, where as other albums really shine.


----------



## saint.panda

I have been using a pair of Adam P11A for a year or so and couldn't be any happier. Like many I also auditioned "hifi" monitors (KEF, JMLab, B&W, Piega, etc.) before settling on these studio monitors. It's ideal for my nearfield listening environment and imo offers greater bang for the buck in the under $2000 price range. I was also contemplating a pair of Dynaudios and slightly preferred the Adams because of the ribbon tweeters. Mackie HR624 were also very nice in a lower price category. Not a big fan of the Genelec and KRK monitors I heard.


----------



## PiccoloNamek

M-Audio BX8as here. Pretty awesome, if a bit on the bright side.


----------



## infinitesymphony

Not yet, but that's my plan. I auditioned every monitor in the local Guitar Center (KRK, Event, Yamaha, etc.) and the Mackie HR824mk2 came out the clear winner.

 I'm still waiting to audition the Adam line-up and Dynaudio's upper line-up.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *infinitesymphony* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not yet, but that's my plan. I auditioned every monitor in the local Guitar Center (KRK, Event, Yamaha, etc.) and the Mackie HR824mk2 came out the clear winner.

 I'm still waiting to audition the Adam line-up and Dynaudio's upper line-up._

 

The problem to audition Dynaudio is that mainly nobody carries them in stock as to listen them...Even the few dealers they have while you call, do not have them.


----------



## infinitesymphony

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The problem to audition Dynaudio is that mainly nobody carries them in stock as to listen them...Even the few dealers they have while you call, do not have them._

 

It's true, finding a store for auditioning Dynaudios is difficult, especially for their home line-up, but at least it's a little easier to find their studio monitors. Most Guitar Centers have a pair of BM5As set up as the bare minimum.

 I'm specifically looking to audition the BM6Amk2, BM15A, or the Air series. I've had good experiences with the BM15As in the studio despite their intentionally-inaccurate frequency response (cool in the lower midrange), so it will be nice to hear them again, especially next to the very accurate Mackie HR824mk2.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *infinitesymphony* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's true, finding a store for auditioning Dynaudios is difficult, especially for their home line-up, but at least it's a little easier to find their studio monitors. Most Guitar Centers have a pair of BM5As set up as the bare minimum.

 I'm specifically looking to audition the BM6Amk2, BM15A, or the Air series. I've had good experiences with the BM15As in the studio despite their intentionally-inaccurate frequency response (cool in the lower midrange), so it will be nice to hear them again, especially next to the very accurate Mackie HR824mk2._

 

Nope, not even for the Studio ones, at least not in my area, not even in NY, Sam Ash does not carry them and the only dealer in north Jersey IIRC while I called did not have any in stock, they said that they order them while you order them, no stocks of expensive speakers....


----------



## solvexyz

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nope, not even for the Studio ones, at least not in my area, not even in NY, Sam Ash does not carry them and the only dealer in north Jersey IIRC while I called did not have any in stock, they said that they order them while you order them, no stocks of expensive speakers...._

 

Same here in Canada. I have so much trouble to even find a local dealer that sell it. Eventually, I found one Canadian dealer and I bought one without even auditioned them. Lucky, the speaker meets all my expectation.


----------



## Naga

I see no better option than studio monitors for the Presonus Central Station.

 Yamaha HS 50M: probably a bad idea?


----------



## vulc4n

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Naga* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yamaha HS 50M: probably a bad idea?_

 

I've not really heard much about them. 

 Why do they interest you? If its purely the price I think I'd consider KRK's first.


----------



## infinitesymphony

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Naga* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I see no better option than studio monitors for the Presonus Central Station.

 Yamaha HS 50M: probably a bad idea?_

 

I've heard the HS80M, a step up from the HS50M. It has a high amount of low treble brightness, just like the old studio standard Yamaha NS10.

 The KRKs were the opposite, with a ton of lower midrange bloom.

 I'd say, save your money.


----------



## kukrisna

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nope, not even for the Studio ones, at least not in my area, not even in NY, Sam Ash does not carry them and the only dealer in north Jersey IIRC while I called did not have any in stock, they said that they order them while you order them, no stocks of expensive speakers...._

 

i could've sworn i've seen Dynaudios in the B&H catalogue but maybe it's just special order? not sure - you might give it a shot since you're in NY

 anyway - i own the Presonus CS and a set of the Alesis M1 Active MKII

 they were recommended to me at the various internships i've held as an alternative to the costlier Yamaha MSP5's

 although i havent heard the Yamahas, i do prefer my Alesis to one of Event's TR series (dont recall if it was a TR6 or TR8) that i did do some projects on - the Event's IMHO and as far as i can recall were rather sharp with a midbass emphasis and while some complain that the Alesis has too much of an emphasis on bass (which i've solved by plugging the bass holes with socks) i find the resolution and detail a bit better - it is on the warmer side of neutral


----------



## ninjapixie

I'm using cheap Samson monitors. For their intended purpose (music production) they really suck, but they're great for just listening to music. Far superior to the Logitec and Bose speakers we have in the house. They are however, totally out-performed by my Senn HD580s.


----------



## Naga

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vulc4n* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've not really heard much about them. 

 Why do they interest you? If its purely the price I think I'd consider KRK's first._

 

here I will admit it :

 they interest me because i like the last toyota celica GT-S whose engine was co-developed with Yamaha

 Completely irrelevant to their speakers i know ... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			








 In light of some reviews in this thread i am looking at the mackies


----------



## TheAnomaly

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fjf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Adam A7 user here. Awesome little speakers. Like my DT880 on steroids, with bass and soundstage!._

 

sounds pretty attractive to me 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 if only they weren't $500 a piece. i'm pretty confused by the prospect of studio monitors for use in a stereo rig...how to know what is good etc. i like the idea of a speaker that's comparable to my DT880s but with more bass and soundstaging...how possible is that for < $500?


----------



## infinitesymphony

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *TheAnomaly* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i like the idea of a speaker that's comparable to my DT880s but with more bass and soundstaging...how possible is that for < $500?_

 

You might like the Event TR8, or a used pair of Event 20/20bas V2 speakers. Those are great for a fun listen. Not especially accurate, but revealing, with a significant amount of bass thump for monitors of that size.

 I haven't heard the TR8 in person, but it appears to be an updated version of the now-discontinued 20/20 series.


----------



## TheAnomaly

hmm very interesting. something like that might be what i'm looking for. good price, biamplified, 8" woofer.


----------



## Naga

studio monitors seem to be a relatively unexplored realm on Head-fi 

 more people need to bite the bullet


----------



## vulc4n

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Naga* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_studio monitors seem to be a relatively unexplored realm on Head-fi 

 more people need to bite the bullet 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I agree.

 Personally I find speakers and home audio more interesting than headphones anyway.


----------



## xenithon

One day I hope to dabble into active speakers, though probably something for a full-on, no holds barred 2-channel system. In particular, something like the Salagar Symphony S210.


----------



## zachary80

I use Samson Resolv 65a


----------



## pendles

Quote:


 Anybody else using studio monitors? 
 

A topic of some interest to me, actually. _I have not experienced Adams (I believe I might like them, fine), but I started with B & W 602's, went to Dynaudio B5's with matching sub, then to the Dynaudio B15's and matching sub... It was at that point that I seemed to "grow up", somehow, in my hearing... I had good headphones and headphone gear experience by this time... And, suddenly, it hit me... For all this money I spent on a balanced active Dynaudio system I should be hearing WAY MORE clarity and resolution, "hell, this crap isn't even musical!!!" Before that onslaught of revelation, I praised my Dyanudios to no end, ha._

_So I joined audiogon, sold my hated dynaudio pro audio overpriced baloney on ebay in one day, got some North Creek Borealis monitors from a seasoned 'goner, picked up a used 15" Revel sub, and an ATC amp... I was once excited by pro audio monitors, but I can never imagine going back for any reason whatsoever. I just got so much more sonic satisfaction for the same amount of money, studying and risking used gear on the 'gon._

_Now I am torn between the question, "Which is better... A High end headphone system or a great speaker system"... but that would be another thread altogether...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_


----------



## Duggeh

If I had a smaller room in which to live (as a student) I'd have gone for near field monitors instead of floorstanders. Probably Tannoys. I very much enjoy listening to a friends Tannoy near field setup when I'm round at his.


----------



## Sovkiller

Tannoys are very good also but if you are going that route of small bookshelves I strongly suggest to give the Axioms a shot, they are worth every penny to me, and they are really cheap...


----------



## Naga

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vulc4n* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I agree.

 Personally I find speakers and home audio more interesting than headphones anyway. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

i have bad tinnitus and a presonus central station, its just a matter of time for me


----------



## Dr.Love

Genelec 8030a's here combined with an M-Audio SBX subwoofer.

 Sounds great to me!


----------



## sinner6

I use MAudio BX-8's with a Blue Sky Universal Sub (100w).

 Signal from an EMU 1616.

 One interesting thing about powered nearfield monitors is that many are bi-amped, meaning each driver has it's own custom amp.


----------



## TheAnomaly

what of the behringer truth 2031A? i've heard good things about them...that they're "mackie juniors" etc....by the spec sheet it looks like it, too. that 8.75" woofer must be good for more than 50 hz


----------



## infinitesymphony

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *TheAnomaly* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_what of the behringer truth 2031A? i've heard good things about them...that they're "mackie juniors" etc....by the spec sheet it looks like it, too. that 8.75" woofer must be good for more than 50 hz 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Those are meant to look like the Genelec 1031A (hence the name 2031A), with a woofer meant to look like the one used in the HR824:

 Genelec 1031A





 Behringer Truth 2031A





 From what I've read, it would take a fair amount of imagination to hear the Behringers as even close to Genelec or Mackie monitors. Specs don't tell everything, especially in the pro audio world where everyone tries to list the same ones for every product.


----------



## TheAnomaly

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *infinitesymphony* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Those are meant to look like the Genelec 1031A (hence the name 2031A), with a woofer meant to look like the one used in the HR824:

 Genelec 1031A





 Behringer Truth 2031A





 From what I've read, it would take a fair amount of imagination to hear the Behringers as even close to Genelec or Mackie monitors. Specs don't tell everything, especially in the pro audio world where everyone tries to list the same ones for every product. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

so there is no question as to whether or not they are derivative...but that does not mean they are bad!


----------



## infinitesymphony

I haven't heard them, so I can't offer any personal impressions of quality, but I think it would be inaccurate to put the Behringer Truth series in the same category as the Mackie HR series or the Genelec xx30A series. From what I've read, the reliability of the Truth series has been a little shaky as well: blown amps, speakers DOA, poor power filtering, etc.

 I've seen a fair number of people recommending KRK and Behringer equipment as giant-killing gear, but my experience with KRK is that the hype isn't necessarily to be believed...


----------



## TheAnomaly

well i wouldn't expect them to be as good as the Mackie, but if they are appropriate quality for their price, then perhaps they are still worthwhile.

 still, i think i am leaning towards the TR8s at the moment. they seem to have more of the bass presence that i'm looking for in a monitor, because i don't want to need a subwoofer right away.


----------



## manhattanproj

what are the differences btw monitors and bookshelves? or are they synonymous?


----------



## infinitesymphony

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *manhattanproj* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_what are the differences btw monitors and bookshelves? or are they synonymous?_

 

"Bookshelf" implies size; it's the opposite of "floorstanding."

 "Monitor" is just another word for speaker, though it generally implies that the speaker is meant for the professional audio market, and that it might use its own internal amplification ("active" monitor).


----------



## strangedaze39

I own some M-Audio SP3's and think they look great. They sound really good for the price.


----------



## Naga

what are the prime differences b/w the Mackie 824 and 824 MKII ? in terms of SQ


----------



## infinitesymphony

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Naga* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_what are the prime differences b/w the Mackie 824 and 824 MKII ? in terms of SQ_

 

They use the same basic design and components. From what I've read, the engineers felt that an overhaul wasn't necessary. The main difference is in the construction of the cabinet, which includes a one-piece front "Zero Edge" baffle. The HR824s are known for their great imaging due to the waveguides around the tweeters, and without any edges or screws to get in the way, the mk2s are even better. There are probably some other small internal tweaks as well, but you'd have to ask Mackie about those specifics.

 Mackie custom-tunes every HR824 against a master monitor, which itself is frequently calibrated. Thus, practically every HR824 will sound the same, and they're all designed to be flat across the whole spectrum. So, realistically, the differences aren't that big.

 I've briefly heard both the HR824 and the HR824mk2 and would give the slight edge to the HR824mk2. They looked better (
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




), the bass response sounded tighter, and the soundstage was clearer. But it was a small difference.


----------



## ssportclay

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *infinitesymphony* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_They use the same basic design and components. From what I've read, the engineers felt that an overhaul wasn't necessary. The main difference is in the construction of the cabinet, which includes a one-piece front "Zero Edge" baffle. The HR824s are known for their great imaging due to the waveguides around the tweeters, and without any edges or screws to get in the way, the mk2s are even better. There are probably some other small internal tweaks as well, but you'd have to ask Mackie about those specifics.

 Mackie custom-tunes every HR824 against a master monitor, which itself is frequently calibrated. Thus, practically every HR824 will sound the same, and they're all designed to be flat across the whole spectrum. So, realistically, the differences aren't that big.

 I've briefly heard both the HR824 and the HR824mk2 and would give the slight edge to the HR824mk2. They looked better (
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




), the bass response sounded tighter, and the soundstage was clearer. But it was a small difference._

 

 I felt that the HR824 monitors were too sharp and edgy in the high frequencies,otherwise a pretty solid monitor.I have since wondered if the mk2 corrected this problem.


----------



## infinitesymphony

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ssportclay* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I felt that the HR824 monitors were too sharp and edgy in the high frequencies,otherwise a pretty solid monitor.I have since wondered if the mk2 corrected this problem._

 

One thing's for sure... The HR824s are polarizing monitors! Some people love them, some people hate them, and many people aren't listening to the monitors in an ideal room. Most people don't have professionally treated rooms, and for these people, a monitor with more colored frequency response might actually have flatter in-room response. Besides, for many people, flat frequency response is not necessarily considered musical or desirable.

 Have you heard any of the Dynaudio line-up? They have excellent high frequency response, but they're a little easier on the ears due to the Esotec soft dome tweeters (vs. the HR824's metal dome tweeters).


----------



## TheAnomaly

does anyone have experience with the Alesis M1 MKIIs? they're pretty affordable and seem to get favorable reviews, but i'm just not sure if i should save a bit more and get the Event TR8s, which seem to have a much more powerful bass presence due to the 8" woofers. i'm afraid the bass on the Events might be a bit of the..."cheap bass", you know, boomy and not very articulate. if that's the case, then i'd gladly save $200, buy the Alesis, and get a sub later on if they aren't adequate.

 i'm basically looking for something good for a wide range of music in the $300-600 range, powered. i listen to a lot of rock, some electronica, a little rap, some jazz, and some classical. i've looked at a number of the commonly mentioned monitors in the price range from a wide variety of brands including M-audio, Alesis, KRK, Event, Yamaha, etc. i'm just looking for some additional opinions on what might be good.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *TheAnomaly* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_does anyone have experience with the Alesis M1 MKIIs? they're pretty affordable and seem to get favorable reviews, but i'm just not sure if i should save a bit more and get the Event TR8s, which seem to have a much more powerful bass presence due to the 8" woofers. i'm afraid the bass on the Events might be a bit of the..."cheap bass", you know, boomy and not very articulate. if that's the case, then i'd gladly save $200, buy the Alesis, and get a sub later on if they aren't adequate._

 

I owned those before my Axioms, the passive ones, and they are very solid and well done, and they sound remarkably good for the price, they were redesigned and improved over the MKI, that BTW was not bad at all...My brother still owns them and he loves them...The Alesis has a very good tight bass...


----------



## TheAnomaly

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I owned those before my Axioms, the passive ones, and they are very solid and well done, and they sound remarkably good for the price, they were redesigned and improved over the MKI, that BTW was not bad at all...My brother still owns them and he loves them...The Alesis has a very good tight bass..._

 

i see. i take it you like the Axioms more, then?

 i think the kind you've gotten may be precluded from my search as they are likely passive, but i noticed this on Axiom's front page:

Audiobyte Computer Speakers - AxiomAudio

 the cheaper finish with the sub is within the range i am willing to spend...anybody know anything about those? they are marketing them as computer speakers. the sub is a dual 6.5" model, which may prove efficacious, but ever since my promedia 2.1 experience i'm wary of 6.5" subs ;D


----------



## Naga

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *infinitesymphony* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_They use the same basic design and components. From what I've read, the engineers felt that an overhaul wasn't necessary. The main difference is in the construction of the cabinet, which includes a one-piece front "Zero Edge" baffle. The HR824s are known for their great imaging due to the waveguides around the tweeters, and without any edges or screws to get in the way, the mk2s are even better. There are probably some other small internal tweaks as well, but you'd have to ask Mackie about those specifics.

 Mackie custom-tunes every HR824 against a master monitor, which itself is frequently calibrated. Thus, practically every HR824 will sound the same, and they're all designed to be flat across the whole spectrum. So, realistically, the differences aren't that big.

 I've briefly heard both the HR824 and the HR824mk2 and would give the slight edge to the HR824mk2. They looked better (
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





), the bass response sounded tighter, and the soundstage was clearer. But it was a small difference._

 

I really appreciate your information. 

 Do you consider the 824 to be an "enjoyable" sounding speaker?


----------



## infinitesymphony

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Naga* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Do you consider the 824 to be an "enjoyable" sounding speaker?_

 

That's an interesting question... When I auditioned monitors, I was auditioning for accuracy, and of the monitors I was able to A/B, the HR824mk2s were the clear winners to my ears. However, I'm not certain that everyone would find them to be "enjoyable," especially in an untreated home environment where the low end could get loose and the high end could be amplified by reflections.

 I'll bet that the average listener would prefer a pair of Dynaudios to a pair of Mackies. I was only able to A/B the BM5As with the HR824mk2s, and found that while the BM5As were quite musical and made for easy listening, they sounded like they were "trying too hard," and they weren't accurate throughout the whole spectrum. I'm not sure whether this harshness cut / midrange bloom translates throughout the upper BM line-up, but my experiences with BM15As in the studio lead me to believe that it does. David French, an acoustician, did an unbiased test of multiple monitor makes and models and found the BM15As to have something like a -4 dB average cut throughout the harshness range--up to -10 dB away from flat in some places. Perhaps that explains their pleasant sound... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I haven't heard any Adam speakers yet, but many people seem to enjoy them, so they might represent another choice at this price level.


----------



## Naga

I am wondering if one were to "color" the sound of the monitors with, say, a tube pre amplifier, how well that would work to make them sound more like "audiophile" speakers.

 (speaking in very loose terms here)


----------



## infinitesymphony

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Naga* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am wondering if one were to "color" the sound of the monitors with, say, a tube pre amplifier, how well that would work to make them sound more like "audiophile" speakers.

 (speaking in very loose terms here)_

 

Sure, there are always ways to color a system if you don't like its natural response. From what I can tell, that's the benefit of being an audiophile instead of a studio guy. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Do you have any way to audition the monitors to get a general idea of their sound?


----------



## iKonoKlast

Does anyone know of a good monitor stand that will raise my speakers about 5-6 inches off my desk? I don't need one of those huge stands that are meant for the floor, just a relatively small one that will be on my desk and will support my M-Audio AV40s.


----------



## crazyface

Oh, I have questions too!

 What's the monitor speaker pair with the best price-performance ratio, with accuracy and THX compliance, under, say, $600ish? I was looking at the JBL near-fields, but was advised against them...?


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *iKonoKlast* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Does anyone know of a good monitor stand that will raise my speakers about 5-6 inches off my desk? I don't need one of those huge stands that are meant for the floor, just a relatively small one that will be on my desk and will support my M-Audio AV40s._

 

Great question! I too am looking for something similar. Solid, preferably black or aluminum. I was thinking somewhere would sell display columns or plant stands like this with a modern style but I haven't found any yet.

 I plan to get Audioengine A2 or A5 monitors soon, and really want something to keep them ear-level (especially the A2s).

 --Chris


----------



## Naga

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *infinitesymphony* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sure, there are always ways to color a system if you don't like its natural response. From what I can tell, that's the benefit of being an audiophile instead of a studio guy. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Do you have any way to audition the monitors to get a general idea of their sound?_

 

not really, so I am trying to get a good idea via word of mouth before experimenting myself 

 i guess i should be subsequently specing out a tube pre-amp to chain into my presonus CS


----------



## mercbuggy

For mixing and when I do not really want isolation from the rest of the house, I use Yamaha's MSP5's. The MSP5's give a flat frequency response and have trim controls to tweak response for room size/acoustics.

 As for lifting off the desk I use Auralex MOPAD foam blocks but mainly for isolation. I think IKEA do some small speaker stands that might work.


----------



## infinitesymphony

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *iKonoKlast* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Does anyone know of a good monitor stand that will raise my speakers about 5-6 inches off my desk? I don't need one of those huge stands that are meant for the floor, just a relatively small one that will be on my desk and will support my M-Audio AV40s._

 

For something that small, it might be easiest to make stands yourself and stick a few Auralex MoPADs on them, as mercbuggy suggested.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *crazyface* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Oh, I have questions too!

 What's the monitor speaker pair with the best price-performance ratio, with accuracy and THX compliance, under, say, $600ish? I was looking at the JBL near-fields, but was advised against them...?_

 

Difficult to say... You should do some listening. THX compliance is not very important, since the main requirement for certification is that the monitors need to be able to play at ~115 dB--unless you'll routinely be listening that loud, don't worry about it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I've never had the chance to hear any of the JBL monitors, but I'll bet you're talking about the LSR series. I've heard good things about them.

 I did a quick search and saw that Mackie just released a new monitor series in the $500/pair range, the Mackie MR5 and the MR8. I'd be interested to hear impressions if anyone has heard them. They put the Mackie name on it rather than marketing it under Tapco (their budget brand), so they might be good inexpensive monitors.


----------



## GreatDane

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *infinitesymphony* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 I did a quick search and saw that Mackie just released a new monitor series in the $500/pair range, the Mackie MR5 and the MR8. I'd be interested to hear impressions if anyone has heard them. They put the Mackie name on it rather than marketing it under Tapco (their budget brand), so they might be good inexpensive monitors._

 

Thanks for that link. I hadn't seen those yet. I'd like to audition those MR5's...at that price they'd be serious competition to the other entry-level brands.


----------



## porschemad911

My Behringer MS-40s arrived today, and I'm very happy. Actually, I'm quite astonished at the sound quality for the lowly price.

 The only issue I've been having is the left woofer occasionally buzzes on tracks with heavy bass. *Sigh* I do hope it's not faulty. It does seem to be going away as the speakers burn in however. I'll see how it progresses. I opened the speaker up and couldn't find anything loose, although the extremely heavy magnet (for shielding, I'm assuming) had a *tiny* bit of movement, if you flexed it on purpose.

 If they do turn out to be faulty, I will definitely buy another pair to replace them, I'm very happy with them as an economical, practical replacement for my Rega -> Graham Slee -> K-701 setup!

 I can't get my Behringer UCA202 doing ASIO from Foobar as yet (with either Behringer's drivers or Asio4All), but it sounds fine to me playing from WMP so I'll probably just leave it at that. I like the 'optical out straight into the speakers' feature! I had forgotten what feeling bass instead of just hearing it was like.


----------



## natnut

What about Blue Sky Media Desk 2.1 system?

 Supposedly blows away much more expensive speakers in terms of accuracy and detail.


----------



## infinitesymphony

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *natnut* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What about Blue Sky Media Desk 2.1 system?

 Supposedly blows away much more expensive speakers in terms of accuracy and detail._

 

I've heard those claims about the Media Desk many times, but I'm still not sure whether I believe them... 4" woofers with an 8" subwoofer might sound good when compared against other 2.1 computer speaker systems, but there are reasons why they won't be able to perform like full-sized monitors.

 The manual includes the specifications. The subwoofer is underpowered, even if it has a digital amplifier: 65 watts @ 4 ohms. It's crossed over at 110 Hz, which is high for a subwoofer; this signifies that the subwoofer is being asked to handle part of the lower-midrange (the fundamental frequencies). This suspicion is confirmed by looking at the frequency responses of the satellites: +/- 2.5 dB @ 300 Hz to 10 kHz. For "full-range speakers," those specs aren't so good. They're almost 25% softer than flat at 300 Hz and 10 kHz. Basically, there will be a hole in the lower-midrange where neither the subwoofer nor the satellites can play the information.

 For $600, there are better, more accurate options.


----------



## Sam Loi

using a pair of Dynaudio Acoustic BM6P.


----------



## infinitesymphony

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sam Loi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_using a pair of Dynaudio Acoustic BM6P._

 

What kind of power amp?


----------



## Sam Loi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *infinitesymphony* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What kind of power amp?_

 

an Odyssey Stratos is powering them. Love to have a Bryston doing the job but Bryston price's for the sst series is ridiculous compared to the st. Should have gotten the BM6A but then again, studio monitors are an love/hate affair. You love them sometimes, and hate them sometimes. So its always nice to have another stage in cause u wanna soften the sound.


----------



## natnut

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *infinitesymphony* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've heard those claims about the Media Desk many times, but I'm still not sure whether I believe them... 4" woofers with an 8" subwoofer might sound good when compared against other 2.1 computer speaker systems, but there are reasons why they won't be able to perform like full-sized monitors.

 The manual includes the specifications. The subwoofer is underpowered, even if it has a digital amplifier: 65 watts @ 4 ohms. It's crossed over at 110 Hz, which is high for a subwoofer; this signifies that the subwoofer is being asked to handle part of the lower-midrange (the fundamental frequencies). This suspicion is confirmed by looking at the frequency responses of the satellites: +/- 2.5 dB @ 300 Hz to 10 kHz. For "full-range speakers," those specs aren't so good. They're almost 25% softer than flat at 300 Hz and 10 kHz. Basically, there will be a hole in the lower-midrange where neither the subwoofer nor the satellites can play the information.

 For $600, there are better, more accurate options._

 

I dunno but if professional musicians trust them for their mixing work,how bad can they be. After all, this is their livelihood we're talking about.

 After all, if they're as bad as their specs supposedly are, why do they get good real life reviews from pro-musicians(for instance,go to Gearslutz, a musician's forum and search for reviews on Blue Sky).


----------



## infinitesymphony

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *natnut* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I dunno but if professional musicians trust them for their mixing work,how bad can they be. After all, this is their livelihood we're talking about.

 After all, if they're as bad as their specs supposedly are, why do they get good real life reviews from pro-musicians(for instance,go to Gearslutz, a musician's forum and search for reviews on Blue Sky)._

 

I guess it depends on whom you ask, but I wouldn't consider the majority of people on that forum to be professionals.

 Technically, you can mix on anything as long as you're familiar with the speakers' sound signature and sonic deficiencies. This is why some oldschool engineers mix on Yamaha NS10s, even though they sound bright and have poor extension--they make a good reference simply due to familiarity. I once knew a guy who mixed on a set of $35 Logitech 2.1 computer speakers.

 Mastering, on the other hand, requires the best set of speakers one can afford. A mastering engineer would never use something like the Media Desk for a main reference set.


----------



## error401

I recently built a decent computer for my girlfriend's home 'editing suite' (she's a video art student), and ended up deciding on M-Audio DX4s. There was some confusion in shipping and billing, so I believe I'll have to reorder them. Has anyone heard these? The consensus I could find was that they were stellar for the money (not much).

 The main intent is to have something of a neutral reference for basic video sound work, but they'd have to serve the day-to-day needs of music listening and movie watching as well. Comments? If I were to choose another set, they'd have to be easily available in Canada and cannot be more than $200 CAD.


----------



## Jon118

I have a pair of DX-4s and I quite enjoy them. Not much bass punch to start with, but they will open up with more use. (probably the only time I've actually heard something burn-in) Rather neutral, as should be expected, but good for listening to music, especially for critical listening or if you just like a neutral sound signature. Think ER-4s for what their sound is like. They're nothing special, but I definitely enjoy them for music, especially at the price compared to some other options I've heard for the money out there.

 *Not sure what your experience is with Grados, but they have a sound that is pretty similar to those. At least the SR-60s, though there is less bass with the Grados.


----------



## natnut

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *infinitesymphony* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've heard those claims about the Media Desk many times, but I'm still not sure whether I believe them... 4" woofers with an 8" subwoofer might sound good when compared against other 2.1 computer speaker systems, but there are reasons why they won't be able to perform like full-sized monitors.

 The manual includes the specifications. The subwoofer is underpowered, even if it has a digital amplifier: 65 watts @ 4 ohms. It's crossed over at 110 Hz, which is high for a subwoofer; this signifies that the subwoofer is being asked to handle part of the lower-midrange (the fundamental frequencies). This suspicion is confirmed by looking at the frequency responses of the satellites: +/- 2.5 dB @ 300 Hz to 10 kHz. For "full-range speakers," those specs aren't so good. They're almost 25% softer than flat at 300 Hz and 10 kHz. Basically, there will be a hole in the lower-midrange where neither the subwoofer nor the satellites can play the information.

 For $600, there are better, more accurate options._

 

I e-mailed Blue Sky about their supposedly inferior specs and I got this reply:

_Hello:

 I read the post:

 Here are my comments:

 1) The amplifier for the subwoofer is conservatively rated at 65 Watts and we feel this is more than enough power for the near field application it is designed for.

 2) The crossover point for the subwoofer is designed to sum properly with the MediaDesk SAT. The crossover is slightly higher than our typical 80Hz, but again in a near field application we have found this not to be an issue.

 3) With regard to the frequency response spec: The person who posted that comment is not fully understanding the specification correctly. The manual states the following:
 +/- 2.5dB 300 to 10 kHz
 +/- 3.0dB 110 to 20 kHz

 Note that the overall frequency response is 110 to 20kHz, +/-3dB. However across a majority of the passband (300 to 10kHz), the frequency response is smoother @ +/- 2.5dB. In general the response is extremely smooth both on and off axis.

 Here is some actual measurement data:
MediaDesk SAT
MediaDesk SUB



 I hope this helps.

 Cheers!
 __________________
 Pascal Sijen
 Co-Founder_


----------



## infinitesymphony

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *natnut* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Note that the overall frequency response is 110 to 20kHz, +/-3dB. However across a majority of the passband (300 to 10kHz), the frequency response is smoother @ +/- 2.5dB. In general the response is extremely smooth both on and off axis.

 Here is some actual measurement data:
MediaDesk SAT
MediaDesk SUB_

 

I did see the other measurement, but didn't think that 0.5 dB was a significant improvement, especially when that range didn't include the majority of fundamental frequencies (i.e. under 300 Hz).

 It's up to you to do the research about low power ratings, high crossovers, and poor extension. But ultimately, the choice is yours. For $600, it's not difficult to find a pair of active monitors that have more power, flatter frequency response, and bass extension without the aid of a subwoofer (ex. Event TR8 XL, Mackie MR8).


----------



## aBlueSky

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *infinitesymphony* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I did see the other measurement, but didn't think that 0.5 dB was a significant improvement, especially when that range didn't include the majority of fundamental frequencies (i.e. under 300 Hz).

 It's up to you to do the research about low power ratings, high crossovers, and poor extension. But ultimately, the choice is yours. For $600, it's not difficult to find a pair of active monitors that have more power, flatter frequency response, and bass extension without the aid of a subwoofer (ex. Event TR8 XL, Mackie MR8)._

 

Hello infinitesymphony:

 I hope you and others don't mind me posting here. I just thought I would chime in.

 First, it is important to understand that our design philosophy requires the use of a subwoofer with all of our systems. This includes our larger mid-field systems, such as Big Blue. If you are interested why we do this, you can follow this link to our website, where discuss in greater detail our general design philosophy.

 With regard to "low" power ratings and high crossover etc; our system designs are application driven and for this given application, this system design works extremely well. We have many thousands of these systems in the field, being used for music, TV, post & game production, by companies such as Electronic Arts, Apple, ESPN, Lucasfilm, to name but a few. Our users and numerous reviewers seem more than satisfied.

 But without listening for yourself, it would seem to be hard to convince you. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Just another biased opinion! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




_Cheers!_


----------



## joze7205

I'm using Genelec 1029A + a 7050A sub with a Presonus CS. Sounds great when I'm in the sweet spot (just in front of my computer monitor).


----------



## infinitesymphony

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *aBlueSky* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_First, it is important to understand that our design philosophy requires the use of a subwoofer with all of our systems. This includes our larger mid-field systems, such as Big Blue. If you are interested why we do this, you can follow this link to our website, where discuss in greater detail our general design philosophy._

 

Thank you for commenting. It's true that specifications aren't everything, and it's not possible to know exactly how a system will sound just by looking at numbers. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The higher-end models look nice, so I'll limit my comments to the Media Desk. It seems that such a small set, even with sealed enclosures and nice drivers, will still have frequency reproduction problems. A crossover frequency of 110 Hz is high enough that the subwoofer will be playing directional frequencies. The threshold of directionality is roughly 100 Hz, and given that the low-pass filter is set to 110 Hz, even higher frequencies will be played as the filter slopes downward. The satellites' nominal operation frequencies are between 300 Hz - 10 kHz. Above and below that, they begin to roll off. The subwoofer begins to roll off at 35 Hz. In other words, the speakers are not full-range.

 I love smaller 2.1 systems for computer areas, and I've owned and heard a fair number of them. But in my experience, none of them were accurate. However, most of them still managed to sound good, just as I'm sure many people find the Media Desk to sound great.

 This isn't my thread, so I apologize to the OP and others for the slightly off-topic post.


----------



## Simon Sez

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vulc4n* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've not really heard much about them. 

 Why do they interest you? If its purely the price I think I'd consider KRK's first._

 

I am using the HS50M and they are awesome, I am using them with the Mackie Big Knob (like the central station) but more analog. Anyway they are great.


----------



## aBlueSky

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *infinitesymphony* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thank you for commenting. It's true that specifications aren't everything, and it's not possible to know exactly how a system will sound just by looking at numbers. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 The higher-end models look nice, so I'll limit my comments to the Media Desk. It seems that such a small set, even with sealed enclosures and nice drivers, will still have frequency reproduction problems. A crossover frequency of 110 Hz is high enough that the subwoofer will be playing directional frequencies. The threshold of directionality is roughly 100 Hz, and given that the low-pass filter is set to 110 Hz, even higher frequencies will be played as the filter slopes downward. The satellites' nominal operation frequencies are between 300 Hz - 10 kHz. Above and below that, they begin to roll off. The subwoofer begins to roll off at 35 Hz. In other words, the speakers are not full-range.

 I love smaller 2.1 systems for computer areas, and I've owned and heard a fair number of them. But in my experience, none of them were accurate. However, most of them still managed to sound good, just as I'm sure many people find the Media Desk to sound great.

 This isn't my thread, so I apologize to the OP and others for the slightly off-topic post. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Hello Again:

 A few more comments:

 The SATs "nominal operation frequencies" are *not *300 Hz - 10 kHz. The operating frequency range is 110 to 20 kHz (+/- 3.0dB) as you can see here.

 The SUB is sealed and does begin to roll-off at 35Hz, at 12dB per octave, which is much better than any traditional near field monitor, which is typically ported, rolls off at around 24dB per octave or greater and rarely do they touch 35Hz.

 With regard to directionality: Directional acuity and the ability to locate the source of a sound, is much more complicated than just the crossover frequency. For this application, where the SUB is typically located very close to, or inbetween the SATs, directional acuity is going to be very low with regard to the SUB. This is especially true for a sealed box system, that has the subwoofer integrated into the design from the start. For more information about subwoofer directionality, please follow this link.

 I hope this helps explain it a little better.

_Cheers!_


----------



## rean1mator

the alesis are great speaker especially for the price. 

 gotta keep in mind tho that studio monitors are meant for near field monitoring and sound best at close range. but i think if you are within 4 feet you are fine. 

 i'm running some tannoy ellipse 10's and theya re incredible. but it's in my studio that I also use when i'm on the computer working.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vulc4n* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm thinking about trying the Alesis Monitor Ones MKII as well. I'd like to see how they compare. Even if they sound very similar I might go for those anyway. The ST6's have been discontinued which will make them hard to get later on when I want to go to 5.1



 If I had the money I probably would have gone for one of those._


----------



## Naga

is it acceptable to use a tube driven microphone preamp (presonus bluetube DP) as a method of "coloring" the sound in speakers?

 or am I missing something with this idea


----------



## Jasper994

After adding the BX10S sub woofer to my system (E-MU 1212m, Yamaha MG10/2, M-Audio BX8s, wired with Mogami Gold) my headphone usage dropped way down. After Iron_Dreamer built my new quiet computer, my headphone usage became almost non-existent.


----------



## infinitesymphony

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Naga* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_is it acceptable to use a tube driven microphone preamp (presonus bluetube DP) as a method of "coloring" the sound in speakers?

 or am I missing something with this idea_

 

Tube microphone preamps, especially at that price point, are really awful with regards to SNR and dynamic range. They're designed to give the stereotypical "tube sound," which in the case of a cheap mic pre is a lot of harmonic distortion. You would have to find a fairly expensive tube preamplifier to maintain the original signal quality.

 Some monitors sound warm without having to tweak the inputs--they aren't all designed to be perfectly flat. Otherwise, you might have more luck with a passive setup, since you'll be able to switch out both the preamp and power amp(s).


----------



## ounkchicago

I'm using M-Audio BX8A's that I purchased from a fellow HeadFi-er about 3 weeks ago. I am really enjoying them, especially for the price. Here are my quick impressions:

 -- Very large, difficult to position on a desk. Need to be raised up a few inches for proper imaging (haven't done that yet). Impractical to place on a desk, but that's how I have them set up.
 -- Very neutral, accurate sound. Far more neutral than all my headphones. The closest phones I own that come close are the Beyer DT880 and the M-Audio Q40.
 -- Treble appears slightly bright (compared to other speakers/headphones), but not sibilant. Slightly less bright than DT880, but still on the bright side in my opinion.

 But all in all I'm very happy with them. I'm using a Cambridge Audio 840C as a source and a Little Dot MK IV SE as a preamp to add tube warmth, liquidity, and also volume control of course.


----------



## crazyface

I need a THX-certified near-field system. Is there anything better than the JBL LSR6325P at their price-point?


----------



## infinitesymphony

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *crazyface* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I need a THX-certified near-field system. Is there anything better than the JBL LSR6325P at their price-point?_

 

Why do they need to be THX-certified? It's not an indication of quality...

 If you must have the little logo on the speakers, the Mackie HR624mk2 are THX pm3 certified and in the same price range.

 Edit: Here's a slightly outdated list of all of the monitors that have THX pm3 certification. It's a small list because companies basically pay to be on it. So many excellent speakers are not on that list--they didn't want to pay THX for a meaningless specification.


----------



## crazyface

Hi infinite symphony!

 This requirement is because I do film projects that (when I am better!) may see play in a film festival, and i assume these will use THX reproductions because they will be in a film theater, and I would hope that the audio I mix for them sounds right in that venue.

 So you suggest the Mackies are better than the JBL I mentioned? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Just making sure! I will look at them right now!!!


----------



## infinitesymphony

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *crazyface* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This requirement is because I do film projects that (when I am better!) may see play in a film festival, and i assume these will use THX reproductions because they will be in a film theater, and I would hope that the audio I mix for them sounds right in that venue._

 

THX is really just a standards group. It's not important that your monitors have THX certification, it's important that your playback room be set up according to THX guidelines (Dolby also has a recommendation). This will make your mixes sound much more accurate in the theater, regardless of which monitors you use for mixing. Big-budget movies are mixed in actual theaters, so your setup will only approximate the real thing anyway.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *crazyface* 
_So you suggest the Mackies are better than the JBL I mentioned? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Just making sure! I will look at them right now!!!_

 

I've never heard the JBLs, so I don't have a better/worse opinion, but I would certainly give them a look. I've had good luck with Mackies, so that's where I'd personally look first.


----------



## Naga

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *infinitesymphony* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Tube microphone preamps, especially at that price point, are really awful with regards to SNR and dynamic range. They're designed to give the stereotypical "tube sound," which in the case of a cheap mic pre is a lot of harmonic distortion. You would have to find a fairly expensive tube preamplifier to maintain the original signal quality.

 Some monitors sound warm without having to tweak the inputs--they aren't all designed to be perfectly flat. Otherwise, you might have more luck with a passive setup, since you'll be able to switch out both the preamp and power amp(s)._

 

Thats pretty much what I want to do w/ the presonus CS. I am just trying to figure out how to get a tube option in the chain.

 the HR824 seems to be the favorable option now - ill forgo the tubes for now i guess


----------



## porschemad911

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *porschemad911* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My Behringer MS-40s arrived today, and I'm very happy. Actually, I'm quite astonished at the sound quality for the lowly price.

 The only issue I've been having is the left woofer occasionally buzzes on tracks with heavy bass. *Sigh* I do hope it's not faulty. It does seem to be going away as the speakers burn in however. I'll see how it progresses. I opened the speaker up and couldn't find anything loose, although the extremely heavy magnet (for shielding, I'm assuming) had a *tiny* bit of movement, if you flexed it on purpose.

 If they do turn out to be faulty, I will definitely buy another pair to replace them, I'm very happy with them as an economical, practical replacement for my Rega -> Graham Slee -> K-701 setup!

 I can't get my Behringer UCA202 doing ASIO from Foobar as yet (with either Behringer's drivers or Asio4All), but it sounds fine to me playing from WMP so I'll probably just leave it at that. I like the 'optical out straight into the speakers' feature! I had forgotten what feeling bass instead of just hearing it was like._

 

Well, I am now the owner of a pair of Tascam VL-X5s, which soundly trounce my Behringers. No more muddy midrange, just beautiful clarity!

 Now all I need is a decent external sound card (the Behringer's good for optical out, but the analogue outs are pretty noisy), I'm thinking a Lexicon Alpha (great value, read a good review).


----------



## sgrossklass

Congrats on the VL-X5s, these are nice. I have mine set up at ear level with some DIY stands, with 8k and 3k @ -1.5 dB and some bass boost (150 Hz +1.5 dB, I like it better that way). Do pay attention to those DIP switches, the factory settings may not make a whole lot of sense (I found the 500 Hz highpass to be enabled, for example). Some black tape took care of the front LEDs.
 If I were to complain about anything, it would be the hum - but then my listening distance is quite small, normally it's not objectionable beyond about 1 m. (Other models have far more severe problems than that - like even louder hum and hiss that is still audible 3 m away.)

 The current replacement model seems to be the VL-A5, btw - they now have a whole lineup, with a closed 4" model and BR 8" model for the bottom and top end, respectively.

 I guess I'm a member of team "my headphone usage dropped dramatically after I got some monitors". That certainly applies to the computer-based setup, poor old HD650. For nighttime listening, my venerable HD590s still do the job very well. (In my bedside setup, they have been complemented by my old 2.1 Cambridge Soundworks PCWorks speakers for a while now, which with a stuffed BR tube aren't half bad for some music while getting up, certainly better than my clock radio, even if this vintage piece is far above average for its kind already.)


----------



## porschemad911

Thanks sgrossklass! I'm just wondering, what sort of connections are you using for Tascams? Haha, I couldn't find anything when I googled on 'AureDigy 5.1', I'm guessing it's the phonetically similar Creative card you're using ...

 Actually, I haven't even looked at how the dip switches are set up, who knows what they did in the shop (ex demo). When I get a better source / cables and set it all up I'll have a look. As it is, they sound very realistic, with excellent clarity but no fatigue. My Dad just got a new laptop and some Logitech R-20 speakers, so I'll ship him my Behringers for a present. Although the Logitechs are surprisingly un-horrible, even my Behringers cane them. I think. They're 1200 kms away at the moment, so hard to remember.

 I have seen those new Tascams, but can't find any reviews on them anywhere. I'm glad they released them, because I'm sure it contributed to the great deal I got on my VL-X5s!

 It's interesting, after I got my Behringers, my headphone-based listening (at work) increased, because it simply sounded better. Music had a life and a clarity that was lacking. *Sigh* they're good honest 'phones ... very enjoyable.

 What are your stands like? I need to buy / build a pair!


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

I currently get by with a set of old Event PS5 monitors, at least until the living situation allows for something better.

 I've had a strong desire to hear these speakers since I first saw their brochure, as I've always enjoyed the Tannoy dual-concentric driver:


----------



## Klisk

I'm using a pair of Rokit RP-5's. Love 'em.

 I've also had a pair of the newer Yammies, and a pair of Swans. Yammies were the only pair I didn't like. I got peer pressured into 'em, and the real problem with them is that their high end quickly -- Quickly -- becomes straining and fatiguing.


----------



## porschemad911

My Lexicon Lambda arrived on Friday, and hooking that up with balanced TRS -> XLR cables fixed up the hum no end.

 Today I finished getting Foobar2000 set up with ASIO output, using the ASIO4ALL drivers (Lexicon's default ASIO drivers wouldn't work properly with Foobar2000). Everything sounds really lovely! This is the best speaker setup I've owned by far.

 I'm now reripping all my CDs into a single WAV file with matching Cue sheet.

 There's still some slight noise from a ground loop issue (caused by plugging laptop into AC, on battery power it's gone). This is largely removed by having the gain on my Tascams to minimum, and upping the gain on my Lambda to compensate.

 This works perfectly well, normal listening is now at about 10:00, and 1:00 is whole house blasting! With the gain on my speakers up full, normal listening was in the first fraction of a milimetre of volume travel on the Lambda, not very user practical, so this kills two birds with one stone (ease of use and minimised hum).

 One other really cool feature. I hooked up my iRiver to Line 1 and Line 2 (L & R) to test these out. It worked great, and the input DB level lights are really cool!


----------



## bhd812

I use M-Audio BX8-a's connected to the FREE Benchmark Dac-1/usb I got in San Jose. the Studio sound from the dac/speakers fit with the heavily treated room using Micheal Green Audio pillows in the front upper corners somewhat above each monitors and of course a front center pillow above the 32" lcd tv/computer monitor i use on the same system. the back of the room spills into my listening area where the Gear in my sig is located meaning the rest of the room is just as acoustically treated. 

 when i won the Dac1/usb i would of never of thought how good a computer setup could be but now that i live everyday with it I think it's stupid not to have atleast a cheaper set of near field studio monitors on a pc for anyone who gives a rats ass about their sound. the speakers i am running are not costly (esp compared to hifi products) but their are much cheaper monitors out there mostly in anyones budget.


 I am upgrading my Ram in my pc this week then maybe a Video card upgrade followed by a hard drive upgrade (thats not so needed now). when i am done upgrading my pc section i will look into better monitors but for now i love these bad boys!!


----------



## gregorio

Just a few observations:

 Most of the monitors mentioned here are near field monitors. While these will give you a fairly linear freq response in the mids and highs and an accurate stereo image compared to many consumer speakers, they are notoriously weak in the low freq. A decent set of linear cans is going to give a more even freq response across the spectrum. Adding a sub will not really solve the problem, as none of them appear able to seamlessly transition through the crossover freq. This is true of the 2.1 Blue Sky systems and indeed of every 2.1 system I've ever heard.

 THX is a useful specification for cinemas, it specifies the construction of cinema sound systems and the baffling, isolation and separation between the speakers, it also covers the construction and installation of sound systems in dubbing theatres. The THX specification which covers consumer equipment is just a cynical ploy by Lucas to make even more money but it doesn't give you any useful information. Much of the best equipment out there does not have THX certifcation, nor does much of the worst. So the THX label basically tells you that a piece of equipment is mediocre!

 Someone mentioned Yamaha NS10s. These monitors became ubiquitous in recording studios, particualrly in the eighties and nineties. There were a number of reasons why NS10s became ubiquitous but none of the were connected to audio quality. NS10s are and always have been crap monitors!

 If you want to experience cinema quality sound you will have to forget about consumer 5.1 systems. Consumer 5.1 systems are bass managed whereas cinema systems and the systmes used to mix 5.1 cinema releases, are all full range systems, not bass managed. Some consumer systems can get reasonably good results but you have to spend well into four or even five figures.

 Gregorio


----------



## edvardd

I have a question for you guys. I'm looking for a pair of monitors in the pricerange of about 700 $. I'm going to use my laptop and connect them through my iBasso D1 DAC. I will use it for 90 % music listening and 10 % music producution. So I'd rather have a pair that are suited for a great music experience and not necessarily exact studio monitors. I'd rather have a warm sound than an overly cold or natural sounding speakers. Are studio monitors almost by definition near field monitors? Should I be looking somewhere else? Sorry about the confusion, I'm new to this hifi-world. First post


----------



## infinitesymphony

Most monitors are nearfields, especially in the price ranges people here have been considering. Since you have a specific sound signature in mind, you should definitely head to the nearest pro audio store and give some models a listen. It's the only way to know for sure which speaker will be right for you.


----------



## iKonoKlast

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *edvardd* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have a question for you guys. I'm looking for a pair of monitors in the pricerange of about 700 $. I'm going to use my laptop and connect them through my iBasso D1 DAC. I will use it for 90 % music listening and 10 % music producution. So I'd rather have a pair that are suited for a great music experience and not necessarily exact studio monitors. I'd rather have a warm sound than an overly cold or natural sounding speakers. Are studio monitors almost by definition near field monitors? Should I be looking somewhere else? Sorry about the confusion, I'm new to this hifi-world. First post 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Unless you spend obscene amounts of money, all monitors are near field. Midfield and main monitors cost tens of thousands of dollars and are designed for very large studios.

 That doesn't mean that near field monitors are necessarily designed for you to listen to them at close distances. In fact, a lot of people acoustically treat their room so that they can listen to their nearfields at farther distances and get better depth and soundstage. Unless you acoustically treat your room, you're listening to the room and the sound vibrations bouncing off your walls rather than the sound from the speakers themselves.

 But seeing that you are not a professional music producer, and because you are not looking for accurate sound, why delve into studio monitors? There are plenty of reputable brands that make bookshelf speakers and so on that will have the warm sound you are looking for.

 If you do indeed still want to try out studio monitors, I would recommend you look at the KRK RP8 over the similarly priced Yamaha HS80M and M-Audio BX8A. The Yamaha and M-Audio are both known to have a fatiguing high end, whereas KRK are known for a fuller low-midrange sound signature. Blue Sky also has their MediaDesk 2.1 which, unlike the others I've mentioned, includes a subwoofer. I would not recommend the latter though unless you have a large enough space and would possibly consider acoustic treatment, or else the bass will just be out of control.

 Also, I don't know how you plan on connecting your iBasso to your monitors. Monitors typically require either 1/4 inch TRS or XLR cables to connect to the back of each speaker so you should get a DAC that has balanced outputs.


----------



## infinitesymphony

Most monitors can accept unbalanced inputs, and many have dedicated RCA jacks for that purpose. Since the iBasso D1 can act as a preamp, a set of active monitors might save him some money versus an unbalanced power amplifier + speaker setup. Though I guess for $700, either route is feasible.


----------



## sejarzo

Anybody have an opinion on the Mackie MR5's yet? Guitar Center has them for $149 each. Another member has PM'ed me with some questions about monitors for a small office, and for a biamped monitor to be used at low levels, they certainly seem attractive.


----------



## LFF

I use a pair of the original Mackie HR824's using my EMU 0404 USB as the source. FWIW, I love my Mackie's and I find them to be extremely accurate. The other speakers I use are JBL 4311's.

 I do a lot of remastering and I find that all the work I do translates very well to other systems, be it laptop speakers or multi-thousand dollar home speakers.

 A lot of people feel that because a speaker has a flat frequency response then it will not sound musical or pleasing. I completely disagree. The Mackie HR824's are among the best I have ever heard. Most people who complain about them usually do not have them set up properly. Set-up is key with all monitors. If not done properly, they may sound too boomy or too bright.

 Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Random Murderer

sorry about reviving an old thread, but yesterday(15th) was my birthday and i've some cash that's begging to be spent on audio equipment.
 what's the best set of studio monitors for $150 or less?
 or should i invest in a nicer set of headphones?
 right now i'm on some janky 40-watt gateway2000 speakers and using sennheiser pc155's for headphones.
 i've been looking at behringer ms40's and m-audio dx4's. the sennheiser hd650's also look sexy, but a wee bit too expensive, and i would need to shell out even more for an amp as well.


----------



## GreatDane

You can't get much for $150 (active monitors) unless you can find a good deal on used I guess. For $150 you'll get a better fidelity with headphones imo. Check out the for sale forum.

 Of course this all depends on how high your standards are.

 Here is a good list for active monitors.


----------



## Jon118

I can vouch that in that price range the M-Audio DX-4 is pretty good. Of course as that link showed you have quite a few options.


----------



## Random Murderer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Jon118* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I can vouch that in that price range the M-Audio DX-4 is pretty good. Of course as that link showed you have quite a few options._

 

should i go with the dx4's or the av40's?


----------



## TheAnomaly

i'm at a crossroads at this point as well. i've got the sigged rig, and i am pleased with it...but i know the beresford could be upgraded. fairly urgently needed, some might say. but i've also always wanted some speakers, since i've never owned "good" speakers (the best i've ever had was a promedia 2.1 about 6 years ago; they broke about 4 years ago).

 so the options are to either sit tight until i can pony up the cash for a rudimentary HD650 balanced setup (HD650 + DAC1 or micro dac...i understand those have decent enough balanced amps built in, right?), or go for some decent ~$300-500 monitors now. anybody have recommendations for monitors in this price range? i like the DT880 sound signature, and the Event TR8s were mentioned earlier in this thread, but i'm afraid they'll be a bit too bottom heavy with that 8" woofer and 35 hz rated extension. i've also been looking at the 8" KRK rokit.


----------



## infinitesymphony

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *TheAnomaly* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_...or go for some decent ~$300-500 monitors now. anybody have recommendations for monitors in this price range? i like the DT880 sound signature, and the Event TR8s were mentioned earlier in this thread, but i'm afraid they'll be a bit too bottom heavy with that 8" woofer and 35 hz rated extension. i've also been looking at the 8" KRK rokit._

 

What's your impression of the DT880's sound signature (so we'll have a better idea of what style you prefer)?

 I've heard most of the Rokit series including the RP-8, and they all had a huge amount of mid-range bloom, making them sound warm but muffled and inaccurate.

 In that price range, I'd look at the Mackie MR5 ($300/pair) and MR8 ($500/pair). They were just introduced at the end of last year, and the reviews so far have been very positive. The Event TR8s are also good. You'll know which pair is for you when you hear them. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I'm going to head over to my local Guitar Center in the coming week to test some of their less expensive monitors, just to get a better idea of what's available on a low budget.


----------



## Jon118

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Random Murderer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_should i go with the dx4's or the av40's?_

 

Honestly, I can't say. I've only heard the DX-4s, which I have and I'm quite happy with. They have a sound similar to the Etymotic signature, but with a little more bass. I think there are some AV-40 owners around who can describe them and help you decide. Remember these monitors won't be extremely bassy. If you want heavier bass you should stick with the Swan M10s or something of the like, but those are always recommended and in your price range.


----------



## TheAnomaly

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *infinitesymphony* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What's your impression of the DT880's sound signature (so we'll have a better idea of what style you prefer)?_

 

well i like the detailed presence they have. they really make technical music like electronica and fast metal jump out at you, in a good way! violin and strings are especially joyful. i heard my city's symphony a few weeks ago, was seated in the orchestra seats (maybe 12 rows from the stage), and thought to myself, where's the bite! this sounds better in front of my computer!

 they are also fairly revealing, to me, when it comes to hearing a recording "for all its worth", you might say. they have good instrument separation i think, though sometimes the spatiality seems a bit one-dimensional to me. the only other fault i have is that the bass is not very powerful. it is very articulated, but i find myself listening to a decent amount of electronica, rap, and rock these days, and i feel the DT880s could use a little help in the bass extension/impact department.

  Quote:


 I've heard most of the Rokit series including the RP-8, and they all had a huge amount of mid-range bloom, making them sound warm but muffled and inaccurate. 
 

that doesn't sound attractive. KRK off the list!

  Quote:


 In that price range, I'd look at the Mackie MR5 ($300/pair) and MR8 ($500/pair). They were just introduced at the end of last year, and the reviews so far have been very positive. The Event TR8s are also good. You'll know which pair is for you when you hear them. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'm going to head over to my local Guitar Center in the coming week to test some of their less expensive monitors, just to get a better idea of what's available on a low budget. 
 

hmm, i will look into those more thanks. i haven't heard of them before the last few pages of this thread.


----------



## Random Murderer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Jon118* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Honestly, I can't say. I've only heard the DX-4s, which I have and I'm quite happy with. They have a sound similar to the Etymotic signature, but with a little more bass. I think there are some AV-40 owners around who can describe them and help you decide. Remember these monitors won't be extremely bassy. If you want heavier bass you should stick with the Swan M10s or something of the like, but those are always recommended and in your price range._

 

bass-wise, it's fine. i listen to techno/trance/electronica and mix my own as well. i also listen to a very little bit of rap(mc chris only), but mainly rock. since i primarily listen to rock and game, a set of bright monitors won't really bother me. besides, i can always just use an equalizer and turn up the bass a bit if i choose.
 i've been looking at getting some hd580's, but having a 300Ω impedance means i'll need an amp as well, correct?


----------



## infinitesymphony

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Random Murderer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_besides, i can always just use an equalizer and turn up the bass a bit if i choose._

 

Many of these smaller low-powered monitors don't have the necessary frequency extension to play low. If you listen to rock and techno, you may find yourself craving a subwoofer. Have you considered something like the Klipsch ProMedia 2.1, or a similar 2.1 set? These are right in your price range, and may be a better fit for your preferences.


----------



## Random Murderer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *infinitesymphony* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Many of these smaller low-powered monitors don't have the necessary frequency extension to play low. If you listen to rock and techno, you may find yourself craving a subwoofer. Have you considered something like the Klipsch ProMedia 2.1, or a similar 2.1 set? These are right in your price range, and may be a better fit for your preferences._

 

well, i'm on a 2.1 setup right now, altec lansing acs41 with the optional subwoofer. i got the set for free, and it sounds decent, but is by no means studio quality. it's old, so you may not be able to dig up much on the setup, but each satellite is 20w, and the sub is 40w(i think). what sucks is that there's no crossover in the speakers, just in the sub, so the satellites try to play all frequencies, including the low ones that are supposed to only be played by the subwoofer.


----------



## tinseljim

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Random Murderer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_well, i'm on a 2.1 setup right now, altec lansing acs41 with the optional subwoofer. i got the set for free, and it sounds decent, but is by no means studio quality. it's old, so you may not be able to dig up much on the setup, but each satellite is 20w, and the sub is 40w(i think). what sucks is that there's no crossover in the speakers, just in the sub, so the satellites try to play all frequencies, including the low ones that are supposed to only be played by the subwoofer._

 

as far as 2.1 goes I'm really enjoying the aego 5 (but used as 2.1 most of the time). it killed my logitech z-5400s by a long way and a similar price on the bay. 

 I've been wanting a pair of hr824s for about six years now, and fairly close to getting some. Does anyone have any opinions on how it would sound with the Zero Dac (with OPA627s) used as a preamp (with MacBook and Apple Lossless of course)?

 Thanks!


----------



## infinitesymphony

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tinseljim* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've been wanting a pair of hr824s for about six years now, and fairly close to getting some. Does anyone have any opinions on how it would sound with the Zero Dac (with OPA627s) used as a preamp (with MacBook and Apple Lossless of course)?_

 

If you like the sound of both the HR824s and the DAC, it should be a great match. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Some people say that the original USA-made HR824s are the best... I've briefly heard the originals, the Chinese-made mk1, and the Chinese-made mk2, and if I were buying now, I'd pick the mk2s. The enclosures are new and the components are still sourced from the original OEMs (Vifa Italian woofers, not sure who makes the tweeter).


----------



## gregorio

I'm a little confused about why some of you want studio monitors rather than speakers. If you're a producer who is used to high quality studio monitors, cheap near-fields can be a useful tool provided the producer is able to compensate for the near-field's weaknesses relative to quality monitors. If you're a starting producer with a limited budget then get near-fields for working on separation and positioning and decent cans for working on the frequency spectrum. If you're a consumer then near-fields are not going to be satisfactory. Put it this way, a top class pair of studio monitors is going to cost around $100,000. In comparison, how good do you think $500 monitors are going to sound? You would be far better off with $500 consumer speakers. You may not get quite the clarity or separation but you will get a more listenable frequency response and a better audio experience overall.


----------



## vulc4n

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gregorio* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm a little confused about why some of you want studio monitors rather than speakers. If you're a producer who is used to high quality studio monitors, cheap near-fields can be a useful tool provided the producer is able to compensate for the near-field's weaknesses relative to quality monitors. If you're a starting producer with a limited budget then get near-fields for working on separation and positioning and decent cans for working on the frequency spectrum. If you're a consumer then near-fields are not going to be satisfactory. Put it this way, a top class pair of studio monitors is going to cost around $100,000. In comparison, how good do you think $500 monitors are going to sound? You would be far better off with $500 consumer speakers. You may not get quite the clarity or separation but you will get a more listenable frequency response and a better audio experience overall._

 

I don't think you've ever used a decent pair of nearfield monitors.

 Quite honestly, my KRK ST6's are the best speakers I've ever had, and were an absolutely incredible value at 100.00 each. 

 I really don't see how you could go wrong with monitors... They are typically more neutral and accurate and typically have a very solid build quality. If on top of that ,they sound great for the money, why not use them?


----------



## infinitesymphony

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gregorio* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Put it this way, a top class pair of studio monitors is going to cost around $100,000._

 

Can you name some $100,000 studio monitors, and studios that actually use them? For that price, I'd assume you're mastering in some kind of cavern...


----------



## warpdriver

Studio monitors are great for several reasons over passive consumer speakers

 1. A studio monitor is made to be a tool, and unlike consumer speakers, they don't tend to push snake-oil features, or "well finished" cabinets. People are buying a tool deigned with a specific accuracy goal. People (professionals) tend don't really overpay for tools, whereas there are lots of high priced consumer speakers that aren't very accurate and really are marketing driven.
 2. Most studio monitors are bi-amped, tri-amped which can have sonic/efficiency benefits to using a passive crossover.
 3. Because the amp, drivers, enclosure are a complete closed system, you can introduce features like distortion limiters to keep the speaker behaving properly and from being overdriven. The designers just have more strict control of what goes in, what comes out.
 4. Studio monitors are designed to be used nearfield and often have very good tweeter dispersion. They often have trims to tailor the response for best results in any placement

 The only downside is that you can't use your favorite amp with most studio monitors (except if there is a passive version).

 I don't think there is really any downside to using studio monitors exept for the looks factor for music listening. Not all studio monitors are made alike, they often different amongst each other as much as consumer speakers, so it's not really any easier to choose among them.


----------



## vulc4n

Well said warpdriver.


----------



## mercbuggy

Totally agree, Warpdriver.

 They are a great tool for a desk based rig, for PC Audio/Gaming Console/Music Production et al, especially as they often have more than one input and many have full magnetic shielding.


----------



## gregorio

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vulc4n* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't think you've ever used a decent pair of nearfield monitors._

 

Depending on what you mean by decent, I would agree with you. I've worked professionally with various KRKs, Genelec, Alesis, ATC, Yamaha, PMC, Blue Sky and quite a number of other near-fields over the years. None of them are particularly good and some are truely awful, although they can all be usable tools provided you have a good mental image of how you have to compensate for their weaknesses while mixing.

 I currently own a set of big Genelecs but again, I know how I have to compensate relative to top class monitors because even these ($4,000 per monitor) Genelecs still have weaknesses. It's not until you get to the high end professional JBL and custom monitors in the right environment that you no longer have to compensate.

 I've never heard near-fields produce any sort of balanced quality across the frequency spectrum. The are normally very mid and top heavy, with good separation and placement. It's that unusable frequency response that's the real killer.


----------



## vulc4n

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gregorio* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Depending on what you mean by decent, I would agree with you. I've worked professionally with various KRKs, Genelec, Alesis, ATC, Yamaha, PMC, Blue Sky and quite a number of other near-fields over the years. None of them are particularly good and some are truely awful, although they can all be usable tools provided you have a good mental image of how you have to compensate for their weaknesses while mixing._

 

I'm currently using KRK ST6's and am really happy with them. For 100.00 a speaker, I'm pretty confident they can't be touched. Pairing them with a sub has improved things further. Anyway, I'd qualify all of the above mentioned brands as making monitors that are a pretty good value. Maybe they don't meet your needs for mixing, but for listening they sure do a great job in my opinion.

  Quote:


 I've never heard near-fields produce any sort of balanced quality across the frequency spectrum. The are normally very mid and top heavy, with good separation and placement. It's that unusable frequency response that's the real killer. 
 

Obviously your never going to get a perfect frequency response from a speaker that fits on your desk. That said, my KRK's are as close I have come. They blow my previous Athena speakers out of the water. They sound great to me, and several people have remakred that they think they sound great. On top of that, they are solidly built and can stand up to the rigors of college life. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I mean honestly, what speaker is better for desktop use other than a nearfield monitor? I can't think of anything.


----------



## Lock

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gregorio* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Depending on what you mean by decent, I would agree with you. I've worked professionally with various KRKs, Genelec, Alesis, ATC, Yamaha, PMC, Blue Sky and quite a number of other near-fields over the years. None of them are particularly good and some are truely awful, although they can all be usable tools provided you have a good mental image of how you have to compensate for their weaknesses while mixing.

 I currently own a set of big Genelecs but again, I know how I have to compensate relative to top class monitors because even these ($4,000 per monitor) Genelecs still have weaknesses. It's not until you get to the high end professional JBL and custom monitors in the right environment that you no longer have to compensate.

 I've never heard near-fields produce any sort of balanced quality across the frequency spectrum. The are normally very mid and top heavy, with good separation and placement. It's that unusable frequency response that's the real killer._

 

Your comments bely your supposed experience. Even at ludicrous sums of money no monitor or near-field monitor will be perfect for music production. Producing in a studio, however good it may be will never have one set of 'perfect' '$100,000' monitors. If you are saying this is the case you are full of ****, or the people who 'told' you that 1 speaker will do the job is full of it. Most studios today will have several sets of monitors, near field and otherwise. They will have expensive speakers and some real shockers.

 Totally flat response is pretty much unachievable regardless of price, even if the speakers are really expensive. A good producer will listen to their mix on a variety of speakers to truly assess the end listeners reception of the production.

 The reality is, unless you are a very successful producer (which almost no one on this site is) you will be compromising in some way with the equipment you are using, or at the very least the environment you are using.

 For general home production & recreational listening, you will get a far better listening experience and quality production from average to decent active monitors than you will from any 'home hi fi' equipment of the same price. FACT.

 If you were to put 200,000 worth of speakers in the 'home studio' of most of the people on here I guarantee they will not perform better than a set of Alesis mk1activemk2s or KRK K6s. Likewise, most home hi fi equipment is so overpriced based on the 'name' it becomes a joke. You will pay $5,000 just to power your home speakers before you have even bought them where as the amplifiers built in to a $500 active monitor will have an SN ratio that wil piss all over that same hi fi amp.....

 You sound a little like a brand and price snob. M I T did a study and found that people enjoyed coffee more knowing it had a higher price, this was also true of Wine and was independent of eithers quality. I suggest doing a double blind test on yourself and seeing what results you get. You will be sad to find that your $4,000 home studio speakers are no better than a well chosen $400 set. Meanwhile I will spend my saved $3,600 on a good holiday


----------



## gregorio

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vulc4n* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Maybe they don't meet your needs for mixing, but for listening they sure do a great job in my opinion.

 I mean honestly, what speaker is better for desktop use other than a nearfield monitor? I can't think of anything._

 

First of all, placing a monitor on a desk is always a bad idea. You're going to get all kinds of reflections from the desk (and any items on it). These reflections are going to blur the stereo image and placement and at least partially negate the main reason for using near-fields in the first place!

 I don't agree that near-fields are good for listening. Generally a good mastering engineer is trying to create a product which is going to sound good on consumer equipment. The colouration of near-fields is completely different from the colouration of consumer speakers. In other words, what you are hearing is not what was intended by the producer or mastering engineer. Sure, they are likely to sound more defined but the frequency response and placement are going to be quite different.

 Adding a sub to near-fields does not solve the problem either. I've yet to hear a 2.1 system that doesn't have significant problems in the crossover frequencies. Not to mention that all your bass is coming from the same speaker which isn't necessarily the sound that was intended, even baring in mind that low frequencies are much less directional.


----------



## gregorio

Lock - I think you're getting confused. A studio does usully have several sets of monitors, near-fields, main monitors and reference speakers. Main monitors to check all the frequencies are being respresented well and reference speakers, which are usually consumer speakers to get an idea of what it will sound like to the consumer. Ultimately of course the producer only uses the reference speakers as a rough guide, as it is the mastering engineer whose job it is to get the mix sounding good on a variety of consumer equipment. Top mastering engineers generally use a single set of very high quality monitors.

 Even a beginner could tell the difference between top class monitors and cheap near-fields, all you have to do is ask yourself if there is any definition whatsoever in the frequencies below 80Hz. If you don't think there is much of a difference then why spend money on near-fields in the first place, you'd be better off with a $5 set of ear buds. Agreed a bedroom studio is not going to give you anywhere near the clarity of a professional environment but anyone with a pair of ears (and some grey matter inbetween) will still be able to tell the difference.

 Any monitor needs to be placed in a professional environment to get the full benefit. A little bedroom or home studio might be the environment you are used to but don't assume that it's mine too! I don't have to rely on what people "told" me, I've worked in a number of world class recording studios. Most of these studios do acheive quite a flat response, not absolutely perfect but pretty damn close.


----------



## vulc4n

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gregorio* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_First of all, placing a monitor on a desk is always a bad idea. You're going to get all kinds of reflections from the desk (and any items on it). These reflections are going to blur the stereo image and placement and at least partially negate the main reason for using near-fields in the first place!_

 

I'm attending college. I'm living in a dorm. I do the best I an with what little space and money I have. I know its not the perfect setup, but I am extremly happy with it, and its the best I can do at the moment.

 That said, I wouldn't hesitate to use monitors in a full size system. I think they are a better value than traditional speakers. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gregorio* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't agree that near-fields are good for listening. Generally a good mastering engineer is trying to create a product which is going to sound good on consumer equipment. The colouration of near-fields is completely different from the colouration of consumer speakers. In other words, what you are hearing is not what was intended by the producer or mastering engineer. Sure, they are likely to sound more defined but the frequency response and placement are going to be quite different._

 

I thin kyour blanket statements here are totally inaccurate, and on top of that they contradict what you have said in previous posts.

 The coloration of the nearfield monitors I have checked out is not that much different from a consumer speaker that is considered to have relatively flat frequency response. Honestly, I think your room plays a much bigger role in overall sound coloration than the speakers themselves. Monitors by nature are going to be more analytical by nature, but thats not a bad thing in my opinion. I can't help but think of the ER-4p vs Super.Fi 5 Pro argument. A good mix is going to sound great on either one, its just a matter of weather you want something musical or if you would prefer a sound that is more analytical. With a bit of EQ'ing you should be able to add some musicality to any minors pretty easily if thats what you really what.

 What exactly do you suggest people such as myself use if nearfield monitors really are such a horrible thing? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gregorio* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Adding a sub to near-fields does not solve the problem either. I've yet to hear a 2.1 system that doesn't have significant problems in the crossover frequencies. Not to mention that all your bass is coming from the same speaker which isn't necessarily the sound that was intended, even baring in mind that low frequencies are much less directional._

 

It's not perfect, but it works for me. My Harman Kardon receiver does a rather good job, I think.


----------



## Lock

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gregorio* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Lock - I think you're getting confused. A studio does usully have several sets of monitors, near-fields, main monitors and reference speakers. Main monitors to check all the frequencies are being respresented well and reference speakers, which are usually consumer speakers to get an idea of what it will sound like to the consumer. Ultimately of course the producer only uses the reference speakers as a rough guide, as it is the mastering engineer whose job it is to get the mix sounding good on a variety of consumer equipment. Top mastering engineers generally use a single set of very high quality monitors._

 

Not really getting confused. If you read my post you will see the point I was making. I'm asserting that for the majority of people they will not be producing or as you have made the distinction 'MASTERING' in an ideal environment. Negating some of the benefit of forking out for expensive monitors that are unlikely to be any better than a relatively cheap set.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gregorio* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I can understand that you may not be able to appreciate the quality and purpose of decent quality monitors but I can. Even a beginner could tell the difference, all you have to do is ask yourself if there is any definition whatsoever in the frequencies below 80Hz._

 

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware you were one of the extreme minority of the people on the planet that are naturally pitch perfect; Good for you. Without a sub, most home hifi will be putting out very little audible frequencies below 80Hz so lets be clear here. It is perhaps you who is confused..... so it is the mastering engineer making sure the frequencies below 80Hz on his 'amazing Monitors' will sound good on home hifi?... I am being obtuse really, but to be honest I'm not arguing the use of monitors, or the validity of the production and mastering process. I'm simply saying that there is very little point paying for top end monitors unless you are in an environment to take advantage. This is a specialist environment and I don't believe it will make any difference to you or any of the producers who have time to visit hifi forums. 4k, 400, the speakers if chosen wisely will do the same job will little difference. In sure the $4k speakers give a much more satisfying feeling to you ear though as you hand over the cash in the Pro Audio store.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gregorio* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Any monitor needs to be placed in a professional environment to get the full benefit. A little bedroom or home studio might be the environment you are used to but don't assume that it's mine too!_

 

I made no assumption about your recording environment, I addressed most people on this forum as not being able to reap the benefits of this equipment in a home studio. I'm sure you are very successful and have an excellent set up. I'm also sure that those unnecessary possessions make you feel more content.


 It is very well to give advice, and I would not want you to stop. You are clearly knowledgeable, but you cannot assert that $ for $ it is worth spending 10 times the money. The reality is, it is not worth it, unless you are in a very specialist environment. Most people are not so don't assume they are in a 200sq ft studio with electrical and audio isolation and a separate mastering booth.


----------



## gregorio

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vulc4n* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The coloration of the nearfield monitors I have checked out is not that much different from a consumer speaker that is considered to have relatively flat frequency response. 

 With a bit of EQ'ing you should be able to add some musicality to any minors pretty easily if thats what you really what.

 What exactly do you suggest people such as myself use if nearfield monitors really are such a horrible thing? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

If the colouration of your near-fields is pretty much the same as consumer speakers then your near-fields have a serious fault or have been incorrectly labelled. Monitors with the same colouration as consumer speakers are not near-field monitors but reference monitors.

 You can't add bass EQ to monitors which are incapable of reproducing those frequencies, all you are doing is making your mix muddy and losing the clarity.

 Instead of near-fields monitors, consider a second hand set of Keffs or any other maker of decent consumer speakers. You'll get a much better representation of the intentions of the producer and a much more rounded listening experience.


----------



## mercbuggy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gregorio* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 Instead of near-fields monitors, consider a second hand set of Keffs or any other maker of decent consumer speakers. You'll get a much better representation of the intentions of the producer and a much more rounded listening experience._

 

There are valid arguments for and against and agree that I would always go the consumer speaker route in a listening room/living room environment. I am pretty sure though that many of the posts in this thread relate to small, dorm, study environments where near-fields behave pretty well considering the cost, active amplification, magnetic screening, compact, durable construction et al.

 You mentioned Yamaha and PMC in your posts as monitors that are either 'not particularly good' or 'awful'. I am interested in your perspective for two reasons. Firstly, I have been very satisfied with a pair of Yamaha MSP5 over the last 5 years. They do not get close to my Naim/Epos ES11 based system but they sound OK in my 'cupboard' of a study at low level listening where I am sitting less than a metre from each speaker. Secondly, I have heard several consumer hifi systems using PMC consumer speakers, namely the FB1 floorstander and the TB2 and not only did I enjoy the sound but the owners were satisfied too. What's wrong with their 'professional' monitors??


----------



## warpdriver

It really doesn't make sense to say that studio monitors are any worse than consumer speakers for home use. Both studio monitors and farfield speakers rely on the same design principles. You need good dispersion, flat FR, low distortion, wide bandwidth etc. There are a lot of budget studio monitors that don't measure well and similarly there are a lot of budget bookshelf speakers that have uneven frequency response, poor dispersion, humped up midbass as well. If you choose a studio monitor is known to be tonally accurate, you can certainly use it well in a home environment. Because of the EQ trims on a lot of active monitors, you have even more leeway in placement to compensate for boundary gain, floor bounce etc. One should always take a look at the whole speaker and judge the sound on its own merits, not the label that was attached to it. Studio monitors tend to have features that allow them to be used more effectively in studio environment and survive abuse which is where they differ most, but you can effectively use their inherent advantages effectively even in a home environment. Whether you use a studio monitor or consumer speaker, placement and acoustics is always going to be an issue so equal care must be taken regardless of what you choose. In a nearfield use case like many of the people here are considering, having fewer boxes, EQ trims, and the right size for the desktop is very nice to have. I was using entry level bookshelf speakers with a separate amp, and now switched to active monitors and wouldn't go back. 

 If I take a $1000 set of Dynaudio Audience 52 consumer bookshelf speakers and compare it to a similarly priced Dynaudio BM5A, you will find that the BM5A is actually a better value since you get the amps included. The Audience comes in nicer finishes and has a grille...but otherwise they sound similar in many ways, nearfield or not. I would actually recommend the BM5A over the Audience line if you are looking for a compact monitor for a desktop. If you need a 5.1 system, there is actually no reason you couldn't use the BM5A actually except for the fact you need power plugs for all 5 speakers. I have heard the BM5A in a home setting and it sounded as good as any passive minimonitor that I have heard from anybody in the consumer world.


----------



## vulc4n

Another great post warpdriver.


----------



## mercbuggy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mercbuggy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There are valid arguments for and against and agree that I would always go the consumer speaker route in a listening room/living room environment._

 

Just thought I should qualify my last post. I should have made clear that consumer could of course also mean active. Furthermore, my reasoning for 'reception rooms' (e.g. living room) is one of aesthetics not audio performance.


----------



## gregorio

The difference between the vast majority of near-fields and consumer speakers at similar price points is just a case of priorities. A near-field manufacturer is going to concentrate their efforts on clarity, separation and imaging in the mid and high frequencies and not bother with the low frequencies. A consumer speaker is going to attempt to represent all the frequencies, with the likely trade off being less clarity and separation. So frequencies of say 60Hz or 70Hz, very important frequencies in just about every genre of music, are much more likely to be better represented on consumer speakers than with near-fields. So I would disagree that the design principles are the same. The situation is similar between the design principles of full range monitors and near-fields. Full range monitor manufacturers are going to be spending a lot of effort (and money) getting an accurate representation of the low freqs, near-field manufacturers are not going to bother much.

 If near-fields are being used as speakers because they are small, active and cheap, I've got no objection. The objection I have is if the consumer is using near-fields because they think they're going to sound better than consumer speakers.

 Lock - The acoustics of a listening room are very important to the perceived quality of the speakers/monitors. So, if you were comparing $80,000 monitors against say $30,000 monitors then you may not hear much of a difference and of course, you're only get the full benefit of both monitors in a high quality listening environment. However, the difference between top quality near-fields and top quality full range monitors is so obvious that just about anyone could tell the difference in pretty much any listening environment. You don't need perfect pitch, just average ears. If you are unable to tell the difference you probably have quite serious hearing damage and I would suggest an urgent meeting with an audiologist!

 MercBuddy - When mentioning Yamaha near-fields, I was particularly referring to the NS10s. There are particular reasons why NS10s so dominated the professional marketplace but none of these reasons were related to the sound quality, which was widely accepted as awful!! I've got nothing against PMC monitors, they are good for the money but they still suffer from the same problem of all near-fields, which is very poor bass response. The more expensive PMCs are much bigger than your average near-fields and include a bass cone. Again, they are good for the money at around $2,000 a pair but can't really be classed as near-fields.


----------



## warpdriver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gregorio* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_A near-field manufacturer is going to concentrate their efforts on clarity, separation and imaging in the mid and high frequencies and not bother with the low frequencies. A consumer speaker is going to attempt to represent all the frequencies, with the likely trade off being less clarity and separation. So frequencies of say 60Hz or 70Hz, very important frequencies in just about every genre of music, are much more likely to be better represented on consumer speakers than with near-fields. So I would disagree that the design principles are the same._

 

Assuming that a speaker designer has really does have different design goals in studio monitors....

 You stated "The objection I have is if the consumer is using near-fields because they think they're going to sound better than consumer speakers."

 But let's talk about the people here, many of which are audiophiles or at least very critical about their sound. I know I'm very critical about how well my headphones sound with vocals, how well they image and their linearity and clarity. Detail, separation, and imaging are qualities that many audiophiles value highly and that is exactly why people here (on this forum) would/should choose a studio monitor. Because to me, an accurate speaker *is* the better sounding speaker even if it is at the expense of a bit of low frequency extension. Too many consumer speakers attain bass extension at the expense of linearity (a humped up midbass) or high THD leading to fat and/or loose bass. This is why most "computer speaker" sets sound bad, their bass is literally all harmonics which sounds more impressive at first, but is really just muddying up the sound. I own a few sets of consumer bookshelf speakers. Quite a few of them are tipped up a few dB in the critical 50-70Hz range, and placed in a nearfield position, against the wall (most are rear ported), they sound very congested and boomy. 

 I was completely open to choosing either a passive speaker or active speaker. I went and heard a whole bunch of $200, $400, $600, $1000 monitors and passive speakers. I was pleasantly surprised how much value I got with the studio monitors. They also sounded better to my ears for the same money. Add to the idea that I don't need to clutter up my desk with an extra amp, and that I could use the trims to fine tune the sound better than any consumer speaker, I was won over.

 Many people that compare pro monitors from companies like JBL, Dynaudio, Focal to their passive consumer counterparts find that the pro monitors offer exceptional value in features, technology and accuracy, and IMO are a better value than their own consumer line. Whereas JBL speakers are hit and miss, their pro monitors are excellent. Dynaudio monitors are highly recommended by many, and I actually sonically preferred the BM5A to their Audience line, and possibly even their much pricier Focus line. Focal Solo monitors are a much better value (offering the same technologies like their Be tweeter) at a lower price point

 So I disagree with your recommendation that people here should not look for studio monitors. I recommend one compare both, with their own ears. And if you do so, one may come to the same conclusion I did, that studio monitors are a real and high value alternative to consumer speakers in sound quality. Their versatility is exactly what many people are looking for in the type of setup they have. Critical listening in a nearfield with restricted space and placement options.


----------



## Jap

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gregorio* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If near-fields are being used as speakers because they are small, active and cheap, I've got no objection. The objection I have is if the consumer is using near-fields because they think they're going to sound better than consumer speakers._

 

[size=medium]
 However, if one is willing to spend a little more, one can get monitors that easily trounces most consumer speakers in sheer accuracy. Say for instance, one purchases the Adam P11A active monitors together with the Adam Sub10 Mk2 subwoofer. As fantastically accurate as the P11A's are at high/mid frequencies, they reputedly get a little loose in the lower registers. So the simple, if expensive, solution is to complement the monitors with a companion subwoofer to achieve high accuracy throughout the entire audible frequency range. (It need not be the $900 each P11A monitor. I am simply using this near-field as a dramatic example. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




)[/size]

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *warpdriver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So I disagree with your recommendation that people here should not look for studio monitors. I recommend one compare both, with their own ears. And if you do so, one may come to the same conclusion I did, that studio monitors are a real and high value alternative to consumer speakers in sound quality_

 

[size=medium]I too, like Warpdriver and others, value high accuracy and great details as premium qualities in headphones or speakers. I have not really started looking at speakers (or more accurately, monitors) until fairly recently, being content to use my CSW MusicWorks 300 system, which cost me all of $300 discounted. My apartment is close enough to other dwellings that it obviates the need for large home speakers. Since detail and accuracy are the primary concerns, monitors with a suitable subwoofer is a much more reasonable solution. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/size]


----------



## gregorio

I suppose it depends on what you consider "accuracy" to mean. For me, accuracy is the reproduction of the producer's/mastering engineer's intentions. Good near-fields are going to give you a highly accurate and well placed mid and high end but not in the low end. So if you're only interested in great clarity in just certain areas of the frequency spectrum, then near-fields are the way to go. For me though, accuracy is not just clarity in certain areas of the spectrum but also the ability to represent all the frequencies contained in the music. With near-fields you get exaggerated clarity in one part of the spectrum at the expense of virtually no clarity in some of the others. It's a bit like having a car that can accelerate from 0-60 in 2 seconds but has a top speed of 65 and does 2 miles to the gallon. Great fun in certain circumstances and very useful in certain circumstances but for general use you'd be better off with a Ford!

 So, should you listen to near-fields or consumer speakers? As a general rule I'd say consumer speakers because you are going to hear more of the intentions of the producer/masterer. If you can't live without the exaggerated clarity of the mid range provided by near-fields then get near-fields but remember you are not listening to what was intended by the producer. I personally would never buy nor advise the buying of near-fields for pure listening. If you want analytical accuracy at a relatively cheap price, I'd go for a decent set of linear cans and forget about monitors. The cans will give even more separation and imaging than near-fields, plus you are likely to get a much better response throughout the freq spectrum.

 Adding a sub will help put some of the missing freqs back in and alleviate some of the weaknesses of near-fields. Although we have lessened the problems we have by no means eliminated them. We are likely to hear a well extended, though not necessarily a very accurate bass with a significant hole in the crossover freqs. Again, a quite different sound from that intended. The decent quality cans route will still give better results than a 2.1 monitoring system.

 Ultimately of course, it comes down to personal tastes, which systems sounds better (to you personally) and what your priorities are. Just be careful though, it's easy to be seduced by the clarity of the mids provided by near-fields.


----------



## warpdriver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gregorio* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Adding a sub will help put some of the missing freqs back in and alleviate some of the weaknesses of near-fields. Although we have lessened the problems we have by no means eliminated them. We are likely to hear a well extended, though not necessarily a very accurate bass with a significant hole in the crossover freqs._

 

if you are willing to put the effort, there is no reason why you can't add a sub and do it well. I added a small sub to my desktop system and was able to get it quite flat with proper positioning, phase adjustment and careful adjustment of the crossover (around 80Hz)







 You have been speaking in generalities. But as I said, I went through the excercise and found that studio monitors represented a real alternative. I suggest other people do the same. There isn't any secret sauce that makes studio monitors better, so you have to listen with your own ears and determine whether one speaker is more accurate overall. Since we have no idea what the target speaker was when somebody mixed a particular peace of music, saying that you're better off buying a consumer speaker is somewhat misleading and way too much of a generalization. I say ignore that, and judge the speaker on its sound quality. I found many great alternative in studio monitors in every price range. I have more bookshelf speakers in my house than my wife has purses, so I am pretty experienced in what can be had in the consumer speaker range under $1500


----------



## warpdriver

.


----------



## gregorio

Hi WarpDriver- According to your graph, your system is outputting half the power at 63Hz than it is at 50Hz and 80Hz, presuming of course that your 'Y' axis is in decibels. In your room this may not be a problem, especially if you have some room modes or standing waves around 63Hz.

 I agree that it's always better to go by what your ears are telling you when looking for speakers. The danger though, is that because our hearing is more sensitive in the mid frequencies, it's easy to fool yourself into believing that monitors which are highly accurate in these mid freqs sound better.

 The target speaker is usually dependent on the demographic of the targeted market. Rarely does this mean anything other than an average consumer system. You won't find many, if any, commercial releases aimed at near-field monitors or even at cans for that matter. In the case of film, most films are mastered for use in a full range cinema system. Some films are remastered for distribution on DVD, where consumer bass managed systems are taken into account. However, the majority of DVDs contain the original cinema release soundtrack.


----------



## Lock

Some of what you say is perfectly reasonable, then you come out with nonsense. I get the impression you like to argue.

 One statement- which you have already made sums up your oppinion so leave it at that. (I am paraphrasing)

 "Not all Nearfields will provide the full range of frequencies that were mastered in the source material" "Full range home speakers will give full range, but may be at the expense of overexagerated bass".

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gregorio* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I agree that it's always better to go by what your ears are telling you when looking for speakers. The danger though, is that because our hearing is more sensitive in the mid frequencies, it's easy to fool yourself into believing that monitors which are highly accurate in these mid freqs sound better.
 ._

 

What? If I listen to something that in my oppinion sounds better I'm fooling myself?? This statement is nonsense. Please clarify what you are on about.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gregorio* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The target speaker is usually dependent on the demographic of the targeted market. Rarely does this mean anything other than an average consumer system. You won't find many, if any, commercial releases aimed at near-field monitors or even at cans for that matter. In the case of film, most films are mastered for use in a full range cinema system. Some films are remastered for distribution on DVD, where consumer bass managed systems are taken into account. However, the majority of DVDs contain the original cinema release soundtrack._

 

Yea this is a really good idea, I will research every peice of music I own, find out what studio it was mastered in and by who and also what equipment they used. Then I will ensure I have the most similar 'comercial' home system on the market that this producer was aiming at.

 So pop should be listened to on an average mono radio with lots of ambient sound - thus hearing what the producer intended.

 Rock should be listened to outside on a huge valve amp set up

 Electro should be listed to only in a crowded sweaty room with a huge PA mainly hitting 40hz and 120hz played off vinyl only.

 R&B should be listened to through 1960s valve amps only and so on.........


 ORRRRRR you buy one set of speakers that will accurately represent most of the frequencies FROM THE SOURCE RECORDING!!!!!! and add a sub if necessary.

 You seem to be missing something here, maybe you are dumb. Producers and engineers DO NOT guess at what their mix will sound like, they do not APPROXIMATE what it will be like on most comercial systems.

 They will listen to their mix in the most accurate FLAT way possible using in the first instance near field monitors. They will then make adjustments if the reference monitors or comercial speakers sound too harsh at a certain frequency. This will be what they want it to sound like, but once they have made these changes it is EXACTLY what the near fields will put out since they are DESIGNED to be as flat as possible....... 

 How can you say that a speaker which represents all the frequencies from the source accurately isn't what the engineer or producer intended? 
 (I will concede that many reference and nearfields will be weaker at the lower frequencies..... but no more so than most home hifi's using bookshelf speakers)

 You have a valid argument from one standpoint but you keep pushing it too far into the realms of 'studio snobery'.


----------



## warpdriver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Lock* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Some of what you say is perfectly reasonable, then you come out with nonsense. I get the impression you like to argue._

 

Well said Lock 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 (and it gave me a good laugh too)


----------



## warpdriver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gregorio* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hi WarpDriver- According to your graph, your system is outputting half the power at 63Hz than it is at 50Hz and 80Hz, presuming of course that your 'Y' axis is in decibels._

 

Yes it is down -3dB at 63Hz at my primary listening location. That is fine because in my secondary listening position, the opposite happens, the system is up another 3dB at 50Hz, and this the best blending I could achieve without skewing the FR for the other listening positions (my goal was to be +/-3dB from 40Hz up to 100Hz from three different seating positions). I have a parametric EQ that I can use to flatten my response even more but I posted this as an example that there is no hole in at my crossover @80Hz, and this was done JUST using the existing sub controls to prove that a sub can be successfully integrated with good results provided you the time or software to analyze the FR like I did. Again your generalizations are just that.

 I think Lock's response two posts above has been what I was trying to say in some of my previous posts. It doesn't make sense to choose a speaker based on some gross speculations and generalizations about speaker design and producer's intent. Unless you have actually talked to those producers about how they compensated their mix relative to their reference monitors, we have no idea whether consumer speaker A or studio monitor B conveys what the producer's intention was. Second guessing all this is counterproductive. Using good quality recordings, and experience with live sound is a far more useful reference.

 I have a few very accurate bookshelf speakers in my possession, and they aren't really that different than any good studio monitor in the same price range even when reproducing mass market music, except for the fact that they look better and cost more (after you factor in the need for separate amp). They have the same bass extension as any studio monitor in the same size class. I can say that I prefer a good studio monitor than any of my hifi speakers for nearfield environment due to the extra features of the studio monitors.


----------



## chesebert

I think my Harbeth M30 qualifies as studio monitor; I think BBC use those for monitoring their classical music broadcasts.


----------



## gregorio

WarpDriver - Duh, if your crossover frequency is 60Hz rather than 80Hz as is found in most satalite speakers then around 60Hz is where you are going to have the problems and plus or minus 3dB is quite significant.

 Lock - I think you're just being dense now! The average listener is on a mono radio are they? Come on, use your brain a little. What, you think that a mastering engineer owns every bit of consumer gear on the market and then checks his mix on all of it. I think you've also mis-understood the term "flat". Flat means an equal response across the frequency spectrum. This is most certainly not what a near-field does, they are quite flat for some of the freqs but not all and the freqs where they are weakest, between 40Hz and 120Hz, is an area that producers spend a lot of time working on. Good mastering engineers will use high quality full range monitors, not near fields. Producers may primarily use either near-fields or the main CR monitors but even if using the near-fields they will still usually spend a fair bit of time with the main monitors. The reference monitors may only be used once or twice during production.

 Depending on the media and demographic, we may modify our mix slightly. Radio Edits are usually compressed more than a CD release and we may widen the stereo image more but crucial balancing of freqs is not so important because virtually all radio stations employ multi-band compressors which skews the freq content. Some of the different TV and Film standards require consideration of the frequency content, as does mixing for DVD rather than for cinema. If we're doing classical on a SACD we may decide to leave a bigger dynamic range and pay particular attention to clarity and postioning, compared to a CD. Why, because people who have the money to spend on a SACD player are more likely to own higher fidelity equipment. I also know that the average listener won't have the precision in the lower freqs that I experience on my system, therefore I will compensate. I may add a some additional mid freqs to the kick drum for example, to aid clarity and punch when played back on a system with less definition than mine in the lower freqs. Consideration of what the audience is going to experience is usually paramount for any good producer or mastering engineer. We have no choice but to work in generalities and get it sounding as good as possible, so we have to make decisions which may compromise the fidelity for the minority of listeners while improving the experience for the majority. This is what I meant by target audiences and demographics.

 You may not want to keep track of good quality producers and studios to know how good a CD is likely to be but it is about the most reliable indicator. The classical music world does this routinely, they don't just look out for the piece they like but also for a reputable orchestra, conductor and record label.

 "What? If I listen to something that in my oppinion sounds better I'm fooling myself?? This statement is nonsense. Please clarify what you are on about."

 It's only nonsense because you don't understand it. When you have more experience of critically analysing audio systems you will understand this statement better. Basically, it's quite easy to be fooled initially by a particular monitor's sweetness and it's clarity in the mid freqs but when we actually work with them for a period of time we realise that the speaker has a lot more weaknesses than we first thought. It's not uncommon to find that over time many near-fields can be quite fatiguing to the ear because of this mid and high-mid content.


----------



## warpdriver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gregorio* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_WarpDriver - Duh, if your crossover frequency is 60Hz rather than 80Hz as is found in most satalite speakers then around 60Hz is where you are going to have the problems and_

 

Duh back to you, my crossover is @80Hz. You missed my whole point, this is an untreated, unEQ'ed response in a real living space. I could easily get it flatter for one listening position, but point is that the sub is well integrated with the mains, with no droop @ the crossover with a 12dB/octave slope. That is to counter your assertion that subs, in general, do not integrate well. 

 Personally, I find your posts fairly condescending. I'm not your typical mass market consumer easily fooled by exaggerated FR, and it's pretentious to assume all of the members here would be also. Please offer some real world advice other than "buy a KEFF (sic)". If you are actually that experienced with listening to monitors, I would have expected more specific recommendations. You have offered little in that regard except sweeping generalizations that are not reflected in current offerings on the market today.

 I will say it again: I found Studio Monitors to be very satisfying and highly recommend one seek out stuidio monitors for a desktop listening setup after comparing real world products from known good manufacturers. I disagree with your recommendation to avoid studio monitors for any of the reasons you stated (which are stereotyping both the listeners buying them and the design of speakers). If you want to talk about specific consumer speakers, and active studio monitors in various price ranges, I'd be glad to engage in that conversation. I have had a good number of passive consumer bookshelf speakers pass through my hands, and have experience setting up many subs, so I know what they are and aren't capable of.


----------



## Lock

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gregorio* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_"What? If I listen to something that in my oppinion sounds better I'm fooling myself?? This statement is nonsense. Please clarify what you are on about."

 It's only nonsense because you don't understand it. When you have more experience of critically analysing audio systems you will understand this statement better. Basically, it's quite easy to be fooled initially by a particular monitor's sweetness and it's clarity in the mid freqs but when we actually work with them for a period of time we realise that the speaker has a lot more weaknesses than we first thought. It's not uncommon to find that over time many near-fields can be quite fatiguing to the ear because of this mid and high-mid content._

 

I'm tired of this debate. You are insistent on looking at it from a studio engineers perspective and have based your arguments on your opinion but state it as fact. It is a very weak from of argument and I'm ceasing this debate. I will however respond to your comments.

 I do understand what 'flat' means in regards to a studio monitor. A studio monitor should produce the most accurate representation of the source as possible. This means being as flat across all frequencies as possible so as not to colour the sound.

 This whole arguement is about whether a studio monitor... near field or reference can be used as a good hi fi speaker in a home set up.

 My argument is that for the same money an active studio monitor will often give you a cleaner less coloured sound with better definition accross all general frequencies exhibited by an equivalent book shelf speaker.

 You argue that during production and mastering some frequencies may be emphasised or deminished depending on the target audience making listening on monitors not give the best listening experience. 
 I don't agree with you. Simple. Having listened to many monitors I find that they sound better, pound for pound than more expensive home book shelf speakers. I'm not being fooled by exagerated treble (incidently this is EXACTLY what most comercial manufacturers do which is why I'm not keen on Home stereo generally). They give a better overall sound and are more revealing. They may not give the definition in frequencies below 60Hz but show me a similar sizined bookshelf speaker that does!!!! You concede in your own post that you often emphasise the mids because home stereos don't portray the lower frequencies well! You are contradicting yourself!!!! 

 How can a lack of definition below 60Hz in a studio monitor make it worse in comparison to a Home stereo speaker when you concede that Home stereo equipment represents these frequencies badly????????

 If you want to tell people to go and buy home stereo equipment because they will get a better auratory experience then you are giving bad advice.
 As with anything people should audition the equipment and judge for them selves but I will make a very clear statment.

 YOU WILL GET BETTER VALUE FOR MONEY IF YOU TAKE THE TIME TO CONSIDER STUDIO MONITORS OVER HOME STEREO SPEAKERS. - There are exceptions and you should always audition first but this is a fact not a feeling or an opinion....

 Enjoy your high horse. I wish I knew who your worked for, or who your clients are. I'm sure they would be very interested in this thread and your presented attitude would do wonders for your buisiness....


----------



## gregorio

OK, you go right ahead and enjoy your monitors. You want to keep your mis-understandings, broadcast them to others and not believe a word I've said that's up to you.

 Of course I'm basing my comments on being an engineer and producer. Who is it do you think that creates the music frecording that you are listening to? The process of music production and mastering goes well beyond just creating a mix which sounds good in a particular control room.

 "How can a lack of definition below 60Hz in a studio monitor make it worse in comparison to a Home stereo speaker when you concede that Home stereo equipment represents these frequencies badly?"

 Surely you're being deliberately obtuse?! A home system may not represent the low freqs very accurately but they do at least try to represent them. The colouration of near-fields is very different to consumer equipment, which is why we need reference speakers (in addition to main monitors and near-fields) when producing. And why should we need reference speakers if we are not taking into account the colouration of consumer equipment when we're mixing?!

 Agreed that cheap bookshelf consumer speakers are generally very poor but then again, so are cheap near-fields. You want quality for very little money buy some decent cans. If you've got a little more to spend, best bet is with consumer Keff's, Acoustic Energy or an equivalent, not a similarly priced near-field.

 Warpdriver - Your crossover is at 80Hz, that explains the significant peak in your graph at 80Hz. I've heard quite a few bass managed 2.1 systems, all of them exhibit weaknesses compared to mid-priced full range monitors.

 You want a CV of all the studios and performance venues I've worked in, my professional credits and the other professionals I've worked with in my 25 years in the business, apart from being a very long doicument it's not going to change the truth of what I'm stating. I now spend most of my time teaching others to be engineers and producers. So whether you believe I'm wrong or not does not change the fact that what these engineers and producers are doing is based on my guidance and my guidance is based on current professional practice.


----------



## vulc4n

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gregorio* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_"How can a lack of definition below 60Hz in a studio monitor make it worse in comparison to a Home stereo speaker when you concede that Home stereo equipment represents these frequencies badly?"

 Surely you're being deliberately obtuse?! A home system may not represent the low freqs very accurately but they do at least try to represent them. The colouration of near-fields is very different to consumer equipment, which is why we need reference speakers when producing. And why should we need reference speakers if we are not taking into account the colouration of consumer equipment when we're mixing?!_

 

You can't expect any bookshelf sized speaker to accurately produce sub 60Hz frequencies. That said, I would much much rather have a clean, if lacking representation of those frequencies rather than bloated. That's what a sub is for.

 That said, I think you are really imagining this huge difference between consumer speakers and monitors. There are monitors that have accentuated frequencies just as many consumer speakers do. There are monitors that are bright or warm just as there are consumer speakers that are bright or warm. I really don't think there is a hard and fast rule that can define a speaker as either being only for studio monitoring use or only for home use, the end result is often just too similar. The real difference for me comes down to price... I got my KRK's for 100.00 each, and the compareable KEF speakers I was looking at were more like twice that price.

 In any case, it comes down to this... Several other people here, as well as myself, think monitors provide great sound at a value that just can't be found elsewhere. It's pretty obvious that this debate hasn't gone anywhere, so maybe we should just agree to disagree.


----------



## Lock

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gregorio* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_OK, you go right ahead and enjoy your monitors. You want to keep your mis-understandings, broadcast them to others and not believe a word I've said that's up to you.
_

 

It's not a case of not believing what you are saying. It is partly down to your closed minded attitude that is the problem.

 What you are saying about production and mastering is true. What you are saying about the types of speakers used in studios is true. Why they are used is also true. What I disagree is your argument of why monitor speakers are never a good choice for home listening, this is simply flawed viewpoint.

 Take $400. With that money you need to buy an amplifier. interconnects, speaker cable AND a set of home stereo speakers.

 Now take that same $400 and buy just a 3.5mm to XLR lead and some active monitors.

 I'm using this example, but the same is true at almost any price point. You are telling me you will get better listening experience from the comercial home stereo equipment than the studio monitor equipment? 
 You are correct that some monitors poorly colour the sound in a way unsuitable for home listening.... but not all.

 we can agree to disagree but I think maybe the problem is you only consider speakers costing $1000 or more. Just read what hi fi magazine and see how often speakers and amps costing $10k plus are slated.... home hifi is sold on name. studio equip is more often sold on performance and reputation.... this says it all for me...


----------



## warpdriver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gregorio* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Agreed that cheap bookshelf consumer speakers are generally very poor but then again, so are cheap near-fields. You want quality for very little money buy some decent cans. If you've got a little more to spend, best bet is with consumer Keff's, Acoustic Energy or an equivalent, not a similarly priced near-field._

 

How can we take your recommendations seriously when you can't even spell "KEF" properly? Even if I believe you are as important and experienced as you say you are, your advice has been nearly useless generalizations, and misleading to boot. Even I can make better recommendations than "Keffs" for anybody looking for a desktop monitor.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Lock* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Take $400. With that money you need to buy an amplifier. interconnects, speaker cable AND a set of home stereo speakers._

 

I have precisely gone through this exercise for myself. I compared what it would take to buy a complete setup for a computer system. Dollar for dollar, the studio monitors tend to exceed the sound quality of consumer offerings for the $200-$1000 range I was shopping in. 

 Now, if the master technician at Abbey Road Studios stepped in and said "get Consumer Speaker A" because he thinks it's the best value for consumers after evaluating many speakers, I'll happily take that advice. But so far gregorio, you have not stepped up to the plate with any real usable advice. Oh, I guess I should google "Keff"


----------



## Jap

[size=medium]What's the point of this discussion? If one wants truly _accurate sound_ *and* the _very best bang for your buck_, where would one look besides monitors - with, perhaps, a mated subwoofer? With active monitors and a powered subwoofer you have built-in amps that are optimized for the speakers themselves. Is there a simpler and more cost-efficient path to accurate sound than this?

 Even my humble Henry Kloss-designed Cambridge Soudworks MusicWorks 300 2.1 system draws enthusiastic appreciation from all who hear them. From non-audiophile friends, they always say it's the best sounding set of speakers they have ever heard. More audio-savvy buddies are impressed by the sheer quality emanating from this tiny 2.1 system, given the meager $400 sticker price. (I actually bought them discounted for $300 back in 2000.) This miniature system, with the system amp housed within the subwoofer enclosure, literally provides enough clean volume to fill a small auditorium.

 If I am to upgrade this system for more accurate sonics, the active monitor + subwoofer route is a no-brainer for me. Why mess around trying to mix & match a bevy of multiple components when simple, reasonably priced and highly accurate monitors are available. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 [/size]


----------



## gregorio

Lock - At $400 for amps and speakers, there may be some small benefit to using active near-fields but you're going to get much better quality at that price point from cans or even IEMs and decently encoded MP3s.

 When we get to higher price points, say $1500 or so and up, then I maintain my previous argument. For this still relatively small outlay, you could buy a good pair of say AE Aelite 3s. Kef IQ7s can be had for £400 ($700), the IQ9s are about double. If this is still beyond the budget I'd advise buying used ones. I've heard other good consumer manufacturers in this price range but I'm most familiar with AE and Kef.

 These speakers are not going to give you as much accuarcy in the mids as near-fields but you will get better sound overall, which conform more closely to producers' and masterers' intentions. When we get to the high end of the market I don't have very much experience with consumer products but we would be looking at full range systems rather than near-fields anyway.

 Careful, quite a lot of studio equipment is sold on name too. The budget end of the pro-market is very similar to the consumer market. There are fashions and reputations just the same. The old Yamaha NS10s are a classic example of this. Most commercial studios around the world had NS10s in the 80s and 90s, even though everyone agreed they were utter rubbish!

 By the way Warpdriver, one of my ex-students in now an engineer at Abbey Road, would it help if I got him to send you an email?! tsk


----------



## warpdriver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gregorio* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Lock - At $400 for amps and speakers, there may be some small benefit to using active near-fields but you're going to get much better quality at that price point from cans or even IEMs and decently encoded MP3s._

 

For that remark you get a failing grade.

 Skirting the question again. The issue is not: should I buy headphones or speakers? The question was: what kind of speakers should I buy? Why did you bother posting about the floorstanding IQ7/IQ9? (your pricing is off, the IQ7 is $1000 a pair USD). They are clearly not to be used on a desktop or station like studio monitors are used. Floorstanders are not interchangeable with studio monitors for a lot of people.

  Quote:


 By the way Warpdriver, one of my ex-students in now an engineer at Abbey Road, would it help if I got him to send you an email?! tsk 
 

Sure. Maybe he'd actually offer useful real world information. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Let's use a real world comparison then.

 Let's say I have $800 to spend. I want to buy the KEF IQ (based on your recommendation) series for my desktop computer system. I'm also considering studio monitors up to that price range.

 The IQ3 is currently going for $500 USD (vanns.com, a popular reputable US dealer). I can add a svelte Cambridge Audio 40W integrated amp for about $300. Total $800 and it looks nice.

 Or I can pick up a set of Mackie MR8 for $500 USD (current street price).

 Please explain to me, WHY should I spend $300 *MORE* to get the IQ3 setup over the Mackies? You said we shouldn't consider studio monitors and just buy something from KEF. Why would I do that in this case?

 BTW I have heard the IQ and the Mackies. So please explain to me how my ears are fooling me that the Mackies are better sounding and also more enjoyable with music (I will list the music that I used if that matters).


----------



## gregorio

Warpdriver - The IQ7s are a lot cheaper over here at £379 UKP ($750 USD) a pair, whereas the Mackies are over $100 USD more (£450).

 The original thread dealt with studio monitors for home use. That's what I'm talking about. Monitors in general vs speakers in general. Not just very low budget speakers. Dealing specifically with near-fields though, most near-fields are used on the meter bridge of a console or on a desk housing a DAW. The last place you should put a near-field or any monitor is on a console or a desk!! So you explain to me the intrinsic difference between near-fields on a stand and floor standing speakers.

 I'm not going to keep repeating myself so if: You want to use studio monitors, OK. You want to ignore what near-fields are designed for, OK. You want to hear a distorted frequency response, OK. Your choice, if you're happy and enjoying your music go for it.


----------



## warpdriver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gregorio* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Warpdriver - The IQ7s are a lot cheaper over here at £379 UKP ($750 USD) a pair, whereas the Mackies are over $100 USD more (£450).

 The original thread dealt with studio monitors for home use. That's what I'm talking about. Monitors in general vs speakers in general. Not just very low budget speakers. Dealing specifically with near-fields though, most near-fields are used on the meter bridge of a console or on a desk housing a DAW. The last place you should put a near-field or any monitor is on a console or a desk!! So you explain to me the intrinsic difference between near-fields on a stand and floor standing speakers.

 I'm not going to keep repeating myself so if: You want to use studio monitors, OK. You want to ignore what near-fields are designed for, OK. You want to hear a distorted frequency response, OK. Your choice, if you're happy and enjoying your music go for it._

 

I asked you a simple question and you clearly skirted the question again which again demonstrates the laughable uselessness of your posts. 

 Would you recommend the IQ3 or Mackie in my situation? Which would I find more accurate for a computer listening station (provided I follow basic placement guidelines like elevating the speaker off the surface, boundaries, toe in etc). For the Mackie, I would use the trim controls to tailor the FR to be as flat as possible as I have a calibrated mic and RTA software to analyze the FR. This is exactly a typical situation, a studio monitor used for a desktop listening situation, and many of the people here are facing the same problem or need.

 I have floorstanding passive speakers in one of my own systems because that is what I determined to provide the best performance for the money for that particular room. But in another room for a computer setup I found that studio monitors delivered more accurate performance for my money. See? I took into account the application and room restrictions and found the best solution. That's the whole reason your posts have been useless, your "one solution fits all" and generalizations aren't doing anybody a favour. If I bought a KEF IQ7, I would have easily had very poor performance for that application. 

 Any true professional that would consult and help a customer set up a room for speakers would clearly look at the room layout *first* and then make a recommendation based on that. I know AV consultants that have recommended studio monitors for a particular client because it worked best for his setup (even though they install mainly consumer speakers). Yet you throw out a generic recommendation like "buy a KEF, that will convey the producers best intent". Are you that dumb? I question whether you actually know what you are doing then. 

 Please shovel your theories and idealisms somewhere else and learn how to give advice that actually is applicable. All that expertise is wasted if you don't know how to apply it.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gregorio* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_. You want to hear a distorted frequency response, OK._

 

Again, speaking in absolutes and generalities. No I don't want to hear a distored frequency response, but thanks to some deliberate work and effort, I was able to set up a rig that sounds good and is NOT distorted significantly in FR, and I *am* using studio monitors. It sounds great, and I dare anybody to come listen to it and say it's not an accurate sounding system. So please get off your high horse and stop assuming that we are morons.

 If you were a consultant for hire, I'd fire you right away because you have never demonstrated that you would ever take into the account the needs of the client. You speak in absolutes and you obviously don't have the knowledge to deal with the grey areas such as budget requirements, space requirements, how experienced the user is at setting up a system, etc. Being on a high horse separates one from reality. Maybe you need to step down for a while and actually interact with real people and their needs.


----------



## Lock

I think we should give up warpdriver. This guy is not going to concede there are home applications where studio montors can perform as well, or in my opinion better than consumer speakers. He is trapped in his premise that monitors are inherently incapable of reproducing the sound the producer intended for the end listener.......

 On a seperate note, you mentioned you have some kit to measure the Frequency response for you home set up. Is this software? or a piece of harware? I'd be interested in doing exactly this. My monitors do go pretty low frequency wise but I'm debating getting a sub so I'd like to get some data on what flexibility I will need with regards to an active crossover.

 cheers


----------



## warpdriver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Lock* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think we should give up warpdriver. This guy is not going to concede there are home applications where studio montors can perform as well, or in my opinion better than consumer speakers. He is trapped in his premise that monitors are inherently incapable of reproducing the sound the producer intended for the end listener.......

 On a seperate note, you mentioned you have some kit to measure the Frequency response for you home set up. Is this software? or a piece of harware? I'd be interested in doing exactly this. My monitors do go pretty low frequency wise but I'm debating getting a sub so I'd like to get some data on what flexibility I will need with regards to an active crossover.

 cheers_

 

I think I'm done here replying to that guy.

 There are lots of solutions to do your own analysis. You'll need hardware (a mic, or a calibrated sound meter), a proper soundcard (might need a external preamp/audio interface box to power the mic if you are using a balanced mic), and software. I use TrueRTA and/or REW
 Go over to the home theater forums such as the "Subwoofer Equalization | Calibration" area in hometheatershack.com and look at the forums for REW (and its FAQ), and recommended mics/meters. I also use a Velodyne SMS-1 for active parametric equalization of my sub in my main system


----------



## Lock

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *warpdriver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think I'm done here replying to that guy.

 There are lots of solutions to do your own analysis. You'll need hardware (a mic, or a calibrated sound meter), a proper soundcard (might need a external preamp/audio interface box to power the mic if you are using a balanced mic), and software. I use TrueRTA and/or REW
 Go over to the home theater forums such as the "Subwoofer Equalization | Calibration" area in hometheatershack.com and look at the forums for REW (and its FAQ), and recommended mics/meters. I also use a Velodyne SMS-1 for active parametric equalization of my sub in my main system_

 

Cheers for the tip, I will check those out. As an aside, I have Logic Pro 8 on my Mac. Not exactly an advance user, I feel this must have a tool to analyse FR. Are you familiar with this software? Incidently I will need to get an external Mic before I can check this anyway....


----------



## warpdriver

oh, Apple hardware. I don't know anything about what software one would use there.


----------



## Lock

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *warpdriver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_oh, Apple hardware. I don't know anything about what software one would use there._

 


 No worries, I have a PC too so will check out your recommendations.

 cheers


----------



## PITTM

Do the Usher S-520s count as studio monitors? I bought these after 6 months or so of research and they are the best speakers I have heard in the price range. I think I paid $350 or so?

 edit: sorry I didn't buy giant floorstanding kef's for my small bedroom where I listen to all my music.


----------



## mercbuggy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *warpdriver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 Are you that dumb? I question whether you actually know what you are doing then. 

 Please shovel your theories and idealisms somewhere else and learn how to give advice that actually is applicable. All that expertise is wasted if you don't know how to apply it.
_

 

Another recent thread becomes needlessly confrontational
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The original thread was 'anybody else using.....', the perspective of 'no I do not and this is why' is perfectly acceptable. There are/were valid points on both sides of the discussion.


----------



## mercbuggy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think my Harbeth M30 qualifies as studio monitor; I think BBC use those for monitoring their classical music broadcasts._

 

Almost missed this post, very musical speakers
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. Maybe one day if my beloved Epos ES11's give up the ghost.


----------



## kuks

I have just bought Yamaha HS50m and cant wait to hear it (yup could only afford one right now 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ). Ive heard they are great.


----------



## TheAnomaly

heck yes studio monitors! 





 yes that is a logic textbook behind it. always need that one close at hand.


----------



## ninjapixie

My Genelecs are great for music listening. One of the complaints studio folks had on them was their hifi sound, but this makes them great just for listening pleasure. 

 When it comes to detail and stereo image, they outclass my poor HD580s and totally piss on my old Samson Resolv studio monitors.

 Of the monitors I auditioned briefly in the stores:

 JBL (forgot the model)- Great sound, slightly warm. Unfortunately out of my budget.
 Tannoy 5A- Nice detail but very bright. Thin sounding and lacked bass.
 Samson Rubicon 5a- Surprisingly very good. Very tempted by the low price. My experience with their Resolv series kinda swayed me off.
 M-Audio BX8- Poor compared to the Samson and Tannoy in the same price range. Compared to the Genelecs they were a joke. Boomy bass and blurry midrange.
 Edirol MA15d- Slightly better then the Logitech speakers I used to have.
 AudioEngine A5 (at a hifi store through an ipod)- Unfair comparison, but they were the worst of all the monitors/speakers I auditioned before settling with the Genelecs.


----------



## Michael415

Late to the party but I also am using a pair of monitors. I settled on the Monitor audio PL-100's. Tried the Dali Helicon 300 mk2's and the ProAc Response D's and found the MA to be much more suited to my taste. Powered with a simaudio amp its audio heaven. So good in fact I sold off my main headphone rig and now just have my simple setups.


----------



## Vilicus

I'm getting a pair of M-Audio BX5a's tomorrow for my computer set-up, but I have a question and figured I could ask it here:

 How would I be able to hook them up to my computer? I have to run an 1/8" out, but how would I be able to get that to go to separate TRS cables?


----------



## Michael415

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vilicus* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm getting a pair of M-Audio BX5a's tomorrow for my computer set-up, but I have a question and figured I could ask it here:

 How would I be able to hook them up to my computer? I have to run an 1/8" out, but how would I be able to get that to go to separate TRS cables?_

 

w/o doing research is sounds like these speakers each have a trs plug? if so you will need to probably get a mini to rca then a pair of rca to 1/4. Unless u can stumble on a mini to dual 1/4 plugs. Radioshack should have these cables.


----------



## infinitesymphony

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vilicus* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm getting a pair of M-Audio BX5a's tomorrow for my computer set-up, but I have a question and figured I could ask it here:

 How would I be able to hook them up to my computer? I have to run an 1/8" out, but how would I be able to get that to go to separate TRS cables?_

 

1/8" is unbalanced, so it will be to TS cables. Here's a link to the sort of Y-cable you'll need.


----------



## Vilicus

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *infinitesymphony* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_1/8" is unbalanced, so it will be to TS cables. Here's a link to the sort of Y-cable you'll need._

 

That's what I got, thanks.


----------



## monolith

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *TheAnomaly* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_yes that is a logic textbook behind it. always need that one close at hand._

 

Philosophical or mathematical logic?


----------



## TheAnomaly

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *monolith* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Philosophical or mathematical logic?_

 

philosophical


----------

