R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8]   Go Down

Author Topic: Genelecs 8050A vs Mackies HR824 vs Adams S2.5A  (Read 49917 times)

JDSStudios

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 103
Re: Genelecs 8050A vs Mackies HR824 vs Adams S2.5A
« Reply #105 on: April 29, 2005, 11:13:05 pm »

Yes, I read a post somewhere, about some people saying they like the S3A s better, but they miss the mids of the S2.5A.

It has been a while since I read that, so I don't remember any comments about the Highs; as for low frequency, the S3A s are supposed to be louder, logically, but I am using a sub, RTA balanced, so I don't lack any bottom end here.
Logged
John Ferreira
The travesty is not that men die, but what dies in men- Albert Einstein.

Dave Bryce

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
Re: Genelecs 8050A vs Mackies HR824 vs Adams S2.5A
« Reply #106 on: April 30, 2005, 06:47:00 pm »

HankBrice wrote on Fri, 29 April 2005 23:31

Does anybody who's worked with both the S3As and the S2.5As have an opinion as to how the two compare?

Descriptive adjectives can be very subjective, especially when it comes to monitors; however, most people to whom I have spoken who have heard both seem to feel that the S2.5As have a bit more air in the midrange and a rounder bass, where the S3As have a more forward midrange and a tighter (but deeper) bass.

dB
ADAM Audio USA
Logged

greely

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
Re: Genelecs 8050A vs Mackies HR824 vs Adams S2.5A
« Reply #107 on: May 02, 2005, 12:51:35 am »

Has anyone had a listen to the passive version of the ADAM 2.5's ?
Are they still available ?
If so, what amp combinations have worked out well & how do they compare to the active version ?

Thanks
Greg
Logged

JDSStudios

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 103
Re: Genelecs 8050A vs Mackies HR824 vs Adams S2.5A
« Reply #108 on: May 05, 2005, 02:46:13 am »

greely wrote on Mon, 02 May 2005 05:51

Has anyone had a listen to the passive version of the ADAM 2.5's ?
Are they still available ?
If so, what amp combinations have worked out well & how do they compare to the active version ?

Thanks
Greg


I remember vaguely reading about someone comparing passive Adams 2.0 powered with a Bryston 4B, with Adams 2.5 [active], and the later were much better, even though 4Bs are one of the better power amps in the market, with a frequency response of 1Hz to 100 KHz [no typo here,I have one, and this info is in the manual], and excellent slew rate, and dumping factor.


The keyword is active, because:

1. There is no impedance between the built in amp audio output, of the 2.5, and the speakers [they are directly coupled]

2. "Active" is different from "powered", in that the active power amp input receives feedback info from the output across the speaker; for example, if the speaker begins to distort, the input signal of the active pre-amp is reduced.

This and other type of info [phase, time alignment, etc] are not present if you use a passive speaker box with a passive crossover, and power it with an amp [plus, you loose power across the speaker wires, and crossover network].


Logged
John Ferreira
The travesty is not that men die, but what dies in men- Albert Einstein.

jpm3

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
Re: Genelecs 8050A vs Mackies HR824 vs Adams S2.5A
« Reply #109 on: May 05, 2005, 06:35:19 am »

The powered vs. passive is interesting because I've recently read where Mr. Lipinski (Bob Katz has these) whose monitors are passive believes that powered monitors create to much second order harmonic distortion.

I don't know much about it but I would be interested in hearing the pros and cons from Mr. Bryce, Mr. Katz or others who have insight into this.
Logged

bobkatz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2926
Re: Genelecs 8050A vs Mackies HR824 vs Adams S2.5A
« Reply #110 on: May 07, 2005, 09:54:18 am »

jpm3 wrote on Thu, 05 May 2005 06:35

The powered vs. passive is interesting because I've recently read where Mr. Lipinski (Bob Katz has these) whose monitors are passive believes that powered monitors create to much second order harmonic distortion.

I don't know much about it but I would be interested in hearing the pros and cons from Mr. Bryce, Mr. Katz or others who have insight into this.



I've never done the experiment. There may be some truth in this. Mr. Lipinski's claim is an argument about microphonics, that the vibrations from the loudspeaker portion influence distortion in the amplifier components. But if so, then what about the passive crossover components in a standard passive loudspeaker? Are they not subject to microphonic distortion?

Nevertheless, Lipinski claims to have made the comparisons and thus rigidly sticks to his assertion that a physically integrated amplifier/loudspeaker sounds worse than if the power amplifier is separated from the box. Makes you worry, doesn't it?  Smile

BK
Logged
There are two kinds of fools,
One says-this is old and therefore good.
The other says-this is new and therefore better."

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However a large number of
electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

JDSStudios

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 103
Re: Genelecs 8050A vs Mackies HR824 vs Adams S2.5A
« Reply #111 on: May 08, 2005, 04:39:34 am »

bobkatz wrote on Sat, 07 May 2005 14:54

jpm3 wrote on Thu, 05 May 2005 06:35

The powered vs. passive is interesting because I've recently read where Mr. Lipinski (Bob Katz has these) whose monitors are passive believes that powered monitors create to much second order harmonic distortion.

I don't know much about it but I would be interested in hearing the pros and cons from Mr. Bryce, Mr. Katz or others who have insight into this.



I've never done the experiment. There may be some truth in this. Mr. Lipinski's claim is an argument about microphonics, that the vibrations from the loudspeaker portion influence distortion in the amplifier components. But if so, then what about the passive crossover components in a standard passive loudspeaker? Are they not subject to microphonic distortion?

Nevertheless, Lipinski claims to have made the comparisons and thus rigidly sticks to his assertion that a physically integrated amplifier/loudspeaker sounds worse than if the power amplifier is separated from the box. Makes you worry, doesn't it?  Smile

BK



Hi Bob K.

Interesting indeed.

But I would not worry that much about a passive component like a crossover, where the signal going through is on the Volts RMS up to 50 VRMS or more, in the case of live applications with 800 watts or so.

I would however be concerned with the preamps inside the powered
speakers, because they would be amplifying signals in the 300 or so mV range for line level, or even less, and therefore sensitive enough to sound waves inside the speaker chamber, and these would then become a factor.

I never measured it either, but I'd surely love to see some data.

I am assuming [I know, I know, take the first 3 letters, etc..] though, that you would a need very loud signal, before we could actually hear it.


Logged
John Ferreira
The travesty is not that men die, but what dies in men- Albert Einstein.

ammitsboel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1300
Re: Genelecs 8050A vs Mackies HR824 vs Adams S2.5A
« Reply #112 on: May 08, 2005, 10:05:57 am »

bobkatz wrote on Sat, 07 May 2005 14:54


I've never done the experiment. There may be some truth in this. Mr. Lipinski's claim is an argument about microphonics, that the vibrations from the loudspeaker portion influence distortion in the amplifier components. But if so, then what about the passive crossover components in a standard passive loudspeaker? Are they not subject to microphonic distortion?

Sure they are, but i wonder how much?
Logged
"The male brain is designed for ecstasy" -Dr. Harvey "Gizmo" Rosenberg

z99

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
sweet paranoia
« Reply #113 on: April 30, 2006, 04:53:35 am »

Embarassed my first post here and already paranoid.. Laughing

// was considering buying S1A or S2A but after reading whole six pages here, i must admit that Mr. Ferreira's passionate enthusiasm made me suspicious  Shocked  

// too bad there's no place to audition those babies here in Latvia
Logged

compasspnt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16266
Re: Genelecs 8050A vs Mackies HR824 vs Adams S2.5A
« Reply #114 on: April 30, 2006, 08:47:37 am »

Welcome Zee.

It is always hard when you can't things hear and decide for yourself.

There are a lot of good opinions here, but everyone must make their own decisions.

For instance, I tried the Genelec 8050's, and absolutely could not stand them.  A friend of mine who works at a very high industry level loves them.

Logged

JDSStudios

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 103
Re: sweet paranoia
« Reply #115 on: June 27, 2006, 05:19:06 am »

z99 wrote on Sun, 30 April 2006 09:53

Embarassed my first post here and already paranoid.. Laughing

// was considering buying S1A or S2A but after reading whole six pages here, i must admit that Mr. Ferreira's passionate enthusiasm made me suspicious  Shocked  

// too bad there's no place to audition those babies here in Latvia




1. I do not have any connection or work for ADAM Professional Audio.

2. My "enthusiasm" is anybody 's enthusiasm when they come across a good tool.

3. Not that it matters much, but you can hear 10 audio clips of some of my mixes here   www.ryandan.com

(For fun, click on the record-player's buttons * smiles * )

Ryan and Dan are twins, and they were nominated "most promising band in Canada" at the Canadian Juno Awards. They used to be called B4 Four, and their last album went double Platinum in Canada.

4. Not that it matters much, but another client of mine just got a gold CD last month (May 2006) - all arranged, recorded, mixed and mastered at my studio. His name is Marcelo Neves (Brazilian), and you can see it and hear a clip here    www.marceloneves.ca

Now, don't be so paranoid about my enthusiasm.

John


Logged
John Ferreira
The travesty is not that men die, but what dies in men- Albert Einstein.

edhamilton

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
Re: Genelecs 8050A vs Mackies HR824 vs Adams S2.5A
« Reply #116 on: December 09, 2006, 01:14:47 am »

HankBrice wrote on Fri, 29 April 2005 17:31

Does anybody who's worked with both the S3As and the S2.5As have an opinion as to how the two compare?


I'll take a crack at this one.

The 3's are unconventional sounding. They are unlike anything I had ever heard. Definately took some getting used to but was really worth it. I did not have to "learn" them. Just had to get used to a very different sound. It's not just that they are 3 ways. I had Gen S30's before them. You'd figure that S30's being 3 ways with a ribbon tweeter would be similair. The S3A's are more detailed and complete.
With S3A's, 1 db cut/boost is a very audible difference. That same cut/boost is barely noticable on most other monitors I have compared them to. I never pull up a track on the S3's and think "man that sounds beautiful". They are not pretty. But a great mix comes across as "balanced". A bad mix comes across as a "horrible mix".

The 2.5's offer much of what is great about the 3's but in a more conventional sounding monitor. If your used to 2 way monitors you'll feel right at home. They will still do a great job on mix translation but they do sound "prettier" than the 3's.

Now to define convention vs. unconventional.

If you are used to 2 way monitors the S3A's could come as a shock to the system. The mids are more forward. It's like High Def TV compared to a normal TV. It's not unbalanced at all. Just very different.
The 2.5's have balanced mids but not as forward as the 3's.

I have had a bunch of friends/clients move to Adams after hearing my work on them. Specifically hearing how my mixes improved after moving to Adams. I mostly steer them to the 2.5's but for people like me that want the extra clarity in the mids the S3's are worth every penny.


A quick hello to all in this forum. I haven't been here in years (had to start a new id). And before a detractor tries to tie me to ADAM - I have no affiliation and as to web forums lets just say my DUC member number is 4 digits (means I payed digi alot of money a LONG time ago) and I was active on musicplayer back in the 96k thread days. I'm not plugging adams at all. Just a happy user trying to answer a question.  

Logged

atkatana

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
Re: Genelecs 8050A vs Mackies HR824 vs Adams S2.5A
« Reply #117 on: December 31, 2007, 06:52:23 am »

I first wanted to say thanks to all the posters this has been a thread has been a massive help to me in terms of next steps.  I have been looking at the Mackies, Genelec, and Adam monitors for a couple months now, and while I think each has its own flavor, strong points etc, each seems to have its own list of problems or issues to boot.  
There are a couple points in this thread that caught my attention that I did want to respond to.  As a long time drummer (some 30 years now) I can say the ringing is both real and intentional.  (and you are quite correct not easy to do on a regular basis without work).  First you must play open handed and with a good bit of flex in the wrist to pull it off, and second you have to have a consistent and powerful strike to the same basic spot repeatedly if you don't want a complete mess on your hands. You also need to be prepared for more then a couple broken sticks at the end of the day.  
It can be clearly heard if its intended, and is in the mix.  What you get if its not making the mix is a tighter top end with some bottom end fundamentals.  A bit more snap up front with a lower end (read almost 12 inch tom like sound underneath)  Back in the day I used to loosen the snare head just a bit to get a more stable bottom end ( a bit of sloppiness if you will counting on the rim to give the strike a bit more ring).  So I yes, I have played it heard it, and listen to it all but lost in the mix on recordings.  If you can hear it, I would say that it matters and the Adams get a big thumbs up on that account.

As for the rest I could not agree more that its your work and your ears that matter the most.  I spend a great deal more time decomposing and listening these days then playing, mixing or working with music.  (just the realities of family, work and life in general).  My interest here is more so on the side of being able to hear what is on the recording, what is in the mix, what the musician, engineer, and production folks wanted to put out.  It seems that most if not everyone is leaning towards the Genelec on that account, but I wanted to post the question.  Post production, for the final readout, or playback for your client which monitor would you choose?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8]   Go Up