R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8   Go Down

Author Topic: Genelecs 8050A vs Mackies HR824 vs Adams S2.5A  (Read 49921 times)

skiboy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19
Re: Genelecs 8050A vs Mackies HR824 vs Adams S2.5A
« Reply #15 on: January 10, 2005, 12:22:34 pm »

neither he nor i are adam haters but we both feel that adam speakers are misleading alot of people into beliving they have an accurate or neutral monitor. of course it's a matter of taste or rather color..... the problem is that one may be choosing color but none of the speakers of the kind tested here are uncolored!


Zigackly, you're ferpectly right....(quote from where ? .1000000$ reward for right answer....never mind)

Adams ? Addams family more likely....neither I nor my staff can handle Adams hi-freq response, although we "learned" mackies and gennies we're on the lookout for something more revealing, unbiased, .....a quest for the Holy Grail (hey...it's underneath the Louvre...)

Currently, we are evaluating the Dynaudio "Air" speakers - despite the hype there maybe something to it - or not.
I've grown wary of my mixes sounding good on gennies and mackies - even ns10's

I'm looking for something that will really be harsh and unforgiving Very Happy  Very Happy


Adams.....now there's a thought.....might fit the bill for "harsh and unforgiving" ....................I..dunno..................ugh........... head hurts........


Peeohtr Cockoshinski - transcribed phonetically from Piotr Kokosinski

Logged

Tim Gilles

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 189
Re: Genelecs 8050A vs Mackies HR824 vs Adams S2.5A
« Reply #16 on: January 10, 2005, 12:24:22 pm »

ZETTERSTROEM wrote on Mon, 10 January 2005 11:49

neither he nor i are adam haters but we both feel that adam speakers are misleading alot of people into beliving they have an accurate or neutral monitor.



The ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS concept that little wooden boxes with cardboard cones in them are somehow going to be able to bring you REALITY.... and the equally hilarious contention that a COMMON or DE FACTO 'Standard' of "REAL WORLD REFERENCE" acually exists among the millions of little boxes/cones out there is a 'fear exploitation based' marketing whammy that is beyond dreadfullly tired at this point.

Is this the only way designers can get folks to buy their speakers....?

Personally, I find it sad and humiliating that so many of us apperantly embrace this utter nonsence.

Get real.

We are in the Stone Age of Sound Transduction.

We're a century or so in....

This is all a bunch of profoundly ugly and bitterly low yield spear sharpening.

Let's make some joyous noise, capture it and fool around with it.... and make it come out of our pitifully rudimentary BOXES.

BOXES.

LOL.

We make our sound come out of BOXES.

Find a BOX ya like.

Use that one.

Tim "Rumblefish" Gilles

ammitsboel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1300
Re: Genelecs 8050A vs Mackies HR824 vs Adams S2.5A
« Reply #17 on: January 10, 2005, 01:37:43 pm »

Tim Gilles wrote on Mon, 10 January 2005 17:24


The ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS concept that little wooden boxes with cardboard cones in them are somehow going to be able to bring you REALITY.... and the equally hilarious contention that a COMMON or DE FACTO 'Standard' of "REAL WORLD REFERENCE" acually exists among the millions of little boxes/cones out there is a 'fear exploitation based' marketing whammy that is beyond dreadfullly tired at this point.

Is this the only way designers can get folks to buy their speakers....?


I think that it's for the best for me to stay out of this discussion.
But a small note to you would be, please don't comment on references that you simply have never heard.
Your statements speaks clearly to me... I've been there too.

Best Regards
Logged
"The male brain is designed for ecstasy" -Dr. Harvey "Gizmo" Rosenberg

Tim Gilles

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 189
Re: Genelecs 8050A vs Mackies HR824 vs Adams S2.5A
« Reply #18 on: January 10, 2005, 07:08:02 pm »

ammitsboel wrote on Mon, 10 January 2005 13:37

But a small note to you would be, please don't comment on references that you simply have never heard.



Spoken like a true "speaker guy".

Which is great.

Find joy in audio where and when ya can.

Best regards and wishes.


Tim "Rumblefish" Gilles

bobkatz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2926
Re: Genelecs 8050A vs Mackies HR824 vs Adams S2.5A
« Reply #19 on: January 10, 2005, 07:45:11 pm »

djui5 wrote on Mon, 10 January 2005 04:32

JDSStudios wrote on Sun, 09 January 2005 14:48

For now, let me just mention Adams won by a  big  a huge margin. I am very very upset. Beste regards
John Ferreira



Having used all three brands...but Gene 1031's, I have to say the S2.5A's are in a league of their own. Well worth the money. Can't wait to get a pair.


Well, I certainly want to hear as many details about the shootout as possible. Regardless, let's remember that the 1031's and the 8050/8040 are COMPLETELY different animals. It's as if they weren't even made by the same company. Genelec has completely changed their line, and their sound (for the better, I feel).

I've heard the Adams and have heard their weaknesses on material I know extremely well. However, I have NOT had them side by side with the Genelecs so you can compare "lesser of two evils". The Genelec 8050s are certainly NOT the world's greatest speaker, and all I can think of is "for a good mix speaker", that is the key. I wouldn't use them for mastering, for example, though I could conceive of a mid-level mastering studio using them. (I'm not trying to be egotistical here; the costs of my Lipinski/Genesis subs are really not that high! I think that what I have done with the Lipinski/Pass/Genesis/room/stand/ancillary equipment combination is maximize the performance to far more than the apparent retail price.)

Anyway, back to the 8050 versus Adam comparison. I'd like to hear about your onsite comparison, speaker versus speaker. Also, was the comparison nearfield? And how far from the back wall and any interfering objects were the loudspeakers placed? And how optimum was the supports/stands?

All of this weighs in, as in my experience, a fair-quality speaker can be made to sound like shit in the wrong environment if it has been designed to work in one environnment and placed in another. I'm not trying to make excuses here, just trying to set the stage to look as closely and objectively as possible at your listening test!

Thanks,


BK



So for me the considerations of John's listening test that
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.

zetterstroem

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 765
Re: Genelecs 8050A vs Mackies HR824 vs Adams S2.5A
« Reply #20 on: January 10, 2005, 08:41:45 pm »

bob...

what kind of mids are in the lipinsky's?

i know the tweeters..... they are in my speakers too.... one of the greatest things i ever heard.

but the woofers..... are they danish too.... scan-speak maybe....

respect

Logged
Noting the music industry's complaints that illegal downloading means people are getting their music for free, he said, "Well, why not? It ain't worth nothing anyway." (b.dylan)

bobkatz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2926
Re: Genelecs 8050A vs Mackies HR824 vs Adams S2.5A
« Reply #21 on: January 11, 2005, 01:36:37 pm »

ZETTERSTROEM wrote on Mon, 10 January 2005 20:41

bob...

what kind of mids are in the lipinsky's?

i know the tweeters..... they are in my speakers too.... one of the greatest things i ever heard.

but the woofers..... are they danish too.... scan-speak maybe....

respect




Hi, Zetterstroem. The tweeter is the famous Vifa tweeter. Reportedly it can sound very wrong and/or very bright if you don't cross it over properly. Lipinski's implementation is better than others but the loudspeaker is VERY unforgiving and requires extensive good choice of ancillary equipment. I don't know what brand or model the midrange driver is. Years ago I used to be a "driver geek", but these days I truly believe it is the implementation and the sum of the mechanical and electrical of the speaker system designer that make it sound good. I've heard so many people say, "oh you can't possibly get a good-sounding speaker with that driver" contradicted by the skills of the designer if you know what I mean.
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.

bluespark

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10
Re: Genelecs 8050A vs Mackies HR824 vs Adams S2.5A
« Reply #22 on: January 11, 2005, 01:53:49 pm »

Level wrote on Sun, 09 January 2005 13:34


B. Tendency to "smooth over" powerful transients. Some of the rougher mixes tend to sound "good" on them. This is not a high enough level of accuracy for my usage.

....




Mackie 824's make for a decent "after the fact" fun to listen to tool but during a mix, even for those who have gotten quite used to them, they lack the precision incrementation that is required in the 200 to 3K area. The tweeters tends to have an artificial "shiny" quality about it as well. Cloudy if you will.

Not trying to pick on the 824's. These are simple observances compared to more precision Monitors like ATC, Upper level dynaudio and even the Blue Sky monitor systems. One-ness of a single sound..they lack..





Some thoughts..

The 'smoothing over' you describe is something I hear, too.  I hear it to different degrees in all monitors.  The 1031s inparticular sound much more constrained to me.  You have to really punish transients to get things to punch out of them.  I can't stand working like that.   To me, getting things sounding right on them makes everything a jagged piercing atrocity on 'real world' systems.  I much prefer the transition from 824s and the Event P8s, despite their shortcomings.

I have tested Blue Sky systems and if they have the one-ness of a single sound, it is only because they are absolutely incapable of providing any separation or clarity of elements.  I have never heard a more nebulous and ominous representation of my reference recordings.  In fact, I think I took a shower afterwards.



Logged
Daniel P Gardopée
Blue Spark

bobkatz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2926
Re: Genelecs 8050A vs Mackies HR824 vs Adams S2.5A
« Reply #23 on: January 11, 2005, 02:31:56 pm »

bluespark wrote on Tue, 11 January 2005 13:53



B. Tendency to "smooth over" powerful transients. Some of the rougher mixes tend to sound "good" on them. This is not a high enough level of accuracy for my usage.





Yeah, my friend Gary Baldassari used to say, "Who needs a speaker with a built-in compressor?" about the various Genelecs. The 8050/8040s are much better in that respect, with better headroom for transients and less of that "hands cupped in front of your mouth" sound. But they still have a Genelec family resemblance. Nevertheless, they are so much less colored and have so much less distortion than previous Genelec models that they get a thumbs up from me.

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.

Level

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1811
Re: Genelecs 8050A vs Mackies HR824 vs Adams S2.5A
« Reply #24 on: January 11, 2005, 02:43:08 pm »

Quote:

 have tested Blue Sky systems and if they have the one-ness of a single sound, it is only because they are absolutely incapable of providing any separation or clarity of elements. I have never heard a more nebulous and ominous representation of my reference recordings. In fact, I think I took a shower afterwards.





I tested them with full scale classical peaking at about 90dB with a STSR (signal to signal ratio) of 70dB

Perhaps they get muddy and ugly and dirty on compressed audio dynamically..and if they do, well they should! (because it is)
Logged
http://balancedmastering.com

"Listen and Learn"
---Since 1975---

zetterstroem

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 765
Re: Genelecs 8050A vs Mackies HR824 vs Adams S2.5A
« Reply #25 on: January 11, 2005, 08:15:44 pm »

hi bob

"but these days I truly believe it is the implementation and the sum of the mechanical and electrical of the speaker system designer that make it sound good."

precisely!

that why bluesky's speakers(same tweeters) and yours (and mine) sound very different...

i was just curios about the woofers as i am going though a driver geek phase.

mine use the scan-speak sliced paper cone... the ones that krell uses... although i use the 6"

as soon as i can scrape together some money i'm going to make a d'appolito configuration of them... lipinsky killers! (just kidding)

respect and regards
Logged
Noting the music industry's complaints that illegal downloading means people are getting their music for free, he said, "Well, why not? It ain't worth nothing anyway." (b.dylan)

mike chafee

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 85
Re: Genelecs 8050A vs Mackies HR824 vs Adams S2.5A
« Reply #26 on: January 11, 2005, 10:12:49 pm »

Hi, John,
I am the Genelec rep in Florida who took the 8040's and 8050's to my friend Bob Katz's facility.

Having represented many great speaker lines over the years-Kef, Spendor,Pmc, Quad, And Tannoy etc,I have learned to never leave speakers, and to insist that I participate in the demo.
This is especially true of the Genelecs, given the tremendous power of the on board eq.
The biggest mistake I see even Genelec users make is to ignore this.
Having set up many great systems, I can tell you they seldom end up with the out of the box setting.
I know you did exhaustive tests, and look foreward to your in depth post.
The only thing that counts is the sound.

Mike Chafee
Logged

JDSStudios

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 103
Re: Genelecs 8050A vs Mackies HR824 vs Adams S2.5A
« Reply #27 on: January 12, 2005, 06:48:35 am »

Hi everybody

Only now am I able to post- I have been taking care of my sick 1 year old baby girl, and I have been working long hours in studio projects under dead line pressure.

So here is part 1.

Let me first make 2 points:
1- I am looking for monitors that translate, and NOT speakers that simply sound good. Why? As we all know, if it sounds nice and sweet and forgiving in the studio, and then in the car or MOST people's homes, or even the multi-compressed radio it sounds awful, then we have the same old common  problem. So translation is my first priority.

2- I am looking for monitors that allow me to hear immediately when the mix is off, [snare too loud, vocal too low, hidden violin too recessed, etc.] and NOT a forgiving speaker, that requires too long, and listening to a song [or sound] several times before I notice something wrong, or make a correction.


The test:

1. Adams, Mackies and the Genelecs were connected from Aux outputs 1&2, 3&4 and 5&6 respectively from the Yamaha O2R [I will leave out  YSM1s and the entry level Sonys for now]

2. White noise from the O2R was measured equidistantly for all speakers, at 88 dB SPL, for 3, and 6 feet [those were the main two distances we care for now, even though we came back up to 12 feet because the Genelecs are also considered mid fields]. We used an Ultra Curve Spectrum analyzer and the SPL meter from Radio Shack [gulp excuse me].

3. We rechecked continuously with different musical material for the same SPL, at the same distance, before each comparison.

4. We used the same cuts or boosts in all 3 pairs at the same time. So, if we used a 47 Hz roll off filter, all 3 pairs would undergo through the same or closest adjustment before next round of songs.

5. The songs were everything from Steely Dan, to Santana, Latin, Josh Groban, a lot of 70s oldies like Kool and the Gang ladies night, Gloria Gayner I will survive [go ahead and laugh, but I like that Kik bass mix-combination in some dance ocasions, and some really screwd-up mixes like Whitney, and some Christina Aguillera. We wanted to know what bad sounded like in all 3 pairs, as well as the good well mixed sounds.

I am no stranger to Lab work, after studying electronics for over 4 and a half years, but this was good enough, considering how most of us mix and master. We didn't feel we had to be more scientific than this.

The room:
It is a 17' by 23' by 7.5 and 8' [ceilings are uneven].
there are basically no parallel walls, with Prime Acoustics treatment- 5 bass traps several mid absorbers, carpet and wood.


The procedure and conclusions:

We would measure the SPL for 88 dBs for a steady 10 seconds, and then play several songs listening first on the exact triangle spot, and then several varied distances.

Folks, some conclusions are really not that complicated:
keeping in mind that all filters had the same settings and equal SPL, distance etc, the Genelecs were always the ones lacking in upper mids, always the bassier, and the ones that sounded really nice, with all material we listened to. Vocals always sounded lower, and quite sibilant, snares always softer, and bass and kik louder.

Bill here at the forum had mentioned the term " Hi-Fighish";  we confirm that. They would be excellent to show customers your final masters or mixes, but, no doubt they simply do NOT translate.

This finding got frustrated, because my budget and hope was to get the Genelecs; I even had already worked the price with Long and McQuade in Toronto. So, in essence I was a touch biased to go with the Genelecs, but if you read points 1 and 2 at the beginning of this post, "nice" and "sweet" is not what we need to do our work.

Different filter configurations, would not bring back the upper mids, around 1.0KHz to 4KHz [roughly]  no matter which of the back panel switches we tried.

The Mackies, had louder low mid range [around 200 Hz to 350 Hz]
always causing, what we normally call mud in vocals, snares, and upper bass part of the material.

The highs were not as airy or clear as the Genelecs, [always keeping in mind the switches in the back panel], but the upper mids easier to work in mixing. Slightly less bassier than the Genelecs, and mids were louder, allowing us to know a lot better where to place vocals snares etc.

I know this is all just our opinions, but that is all I have for you, and that is what I need and learned for now.

The Adams:
Last Summer I went to Steve's Music Store in Toronto, and heard the only Adams they had- the P 10. I made a brief 1 hour comparison with Mackies HR824s right in the store, [simply because I own a pair, and know them better] and the first impression was that they made all vocals sound like 4 feet behind the monitors, and everything else brighter. So from then on, I kind of did not take most opinions about the Adams too seriously.

Well the Adams S2.5A were a completely different set of monitors.
They definitely sound brighter from all 3 pairs [again, filter configurations as close as allowed in the speaker panels].

At first, I did not like the mids, High mids, and highs all "in your face". So I commented,"I like the sound of the Genelecs way better".

Then the first little surprise:
Several hours into listening, comparing, measuring, spectrum analyzing and switching between Aux 1, 3 and 5, we came across a particular song, that had a snare with a wood "ring" type of sound, for lack of a better word. Well, for the life me and the other audio pros present, we could not hear that same ring in the Genelecs, or the Mackies, mo matter how long or hard we tried.

This was my turning point.
a- How can we possible adjust or EQ a sound we cannot possibly hear?
b- Is it worth the price of having to get used to hearing music a little more on the bright side?
Absolutely yes.

Adams did not have near as much bass as the Mackies or Genelecs.
But bassier tracks, would be perceived as such. Bass mud would come trough exactly as mud.

And the vocals, or just about any instrument for that mater,  could be heard and analyzed at a microscopic level, for lack of better words.


So one huge big point for Adams.
But there is more.

2nd surprise:
[To be continued...]
Logged
John Ferreira
The travesty is not that men die, but what dies in men- Albert Einstein.

George Massenburg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 349
Re: Genelecs 8050A vs Mackies HR824 vs Adams S2.5A
« Reply #28 on: January 12, 2005, 06:54:52 am »

Tim Gilles wrote on Mon, 10 January 2005 11:24

[...]
BOXES.

LOL.

We make our sound come out of BOXES.

Find a BOX ya like.

Use that one.

Tim "Rumblefish" Gilles


Well said.

George
Logged

JDSStudios

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 103
Re: Genelecs 8050A vs Mackies HR824 vs Adams S2.5A
« Reply #29 on: January 12, 2005, 07:37:45 am »

Part 2.

2nd surprise from the Adams:

A while back I read some posts on Adams bass response,, and one by Lee Flyer comes to mind, in which she mentions the lack of, or quite forgiving [using my own words]  bass pockets in her room, when she was using Adams; at the time I thought, "it does not make much sense, a bass pocket is always a bass pocket".
Well, sorry Lee, you were absolutely right.

There is a spot at one corner of my control room where I often check for bassy frequencies; that spot was barely active with the Adams, keeping in mind Adams were generally less bassy. Still, what happened to my bass pocket? Gonne!
Switch back to the Mackies or the Genelecs- BOOOM there it is!
Bass pocket would be back and active. More active with the Genelecs than Mackies.

3rd surprise:
Those bright very very fast, high velocity ribbon tweeters.
I knew from before, that if you flattened one of those ribbon tweeters, that the surface would be several times larger than the regular diaphragm HF driver.

The owner of the Adams asked me to observe and compare the sound of all 3 pairs, right at 180 degrees.
So we went right to one side, hears facing the side of the speaker and with the Adams the high frequency remained.  
I am not an acoustician, only an Electronics Engineer, specialized in audio, but this surprised me!

So, no worries about sweet spot, since my head is turned to the side [DAW computer] quite often, and I do not always sit right at the center triangle position.

Well now I began asking again for the price of the Adams.

The contest is for now over.

Comb filtering from wall distance, and other artifacts, were not really a factor here, since all was the same for all speakers.
My ears were tested at the Hospital in the Audiology department last Summer, and all was well, specially high end frequencies [actually I was expecting some damage, from a 44 year old with 32 years of professional loud playing and going to many live concerts in the 70s, 80s and 90s]. But looking back, I avoided sitting right in front of speakers many times.


Adams S2.5A will be on order shortly.
The price... well let's just say I now fully understand the few that mentioned "mixing faster". Of course you can mix faster, because it is like being able to see with magnifying glasses.
Even though this "view" is not ultimate to just enjoy sweet music, it is the best [for me] to work on.

And as you know, in this business, time is money.

Best regards
John Ferreira
Logged
John Ferreira
The travesty is not that men die, but what dies in men- Albert Einstein.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8   Go Up