Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[zetterstroem]

i've removed my post...

this is so far off we''ll get into an argument... and i don't want that

respect

[jgreenlee]

I'm curious about monitors as well.  I'm not really in the market for a new pair but having used the 824's for a couple of years I'm starting to find things I don't like about them.  For one I tend to mix things kinda dull as the Mackies seem bright to me (even with the -2db HF switch engaged).  They also tend to smooth out transients and sound generally "spongy."  I've gotten much better at making things sound "tighter" though.

So in the less than $4k a pair speaker (and amp if needed) range what is out there that I should look at.  I don't really mind buying used gear as long as I know it's good stuff and can get support if needed.

Thanks,

James

[jwhynot]

James -

In my experience the best option one has in deciding on monitors is an extended demo.

I took 3+ months to decide on my most recent monitor purchase, and the last month of that was with the system I ended up with.  I tried hard to satisfy my personal requirements one by one - firstly, to have an enjoyable experience working.  First-and-a-halfly, to have predictable results when the work was taken elsewhere, either to mastering or to a client's iPod.  After that came significant but negotiable other factors, such as customer service, availablility of replacement parts, cost, and of course whether my clients were enjoying them as well.

I can PM you if you like and tell you my choice - I prefer not to post it on this thread because there are some here who think that harshly criticizing another person's considered choices is somehow enlightening.

I happen to think that choosing monitors is a very personal thing - there is plenty of hype and bullshit coming from every angle, but the bottom line is to understand what your personal criteria are and stick to them on your own terms.

Those forum posters who are generally in touch with me will eventually find out what I'm using!

JW

[jgreenlee]

JW,

I agree with the whole personal choice thing.  I still find it interesting to know what others are using and why they like them.  There's alot of stuff out there that I've never heard of and this is how I find out about it.

Peace,

James

[JDSStudios]

Thanks to all for your comments and info.

I still have the 8050As, because the Genelec rep [Chris Brooks] could not come by Monday, and will be picking them up today [Thursday].

I must point out that Chris Brooks was extremely helpful and very informative about the Genelecs, their construction, panel switches, etc.. I ended up apologizing because after all his work, I ended up choosing the Adams.

So, since Chris has not been able to pick up the 8050A, I had a few more days to listen and compare some more.

The opinion is still exactly the same.

I understand how some talk about the "color" of most monitors, but I don't believe it will be an issue; the issue is, translation, and, as I already mentioned in my previous post, the only pair of monitors in this test that allowed us to hear certain sounds [like that snare with a wood tone] that we could not discern with the other monitors.

This single reason is enough for me to chose the S2.5A, even though there were a few other reasons, already mentioned in my previous posts.

To make a longer story shorter, with the Adams, I would be able to, for example, EQ [or any other process] that particular wood tone on that snare I just mentioned. But with the Mackies or Genelecs, it was just a snare  buried somewhere in the mix.

I found this particular experience [and the whole test] exciting, because I came across a tool that let's me hear clearer into a mix.

I am not saying that there aren't any other monitors that can reveal and translate as well or better; I am no stranger to expensive monitors and mastering rooms, one of which George M. was in recently [Metal Works, Mississauga].
[George I hope you got the Sync problem fixed :} ]

Sometimes I end up in the mastering room with a client, and very little is adjusted. Other times [but not lately]  I can be a bit bass heavy :}.

I am just pointing out my preference, knowing what I know up to now [which is never enough :}  ]

Best regards
John F.

[Ivo]

Dave @ D&D wrote on Mon, 10 January 2005 02:39

I just purchased a pair of B&W Matrix 802's Series 3 and have been mixing and listening for about a week. This, after years on the HR824's BTW, the B&W's are pretty dawg gone awsome.

I too purchased B&W but 801 Matrix S3  some time ago (before I had Genelecs and also had an opportunity to hear Adams S3 and P11).
Comparing all those to Matrix is kind of night and day ... Matrix is simply a huge clean transparent mirror - like if musicians are sitting just inside ...
Now I understand what Rich Mays wrote to me before: "these may be the last speakers you will ever need". He was probably right. I have absolutely no desire for any other speakers any more. And those small Genelecs (still have them) / Adams sound almost like a (nice) children toy comparing to Matrix (which BTW I got for 1800 EUR a pair)

[eightyeightkeys]

Ivo :

Jak se mas ?

I calibrated the level to make sure the two monitors were the same level. A/B'ing between the two was quite interesting :

The B&W's are extremely open with a huge sound stage. It's like someone pulled the cotton out of your ears. The Mackies were muffled and positively small sounding in comparison.

However, the Mackies did have more bottom, but, not necessarily the kind you "need". More like a big, boomy, good time, fun bottom IMO. (Insert smiley face) Seductive, but, I found it extremely challenging getting the bottom end right on the Mackies.(I think it had something to do with the passive radiator.)

Anyway, not to go overboard here but these are my observations FWIW.

[recordista]

bobkatz wrote on Sun, 09 January 2005 18:12

I would suggest comparing to the Genelec 8040s, which have a smoother response, but less headroom than the 8050's. BK

Agreed.  I've had a pair of 8040A's here for a couple of weeks and I think I'm going to keep them for location work.  I need something I can carry without a hand truck and setup in less time than my current rig.

[recordista]

jgreenlee wrote on Wed, 12 January 2005 21:20

So in the less than $4k a pair speaker (and amp if needed) range what is out there that I should look at.

Here in the US, MAP for the Genelec 8040A's are under $2k per pair and I consider them quite a good value.

I have some opinions in the $6k+ per pair range but have not spent a lot of time auditioning products inbetween these prices.

[bobkatz]

It sounds like you have a very good room from the dimensions. As for the Genelecs sounding "bassier" than the rest, I don't know how to relate. Once we positioned the 8050's here at the right distance from the walls, around here the bottom end was accurate down to the rolloff of the 8050 and not exagerrated. Is it possible that the Adams are lacking in bottom end and that was the perfect match for a resonance in your room?

As for the "making everything sound beautiful" but not accurate argument. I must admit it was Genelecs I was referring to when I discussed loudspeakers of that "ilk" in my book. But I found the 8050's to be FAR LESS in that vein than any previous Genelecs that I have heard.

I'd like to do a similar shootout Adams versus Genelecs here, however, in the end, this is a mastering room, not a mixing room. My goals as a mixing engineer are well known, to have the most accurate, uncolored loudspeaker possible, yes, one which has some of the attributes you are describing, which reveals what is there. And it seems that are some of the goals you are using as well in your criteria for a mixing speaker.

However, my devil's advocate response about your comment that the Adams revealed a particular character of a snare drum that none of the other monitors did is this: What if the Adams are adding a coloration of their own that is making the speaker produce (or exagerrate) something that is really not on the recording? To help settle that I would suggest you listen to the most natural classical and jazz recordings around and see which of the loudspeakers you are comparing sounds most natural. When you listen to pop recordings, they themselves often have been hyped in one frequency range or another and you can get off-base.

All these are possbilities I bring up. I certainly agree that the 8050's are not the world's most "natural" speakers. But is the (possibly exagerrated?) high end of the Adams the right response to that? And then there is the question of which speaker is most suitable for mixing, and since I'm not working in the trenches, only time will tell. I would like to have been a fly on the wall in your room, as I am also a very experienced listener and know a few tricks about placement and associated electronics that help to get the most balanced sound from a loudspeaker.

Like Mike Chaffee who just reported here, I like to be at a session to make sure that the speaker that I know, in the testing, is placed as optimally as possible to expose its attributes and not bring out its weaknesses. That should be true for the Adams and Mackies as well. The more you know a speaker....  

Regardless, it sounds like you've done a very fine job and I would welcome hearing about more tests done to the rigorous degree that you have done. It will also be interesting to hear the concensus from the marketplace as the months and years go on and more people get to try and use the various new competitors for "best mixing speaker."

BK

[JDSStudios]

bobkatz wrote on Fri, 14 January 2005 18:15

It sounds like you have a very good room from the dimensions. As for the Genelecs sounding "bassier" than the rest, I don't know how to relate. Once we positioned the 8050's here at the right distance from the walls, around here the bottom end was accurate down to the rolloff of the 8050 and not exagerrated. Is it possible that the Adams are lacking in bottom end and that was the perfect match for a resonance in your room? As for the "making everything sound beautiful" but not accurate argument. I must admit it was Genelecs I was referring to when I discussed loudspeakers of that "ilk" in my book. But I found the 8050's to be FAR LESS in that vein than any previous Genelecs that I have heard. I'd like to do a similar shootout Adams versus Genelecs here, however, in the end, this is a mastering room, not a mixing room. My goals as a mixing engineer are well known, to have the most accurate, uncolored loudspeaker possible, yes, one which has some of the attributes you are describing, which reveals what is there. And it seems that are some of the goals you are using as well in your criteria for a mixing speaker. However, my devil's advocate response about your comment that the Adams revealed a particular character of a snare drum that none of the other monitors did is this: What if the Adams are adding a coloration of their own that is making the speaker produce (or exagerrate) something that is really not on the recording? To help settle that I would suggest you listen to the most natural classical and jazz recordings around and see which of the loudspeakers you are comparing sounds most natural. When you listen to pop recordings, they themselves often have been hyped in one frequency range or another and you can get off-base. All these are possbilities I bring up. I certainly agree that the 8050's are not the world's most "natural" speakers. But is the (possibly exagerrated?) high end of the Adams the right response to that? And then there is the question of which speaker is most suitable for mixing, and since I'm not working in the trenches, only time will tell. I would like to have been a fly on the wall in your room, as I am also a very experienced listener and know a few tricks about placement and associated electronics that help to get the most balanced sound from a loudspeaker. Like Mike Chaffee who just reported here, I like to be at a session to make sure that the speaker that I know, in the testing, is placed as optimally as possible to expose its attributes and not bring out its weaknesses. That should be true for the Adams and Mackies as well. The more you know a speaker....   Regardless, it sounds like you've done a very fine job and I would welcome hearing about more tests done to the rigorous degree that you have done. It will also be interesting to hear the concensus from the marketplace as the months and years go on and more people get to try and use the various new competitors for "best mixing speaker." BK

Hi Bob

Thank you for taking the time to type such valuable and informative points.

I absolutely agree with almost all points, except about the snare ring being a possible resonance from the Adams.

Being an active musician every single week [also, I am multi-instrumentalist], I am very familiar with the snare sound I mentioned.
Let me try to describe that snare sound a little more in detail.

About 30 years ago when I was jamming and learning and developing musically along with other musicians, this particular drummer, which was one of my better friends, was getting this snare sound I that could not,[guitar is my main instrument]... at least consistently.

What he did was, hit the snare half in the skin, half in the rim, exactly and consistently. You have probably tried this before, and as you might already know, the average non-drummer will hit and miss: sometimes more rim, sometimes more skin.

The sound you get when you hit the snare and rim this way, is a metallic ring together with the skin, plus the actual "snare" [under the drum]. that is the sound I was referring to.

You could probably find this sound in a Korg Triton Studio, or any similar keyboard or sound-module.

This has nothing to do with some resonance introduced by this particular Adam model. The Adams are bright, yes, but not resonant.

Also, if it was the Adams, it does not explain why we can also hear it in the Senheiser HD600 headphones. As you probably know, these are one of the best possible set of headphones today.
[feel free to correct me]

Another point is, if it was resonance coming from the Adams, It would show in the same frequency band, in simular instruments and vocals - not the case.

I find the Adams bright [you can adjust it right in the front panel], but definitely not resonant - actually they are very neutral, just as a monitoring mixing-mastering speaker should be.

One more listenning session:
Tonight, after finishing my live performance in a local Restaurant,  I went to my friend's studio [with the Adam S2.5A] , and we listened again to all kinds of material - Jazz, Rock, Classic, Portuguese Fado [very unusual and different sounding small 12 string guitars], commercial CDs as well as our own productions.

We were listening and focusing on vocals levels in commercial CDs, and our own productions done with other monitors [JBLs, YSM1s, Mackies and a few others]. After several  careful interesting observations, one was that we found very easy to hear how much louder some vocals were, compared to similar material, sometimes within the same album.


From my 4 year old experience with Mackies, and his several years old experience with JBLs, we can tell you we would not catch this level difference on those monitors, and definitely not as easy as with the Adams.

I am not in anyway saying that the Adams are the best thing around, because I did not hear many other good monitors in the market.

I am simply stating that our [all studio owners] opinion in this 3 pairs, is the Adams being the better choice, with no way possible for room artifacts or any other interference being the culprit for some distortion in our conclusion [including the Genelecs 8050A extra bass].

I read in one of your posts about "no speaker needing a compressor built-in for this kind of work"; well according to the Genelec 8050A manual, THERE IS a compressor in the output.

I am not sure at what level it fully kicks in, but I can guarantee you they say it is a compressor, and not a limiter.

Most if not all kicks and bass felt compressed to us in the Genelecs. For the type of the monitor we need, which is for a professional recording studio,this is not good to work with, only good to just enjoy colored compressed music. The louder we play the material, the more noticeable the compression becomes.

I don't mean to offend Genelec lovers, but I find it difficult to try to mix or master music that sounds already compressed, before I compress it myself. We never a heard any bass artifacts, or any kind of compression out of the Adams [up to around 95 dB].


O.T. I absolutely love your book, and it never seizes to amaze me the amount of work you put into it. I wish you could sign my copy. Would there be any possible visit to Toronto? if yes, would you let me know?

Best regards

John Ferreira

[sdevino]

How is it that the Earthworks Sigma 6.2 speakers never come up in these conversations. Anyone looking for seriously accurate monitors in the price range of the Adams should at least be aware of these beauties.


Whatever you pick in the end is up to you but I think the Earthworks speaker line should be a part of this kind of debate.

Steve

[JDSStudios]

sdevino wrote on Sat, 15 January 2005 14:57

How is it that the Earthworks Sigma 6.2 speakers never come up in these conversations. Anyone looking for seriously accurate monitors in the price range of the Adams should at least be aware of these beauties. Whatever you pick in the end is up to you but I think the Earthworks speaker line should be a part of this kind of debate. Steve

Hi Steve
This is not much of a debate; I just started this thread to post some info on a test involving these 3 pairs of monitors. I think just like me, there must be quite a few people in here interested in [let me dare say this] accurate information, under more or less ideal circumstances [like the room, and specially who is involved in the test]

All I can say is I have confidence in my musical ability and my hears, specially not being a part-timer; I am a full time musician and studio producer/Engineer.

I hope all this helps, even though I do not recommend you purchase anything without listening first, and if possible A/Bing.

I would have never realized all the Genelec's and Mackie's faults without comparing them in the same environment, using the same calibration.

I hope all this helps some of you [at least a little].

Regards
John Ferreira

[recordista]

JDSStudios wrote on Sat, 15 January 2005 09:35

I read in one of your posts about "no speaker needing a compressor built-in for this kind of work"; well according to the Genelec 8050A manual, THERE IS a compressor in the output. I am not sure at what level it fully kicks in, but I can guarantee you they say it is a compressor, and not a limiter.

I'm guessing this might just be a translation issue.  Remember, a limiter is just a compressor with an very high (sometimes infinite) ratio above threshold.  Some manufacturers use the term "soft clipping circuit"  instead.

[JDSStudios]

Kurt you are correct.

To be more precise, a compressor with a ratio above 10:1 is considered a limiter.


I got the Adams S2.5A yesterday, and have been listening to several different productions, some of them mine.

No doubt the word translation and surgical keep on coming to mind.

There are a lot of things [like for example noise on some guitar tracks, and vocal placement] that I did not pay much attention with the Mackies, but with the Adams would have been unacceptable.

Everything sounds much more detailed, separated, clear, and I find it easier to hear something to loud in the mix or to soft.

I have to re-listen to a lot of music [specially productions and songs I am already familiar with], and keep on learning with this excellent tool.

So far big thumbs up.