JDSStudios wrote on Sun, 09 January 2005 06:55 |
The Genelec rep here in Canada [Chris Brooks] just droped off a pair of Genelecs 8050A. We plugged them to Aux 1 out of an O2R, factory defaults in the back panel [no filters on, no boosts or cuts] Plugged the Mackies HR824 to Aux 2 out, also no cuts or boosts. Another producer friend of mine will be coming with the Adams in a few hours. So far, the big differences are the mids, and imaging. |
Quote: |
Besides the Mids difference [Mackies have much more mids than the Genies] one surprise was how much noisier the Genelecs were just idling.. specially at over $4000.00 CDN. I was expecting quieter amps. |
JDSStudios wrote on Sun, 09 January 2005 21:48 |
Thanks all of you for the comments. I don't have the time right now to put in all the details [2 very very long days and nights with a few other pro - producers helping out]. For now, let me just mention Adams won by a big a huge margin. I am very very upset. I will have to spend close to $6000.00 CDN for the Adams, versus a little over $4000.00 for the Genelecs... I was hoping so much the Genelecs would be the better ones. The opinion was unanimous. No ifs or buts, absolutely no doubts. I will post details on calibration, spectrum analizing, listening tests etc later on... specially listening tests. |
ammitsboel wrote on Sun, 09 January 2005 21:57 | ||
Hmmm... something tells me that this was another not so serious test...? please post the details. best regards |
Level wrote on Sun, 09 January 2005 13:34 |
......... Mackie 824 issues: ..........Room interaction with the passive radiator. What comes from the rear of the 824's is detrimental to the upper bass causing erratic frequency response............ ......I don't know if this is amplifier overshoot or just phase anomalies but some smearing is occurring. I think my main gripe is if you have a mix that needs a 1 to 1.5dB adjustment on a single channel or channels to balance, the mackies simply do not deliver this resolution to me. . ......... they lack the precision incrementation that is required in the 200 to 3K area........... Cloudy if you will. |
ammitsboel wrote on Sun, 09 January 2005 21:57 | ||
Hmmm... something tells me that this was another not so serious test...? please post the details. best regards |
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 |
Quote: |
title=ammitsboel wrote on Sun, 09 January 2005 14:57 Hmmm... something tells me that this was another not so serious test...? please post the details. best regards |
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!
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. |
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....? |
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. |
djui5 wrote on Mon, 10 January 2005 04:32 | ||
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. |
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 |
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.. |
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. |
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. |
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 |
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. |
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 |
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. |
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 |
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 |
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. |
David Schober wrote on Sat, 22 January 2005 15:10 |
I agree with the "find a box you like and use it." For me the box I like is the one that helps me make a good mix, more than the one that sounds the best. |
ZETTERSTROEM wrote on Sat, 22 January 2005 12:31 |
by the way..... spent most of today listening to a pair of adam P11... among other thing i listened to a thethe record (mind bomb) that i've had for 15 years.... the thing that amazed me the most was the opening track..... there's an acoustic hihat on it than i know is eq'ed a bit thin.... i've heard it on all sorts of speakers.... but on the adam's it sounded like an analog beatbox hihat (eg.cr78)!!!!!!!!! that ribbon is soooooo wrong..... it sounds nowhere near what is put into it.... another problem was that vocals sounded like they were 2-band compressed.... almost like the timing of the hi frequencies was out of time with the mids..... spooky!!! so all in all an entirely different interpretation of a record that i know and love... |
David Schober wrote on Sat, 22 January 2005 15:10 |
Hi John, You've obviously done a lot of work investigating how the differing speakers sound in your room. But did I miss this, or have I not seen a report on how they work? I've found that sometimes the best working vehicle is not the prettiest or best ride. Depending on you and your room, sometimes a speaker that sounds a little muddy can make you work a little harder for clarity. ..... |
Quote: |
... Conversely, a speaker that sounds beautiful and wonderful convince me that it sounds better than it really does. I agree with the "find a box you like and use it." For me the box I like is the one that helps me make a good mix, more than the one that sounds the best. One last thought, Are you sure the snare ring in the Adams was an artifact of the speaker? Or is it possible the ring was being covered by the others and only the Adams revealed it?... |
Rader Ranch wrote on Sat, 22 January 2005 22:34 |
sounds like you should use different monitors then. ADAM's clearly don't work for you. |
ZETTERSTROEM wrote on Sat, 22 January 2005 20:31 |
by the way..... spent most of today listening to a pair of adam P11... among other thing i listened to a thethe record (mind bomb) that i've had for 15 years.... the thing that amazed me the most was the opening track..... there's an acoustic hihat on it than i know is eq'ed a bit thin.... i've heard it on all sorts of speakers.... but on the adam's it sounded like an analog beatbox hihat (eg.cr78)!!!!!!!!! that ribbon is soooooo wrong..... it sounds nowhere near what is put into it.... another problem was that vocals sounded like they were 2-band compressed.... almost like the timing of the hi frequencies was out of time with the mids..... spooky!!! so all in all an entirely different interpretation of a record that i know and love... |
ammitsboel wrote on Sat, 22 January 2005 23:32 |
I think the problem is that you can't pare ribbons with dynamic units. |
Bill Mueller wrote on Sun, 23 January 2005 04:00 |
John, The Pinto was made by Ford. The Corvette was made by Chevrolet, a GM company. .... |
Quote: |
... You wrote, and I quote, "Also, the price range is not the same; with the price of S2.5As, you can buy three P11s. Don't bother with this type of comparison." The S2.5A's cost $2300.00 each and the Mackie HR 824 cost $700.00 each. Obviously, you change the rules when it suits you. It seems to me that it is quite a compliment to the Mackie HR824 to be compared with the Adam S2.5A at all, even as a whipping boy. Best Regards, Bill |
JDSStudios wrote on Sun, 23 January 2005 07:10 | ||
This is incorrect. As long as it is properly designed, ribbons can perform really well or better. They are faster, so time alignment has to be considered among everything else. |
lagerfeldt wrote on Fri, 21 January 2005 12:43 |
The only other monitor I liked almost as much is the Klein + Hummel O 300 D. |
Quote: |
ADAMs do sound quite different to most other speakers, especially if you're used to Genelecs. Personally, I could never go back to Genelecs after ADAM S2.5A. |
Quote: |
if you've only heard the small ADAMs (P11A, etc.), there's really no comparison to the S2.5A's. |
ammitsboel wrote on Sun, 23 January 2005 21:32 |
I'm sorry to say that I'm convinced that you don't know what you are talking about. I've auditioned almost every ADAM speaker there is and they all have this flaw right from the P11 to the masterpieces. |
JDSStudios wrote on Sat, 22 January 2005 16:51 | ||
No no no: If the music is muddy, I want to hear it exactly muddy. If it sounds good, I want to hear it sounding good. I believe this idea of fighting in mud to get things to sound better in another system, to be a myth I won't go for. If you read the beginning of the thread, I mentioned that I am going for translation; it means I want to hear the content as is, not muddier or prettier. |
ZETTERSTROEM wrote on Tue, 25 January 2005 08:14 |
all i'm trying to do is try to get people to think twice when buying new monitors.... and maybe not just buy the first "flavor of the week" alu-dome/ribbon/passive radiator equipped speaker.... |
Quote: |
i know that monitors are a very subjective issue..... so be it..... just expressing my opinion..... and (maybe a bit naiive) trying to change the world..... |
Dave Bryce wrote on Tue, 25 January 2005 11:31 |
Surely these people would not be using them if they were flawed, would they? |
ZETTERSTROEM wrote on Tue, 25 January 2005 03:14 |
i think most of the monitors released by the big companys today have very little to do with transparent neutral monitoring..... speakers that are so heavily coloured that even the smartest engineer will not have a clue what is going on in his mix/master. |
Quote: |
i am convinced that most people do not even just sit down and listen to cd's and enjoy their speakers and get to know them and get to know neutral sound. |
Quote: |
i know that monitors are a very subjective issue..... so be it..... just expressing my opinion..... and (maybe a bit naiive) trying to change the world..... |
jimmyjazz wrote on Tue, 25 January 2005 17:01 | ||
Careful . . . maybe you should say "surely these people would not be using them if they thought they were flawed, would they?" |
Quote: |
It could very well be that the ADAMs are flawed and yet still gain favor with a variety of industry heavyweights. |
Quote: |
(I would suggest that of course the ADAMs are flawed -- all speakers are flawed. I'm being anal, though.) |
ZETTERSTROEM wrote on Tue, 25 January 2005 18:38 |
"How can you presume to want to change people's tastes regarding something you acknowledge is subjective?" so.... if you review gear for EQ aren't you trying to do the same??? don't you recommend what stuff to buy and what not?? hmmm... |
JamSync wrote on Tue, 25 January 2005 14:44 |
I don't waste my time, the manufacturer's time, or space in a magazine on something that isn't worth buying. What would be the point? I look at stuff and if I can get into it, do something with it, and I think it's worth the asking price...then I review it. |
JamSync wrote on Tue, 25 January 2005 19:44 |
I don't waste my time, the manufacturer's time, or space in a magazine on something that isn't worth buying. What would be the point? |
Samc wrote on Tue, 25 January 2005 17:41 |
Is it just me, or do almost every review in audio magazines now read like an infomercial? Some even go as far as using the exact same text used by the manufacturers in their advertising! |
Quote: |
And of course there is usually the coincidence of the full page advert. in the same issue. |
Quote: |
I just checked my pile of trade mags. (Jan. issue), and could not find one review that had any negetive coments about any of the products reviewed. Everything is great, a great tool, a worthwhile addition to your arsenal etc. |
ammitsboel wrote on Tue, 25 January 2005 20:28 | ||
So you are only making positive advertising? This is just the most un natural way to review gear and I'm sure this has a lot to with why many people are "schizophrenic" and don't know what to buy simply because "everything is great", says the magazines! I once read these magazines... and i refer to that time as "my clouded and depressing days". Maybe it's not possible to get back to the 70ties ways of reviewing... but could the poor customers please get some more quality put into the reviews?? Best Regards |
Lee Flier wrote on Tue, 25 January 2005 22:54 |
See above... there is a lot of great gear out there, and if something sucks, it's not likely anyone will be that wild about wanting to review it. It ain't like the old days when there were very few product releases, for a very niche market, so EVERYthing got reviewed, even if it sucked. And a lot of space got filled by trashing stuff. As it is now, my editors put out a list of everything they have available for review, and I get to choose from a pretty long list. It's not like I'm going to pick something I probably won't like or can't use. Would you? If you've got a session coming up and you're a reviewer, wouldn't you pick something that you think would really benefit your recording in a real world application? I do. . |
Samc wrote on Tue, 25 January 2005 22:41 |
[...] could not find one review that had any negetive coments about any of the products reviewed. Everything is great, a great tool, a worthwhile addition to your arsenal etc. |
Samc wrote on Thu, 27 January 2005 03:19 |
I think it would be interesting if lee or KK (or both) would explain the nuts and bolts of the review process in detail. I don't think most people knows what happens behind the scenes so to speak. |
Quote: |
How are the pieces selected for review, do you or the magazine(s) only review equipment that are submitted by the manufacturer and/or do you/the magazine approach a manufacturer if you think a particular piece of equipment might be interesting? |
Quote: |
Do you try, and if so how do you verify claims made by the manufacturers regarding the technical performance of said equipment? |
Quote: |
What are your obligations to the magazine and to the manufacturer when doing a review?......etc etc. |
ZETTERSTROEM wrote on Thu, 27 January 2005 05:00 |
what kind of substance would you like? |
Samc wrote on Thu, 27 January 2005 08:19 |
I think it would be interesting if lee or KK (or both) would explain the nuts and bolts of the review process in detail. I don't think most people knows what happens behind the scenes so to speak. How are the pieces selected for review, do you or the magazine(s) only review equipment that are submitted by the manufacturer and/or do you/the magazine approach a manufacturer if you think a particular piece of equipment might be interesting? Do you try, and if so how do you verify claims made by the manufacturers regarding the technical performance of said equipment? What are your obligations to the magazine and to the manufacturer when doing a review?......etc etc. Best regards, Sam |
Samc wrote on Fri, 28 January 2005 00:05 |
Lee, KK, Thanks very much to both of you for responding to my question. There is another question I would like to ask both of you; Are manufacturers required to pay a fee (directly or indirectly) to the magazine for having their equipment reviewed? for example, is there some kind of unwritten rule that says it's a good idea to buy advertising if you want your product(s) to be reviewed by the magazine? |
Lee Flier wrote on Thu, 27 January 2005 11:31 | ||
How about simply not confusing opinion with fact? Opinions have substance and facts have substance, but trying to enforce your opinions on others as fact has none. If you don't like a particular product such as ADAM monitors, it's certainly your right to say you don't like them. We all have our opinions about which gear is great and what sucks, myself certainly included. And I certainly share many of your concerns about the declining quality in many recordings these days. But don't then say that just because you have this opinion about monitors, it's empirical fact and anyone who likes these monitors must not be paying attention to translation or listening to reference material. And if you think audio magazines don't contain enough negative reviews for your taste, again you're entitled to your opinion, and you can show your dissatisfaction by not reading the magazine, or expressing your opinion to the editors, etc. But to then make the presumption that the reason you don't see negative reviews is because we're all kissing ass to advertisers, when you have no idea what's really going on... well that has no substance. I think if you would simply ASK (like sam did) instead of presuming what people's motivations are, you would get more respect and it would further a more interesting discussion. |
lagerfeldt wrote on Fri, 21 January 2005 12:43 |
I've personally used a long range of mix monitors in my studio, including several Genelecs (1031A, 1030A), various Tannoys (Reveal, Ellipse 8 ) , Roland DS90A, Yamaha NS-10, Minipods (cute but useless for mixing), various ADAMs (P11A, S2.5A and S3A). |
Lee Flier wrote on Wed, 26 January 2005 18:12 |
Once again you are badly mistaken. Did you even read KK's post about how she refused to review a product until they improved it? And how furious (read: PISSED OFF) the company was? This happens all the time. Reviewers have a quite a bit of influence over what manufacturers do and often they will change something before it hits the market, because a reviewer encountered a bug or weakness during the review process. So to say that "nothing changes" would be wrong. |
Loco wrote on Fri, 04 February 2005 18:12 |
Grab the latest "Car and driver" magazine (the one with the yellow Boxster) and look for an old review on the Opel Kadett L. They were unmerciful with it and that earned them the respect of the public, but the hate of the entire GM organization. If the car sucks they say it. |
Quote: |
Back to the speakers... comparing speakers is hard because they can't occupy the same space at the same time... so their interaction with the room is different. If the differences are subtle it's gonna be hard to tell. |
Tomas Danko wrote on Fri, 04 February 2005 21:56 | ||
Say, did you mix my Angel track on the Adams? That is a wicked smashing mix, I'll have you know. All the best, Tomas Danko |
lagerfeldt wrote on Sun, 27 March 2005 22:35 |
I think the important thing about the 2.5A's is that the mixes translate so well compared to my earlier speakers. Cheers, Holger |
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? |
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 |
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. |
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? 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? BK |
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? |
z99 wrote on Sun, 30 April 2006 09:53 |
my first post here and already paranoid.. // 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 // too bad there's no place to audition those babies here in Latvia |
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? |