Monitor Speaker Suggestions?
 

Doing a forum search, it seems that the Mackie hr824 hits the sweetspot of price and performance.

Do you agree? Any other suggestions? Looking to spend no more than ~$600, if possible. Also, the Makie's are amped, so if your suggestion isn't, please include a recommendation for that as well.

Thanks VERY MUCH. :)

I recently installed a pair of JBL Pro 4328p monitors that I'm very happy with. When I listened to the Mackies I found them muddy and not very well defined in the bass ehile the midrange lacked transparency - instruments got lost in the mix. The JBLs are very smooth and detailed over the entire range and their computerized room mode correction makes a very noticable difference in the tonality and detail in the bass.

Is your budget of $600 per speaker or total?
As the HR824 you mention goes for $500 each.

In my experience with the 824, they are an OK monitor for the money,
but I could not listen at level for extended periods as fatigue set in quickly.

I have the JBL 4328p now, and once they are broken-in they are a great monitor for someone wanting a good quality monitor on a limited budget,

I am also looking for a good set of monitors. How do the JBL 4326p monitors compare with the 4328p? Also, I see that the monitor has a USB connector. Is this just for calibration, or can sound output also be transfered to the monitors via usb?

Another vote for JBL. I have been the same pair of 4406 for about 15 years. They look and sound like the day I bought them. They are driven by a Hafler Pro1200. An awesome combo for a small production/editing room. I don't think you can go wrong with JBL.

I have a old pair of Yamaha NS-10S monitors. What are some thoughts on using them as monitors for an edit bay? What receiver would work well with them?

I don't mean to hijack the thread, just thought I'd ask...

Thanks,
Kevin

Back in the day, a sound studio control room would have a big pair of monitors mounted 8-12' away from the mixer, and a second pair of near-field monitors for reference mounted on the console.

The Yamaha NS-10 was the leading near-field monitor for this application... some used the Auratone 5. The big monitors were to hear what the program sounded like, the near-fields to hear what it would likely sound like at home.

These days, near-fields have been accepted as primary monitoring in small suites, and the NS-10 still stacks up very well. It does not have the low-end response to serve as a the only monitor for mixing music, but should do fine for most video editing applications.

For the less than $700 range I'd go for Tannoy REVEAL 8D.

You can control the monitors from the workstation computer with JBL's application software -select inputs, set levels, adjust equalization, etc and that's what the USB port is for. They do not accept sound signal directly through USB but they DO have both S/PDIF and AES/EBU digital inputs as well as analog so you can definitely send digital directly to them, just not through the USB.

The 26's have 6" woofers while the 28's have 8". The means the 28's have a bit lower bass, about 5 Hz lower. Other than that, the two are pretty near identical. I was originally going to go with the 6's just because of the small size of my work area but they were on backorder and I got a deal on the 8s, a pair of new condition demos used less than a week by JBL themselves in a loaner setup at one of a major studio's post production suites (and the studio liked 'em cause they sent these back to JBL along with an order for several full 5.1 setups) so I got the 8's with a full new system warranty for the price of the 6's.

dynaudio bm5a (or if you can afford it, bm6a) great bang for buck, under 1G a pair.

Richards's suggestion is a good own. The ADAM monitors are also very good.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Thanks for ALL the input guys!

Richard, would you agree that for a small room, the bm5a's should be comparable to the 6a's?

I have monitored with the bm15a and really liked them, but was disappointed with the bm5a.

Any thoughts on the bm5a's versus the ADAM A7's?

I really like the sound of the ones I've heard on the floor of various tech shows and in the demo rooms.

Were I in the market, they'd be a top contender.

Regards,

Ty Ford

The Dynaudio BM6a's were among my top three choices and they're fine monitors to my ears. The decision to go with the JBLs boiled down to 1) budget (almost $2500 CDN for the Dynadio or ADAM versus $1850 for the JBL); 2) the depth of the Dynaudios would have made it even harder to fit them into my available workspace than were the JBLs; and 3) the JBL room mode correction can help compensate for the difficult to alter bad acoustics of my work area.

Steve,

I've read the few reviews on the web of the JBL LSR4300 Series.

Consensus: great sound, but the room correction only sometimes is an improvement and doesn't live up to its billing.

But it seems like you find the room correction pretty beneficial. If you could explain a little more and if you've done any mods to the room for editing, that would be great. THANKS much as always!

Steve,

what would be a good 5.1 setup from JBL? On one of the well-known music/audio websites, I see a combo of 5 LSR6325P satellite speakers and a LSR6312SP subwoofer offered for around $2,600, which fits my budget. From what little I was able to find out about these components, my assumption (not validated) is that this would be a decent setup for 5.1 monitoring, but I fear that in case I produce a stereo mix using just two of the satellites, those LSR6325Ps might not be big enough to do the lower frequencies justice. Is this a valid concern? If so, is it typical to have two sets of monitor speakers (one for stereo and one for 5.1), or would it make more sense to get five larger monitors such as the JBL 4328p along with the subwoofer for surround monitoring?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts!

- Martin

LOL I guess the best answer to that is ... it depends. In the situation I was referring to, I was told the studio ordered 5 LSR4328p's + a LSR4312p sub for each editing room. That setup would be equally at home for 5.1 surround by using all speakers or for stereo by using just the L&R mains plus the sub. B&H lists such a setup as costing right at 4 kilobucks while a similar setup using the LSR 4326p is about $3200. JBL says you can also mix 'n match, using the 8 inchers for the front speakers and the 6 inchers for the surrounds and save some a few bucks and I think that's accurate though I haven't tried it personally since the equalizer utility tunes up the system as a whole.

Sorry I missed your post before and it tooks so long to answer. I haven't really done anything to the room itself so I'm at the mercey of the RMC. I have the worst possible situation - an apartment living room with the desk with the speakers alongside a concrete wall and in the corner. The only "correction" that's been possible so far is to put the monitors on MoPads so they don't induce resonance in my desk and backshelf. Without the RMC the bass is muddy and "peaky" at several frequencies. With it engaged, it smooths out with a great improvement in clarity and stability of the stereo image. Does it make it sound like a properly conditioned studio space? Not at all. But does it sound cleaner and more accurate than would be possible without it? You betcha. I say it's worth it, especially if you're forced to work in a less than ideal environment.

Sorry to ask - this may be a stupid question, but I really don't know the answer. What drives the sub when you are using this setup for stereo mixing? I assumed that for stereo, it is mandatory to have just two speakers for left and right that can accurately reproduce the entire audible frequency range...

- Martin, confused...

Actually your assumption regarding stereo is mistaken. Very low bass is difficult for the ear to localize and so the bass component of both the left and right channel stereo signals can be handled by a single speaker while the frequencies whose direction the ear can determine are sent to the L&R mains.

The JBL sub's electronics handles the bass management as do the subs in most stereo monitor system that have one. Your L&R outputs go to L&R inputs on the sub and then from there go on to the L&R mains. The sub has crossover circuitry inside that splits the lowest frequencies (user adjustable as to cutoff frequency and levels of course) off of each channel, combine them, and send them to the sub's amplifier and speaker. It's with 5.1 that the sub gets a dedicated output channel, the ".1" channel.

My problem with using a sub-woof at the editing suite is that the level of the woof (bass) can be arbitrarily varied. So what is the "right" level?

Yeah, I've tried the "use a familiar CD" route - - doesn't work for me. The high amount of compression on commercial CDs is just awful.

So, I use some inexpensive near-field monitors, and periodically burn a CD-RW and listen on a variety of systems: home stereo, car, boom-box, etc.

I should mention that I'm not a commercial operation - - just a hobby.

Chris

You can go to Radio Snak and get one of their $50 sound pressure meters and use it to calibrate levels. A number of books of post production sound include a CD with the standard test signals needed recorded on them and include directions on exactly how to go about calibrating everything, including the balance between subs and mains. There's a couple of books by Thomlinson Holman that have everything you need to do a complete setup

I have a consumer speaker set (stereo) that works that way (sub with crossover, routes higher freq to small stereo satellites), but I am surprised that this setup is recommended for monitoring. I don't doubt it, I am just surprised.

So, with that in mind, I am wondering what the practical difference is when mixing for stereo with the following:

- LSR4312p sub and two LSR4326P satellites (response 55 Hz – 20 kHz)
- LSR4312p sub and two LSR4328P satellites (response 50 Hz – 20 kHz)

I.e., with the sub covering the low frequencies, what am I really going to lose by having the smaller 6.25" satellites vs. the larger 8" ones? Without a sub, that is entirely clear to me, but with a dedicated subwoofer, I wonder if the difference is important.

- Martin

I don't think there would be that much difference between the two. I got a good deal on the 8's and they were in stock so that became the deciding factor for me. The 6's were back orderedand wouldn't have been much cheaper. That's actually what I had originally decided on.

Then I'll go for the smaller ones.

Thanks so much for your many comments, Steve - it's very reassuring to get this type of feedback from guys like you that have a significant amount of audio experience under their belts.

- Martin