Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Cables, Power, Tweaks, Speakers, Accessories (DBT-Free Forum) › Anybody else using studio monitors?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Anybody else using studio monitors? - Page 3

post #31 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by vulc4n View Post
I agree.

Personally I find speakers and home audio more interesting than headphones anyway.
i have bad tinnitus and a presonus central station, its just a matter of time for me
post #32 of 172
Genelec 8030a's here combined with an M-Audio SBX subwoofer.

Sounds great to me!
post #33 of 172
I use MAudio BX-8's with a Blue Sky Universal Sub (100w).

Signal from an EMU 1616.

One interesting thing about powered nearfield monitors is that many are bi-amped, meaning each driver has it's own custom amp.
post #34 of 172
what of the behringer truth 2031A? i've heard good things about them...that they're "mackie juniors" etc....by the spec sheet it looks like it, too. that 8.75" woofer must be good for more than 50 hz
post #35 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnomaly View Post
what of the behringer truth 2031A? i've heard good things about them...that they're "mackie juniors" etc....by the spec sheet it looks like it, too. that 8.75" woofer must be good for more than 50 hz
Those are meant to look like the Genelec 1031A (hence the name 2031A), with a woofer meant to look like the one used in the HR824:

Genelec 1031A


Behringer Truth 2031A


From what I've read, it would take a fair amount of imagination to hear the Behringers as even close to Genelec or Mackie monitors. Specs don't tell everything, especially in the pro audio world where everyone tries to list the same ones for every product.
post #36 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by infinitesymphony View Post
Those are meant to look like the Genelec 1031A (hence the name 2031A), with a woofer meant to look like the one used in the HR824:

Genelec 1031A


Behringer Truth 2031A


From what I've read, it would take a fair amount of imagination to hear the Behringers as even close to Genelec or Mackie monitors. Specs don't tell everything, especially in the pro audio world where everyone tries to list the same ones for every product.
so there is no question as to whether or not they are derivative...but that does not mean they are bad!
post #37 of 172
I haven't heard them, so I can't offer any personal impressions of quality, but I think it would be inaccurate to put the Behringer Truth series in the same category as the Mackie HR series or the Genelec xx30A series. From what I've read, the reliability of the Truth series has been a little shaky as well: blown amps, speakers DOA, poor power filtering, etc.

I've seen a fair number of people recommending KRK and Behringer equipment as giant-killing gear, but my experience with KRK is that the hype isn't necessarily to be believed...
post #38 of 172
well i wouldn't expect them to be as good as the Mackie, but if they are appropriate quality for their price, then perhaps they are still worthwhile.

still, i think i am leaning towards the TR8s at the moment. they seem to have more of the bass presence that i'm looking for in a monitor, because i don't want to need a subwoofer right away.
post #39 of 172
what are the differences btw monitors and bookshelves? or are they synonymous?
post #40 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by manhattanproj View Post
what are the differences btw monitors and bookshelves? or are they synonymous?
"Bookshelf" implies size; it's the opposite of "floorstanding."

"Monitor" is just another word for speaker, though it generally implies that the speaker is meant for the professional audio market, and that it might use its own internal amplification ("active" monitor).
post #41 of 172
I own some M-Audio SP3's and think they look great. They sound really good for the price.
post #42 of 172
what are the prime differences b/w the Mackie 824 and 824 MKII ? in terms of SQ
post #43 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naga View Post
what are the prime differences b/w the Mackie 824 and 824 MKII ? in terms of SQ
They use the same basic design and components. From what I've read, the engineers felt that an overhaul wasn't necessary. The main difference is in the construction of the cabinet, which includes a one-piece front "Zero Edge" baffle. The HR824s are known for their great imaging due to the waveguides around the tweeters, and without any edges or screws to get in the way, the mk2s are even better. There are probably some other small internal tweaks as well, but you'd have to ask Mackie about those specifics.

Mackie custom-tunes every HR824 against a master monitor, which itself is frequently calibrated. Thus, practically every HR824 will sound the same, and they're all designed to be flat across the whole spectrum. So, realistically, the differences aren't that big.

I've briefly heard both the HR824 and the HR824mk2 and would give the slight edge to the HR824mk2. They looked better (), the bass response sounded tighter, and the soundstage was clearer. But it was a small difference.
post #44 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by infinitesymphony View Post
They use the same basic design and components. From what I've read, the engineers felt that an overhaul wasn't necessary. The main difference is in the construction of the cabinet, which includes a one-piece front "Zero Edge" baffle. The HR824s are known for their great imaging due to the waveguides around the tweeters, and without any edges or screws to get in the way, the mk2s are even better. There are probably some other small internal tweaks as well, but you'd have to ask Mackie about those specifics.

Mackie custom-tunes every HR824 against a master monitor, which itself is frequently calibrated. Thus, practically every HR824 will sound the same, and they're all designed to be flat across the whole spectrum. So, realistically, the differences aren't that big.

I've briefly heard both the HR824 and the HR824mk2 and would give the slight edge to the HR824mk2. They looked better (), the bass response sounded tighter, and the soundstage was clearer. But it was a small difference.
I felt that the HR824 monitors were too sharp and edgy in the high frequencies,otherwise a pretty solid monitor.I have since wondered if the mk2 corrected this problem.
post #45 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssportclay View Post
I felt that the HR824 monitors were too sharp and edgy in the high frequencies,otherwise a pretty solid monitor.I have since wondered if the mk2 corrected this problem.
One thing's for sure... The HR824s are polarizing monitors! Some people love them, some people hate them, and many people aren't listening to the monitors in an ideal room. Most people don't have professionally treated rooms, and for these people, a monitor with more colored frequency response might actually have flatter in-room response. Besides, for many people, flat frequency response is not necessarily considered musical or desirable.

Have you heard any of the Dynaudio line-up? They have excellent high frequency response, but they're a little easier on the ears due to the Esotec soft dome tweeters (vs. the HR824's metal dome tweeters).
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Cables, Power, Tweaks, Speakers, Accessories (DBT-Free Forum) › Anybody else using studio monitors?