• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Monitor Recommendations?

B

bobbybooey

Guest
Time for new monitors! Been using a pair of Tapco S-5 monitors (made by Mackie) for about 3 years now... one of them is starting to rattle intermittently, and I'm doing a lot more sound design and music mixing/mastering lately, so I figure I'm due for an upgrade anyway and I'm now in shopping mode.

Looking to spend $500-750 for a pair, if possible... so far I'm leaning towards the Yamaha HS80M. I brought a few cds to Guitar Center and listened to them along with a few different KRKs, a pair of JBLs, and the Mackie MR8s, and definitely liked the Yamahas the best. The KRKs weren't bad but seemed to color the stuff I auditioned (Dire Straits "Brothers in Arms" cd, Foo Fighters "Wasting Light", and The Who "Who's Next") much more then the Yamahas.

Any other options I should consider? Anyone have experience with any of the above monitors?

fwiw, my priorities for what these will be used for are: 1. radio imaging, 2. voiceover, 3. sound design, 4. commerical production, 5. music production.

Thanks!
 
Check out the Tannoys in your price range...Much better. If you can stretch the budget, go for some Focal CMS 50s. I have the Focal Solo 6be and I don't know how I ever lived without them.

Emmett
 
Thanks for the suggestions, Emmett! I checked out the Tannoy Reveal 501As at Guitar Center too and was a little underwhelmed by them, though I imagine the 601As would be a little nicer. The Focals are an intriguing option that I wsn't considering because they're double what I was hoping to spend, but from what I've read on them this morning it may be worth biting the bullet on them... gonna have to think about this for a bit.
 
The high dollar Genelecs went back to California to the sound "genius" who insisted we spend a fortune and get them...the Tannoy "reveals" got promptly returned to Chick at Atlanta Pro Audio (an awesome
Professional audio guy) and we were most impressed with the Yamaha 80's that we bought from Chick. We went with those in two studio locations. For the larger NC studio we opted for the Blue Sky 5.0 system with the big sub. Much better suited to TV
Audio mixing...but for the money we haven't found anything as clean and true as the HS80

Gonna buy a third pair next month for a south Florida studio we are getting ready to build.
 
I don't make a living at this stuff, so I didn't feel I could run the flag all the way to the top of the flagpole so I opted for the Yamaha HS50Ms rather than the HS80Ms.

I think Yamaha encourages or pays some of the review writers to say this because so many of them say it: "The Yamaha monitors are very demanding. You have to work at your mix and EQ and really nail it to make it sound good on the Yamahas... but once you do, you know it will sound good on ANYTHING else."

So, I bought it hook-line-and-sinker and have been very happy with them. But, you have to consider the source here: I'm the guy who says... why would I buy a $450 microphone when I have an $89.95 voice?

Maybe with a little more training and practice, I could justify the HS80Ms and maybe a $200 microphone? ;D
 
Thanks for the responses!

I liked the Yamaha HS80Ms the best out of any of the studio monitors I wound up checking out. I went back to a different Guitar Center with a mix CD of music (everything from Steely Dan and Dire Straits to Springsteen to Kanye West to Foo Fighters) with a couple of my own instrumentals and a handful of my sound design and station promos. The Yamahas were the clear winner out of their offerings. The KRKs just didn't sound right to me... they even made AC/DC "Back In Black" and Steely Dan's "Kid Charlemagne" sound muddy. Not good. This GC location also had the Adam A7Xs, which get rave reviews and which I thought sounded AWFUL... nothing but tinny high-end, no real presence.

That said, I actually wound up going the rarely recommended "hi-fi" route and ordering a pair of B&W 685 bookshelf speakers. An online acquaintence suggested I check them out as the top-of-the-line B&Ws are often found in high-end mastering studios and a lot of their sound has trickled down to their entry-level 600 series. I took the same mix CD to the local hi-fi store and was blown away. Everything I threw at it was clear and crisp but nothing sounded overhyped... just a nice neutral sound across the spectrum. These speakers did the best job out of any I listened to of showing me some EQ/mixing errors I made on my 2 tracks I produced (though I must say I was pleasantly surprised at how well my stuff translated across the B&Ws and the Yamahas... those little Tapco S-5s I'm replacing really did a nice job for me). They also have a nice clean bottom end, not a colored one like the KRKs, but enough that I'll have a much better idea of what's really going on down there than I think I would have had with the Yamahas.

I was intrigued by the Focals that Emmitt mentioned, they get a ton of great reviews. But there was nowhere locally I could listen to them, and they were a bit above my price range... the B&Ws are just $650 A PAIR (though I did have to shell out a $200 for a used Marantz amp on e-bay since they're passive monitors).

We'll see how they sound in my room, but I have a feeling they'll be a good purchase for me.
 
Building out a small studio at Sanibel Island..near Fort Myers. Not sure when we will consider staffing it. But there is a lot of commercial work in Miami, and Orlando and Tampa, and that location gets us close to all of them without actually being there.

That said I am way more happy with powered monitors. I still have a nice pair of JBL studio monitors and a Crown D75 that was for so long a defacto standard in production rooms. But they don't reproduce true like these Yamahas. I like the fact that the powered monitors take full advantage of the amplifier design made for the loudspeaker setup. Just my opinion.
 
I prefer powered as well. And when getting my Avalon M5 the manual said it was suspect to RF (put off by a power amp among other things) so that was the main reason I went with powered monitors. A bonus, less cables too!
 
I've had totally different experiences. Of course the room makes a major difference and this is one of those things where two less-than-perfect items can match to make something much better. A monitor that isn't flat at all can become very flat in a room that is also not flat. The Yamahas have a very exaggerated high-end, which might work well in a room that has a little too much HF absorption. When I did my shootout, it was in an extremely flat Russ Berger designed room. Spacing, height and wall proximity were all accounted for during the test. It wasn't exactly "real world" (unless you have a perfectly designed room), but it was extremely fair. Focal wasn't a part of the test because they're just hands-down the best I've heard and I don't think it would have been entirely fair. My least favorites (for mixing) were the Yamahas, KRKs and Mackies. Both the KRKs and Mackies exhibited exaggerated lows and highs. They sounded a lot like typical hi-fi speakers. I wasn't thrilled with the stereo imaging on the KRKs either. The Yamahas had a much cleaner low-end, though I still think there was a little boost. The high-end was way exaggerated, much like the Sony MDR-7506 headphones I don't care for, but a lot of people like. Stereo imaging left a lot to be desired.

The real surprises for me were the Tannoys, which had superb stereo imaging for a monitor of that price, and a clean low-end, with reasonable detail and a fairly flat response. They were just very well-rounded monitors for the price. Another pleasant surprise was the M-Audio line, which nobody ever comments about. The DSM series is great, the CX series was really good and I really like the Bx5a. I didn't care much for the Bx8a, as it had a lot of low-end, like the Mackies and KRKs. Other than those, I think there's a lot of value in the entire line. I also thought the Dynaudio BM5as were an incredible value. They had a little bit of "hi-fi" going, but were flatter than many of the others I listened to. They had a lot of detail for the money, as well as really solid stereo imaging.

One that I don't personally care a lot for (that people absolutely rave about) is the Sonodyne line. They're well made speakers, for sure, but they have a definite vibe to them that rubs me the wrong way. It's not that they're not flat, they just have a vibe about them. Much like JBL...Just not my cup of tea.

I've actually found it very easy to shoot out speakers and preamps. It doesn't take a lot for me to decide how I feel about those. Either I like them or I don't. Mics are much more of a challenge. There are a ton that I really like and I have a terrible time finding one to stick with. One day I may like Rode, the next I may like a Blue Woodpecker ribbon and I may jump to Neumann after that. With the Focal monitors, I fell in love with them the first time I heard them and knew I wanted those and nothing else. I wish I would have that experience with a mic! :-\

Emmett
 
Emmett: One of my avocations is the operation and design of sound reinforcement systems in houses of worship. I participate in a very robust on-line forum that has a good mixture of USERS such as myself and PROVIDERS and CONSULTANTS that you would hire to come out and "tune your room" (A la hiring a Russ Berger.) My personal experience and my observations of the conversations in the forum suggest that maybe there NO SUCH THING as the "perfect speaker". There is always that last day of the install where the guy with the golden ears and the platinum-value test gear comes in and "voices the system".... adjusts the equalizer that is just ahead of the power amps that drive the speakers. Now, this is a description of "large rooms"... places where 300 people to 30,000 people can sit at the same time.

I also read that tinkering with the acoustics of a small room such as most of us would use for voice over is a totally different animal.

Is it possible there is NO near field monitor that is the most perfect monitor in the world.... if the world is my small space voice-over studio? Is it possible that the really workable plan is one where we may spend as much for a quality parametric equalizer as we might spend for a quality compressor or mic that takes a pair of really GREAT monitors... and makes them into the PERFECT monitors... for MY space?

I don't know. Based on this thread, I conclude that it is my personal philosophy. After time I may really lock in on it, or I may abandon it as faulty thinking.
 
It's all faulty thinking! ;) I love gear, but in the end, all that truly matters is the final product and paycheck. The gear that puts a smile on your face is the right stuff.

As for the science of the parametric EQ, the problem becomes that you can't move your head or the EQ will collapse, so that's not great either, from a scientific perspective.

Emmett
 
During my research, I read a really good observation over on the Gearslutz board... basically that any decent monitors/speakers will do the job properly once you learn their particular sound. Makes sense, as I discovered that my ok-but-cheap Tapco S-5s (I think I paid around $250 for the pair) were more than servicable, and the mixes I made with them by-and-large held up quite well on every monitor I listened to during my shopping/listening excursions. If I went back to the first batch of productions I made using them, I'm sure I would disagree... but the pieces I created once I learned the sound of those monitors seems to have translated quite well on other systems. So when my B&Ws arrive next week, I'm going to spend a LOT of time listening, to a variety of source materials that I know quite well, so I can learn these speakers and use them properly.

I think the main benefit of higher-end monitors is likely that there are fewer peculiarities to learn so mixing is quicker/easier, but I have a feeling these entry-level B&Ws will do the trick once I get a feel for them. After all, countless engineers have sworn by their Yamaha NS-10s for the past 20 years even though the consensus seems to be that they were nothing more than inferior hi-fi speakers that really sound like garbage to listen to.
 
Emmett said:
As for the science of the parametric EQ, the problem becomes that you can't move your head or the EQ will collapse, so that's not great either, from a scientific perspective.
Click to expand...

This isn't is issue "where I have a dog in the fight" as the down-South politicians are fond of saying. I'm not interested getting into a big argument here, but I am interested in exploring what other people know that I can learn from.

If the Yamahas have a little too much high end, and I don't equalize them, will moving my head cause their "not so great" internally constructed eq to collapse? (The "internal eq" that makes them deliver too much high frequency.) If I turn my head just right, will they suddenly collapse and sound real good instead?

If I buy your favorite monitor and I find that it indeed has a more perfect frequency response graph, do I have to hold my head still lest they lose their perfect built-in sound that results from proper internal construction to collapse and loose their sound?

Are you saying that good speakers do not change sound when you turn your head, but only second best speakers will vary in sound when heads are turned, and only if one has applied an eq device external to the construction of the speaker?

Doesn't sound terribly logical to me, but I don't get to play with the really nice stuff. ;D
 
The advantage of better monitors is not only the frequency response, but also the detail, transient response, slew rate and stereo imaging. Beyond that, the more neutral a frequncy response, the less impact the monitor will have on the environment. That means that you would tune the room, rather than the monitor, which will also mess with the room. There are all kinds of room correction devices and software out there, and again, there's no real solution to the problem, unless you never move your head, or you will likely find something much worse than what you originally had. And therein lies the problem. An EQ, even a great one, will induce phase distortion, as well. If it were as simple as EQ, every manufacturer would simply build in a circuit correcting their monitor to razor flat.
 
Like mics..monitors have a "capability" for, say 30hz-20Khz, but the difference is in the quality of the build, and the way those numbers are achieved.

A Kia, and a Mercedes will both go 65mph. One is a better car..with a better smoother ride, and other small enhancements that make it more expensive.

same with mics and monitors..and it all boils down to what you can do with either. Can you make money with a less expensive system? You bet. Can you make MORE money with a more expensive system? Not nessicerily.
 
Jeff Laurence said:
Can you make money with a less expensive system? You bet. Can you make MORE money with a more expensive system? Not nessicerily.
Click to expand...

I don't know that I fully agree with that. I would say you definitely CAN make more money with a more expensive system, there's just no guarantee that you WILL. It gives you, in my opinion, a few extra "at bats", so to speak, when you're working with great gear. There is less of a chance of losing a gig because of anything relating to sound quality. It's not so much that it will help you land a gig, but there's a very real possibility that a great setup can prevent you from losing a gig, where a cheaper setup could have cost you the job. It allows the focus to be entirely on the voice and delivery, without worrying about the noise, piercing frequencies, boominess or anything else associated with cheap gear.

There's also the fun of nicer gear, the build quality and the bragging rights. Many clients like to see lots of flashing lights.
 
These days not many clients see the blinking lights. I'll add that you can have the more expensive gear but if you can't make it shine... then does it matter?

I will say my HMS50s sound different in my present room, with acoustic tiles, than they did at another place with Auralex on the walls. The present room is more "dead"... and thus the monitors sound different but I've acclimated.
 
Emmett my take is that if you get good at mixing and producing with even a set of crappy monitors, there is the very real possibility that you could (or should I say I could) get over impressed with a mix on more expensive monitors and lose the gig because you over tuned it to make it rock on the good ones. I had that issue when I first got the Blue Sky system. It sounded really strong to me, but hearing the same product on a TV or radio didn't sit right. I have since tuned my ears, and balances to know what it is supposed to sound ike on that system to make it work in the real world. And Chuck is right. The HS50's behave differently in a dead room. So we spend a lot of time taking a known "good mix" and adjusting those monitors to best capture what it's supposed to sound like in that particular room.

I don't have the $$ to get sound consultants to come in an do all of the calculations and measurements. The rooms are what they are, and I am the one that has to do the work in them. I have to acclimate like Chuck said, and know what sounds right for the project.

Good post
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom