Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

mackie hr824 or genelec?

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
March 10, 2005 1:49:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

in the market for monitors in the $1,000 - $2,000 range.

More about : mackie hr824 genelec

Anonymous
a b C Monitor
March 10, 2005 2:36:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

bas1236@yahoo.com wrote:
> in the market for monitors in the $1,000 - $2,000 range.

Per pair, or each?

If the former, you might want to listen to the Genelec 8040As.
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
March 10, 2005 8:15:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I agree with the Genelec suggestion but I've heard it said that
Genelec's sound so good you tend to not work hard enough on the
material.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
March 10, 2005 11:22:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

psalter <psalter@opry.com> wrote:
>I agree with the Genelec suggestion but I've heard it said that
>Genelec's sound so good you tend to not work hard enough on the
>material.

The new Genelec series is _very_ different than the 1000-series monitors.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
March 11, 2005 12:28:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

bas1236@yahoo.com wrote:
> in the market for monitors in the $1,000 - $2,000 range.
>
dynaudio
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
March 11, 2005 4:29:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

psalter wrote:
> I agree with the Genelec suggestion but I've heard it said that
> Genelec's sound so good you tend to not work hard enough on the
> material.

I think this indicates why the Mackies are not receiving the
praise they deserve. Flat and accurate is not what people
usually want to hear when auditioning a speaker unless they
really understand what mixing monitors are for. In general
the more you find that you "like" a particular speaker, the
better the chances that there are deviations from accurate
which your ear just likes, and the more you will be removing
precisely what it is that you like when you actually mix.

This is one of those few cases where I believe that
specifications and measurement are more important than taste
and the Mackies are _very_ difficult to beat in that regard.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
March 11, 2005 9:28:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Glen O'Toole" <keys88@musician.org> wrote in message...

> Just to salt the thread, I've been looking in that price range as well to
> replace a set of KRK K-Roks, and I know this won't be popular, but I did
> not like the Mackies. Something weird in the mids and a bit harsh.

Gawd I love this business. I sat behind a pair of K-Roks for at least
three months trying to learn how to compensate for the weird mids.

I kept coming up with horribly mid-heavy mixes... It might be easy
for me to to understand why the midrange of other systems doesn't
sound right to you.

DM
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
March 11, 2005 12:39:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <d0roe80drk@enews2.newsguy.com> arcane@arcanemethods.com writes:

> I think this indicates why the Mackies are not receiving the
> praise they deserve. Flat and accurate is not what people
> usually want to hear when auditioning a speaker unless they
> really understand what mixing monitors are for. In general
> the more you find that you "like" a particular speaker, the
> better the chances that there are deviations from accurate
> which your ear just likes, and the more you will be removing
> precisely what it is that you like when you actually mix.

What you want to listen for is whether you can hear details (as
opposed to "detail" - I don't know what that means) like mouth noises,
low frequency stuff that robs power and doesn't contribute to the
musical experience, subtle clipping, and frequency balance. One of the
best tests for a speaker used for mixing that I've found is to listen
to it while turning an equalizer control. If you have to turn the
control very far before you hear its effect, the speaker isn't doing a
good job for you.

You have to temper this, of course, with the fact that you need to
listen through those speakers for extended periods of time. So if
you absolutely don't like how they sound on projects that you know
are well mixed then move on to something else. But if you like
everything but your own mixes, it's time to try to do some mixing
through those speakers to see if you can improve your mixes with
them. If you can, then you'll know you have the right speaker.

By the way, there's nothing wrong with using repositioning, tweaking
switches or controls built into the speaker, or even an outboard equalizer
to adjust bass response. This is one thing that you can do with
resaonable success. If your only problem with Mackie speakers is
that you think the bass is overemphasized, it's something you can
adjust (and should, to give the speaker a fair trial). Don't depend on
a guitar store to have done this to opitmize the low frequency response
in their showroom.

Buy, try, and accept that you might have to return them. Don't buy from
a dealer who won't allow you to do that, and don't keep them for six months,
then decide you don't like them, and try to sell them for what you paid for
them.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
March 11, 2005 1:55:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bob Cain wrote:
>
>
> psalter wrote:
>
>> I agree with the Genelec suggestion but I've heard it said that
>> Genelec's sound so good you tend to not work hard enough on the
>> material.
>
>
> I think this indicates why the Mackies are not receiving the praise they
> deserve. Flat and accurate is not what people usually want to hear when
> auditioning a speaker unless they really understand what mixing monitors
> are for. In general the more you find that you "like" a particular
> speaker, the better the chances that there are deviations from accurate
> which your ear just likes, and the more you will be removing precisely
> what it is that you like when you actually mix.
>
> This is one of those few cases where I believe that specifications and
> measurement are more important than taste and the Mackies are _very_
> difficult to beat in that regard.
>
>
> Bob
I disagree on the mackie.I found the bass exaggerated.

I think the trick is to get flat and accurate WHILST being pleasant to
work with. In my book Dynaudio BM6 are the best in the "lower" price
range for this.
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
March 11, 2005 1:55:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

david morley wrote:
> Bob Cain wrote:
>
>> I think this indicates why the Mackies are not receiving the praise
>> they deserve. Flat and accurate is not what people usually want to
>> hear when auditioning a speaker unless they really understand what
>> mixing monitors are for. In general the more you find that you "like"
>> a particular speaker, the better the chances that there are deviations
>> from accurate which your ear just likes, and the more you will be
>> removing precisely what it is that you like when you actually mix.
>>
>> This is one of those few cases where I believe that specifications and
>> measurement are more important than taste and the Mackies are _very_
>> difficult to beat in that regard.
>>
>>
>> Bob
>
> I disagree on the mackie.I found the bass exaggerated.

You can hold whatever opinion you like, but it's hard to argue with the
"flat as a ruler" individual test plot that comes with each Mackie unit.
And these test results have been confirmed by outside labs. They
really are that flat. If you listen to the Mackies and find them
colored in some way, then you are either hearing a room interaction or
you have learned to expect certain colorations from listening to other
speakers, or both.

Neither of these results are unexpected: Room placement can have a
considerable effect on the sound of a speaker, especially in the low
end. And mass market speakers tend to be voiced to give an increase in
upper bass to make up for the lack of true extended low bass, plus
various other colorations in the mids and highs, often leading listeners
who have grown up with these speakers to not really know what "flat"
sounds like. To some extent, the bass problems in mass market speakers
are a result of trying to extend the bass without increasing the size of
the box, using ported designs (which tend to have a mid-bass peak that
is hard to get rid of). So it's somewhat endemic in the marketplace.

The Mackies are pretty good monitors, but they're not perfect. I've
been using them for about five years now, and I've found that my mixes
rarely translate as well as I'd like them to. Perhaps that's BECAUSE of
the problems in mass market speakers. But if I can make a mix that
sounds good on the Mackies, and also sounds good on my high-end
Bryston/Avalon system, and also sounds good on a boombox or car radio,
then I know I've got a keeper.

The Mackies are a very "forward" sounding speaker, probably because they
do a good job of avoiding edge refraction on their front baffles. As a
result, though, it is hard to make good decisions about reverb when
listening to the Mackies (for me anyway). They tend to swallow up the
reverb, so I have to be careful not to overuse that effect.

Anyway, I'll neither completely praise nor condemn the Mackies. I like
the way they sound, but that's not what makes a good monitor. Sometimes
I miss flaws in coloration when I listen to the Mackies - they do tend
to make things sound good. Personally, I think the best monitor is one
that shows you every flaw in your mix - including (and especially) those
flaws that are masked by other systems. The Mackies are good in that
regard, but by no means perfect.
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
March 11, 2005 1:55:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

david morley <david.morley@gmx.net> wrote:
>I disagree on the mackie.I found the bass exaggerated.

That is so dependant on the room, thugh. It's possible to get reasonable
low end with the Mackies. It's also possible to get really bloated and
out of control bass too, especially if you play with the compensation
switches.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
March 11, 2005 2:25:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bob Cain wrote:
>
>
> psalter wrote:
>
>> I agree with the Genelec suggestion but I've heard it said that
>> Genelec's sound so good you tend to not work hard enough on the
>> material.
>
>
> I think this indicates why the Mackies are not receiving the praise
> they deserve.

I think the Mackies have received quite a bit of praise and are widely
regarded as the value choice at their pricepoint.





> This is one of those few cases where I believe that specifications and
> measurement are more important than taste and the Mackies are _very_
> difficult to beat in that regard.

I think the new Genelec 8040A's may just do that.
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
March 11, 2005 2:32:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:

> What you want to listen for is whether you can hear details (as
> opposed to "detail" - I don't know what that means) like mouth noises,

But can't this simply betray an exagerated response in some
particular frequency range?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
March 11, 2005 6:50:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> david morley <david.morley@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>>I disagree on the mackie.I found the bass exaggerated.
>
>
> That is so dependant on the room, thugh. It's possible to get reasonable
> low end with the Mackies. It's also possible to get really bloated and
> out of control bass too, especially if you play with the compensation
> switches.
> --scott
>
I would definitely agree here with the room making a difference, but in
my (relatively limited) experience, the dynaudios and quested were less
"false" in the tests I did when compared to events, mackies and others
in that range. I have moved room 3 times and find Dynaudio the best
compromise between price, and "mixability". My mixes translate very
nicely and I can listen, all day without getting ANGRY!
I would have preffered £Questeds but they were a fair bit more expensive.
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
March 11, 2005 6:54:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 06:28:29 +0000, David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:

>
> "Glen O'Toole" <keys88@musician.org> wrote in message...
>
>> Just to salt the thread, I've been looking in that price range as well to
>> replace a set of KRK K-Roks, and I know this won't be popular, but I did
>> not like the Mackies. Something weird in the mids and a bit harsh.
>
> Gawd I love this business. I sat behind a pair of K-Roks for at least
> three months trying to learn how to compensate for the weird mids.
>
> I kept coming up with horribly mid-heavy mixes... It might be easy
> for me to to understand why the midrange of other systems doesn't
> sound right to you.
>
> DM

You might be right about that because I am having trouble compensating for
the Kroks mid bass hump and although adjusting the placement and playing
with the ports helped a bit, they are still too weird for me to mix on.

Three months must be the magic number for these monitors because I have
had mine for about that long :) . Another problem is that when I auditioned
the various models earlier this week, I didn't realize that I had a cold
coming on which is now a full blown mess. I think it might have been
screwing up my hearing.
I'm gonna take another listen when I feel better.


--
Glenn O'Toole

"Lounge Lizard Extraordinaire
and BagPipe Tuner"
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
March 11, 2005 7:03:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 09:24:54 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote:


> Which Tannoys? Tannoy basically has three lines of speakers that are
> voiced completely differently (much like Genelec has several speaker
> lines with different voicing... the 1030 and 1031 are very different-sounding
> speakers and the S30 bears no resemblance to anything else in the line).

The Tannoy Reveal Actives was the model I listened to.
Like I replied to David, I didn't realize I had a bad cold coming on when
I listend earlier this week so that might have had an effect because my
head is so clogged right now even a pair of NS-10's (minus the tissue
paper) couldn't clear me out :) 

--
Glenn O'Toole

"Lounge Lizard Extraordinaire
and BagPipe Tuner"
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
March 11, 2005 7:17:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

david morley wrote of HR824's:

> I disagree on the mackie.I found the bass exaggerated.

This is down to back panel switch settings and room placement. I have a
friend who has them set so the bass is just silly big, and his mixes
reflect that. When I had a pair here for a while I got them working well
within a couple hours of putzing with them. Their bass is _extended_ for
a box that size, but not exaggerated. This is measurable.

--
ha
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
March 11, 2005 8:03:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

What ever happened to auratones?
The flattest monitor from 100hz-5khz.
I guess it's that crossover thing
kevin
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
March 11, 2005 9:57:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

hank alrich wrote:
> david morley wrote of HR824's:
>
>
>>I disagree on the mackie.I found the bass exaggerated.
>
>
> This is down to back panel switch settings and room placement. I have a
> friend who has them set so the bass is just silly big, and his mixes
> reflect that. When I had a pair here for a while I got them working well
> within a couple hours of putzing with them. Their bass is _extended_ for
> a box that size, but not exaggerated. This is measurable.
>
> --
> ha
I think I have to re-phrase my statement. Tonally I was not happy with
the bass end compared to the Quested and Dynaudios I tried.
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
March 12, 2005 9:43:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"> kevindoylemu...@rogers.com writes:
> What ever happened to auratones?

While you were writing your missives, they went out of business. Oh,
and
people decided that there were things below 100 Hz and above 5 kHz that
were of interest since consumers have systems that can reproduce those
frequencies. "

now mike
he has posted all over looking for replacments for the auratones

all alone
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
March 12, 2005 9:50:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1110589395.543220.237320@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> kevindoylemusic@rogers.com writes:

> What ever happened to auratones?

While you were writing your missives, they went out of business. Oh, and
people decided that there were things below 100 Hz and above 5 kHz that
were of interest since consumers have systems that can reproduce those
frequencies.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
March 12, 2005 11:59:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Jim Gilliland" <usemylastname@cheerful.com> wrote:
>
> The Mackies are pretty good monitors, but they're not perfect. I've
> been using them for about five years now, and I've found that my
> mixes rarely translate as well as I'd like them to. Perhaps that's
> BECAUSE of the problems in mass market speakers.


Which causes me to wonder how much we really understand human perception
of sound. I'm in my third room with the same pair of Tannoy
concentrics, and my mixes almost always DO translate well to other
systems, even though the Tannoys do NOT measure "ruler flat."

Go figure.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
March 12, 2005 11:59:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Lorin David Schultz wrote:
> "Jim Gilliland" <usemylastname@cheerful.com> wrote:
>
>>The Mackies are pretty good monitors, but they're not perfect. I've
>>been using them for about five years now, and I've found that my
>>mixes rarely translate as well as I'd like them to. Perhaps that's
>>BECAUSE of the problems in mass market speakers.
>
> Which causes me to wonder how much we really understand human perception
> of sound. I'm in my third room with the same pair of Tannoy
> concentrics, and my mixes almost always DO translate well to other
> systems, even though the Tannoys do NOT measure "ruler flat."

Of course, it's always possible that your ears are just better than
mine! <g>

But that reinforces the point that I made elsewhere in my post - I'd
rather have a pair of monitors that will ruthlessly demonstrate the
flaws in my mix than a pair that tend to make things sound good.
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
March 12, 2005 1:22:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 08:59:01 +0000, Lorin David Schultz wrote:

> "Jim Gilliland" <usemylastname@cheerful.com> wrote:
>>
>> The Mackies are pretty good monitors, but they're not perfect. I've
>> been using them for about five years now, and I've found that my
>> mixes rarely translate as well as I'd like them to. Perhaps that's
>> BECAUSE of the problems in mass market speakers.
>
>
> Which causes me to wonder how much we really understand human perception
> of sound. I'm in my third room with the same pair of Tannoy
> concentrics, and my mixes almost always DO translate well to other
> systems, even though the Tannoys do NOT measure "ruler flat."
>
> Go figure.

You know your monitors and you know how to mix on them due to experience.
Much of it just comes naturally to you because of the time you have spent
in front of that particular monitor.

I agree totally with Scott in that it is imperative to go out and listen
to various models because they all sound very different from each other
and there is no best monitor for everyone.

Which Tannoys are you using BTW?

--
Glenn O'Toole

"Lounge Lizard Extraordinaire
and BagPipe Tuner"
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
March 12, 2005 5:27:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:

> Oh, and
> people decided that there were things below 100 Hz and above 5 kHz that
> were of interest since consumers have systems that can reproduce those
> frequencies.

Maybe he's never heard those frequencies, so it doesn't matter to him.


PapaNate
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
March 12, 2005 5:30:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1110638600.963630.113640@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> dallen@frognet.net writes:

> now mike
> he has posted all over looking for replacments for the auratones

Why? There were good reasons why people used them in the past. There
are good reasons why people don't use them today. This is the future.
That was the pasture.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
March 12, 2005 10:18:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:

> kevindoyle wrote:

> > What ever happened to auratones?

> While you were writing your missives, they went out of business. Oh, and
> people decided that there were things below 100 Hz and above 5 kHz that
> were of interest since consumers have systems that can reproduce those
> frequencies.

And I still have a nicely working pair here for sale for $175.00 plus
shipping. Bring the past into your present.

--
ha
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
March 12, 2005 10:18:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:
> kevindoyle wrote:
> > What ever happened to auratones?
>
> While you were writing your missives, they went out of business. Oh, and
> people decided that there were things below 100 Hz and above 5 kHz that
> were of interest since consumers have systems that can reproduce those
> frequencies.

The good news is that the LS 3/5a is _much_ flatter in the midrange than
Auratones ever were. The voice reproduction on them is far more natural.
And, they actually have some high frequency response even if they don't
have anything below 100 Hz either.

They aren't made anymore either, but I think they are a much better choice
than the Auratones are if you actually care about sound quality and aren't
using them as cuing monitors or something. They are really handy for voice
editing work.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
March 12, 2005 10:18:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 19:18:32 GMT, walkinay@thegrid.net (hank alrich)
wrote:

>Mike Rivers wrote:
>
>> kevindoyle wrote:
>
>> > What ever happened to auratones?
>
>> While you were writing your missives, they went out of business. Oh, and
>> people decided that there were things below 100 Hz and above 5 kHz that
>> were of interest since consumers have systems that can reproduce those
>> frequencies.
>
>And I still have a nicely working pair here for sale for $175.00 plus
>shipping. Bring the past into your present.

To paraphrase Steve Miller, "Time keeps on slipping, slipping, into
the pasture"...

Al
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
March 12, 2005 10:18:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 12 Mar 2005 16:18:02 -0500, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Mike Rivers wrote:
>> kevindoyle wrote:
>> > What ever happened to auratones?
>>
>> While you were writing your missives, they went out of business. Oh, and
>> people decided that there were things below 100 Hz and above 5 kHz that
>> were of interest since consumers have systems that can reproduce those
>> frequencies.
>
>The good news is that the LS 3/5a is _much_ flatter in the midrange than
>Auratones ever were. The voice reproduction on them is far more natural.
>And, they actually have some high frequency response even if they don't
>have anything below 100 Hz either.
>
>They aren't made anymore either, but I think they are a much better choice
>than the Auratones are if you actually care about sound quality and aren't
>using them as cuing monitors or something. They are really handy for voice
>editing work.
>--scott

Interesting... they seem to be a lot pricier than Auratones too...

Al
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
March 13, 2005 3:41:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Mike Rivers wrote:
>
>>kevindoyle wrote:
>>
>>>What ever happened to auratones?
>>
>>While you were writing your missives, they went out of business. Oh, and
>>people decided that there were things below 100 Hz and above 5 kHz that
>>were of interest since consumers have systems that can reproduce those
>>frequencies.
>
>
> The good news is that the LS 3/5a is _much_ flatter in the midrange than
> Auratones ever were. The voice reproduction on them is far more natural.
> And, they actually have some high frequency response even if they don't
> have anything below 100 Hz either.
>
> They aren't made anymore either, but I think they are a much better choice
> than the Auratones are if you actually care about sound quality and aren't
> using them as cuing monitors or something. They are really handy for voice
> editing work.
> --scott
>
I'd agree with scott here.
I have as my small hifi the JR149 which are the same but cylindrical. I
love the mids on these too. They also seem to have a touch more low end
than the LS 3/5 have
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
March 13, 2005 5:38:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <39in6sF61ntm5U1@individual.net> david.morley@gmx.net writes:

> > The good news is that the LS 3/5a is _much_ flatter in the midrange

> I'd agree with scott here.
> I have as my small hifi the JR149 which are the same but cylindrical. I
> love the mids on these too. They also seem to have a touch more low end
> than the LS 3/5 have

Back around 1988, I spent several weeks at a factory school in Palo
Alto which, at the time (maybe still) was an audiophile Mecca. One
afternoon I went into a high end shop to see what they had. I picked
out a couple of records (yes, records) they had of acoustic music. One
was a Dave Grisman group with Tony Rice. The salesman said "If you
like that kind of music, you'll probably like these" and started
playing the disk through these little speakers that just sounded
great. They were Rogers LS3/5As, which I hadn't heard of at the time.
I was tempted to buy a pair and ship them home, but they were much
more than I could justify, I think about $800 for the pair.

Since then, I've heard the history of this speaker, which, it seems,
is a specification, build by several manufacturers, but using a very
limited choice of components. Rogers was just one of several brand
names.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
March 13, 2005 5:38:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 13 Mar 2005 14:38:42 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>
>In article <39in6sF61ntm5U1@individual.net> david.morley@gmx.net writes:
>
>> > The good news is that the LS 3/5a is _much_ flatter in the midrange
>
>> I'd agree with scott here.
>> I have as my small hifi the JR149 which are the same but cylindrical. I
>> love the mids on these too. They also seem to have a touch more low end
>> than the LS 3/5 have
>
>Back around 1988, I spent several weeks at a factory school in Palo
>Alto which, at the time (maybe still) was an audiophile Mecca. One
>afternoon I went into a high end shop to see what they had. I picked
>out a couple of records (yes, records) they had of acoustic music. One
>was a Dave Grisman group with Tony Rice. The salesman said "If you
>like that kind of music, you'll probably like these" and started
>playing the disk through these little speakers that just sounded
>great. They were Rogers LS3/5As, which I hadn't heard of at the time.
>I was tempted to buy a pair and ship them home, but they were much
>more than I could justify, I think about $800 for the pair.
>
>Since then, I've heard the history of this speaker, which, it seems,
>is a specification, build by several manufacturers, but using a very
>limited choice of components. Rogers was just one of several brand
>names.

I was researching this, it looks like Kef made some speakers that were
essentially the same thing and they seem to go for less $.

Al
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
March 13, 2005 8:23:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Glen O'Toole" <keys88@musician.org> wrote:
>
> Which Tannoys are you using BTW?


NFM8, similar to System 800. At work I use System 1000 (just a 10"
version of the same thing).

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
March 14, 2005 2:57:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

play on wrote:
> On 13 Mar 2005 14:38:42 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <39in6sF61ntm5U1@individual.net> david.morley@gmx.net writes:
>>
>>
>>>>The good news is that the LS 3/5a is _much_ flatter in the midrange
>>
>>>I'd agree with scott here.
>>>I have as my small hifi the JR149 which are the same but cylindrical. I
>>>love the mids on these too. They also seem to have a touch more low end
>>>than the LS 3/5 have
>>
>>Back around 1988, I spent several weeks at a factory school in Palo
>>Alto which, at the time (maybe still) was an audiophile Mecca. One
>>afternoon I went into a high end shop to see what they had. I picked
>>out a couple of records (yes, records) they had of acoustic music. One
>>was a Dave Grisman group with Tony Rice. The salesman said "If you
>>like that kind of music, you'll probably like these" and started
>>playing the disk through these little speakers that just sounded
>>great. They were Rogers LS3/5As, which I hadn't heard of at the time.
>>I was tempted to buy a pair and ship them home, but they were much
>>more than I could justify, I think about $800 for the pair.
>>
>>Since then, I've heard the history of this speaker, which, it seems,
>>is a specification, build by several manufacturers, but using a very
>>limited choice of components. Rogers was just one of several brand
>>names.
>
>
> I was researching this, it looks like Kef made some speakers that were
> essentially the same thing and they seem to go for less $.
>
> Al
the rogers use Kef drivers
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
March 14, 2005 10:51:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message news:znr1110640627k@trad...

> There were good reasons why people used them in the past. There
> are good reasons why people don't use them today. This is the future.

> That was the pasture.


I find that my horror-tones work equally well indoors.

DM
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
March 14, 2005 10:54:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"play on" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in message news:j2o6315fk454odi4bucbtf80jndhah45bh@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 19:18:32 GMT, walkinay@thegrid.net (hank alrich)
> wrote:
>
> >Mike Rivers wrote:
> >
> >> kevindoyle wrote:
> >
> >> > What ever happened to auratones?
> >
> >> While you were writing your missives, they went out of business. Oh, and
> >> people decided that there were things below 100 Hz and above 5 kHz that
> >> were of interest since consumers have systems that can reproduce those
> >> frequencies.
> >
> >And I still have a nicely working pair here for sale for $175.00 plus
> >shipping. Bring the past into your present.
>
> To paraphrase Steve Miller, "Time keeps on slipping, slipping, into
> the pasture"...


Not you too !?! Looks like I need to string some long cables...
!