Mackie HR824s

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

I have now heard several vaugely negative things about these monitors.
Anyone here use them and care to comment about their drawbacks, if any?
Except for some drop-off at the low end, which is to be expected, their
Frequency Response chart looks pretty impressive.

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

In article <1123172041.323750.43110@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"sane54" <witzgall@swbell.net> wrote:

> I have now heard several vaugely negative things about these monitors.
> Anyone here use them and care to comment about their drawbacks, if any?
> Except for some drop-off at the low end, which is to be expected, their
> Frequency Response chart looks pretty impressive.
>

We did find some "irregularities" above 20 kHz when we looked at these with a
B&K 4133 mic and an HP spectrum analyzer, but I can't find the plots (or
anything else) right now as we're moving back into our renovated building next
week. I recall they had a pretty peaky/dippy plot above 20 kHz in a simple
broadband noise test. How that translates to the sound of the speaker wasn't
clear. We have eight of them and most users seem to like them.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

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

In article <dctgf5$h3f$1@panix2.panix.com>, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
wrote:

> Jay Kadis <jay@ccrma.stanford.edu> wrote:
> >In article <1123172041.323750.43110@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "sane54" <witzgall@swbell.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I have now heard several vaugely negative things about these monitors.
> >> Anyone here use them and care to comment about their drawbacks, if any?
> >> Except for some drop-off at the low end, which is to be expected, their
> >> Frequency Response chart looks pretty impressive.
> >
> >We did find some "irregularities" above 20 kHz when we looked at these with
> >a
> >B&K 4133 mic and an HP spectrum analyzer, but I can't find the plots (or
> >anything else) right now as we're moving back into our renovated building
> >next
> >week. I recall they had a pretty peaky/dippy plot above 20 kHz in a simple
> >broadband noise test. How that translates to the sound of the speaker
> >wasn't
> >clear. We have eight of them and most users seem to like them.
>
> That's typical of any of the dome tweeter designs. I bet you saw some
> junk an octave lower due to the waveguide dish that the tweeter is set
> into, also. Life's like that.
>
> That, incidentally, is why I don't like dome tweeters, but again that
> is a religious issue.
> --scott


We were comparing the 824s with the ADAM S3As. There was a BIG difference in
the high end as the ADAMs rolled off gracefully, while the 824s didn't.

Actually, the 824 on-line data sheet claims "flat frequency response 39-20kHz"
(+/- 1.5 dB 39 Hz - 22.5 kHz in the description) and makes no claims about what
happens below and above those frequencies. I'm afraid that people see the 824s
spec'ed to 20 kHz and assume they just cut off there. They don't.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

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

sane54 wrote:
> I have now heard several vaugely negative things about these monitors.



What, have you been living under a rock? Stick around long enough &
you'll hear vaugely negative things about *any* piece of audio gear.
There's someone somewhere who hates everything.

(Well, except for Gordon mic preamps, but that's a topic for another
thread...)

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

"sane54" <witzgall@swbell.net> wrote in message news:1123172041.323750.43110@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I have now heard several vaugely negative things about these monitors.
> Anyone here use them and care to comment about their drawbacks, if any?
> Except for some drop-off at the low end, which is to be expected, their
> Frequency Response chart looks pretty impressive.



I don't own a pair, but I have plenty of occasions to use them. I find
that my work on them translates well to speakers that I am familiar
with, thus I can work on them without being intimate with them and
still not have too many anomalies. I also like the tightness of the low
end response and find them not to be a problem there.... although as
with many near fields, it helps to watch them move as well.

I guess I'd give them a thumbs-up.

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
Morgan Audio Media Service
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_______________________________________
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com

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

In article <1123172041.323750.43110@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
witzgall@swbell.net says...
> I have now heard several vaugely negative things about these monitors.
> Anyone here use them and care to comment about their drawbacks, if any?
> Except for some drop-off at the low end, which is to be expected, their
> Frequency Response chart looks pretty impressive.
>
We have a set. They sound nice. My mixes don't translate very well
from them to the real world, however. I have a hard time getting the
midrange/bass balance right.
--
---Mikhael...

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

In article <BctIe.158732$HI.83880@edtnps84>,
"Lorin David Schultz" <Lorin@DAMNSPAM!v5v.ca> wrote:

> "Jay Kadis" <jay@ccrma.stanford.edu> wrote:
> >
> > I'm afraid that people see the 824s spec'ed to 20 kHz and assume they
> > just cut off there. They don't.
>
>
> So what? Unless the dogs and bats in the vicinity are very
> discriminating about accurate noise signatures, it's not going to
> matter. Humans will be blissfully unaware that there is even any
> content up there (in fact, there may well NOT be).

My cat complained.

A lot of speaker manufacturers are touting wide-band monitors. I consider the
ADAMs to be very good monitors. When we compared them to the 824s, there was
significant difference in the sound and no one preferred the Mackies. While
both produce ultrasonic frequencies, they don't sound the same and it was of
interest that their ultrasonic performance was so different. I agree we
probably can't hear the direct ultrasonic output, but these frequencies produce
acoustical output that excites the room and interacts other acoustic components
so we cannot necessarily disregard them just because we don't perceive them
directly.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

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

Jay Kadis <jay@ccrma.stanford.edu> wrote:
>A lot of speaker manufacturers are touting wide-band monitors. I consider the
>ADAMs to be very good monitors. When we compared them to the 824s, there was
>significant difference in the sound and no one preferred the Mackies. While
>both produce ultrasonic frequencies, they don't sound the same and it was of
>interest that their ultrasonic performance was so different. I agree we
>probably can't hear the direct ultrasonic output, but these frequencies produce
>acoustical output that excites the room and interacts other acoustic components
>so we cannot necessarily disregard them just because we don't perceive them
>directly.

The differences between the Mackies and the Adams _within_ the audible
range are so substantial that I think they dwarf any worries about
differences outside the passband.

I can't think of two more different tweeter designs.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

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

In article <1MmdnThwd9-5U2_fRVn-iQ@comcast.com> jonnydurango1BUSH_FROM_OFFICE@comcast.net writes:

> I wonder how many of these competing companies
> post "guerilla advertising" attacks on other products to make their own
> produ7cts more competetive....

I don't think that any legitimate company does that. We have had some
suspected reps that "review" products that they'd like to sell, but
not manufacturers, that I can remember anyway.

--
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

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

On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 07:08:21 -0400, Mike Rivers wrote
(in article <znr1123211668k@trad> ):

>
> In article <1MmdnThwd9-5U2_fRVn-iQ@comcast.com>
> jonnydurango1BUSH_FROM_OFFICE@comcast.net writes:
>
>> I wonder how many of these competing companies
>> post "guerilla advertising" attacks on other products to make their own
>> produ7cts more competetive....
>
> I don't think that any legitimate company does that. We have had some
> suspected reps that "review" products that they'd like to sell, but
> not manufacturers, that I can remember anyway.

I think it happens a lot more often than anyone is aware and in any number of
subtle ways.

Regards,

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

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

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Mick <m.porter@sausagefreescale.com> wrote:
> >In article <1123172041.323750.43110@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >witzgall@swbell.net says...
> >> I have now heard several vaugely negative things about these monitors.
> >> Anyone here use them and care to comment about their drawbacks, if any?
> >> Except for some drop-off at the low end, which is to be expected, their
> >> Frequency Response chart looks pretty impressive.
> >>
> > We have a set. They sound nice. My mixes don't translate very well
> >from them to the real world, however. I have a hard time getting the
> >midrange/bass balance right.
>
> I would do some serious checking of the room if that is the case.
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Absolutely, the biggest issue I find with most 'home' or 'project'
studios is the ceiling dimensions. What I kinda call the 8 foot mud
zone. Causes big problems between 100 - 200 Hz.

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

Ethan Winer <ethanw at ethanwiner dot com> wrote:
>
>> If you actually _could_ see a real waterfall plot of the thing <
>
>I have Philip Newell's excellent book "Recording Studio Design" and one
>appendix shows waterfall plots (and impulse response) for a large number of
>contemporary speakers. The Mackie 824 is included, and it's impressive with
>very little LF resonance.

I'm not surprised, and the clean midrange probably indicates a lack of
hangover there too. It still makes female vocals sound a little nasal,
and I bet there is some spiky-looking stuff above 10 KHz, just because
that's typical of domes.

But I am not surprised.... a quick comparison between the Mackie and
Hafler monitors was very interesting, with the Mackie having clearly
more accurate LF.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

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

"sane54" <witzgall@swbell.net> wrote in news:1123172041.323750.43110
@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> I have now heard several vaugely negative things about these monitors.
> Anyone here use them and care to comment about their drawbacks, if any?
> Except for some drop-off at the low end, which is to be expected, their
> Frequency Response chart looks pretty impressive.

Not to muddy the waters, but, on the recommendation of Brad Lyons at
Sweetwater, I'm auditioning a pair of Event Studio Precision 8 monitors (
http://www.eventelectronics.com ). They are very similar to the 824's.
Similar price, size, weight, driver configuration, amplifier power, etc.

While I'm not intimately familiar with the 824's, I have heard them. I
only received the ASP8's yesterday, but so far they sound at least as good
as my memory of the Mackie's. Seem to have a smoother high/mid range.
Take that with the grain of salt it deserves.

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

Allan Wind <allan_wind@lifeintegrity.com> wrote in
news:slrndf9oki.fqs.allan_wind@pawan.dyndns.org:

> On 2005-08-06, Blind Hog <blind_hog@acorn.com> wrote:
>> While I'm not intimately familiar with the 824's, I have heard them.
>> I only received the ASP8's yesterday, but so far they sound at least
>> as good as my memory of the Mackie's. Seem to have a smoother
>> high/mid range. Take that with the grain of salt it deserves.
>
> ASP8 sounded a lot better to me than the 824, but they do take up
> quite a bit more desk space. Read later that the ASP6 have an even
> tighter sound, but you may then need a woofer for the low-end.

You're the second person I've read saying that.

Mackie HR824: 15.75"x 10" x 12.2"
Event ASP8: 12.5" x 16" x 11.9"

10" wide vs 16" is only another foot of space.