Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

want to upgrade Mackie HR824 monitors; what should I look ..

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
September 20, 2005 1:44:39 AM

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

I do enjoy the sound of Mackie HR824s. At at the time I bought them,
they were the biggest monitors I could get that would fit in my
furniture. But now my space constraints are gone, and I'm looking for
more bass response. (LOWER frequency, NOT necessarily LOUDER bass.)

I'm thinking about the ADAM S2.5A. Is there any other brand in this
price range that I should consider?

Btw, I think the Genelecs sound great but their bass response is
slightly underwhelming.

Thanks for any advice...
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
September 20, 2005 1:44:40 AM

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

J.W. <j10w_n1g@att.net> wrote:
>I do enjoy the sound of Mackie HR824s. At at the time I bought them,
>they were the biggest monitors I could get that would fit in my
>furniture. But now my space constraints are gone, and I'm looking for
>more bass response. (LOWER frequency, NOT necessarily LOUDER bass.)
>
>I'm thinking about the ADAM S2.5A. Is there any other brand in this
>price range that I should consider?

Tannoy makes some stuff in that price range, actually two very different
lines in that price range that sound very different.

>Btw, I think the Genelecs sound great but their bass response is
>slightly underwhelming.

WHICH Genelecs? Are you referring to one of the (all different) 10-series
Genelecs, or to one of the new 8000-series?

Are you willing to consider an integrated satellite/sub system like the
Blue Sky? That can be a great solution in some rooms, and totally unworkable
in other rooms.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
September 20, 2005 1:44:40 AM

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

add a subwoofer?
Related resources
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
September 20, 2005 4:47:20 AM

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

"J.W." <j10w_n1g@att.net> wrote in message
news:cvbui1tb9mh1ksc4lkbt6752u5786661dn@4ax.com...
>
> I do enjoy the sound of Mackie HR824s. At at the time I bought them,
> they were the biggest monitors I could get that would fit in my
> furniture. But now my space constraints are gone, and I'm looking for
> more bass response. (LOWER frequency, NOT necessarily LOUDER bass.)

Beware of deep bass response from a two-way monitor. For example the
HR824's extend bass response by using a passive radiator, which by nature is
rife with harmonic distortion, and will interfere with the active driver
(though in its defence the 824 manages quite well). A subwoofer has a
better chance of being accurate in theory, but in practice low bass is
generally the sound of the speaker rather than the signal it's fed.

I haven't helped have I...
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
September 20, 2005 4:48:13 AM

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

"J.W." <j10w_n1g@att.net> wrote in message
news:cvbui1tb9mh1ksc4lkbt6752u5786661dn@4ax.com...
>
> I do enjoy the sound of Mackie HR824s. At at the time I bought them,
> they were the biggest monitors I could get that would fit in my
> furniture. But now my space constraints are gone, and I'm looking for
> more bass response. (LOWER frequency, NOT necessarily LOUDER bass.)
>
> I'm thinking about the ADAM S2.5A. Is there any other brand in this
> price range that I should consider?
>
> Btw, I think the Genelecs sound great but their bass response is
> slightly underwhelming.
>
> Thanks for any advice...
>
>
Why not get something like an Adire Shiva subwoofer? It would go lower in
frequency, and the price is very reasonable for the perfomance, especially
if you build a sonotube sub.
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
September 20, 2005 8:13:39 AM

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

On 19 Sep 2005 17:55:32 -0400, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>J.W. <j10w_n1g@att.net> wrote:
>>I do enjoy the sound of Mackie HR824s. At at the time I bought them,
>>they were the biggest monitors I could get that would fit in my
>>furniture. But now my space constraints are gone, and I'm looking for
>>more bass response. (LOWER frequency, NOT necessarily LOUDER bass.)
>>
>>I'm thinking about the ADAM S2.5A. Is there any other brand in this
>>price range that I should consider?
>
>Tannoy makes some stuff in that price range, actually two very different
>lines in that price range that sound very different.
>
>>Btw, I think the Genelecs sound great but their bass response is
>>slightly underwhelming.
>
>WHICH Genelecs? Are you referring to one of the (all different) 10-series
>Genelecs, or to one of the new 8000-series?

The Genelec 1030A was a little weak on the bass. I've never heard the
8000 series. Are they better?

>Are you willing to consider an integrated satellite/sub system like the
>Blue Sky? That can be a great solution in some rooms, and totally unworkable
>in other rooms.

I've never been able to get a tight focused sound out of 2 satellites
+ subwoofer. Perhaps it was non-optimal room placement of the sub
(even though I followed guidelines.) Plus one could spend all day (or
many weeks) trying to "tune" the right crossover point to match the
existing speakers. I'd rather just get two high quality speakers and
avoid the subwoofer hassle.

I have a subwoofer in the living room for the 5.1 surround sound DVD
movies so I'm not totally against it. In that home-theater situation,
I think the subwoofer is primarily used for sound effects. But for
critical listening, a subwoofer seems to smear the sound stage image.
I'm sure others have had awesome results with subs---I just ran out of
patience with trying to integrate it into a studio setting.
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
September 20, 2005 8:13:40 AM

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

J.W. wrote:
> On 19 Sep 2005 17:55:32 -0400, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>>J.W. <j10w_n1g@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I think the Genelecs sound great but their bass response is
>>> slightly underwhelming.
>>
>>
>> WHICH Genelecs? Are you referring to one of the (all different) 10-series
>> Genelecs, or to one of the new 8000-series?
>
>
> The Genelec 1030A was a little weak on the bass. I've never heard the
> 8000 series. Are they better?


Quite a bit, though the biggest improvements (to my ears) lie in the
upper midrange - tweeter transition area.
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
September 20, 2005 5:12:58 PM

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

J.W. <j10w_n1g@att.net> wrote:
>On 19 Sep 2005 17:55:32 -0400, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>J.W. <j10w_n1g@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Btw, I think the Genelecs sound great but their bass response is
>>>slightly underwhelming.
>>
>>WHICH Genelecs? Are you referring to one of the (all different) 10-series
>>Genelecs, or to one of the new 8000-series?
>
>The Genelec 1030A was a little weak on the bass. I've never heard the
>8000 series. Are they better?

Definitely check out the new 8000 series. They are different. They
are basically all voiced the same, other than the low end. You spend
more money, you get more bass extension, but nothing else changes.

The 1030A didn't go very low. The 1031 went much lower, but the midrange
was different. The 1032 went even lower, and the midrange was mostly like
the 1031. This sort of thing isn't the case with the new series.

>>Are you willing to consider an integrated satellite/sub system like the
>>Blue Sky? That can be a great solution in some rooms, and totally unworkable
>>in other rooms.
>
>I've never been able to get a tight focused sound out of 2 satellites
>+ subwoofer. Perhaps it was non-optimal room placement of the sub
>(even though I followed guidelines.) Plus one could spend all day (or
>many weeks) trying to "tune" the right crossover point to match the
>existing speakers. I'd rather just get two high quality speakers and
>avoid the subwoofer hassle.

It's possible to do, but it's a lot of work, and it requires some careful
room measurement even if you start out with a system like the Blue Sky
where the satellites and sub are designed to work together.

Avoid systems with half a crossover as much as possible... there are
a lot of cheesy systems that don't high-pass the mains but just use
the natural roll-off of the mains. It's impossible to make that system
work well.

>I have a subwoofer in the living room for the 5.1 surround sound DVD
>movies so I'm not totally against it. In that home-theater situation,
>I think the subwoofer is primarily used for sound effects. But for
>critical listening, a subwoofer seems to smear the sound stage image.
>I'm sure others have had awesome results with subs---I just ran out of
>patience with trying to integrate it into a studio setting.

The subs intended for this application are normally just thump boxes
with very little definition, rather than real subwoofers. Which is
fine, as long as you don't try and reproduce wideband music on the system.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
September 20, 2005 6:55:46 PM

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

Zigakly wrote:

> Beware of deep bass response from a two-way monitor. For example the
> HR824's extend bass response by using a passive radiator, which by nature is
> rife with harmonic distortion, and will interfere with the active driver
> (though in its defence the 824 manages quite well).

My intuition says that passive radiators should be very
linear. The mass component is perfectly linear and the
compliance component is mainly the air in the cabinet which
I think is also very linear at the pressures involved.
Could be why the 824 manages so well. :-)


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
September 21, 2005 12:25:38 AM

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

"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:D gq0h001rfr@enews4.newsguy.com...
>
>
> Zigakly wrote:
>
> > Beware of deep bass response from a two-way monitor. For example the
> > HR824's extend bass response by using a passive radiator, which by
nature is
> > rife with harmonic distortion, and will interfere with the active driver
> > (though in its defence the 824 manages quite well).
>
> My intuition says that passive radiators should be very
> linear. The mass component is perfectly linear and the
> compliance component is mainly the air in the cabinet which
> I think is also very linear at the pressures involved.
> Could be why the 824 manages so well. :-)

Linear resonance? You're going to have to feed that notion a few more beers
to get it into bed...
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
September 21, 2005 7:04:07 AM

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

Zigakly wrote:
> "Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
> news:D gq0h001rfr@enews4.newsguy.com...
>
>>
>>Zigakly wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Beware of deep bass response from a two-way monitor. For example the
>>>HR824's extend bass response by using a passive radiator, which by
>
> nature is
>
>>>rife with harmonic distortion, and will interfere with the active driver
>>>(though in its defence the 824 manages quite well).
>>
>>My intuition says that passive radiators should be very
>>linear. The mass component is perfectly linear and the
>>compliance component is mainly the air in the cabinet which
>>I think is also very linear at the pressures involved.
>>Could be why the 824 manages so well. :-)
>
>
> Linear resonance? You're going to have to feed that notion a few more beers
> to get it into bed...

The idea is that because of resonance, small excursion of
the active driver can cause large excursion of the passive
one where the energy is radiated. The driver remains more
in it's linear regime and the passive is inherently linear.
Lower distortion all 'round.

The passive driver's excursions in turn are smaller with
wider area than air in a port so that port noise (chuffing)
is lower.


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
September 21, 2005 7:24:29 AM

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

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 20:25:38 -0400, "Zigakly" <no@no.no> wrote:

>> My intuition says that passive radiators should be very
>> linear. The mass component is perfectly linear and the
>> compliance component is mainly the air in the cabinet which
>> I think is also very linear at the pressures involved.
>> Could be why the 824 manages so well. :-)
>
>Linear resonance? You're going to have to feed that notion a few more beers
>to get it into bed...

Why? Resonances can be perfectly linear, in the sense
of not causing non-linear amplitude distortion.

And passive radiators contribute almost entirely
mass to the resonance. Not much to go wrong there.

Whether or not ported boxes or passive radiators
are a *really terrible* idea is a whole nuther
matter.

Chris Hornbeck
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
September 21, 2005 1:01:45 PM

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

"Zigakly" <no@no.no> wrote in message
news:D go476$uke$1@domitilla.aioe.org
> "J.W." <j10w_n1g@att.net> wrote in message
> news:cvbui1tb9mh1ksc4lkbt6752u5786661dn@4ax.com...
>>
>> I do enjoy the sound of Mackie HR824s. At at the time I
>> bought them, they were the biggest monitors I could get
>> that would fit in my furniture. But now my space
>> constraints are gone, and I'm looking for more bass
>> response. (LOWER frequency, NOT necessarily LOUDER
>> bass.)
>
> Beware of deep bass response from a two-way monitor. For
> example the HR824's extend bass response by using a
> passive radiator, which by nature is rife with harmonic
> distortion, and will interfere with the active driver
> (though in its defence the 824 manages quite well).

Passive radiators are among the most linear of speaker
components because they are very simple and don't contain
most of the things that cause distortion in a
similarly-appearing loudspeaker driver.

A passive radiator is in essence a miniaturized speaker
port.

A speaker port is characterized by the mass and to a lesser
degree the springiness of the air in the port, while the
passive radiator is characterized by the mass of the
diaphragm and to a lesser degree the springiness of the
cone's suspension. It really comes down to grams of air in
the port versus grams of mass in the passive radiator's
diaphragm.

Since the passive radiator's diaphragm material has a far
greater specific mass than air, its smaller than a
corresponding port. Therefore the speaker system with a
passive radiator can obtain identical performance out of a
smaller box, at the cost of adding the passive radiator.

In small, high-performance speaker with deep bass extension,
the port can be a large fraction of the total size of the
enclosure.

>A subwoofer has a better chance of being accurate in
> theory, but in practice low bass is generally the sound
> of the speaker rather than the signal it's fed.

The main advantage of a separate subwoofer over a 2-way with
similar bass extension is that subwoofer drivers don't have
to be designed to work up into the midrange region. An 18
inch subwoofer is a very practical design, but an 18 inch
midrange isn't because of its large diaphragm size forces
extremely narrow dispersion.

Subwoofers are easier to design as large drivers because
they need to move a lot of air.

> I haven't helped have I...
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
September 21, 2005 7:17:25 PM

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

Arny Krueger wrote:

> Since the passive radiator's diaphragm material has a far
> greater specific mass than air, its smaller than a
> corresponding port.

I don't think this is correct, Arny. In order to reduce
excursion requirements they are usually of greater area than
a port.

Also, doesn't the inside air compliance dominate rather than
the suspension compliance? To get low resonance you want
high compliance so I can't see designing for the resonance
to be limited by the suspension (which isn't all that easy
to make linear.)


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
September 22, 2005 1:48:01 AM

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

"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:D gsm5j02chu@enews4.newsguy.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> Since the passive radiator's diaphragm material has a far
>> greater specific mass than air, its smaller than a
>> corresponding port.
>
> I don't think this is correct, Arny. In order to reduce
> excursion requirements they are usually of greater area
> than a port.

I'm thinking of smaller as in less volume, not just a
smaller diameter.

You're right about passive radiators generally having a
larger diameter than the equivalent port.

> Also, doesn't the inside air compliance dominate rather
> than the suspension compliance? To get low resonance you
> want high compliance so I can't see designing for the
> resonance to be limited by the suspension (which isn't
> all that easy to make linear.)

That's right if you're talking about the box.
!