ive narrowed my search for(affordable)mixing monitors down to either the mackie HR-624 or the M-Audio BX-8s. i would greatly appreciate any comments or opinions to help me choose. also,the pro\'s and cons of active vs passive speakers.
Hmm, I keep hearing mixed reviews about the Mackie 624s and the Mackie 824s.
In all of the publications that I\'ve read they lavish the Mackie 624s with endless praises saying that they have better stereo imaging and sweeter mids than the Mackie 824s. It was even a 2002 TEC Award Winner.
They always go on to say that the Mackie 824s go about 10 hertz lower than the Mackie 624s at which point the Mackie Subwoofer is recommended if you need the extra bass. I have no idea whats true and what isn\'t in this case.
Anyone with experience with both care to elaborate?
It is tough to mix with a subwoofer. Even though bass wavelengths are very large and somewhat omnidirectional in enclosed space, you still get some smearing of the image. There\'s a visual aspect as well. With a sub/crossover setup, you don\'t get any sense at all of the cone travel, and of the overall efficiency of your mix. To me, that\'s the biggest strike against 624s and other monitors of that size. Even with a sub, you can let some pretty egregious defects slip by because you just didn\'t see or hear them.
Thanks Bruce. I remember one reviewer saying that the days before the review he spent time mixing in some world class studio in San Francisco and he named some monitor that he claimed was regarded as being one of the best. He said that the 624s sounded exactly like them.
I\'m under the impression that you get a better mid and high range from the 624s while the 824s have the extended low frequency. From what I gathered the Mackie 624s go as low as 49Hz while the 824s go to 39Hz, both remaining flat. Exactly how crucial is it to have that extra 10 Hertz?
My drummer and were mixing our last CD in my studio on my 824s (which I really do like a lot.) The room is pretty flat, a little uneven L to R, but tones out quite evenly from 40 to 500Hz +/- 2.5 or less.
The drummer has spent a fair amount of time in the (old analog realm) studio, had his own small analog rig (Soundcraft 200B, 4-track) and knew exactly how he wanted his drums to sound, so I let him do his own drum submix, EQ, compress, etc.
Using DP 2.7 and the 824s the mix sounded great, so I burned a copy and proceeded to play it on everything we could get our hands on-boom box, house stereo, my NS-10s, my Auralex C5s, his Porche stereo, the mix sounded great on all of them. (Note: I had nothing with real extended low-range response down to 20Hz or below.)
But in my Dodge van stereo with the \'high-end\' 10-speaker radio with 5-band equalizer, it was a total mess, with the bass being total mud, and about 10-15 dB higher than it should. We never would have heard this on a system which rolled off the bass, but the Dodge radio did not affect frequencies below 50 Hz (the equalizer used a series of bandpass filters which apparently stopped EQing at 40 or so and let anything lower pass.)
I went into DP and looked at his drum EQ, which I had not paid that much attention to before, because I trusted the speakers. He had the bass EQ set to +30 dB at 20Hz on many of the drum tracks! He had simply dragged the handles on the EQ till it sounded good-and it did, in my 39Hz limited speakers. Eventually I dug up some old JBLs from my Tascam days that went down closer to 20Hz and was able to hear more of the mud, so we could fix it.
The point is-it is easy to create a monster when you can\'t hear it lurking in the basement. I can assure you I do NOT have the golden ears of Bruce Richardson, (and I can also assure you my drummer will never run the EQ up that way again [img]images/icons/shocked.gif[/img] ) but believe me, that extra half-octave DOES matter.
I have hear the 624s, although not in my room, and agree they sound quite nice. But I would not trade them for my 824s, even with the sub thrown in.
Bottom line: it\'s your ears and your wallet, but don\'t let the wallet block you ears.