What are the best monitors for mixing house and electro music ?

[pedro50]

Hu guys,

I would like to get your point of view on the best monitors on the market to get the most accurate mixing for house and electro music styles.

Many thanks

Pedro

[sven hauck]

Hi Pedro,

When I was living back in the states I was using some KRK V8's, which I liked a lot. They were a little bass light when compared to the Mackie HR824 mk2's I have now, but once you get used to them you'll have no issues.

The original Mackie HR824's are good as well, although I really love my mk2's. I didn't need any time to learn them or get used to them, so I would say they are a good buy.

Monitors are something you shouldn't save money on.

[pedro50]

HI

I also got the Mackie HR824 but the first one.
Lot of people seem now to critizise them (they claim they a muddy low end)
I heard the genelec 8040 yesterday, and have to admit that the low medium was really better. I was pretty impressed
Also the Dynaudio BM6A seem to have lot of positive feedback.
I was thinking maybe of a second pair of monitor as an alternative for mixing and checking mixes.

Pedro

[sven hauck]

I don't have any experience with those that you mentioned, so I can't speak to whether they are good or not. Also, a word of caution when you listen to other people's feedback (including my own): you really have to try them out in your space/studio with some audio material that you know well. Then the real test is whether you can make mixes with them that translate consistently well across a variety of playback systems.

Extra monitors in that regard can only help you, but I know producers that use the same Mackie's that you have and get quality results from them day after day.

In the end you must use your own ears to judge. Hope that helps.

[admin]

Pedro,

Using Mackie 824s here since 2000 and haven't had any problems with them. A tightly mixed low end sounds great on these. As Sven said the room can make a difference, the comparison needs to be made in fair conditions.

[T-Lectual]

are the new MK2's better than the old ones? I haven't done any research yet but I'm thinking about finally upgrading my monitors. I notice the old 824's are now a lot cheaper.

[sven hauck]

Well, I honestly haven't compared the two, so I'd be a liar if I told you that one is better than the other. Didn't really fancy taking both of mine to Jesse's or vice versa. Anyways, I can comment on the list of features though. Maybe with that and your own ears testing both models you will come to some sort of conclusion.

From Mackie's site, with some paraphrasing:

1. Zero Edge Baffle - The HR824mk2’s imaging is stunningly accurate, with dramatically enhanced time domain characteristics and wide, even dispersion, delivering a much broader sweet spot than any other studio monitor on the market. This reduces what they refer to as edge diffraction, which can degrade the image. They also used a cast metal surface to reduces the surface vibrations during playback which can also distort the image. Metal is more inert than wood or plastic, so this makes a lot of sense.

Note, that the original HR824's have this. However, on the mk2's, the baffle was implemented with a rounder aluminum construction to further reduce edge diffraction. Also, the volume of the cabinet was increased slightly to improve low frequency response.

2. Passive Radiator - The HR824mk2 delivers outstanding bass response, thanks to a passive radiator design. Also, they mention that for conventional monitors, the ports or ducts must have sufficient surface area to prevent the velocity of the air inside them to exceed 5% of the speed of sound, which would then turn into audible noise. This causes a space issue in conventional designs. So the piston design of the passive radiator allows the mk2's to move more air than a port and therefore deliver a virtually distortion free bass response.

Note, that the original HR824's have this.

3. Amplifiers - Designed to provide the maximum acoustic output from the speakers, yet while minimizing the danger of overdriving them. The amplifiers' gain and frequency responses are hand trimmed to compensate for typical manufacturing tolerances. The connecting wires between the amplifier outputs and the drivers are kept to an absolute minimum. The acoustic sum of the outputs from the two drivers is optimized electronically, as well as physically, so that the amplitude response is unity and the phase differential is minimal.

Same in both models again. However, the amplifiers on the mk2's have been adjusted with all new 'voicing' for the larger cabinets.

4. Woofer and Tweeter - Here Mackie chose the best components on the market. Not too sure whether one set is better than the other.

Everything else is not too important, like the black gloss finish, which does look very dope, but doesn't really affect the sound.

* So the main differences are the baffle design, the cabinet size, and the voicing adjustment.

Mackie even states that if you have used the original HR824's you won't have to 'relearn' the mk2's, and you can get to work right away.

Will the new models help you produce better music? Doubt it, as the operator or producer is a key factor in this equation. I used to think that the newer the gear the better, but realized that is a load of crap. Use what you know and what gives you the best results. Of course, a shiny new synth will change or update your sound, but in the case of the HR824’s vs. the HR824mk2’s, I don’t think it will make a significant difference.

Hope this helps.

[admin]

Tony,

I'd take advantage of the price drop on the originals if I were you, to me that's the best feature of the MKIIs :p

[sven hauck]

Hehe, indeed. But they do look cool.

[T-Lectual]

looks like the difference on 2 is going to be around $300...maybe more if I do more digging...if the quality is about the same then I just might be getting some old ones...Im on a tight budget!