HR824's

Posted: Sat Dec 21, 2002 4:21 pm

I was in a local studio not long ago and they had Mackie'824s. At first I thought they sounded really good, although they seemed to have an exagerated bottom end.
I asked the engineer about the sub, and he replied " There isn't any. We shut it off, there was to much bottom end." As it was, everything I was hearing was from the
824's. Somewhat skeptical, I played the part that I needed to play for a session, and then went back to my own studio with some doubts about my own monitors - EV
Sentry 100's and some YSM 1's. About 6 weeks later I heard the final mix of that project and whaddya know? The mix had a very poorly defined and weak bottom
end. The room they were in was a well designed room and was designed and tuned by an outside consultant; so what gives? All reports I have read and heard from
users indicate this is a great monitor...
Bill Y

Posted: Sat Dec 21, 2002 5:07 pm

Bill,
Any number of things could be the problem. The mix engineer could be deaf or worse yet, a moron. The room could suck! In spite of being designed and tuned by an outside consultant who also could be a moron. It could be the speakers. Worst case scenario, it could be a combination of all four elements. It's hard to say. Any time I don't see a pair of trusty old NS 10's in a control room, I wonder, "What's up?" .... Fats
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's my opinion, I'll play with it if I want to!

Posted: Sat Dec 21, 2002 6:37 pm

The 824's only begin to have smooth low end if they are in the middle of a wheat field 1000 feet away from any boundarys. A terribly inaccurate loudspeaker. I had a set here once and they were 13dB up at 55hZ.

The reports of them as a great monitor lie with small project studios that have operators with a lack of real world experience.

In my World, I master for audiophile standard speakers and cheap boomboxes and sony walkmans. It can be done to fit that wide of a spread. I guess the Mackie engineers want everyone to listen with full bass boost to enjoy a recording in the consumer end.

Hipocracy 101.

They sound good to some..but very slow and thick on the bottom and cannot reproduce the sound of a snare drum at eye blinking power. They will fry trying.

They are voiced with a lack of 3K power, too much thick bottom and a tizzy screechy tweeter that is crossed over way to low of a frequency to allow for accurate reproduction.

In my Studio...anything that has +/-1.5dB or more deviation from 100hZ to 10K (which is boombox quality freqency range) is simply made for some other asshole..not me.

I actually got a curve on a cheap boombox from 100 to 10K that was in the +/-2dB range.

Put 20 hZ through the 824's and they do not know what hit them.

My Room is calibrated around an accurate loudspeaker..I simply could not live with those.

Your statement dictates that the project did not have a separate mastering facility look at the project. Shame on the producer, director and the bean counter.

An injustice to (I feel sure of) fine artists doing their art.

Posted: Sat Dec 21, 2002 7:05 pm

Thanks Bill & Fats for your replies, I would be happy to hear feedback from any other users on these boxes as well.
Somehow I feel somewhat more at ease that what I was hearing was correct. My own monitors, EV Sentry 100s and YSM1's have their own shortfalls as well, although they don't seem to be as bad as some I have used and heard; I guess I am somewhat adjusted to them. At one point I was considering auditioning a pair of HR824's with the intent to purchase, but now I don't think I'll go there. Perhaps I'll design and build my own nearfields. There are a lot of good drivers available these days.
Regards,
Bill Y.

Posted: Sat Dec 21, 2002 7:09 pm

Bill, I have spend a majority of my life designing and building loudspeakers. I was doing it 7 years before entering the professional recording arts and I have been in recording, mixing , mastering for 22 years.

Let me work with you on your design (no charge of course)so you can get the most for your hard earned dollars.

I also have some driver sources you may want to consider...mainly from Europe.

Posted: Sat Dec 21, 2002 7:18 pm

Hi Bill, I don't think I've ever had a faster reply!!
I appreciate your offer for help on this, and We'll have to discuss this further. I am an electronics technician by trade and I have built some boxes before, albeit for live sound reinforcement. Some drivers I was considering are Solen. Any Thoughts?
Thanks,
Bill Y.

Posted: Sat Dec 21, 2002 7:32 pm

Solen is a distributer.

Seas, DYnaudio, Vifa, Morel I have done extreamly well with. Eton is another one.

I get them at Jobber..I suppose you do too.

When it comes to passive crossovers.....well I am King (in a way)

Do not forget Audax, Peerless...and I actually have some drivers (woofers) that I designed in 82 that are still avalable. The key is the enclosure and crossover...and drivers that prove to be linear dynamic.

It is possable to construct a moderate sized set (no sub) that can do 22hZ to 24KHZ +/- 1 dB with a lot of work..under 900 dollars.

Look at this

http://www.transaudiogroup.com/atc/atc.shtml

<img src="http://www.transaudiogroup.com/images/atc/atcSCM100asl.gif" alt=" - " />

Posted: Sat Dec 21, 2002 7:51 pm

Those are mighty fine looking speakers Bill, But alas - somewhat beyond my humble means. This is why I was considering building my own, mostly because I know what I am getting for my money, and also because I enjoy building and using my own gear. I have built some pretty respectable preamps and mics that I use in my own studio, (although I have to admit the 414 is still one of my favorites.) I guess monitors are the next step.

Posted: Sat Dec 21, 2002 8:00 pm

Even though those are 12K dollars, I feel satisfyed for around 900 dollars you could do 85% of them, enjoy full bandwidth to the low 20's and high teens and not break the bank with the 1600 each drivers. I have done it.

Posted: Sat Dec 21, 2002 9:01 pm

Well, where do we start? I guess deciding upon a sealed box or bass reflex, and then selecting some drivers. With the response range you are talking I am assuming at least a 3 way box. Correct me if I am wrong but it would be quite difficult to make up that flat a response and bandwidth using only two drivers. Would you use active crossovers with zoebel networks in the boxes, or passive crossovers? I would like to keep the poweramps out of the boxes.

Just off topic a little, I have an old ultralinear tube power amp my dad built years ago that sounds great that I have often thought about using for monitoring. I did some tests on it and the thing is flat from about 18Hz to around 35 Khz. The output transformers are made by Meisner and are really good quality. The only concern I have is damping factor is not what you get with Transistor outputs, and power is about 50W RMS. But hey, many great recordings were turned out in the fifties and sixties. Or maybe the quality is despite the gear limitations they had then?. Otherwise I'll continue using the little Hafler.

Posted: Sat Dec 21, 2002 11:28 pm

No Problem...I have ran out of juice toight..will post more when I get up....no problem..lots of good will come of this..

Posted: Sun Dec 22, 2002 12:03 am

Thanks Bill, I would like to tell you how much I appreciate your expertise. Forums such as this are a wonderful thing because they are able to bring like-minded people to a level of communication that must have been difficult if not impossible in pre-net times. It breaks down the barriers of technical isolation so the wheel doesn't have to be reinvented in many different places over and over again.

I would like to extend a Merry Christmas and Happy Holiday Season to You and All!
If only mankind could learn to use knowledge for constructive purposes instead of destruction,
we would achieve long lasting peace.
Bill Y.

Posted: Wed Dec 25, 2002 11:20 am

Hi Bill!
Ity is good to know that my conclusions were not so wrong. At the EQ forum guys fucked me up but I see that I am not teh first one.

I did a test. I was playing a song through a pair of Monitor Ones with a Tascam PA150 at moderate to loud level.
Then we a/b tested with a pair of Mackie´s HR824. Costing up to 6X more, I just coul not fell a big leap. Of course the bass was more defined, lots o things down to 40 Hz, active and so, but just did not JUSTIFY so much $$$.

I know you guys hat the Monitor Ones but after almost 5 ears of continuous use, I had to become accustomed to it.

Iwas thinking of upgrading my monitors to ADAMs, but I see lots of guys complaining on them either. I have also thought of the HR624´s, maybe not so much out of control bass...

I also felt lack of 3k, I changed positions, rolled off bass, etc etc. Of course my room should had been excited to bad modes due to extreme hyped bass, but I was very disappointed with the overal quality. How can that have a THX certificate? It would be great to have Santa Claus sending me a pair of them for Xmas and birthday, but I do not know If I will buy that...

Thanks
Nice 2003
:p

Posted: Wed Dec 25, 2002 11:32 am

ACB
I suspect that THX certified means a speaker rated as such, is certified as a playback system rather than certified as a monitoring system. I wonder if Lucasfilm has any Mackie speakers at Skywalker? I would venture a guess and so no. Just more mud in the water. ........ Fats

Posted: Wed Dec 25, 2002 11:43 am

Man, you have just said what I wanted to hear!!!!

BTW.. what are your monitors "Uncle Cedar"?
Hugs
Alécio, your nephew

This topic sponsored by: