Well, you were all right. By that I mean that the 824's, though nice sounding to track on, and usable to mix on, were funny sounding in the low end, which has made translation to other speakers a major hit and miss affair. Being a relative newcomer to mixing, I was used to blaming myself for the consistently bad mixes I was hearing the next day - and the trouble was always in the low end with the kick and bass. Since I'm a bass player, it's not like I don't have a clue as to what the right balance and sonic relationship should be down there. But after the original Mackie HR824 post here, I started doing some tests (especially Bill Robert's 50hz test) and began to question not myself as much as the Mackies. I had begun using Auratone cubes with much greater confidence in my eq and efx decisions as well as balance issues, but I still had to check the 150hz-and-lower region on the Mackies. Same problems And then yesterday a fellow RO poster and friend loaned me his Dynaudio Acoustic BM6A's. What a joy to actually be able to hear clearly what's happening between the kick and the bass. Not to mention the lowend of the organs, strings, trombones and anything else below 200hz. LOWEND DEFINITION!!! And these things have a smaller woofer than the Mackie's. The high end and mids sound better too. Thanks to Dean Dydek for the extremely wonderful and enlightening experience I've received from his gracious loan. Thanks to Bill Roberts for the original Mackie post which gave me understanding about some of the reasons why I was pulling my hair out. Thanks to RO for this forum - gee, I'm gushing.