Tested all 3 and went with the Events. They had a better image and less midrange push than the Mackies. The Dynaudios are rear ported which leaves an indistinct bass image.

Ultimately, let your ears be your guide.

Can't tell you about the Events, although I would be interestd to hear replies from current users as well.

I'm presently A/B'ing both the Mackie HR824's & the Dynaudio BM6a's, in a new mixing room.
A good relationship with my pro audio dealer and his understanding that all monitors will sound
different in every environment helped with getting a 2 week tryout of both.

What I can certainly tell you is that initially mixes on the BM6a's translate better than mixes on the
Mackies. Whether it's the crappy beat up old boom box or the car or the home theater/listening room,
the Dynaudio's got it.

The Mackies sound good, almost too good, and that's both the benefit and drawback of them.
Until you learn your groove, you might be tempted to not work as hard with the Mackies.
Their great sound and extra volume can be nice for you and clients, especially if you don't have
big mains in the room.

On each, I had very little ear fatigue (at my preferred mix volume of 84-91 dB at my ears) after a 6 hour straight test session.

In a properly treated room, you'll certainly love the sound from the Mackies!
No need for a sub with these heavy monsters! If your ears need the sub-bass then the Dynaudio's will require a sub in the room.
(prepare for more $$$)

Mackies have a very large sweet spot in the nearfield that gives you a great 3D stereo canvas,
achieved with a center cone to center cone spacing of around 44in and a small toe-in.
Helpful if you've got to lean away from center to make any adjustments.
Kick drums and mid-low-sub bass imaging will be down and farther back in the 3D than on the Dynaudios.
The Mackies are also MUCH louder than the Dynaudios.
I'm feeding the Mackies from a Presonus Central Station and barely listen at 1/4 main volume
to get my preferred mix volume. The Dynaudio's take a little better than 1/2 to reach the same.

The Dynaudio's can be a little bright if you don't raise them slightly above the ear to tweeter
level or dial it on the back. A little auralex underneath to lift them up gave them just the right height for me.
I have also heard from other longtime users that a few days worth of pink noise can really open them up nicely.
Dynaudio even recommends about a week worth of use.

Listening to my first test Mackie mix on the Dynaudio's reveals any potential problems quickly though the
difference is negligible.

Your preference is going to depend on many factors, including seating position and the type of music you
primarily mix. I primarily mix pop/rock, blues, punk and metal. I suggest you see if you can get a tryout
in your room and see for yourself which ones "do the job" best for your needs and ears. Recommendations and
reviews are great for clearing up the "noise" but in the end every ear and every room is different!

Also, if you don't have already, get some good cables for the tryout, both speakers will quickly reveal
cable deficiencies.

As for me, I'm down to deciding whether it's truly worth the price difference or not to go with the Dynaudios.
I'll be more certain by next week.

KJ
----------------
Kyro Studios

I was going to go with the Event 20/20's. When I bought mine. But I went ahead and spent the extra money on the Mackie HR824's. IMO they both are really nice monitors with great sound. The Mackies are worth the money. Also the Events sounds almost as nice, and not as exp.
I said almost because the Events have great response, and sound. But the Mackies are a little better IMO.
Just my 2cents

I've been using the Mackies and am very happy with them, things translate very well for me. The first CD project I did on them needed almost no EQ in mastering (done by an outside mastering house). MistaG's comment about midrange push on the 824's is intriguing to me. I typically do quick mixes through my analog board to DAT, final mixes in Sonar. The Sonar mixes are unquestionably warmer. I guess my point is that various components in the signal chain will produce various results through the same monitors, due to transfer function differences, etc....There's no telling which monitor will sound the best in your unique situation until you plug them in and take them for a spin!

i dont know about the mackies or the dynaudios but i do know about the events, and i DO NOT recomend them. they sound down right preatty, they are verry flattering monitors, and the mixs we got with them did not translate. now they (the mix) sounded great on the events but only there. agien i DO NOT recomend them.

I had a chance to listen for a couple minutes at Guitar Center this past weekend. I had not planned on this so I did not bring any music I that I know well. Of the music playing I was surprised at the difference between the Event and Mackies. Clearly a difference. I found the Mackies to be very forward and more in your face. I found the Events to be different and I could not really put my finger on it. Keep in mind that the overall situation was not ideal for listening.

On one song specifically with the Events I felt like I was in the middle of the room and I could hear the reverb decay from my listening position (like I was sitting in the middle of the room with the performance). When I A/B'd with the Mackies I lost that. The Mackies sounded a bit more aggressive. I could hear everything but in a different way. The feeling of space was different.

I walked out not feeling as sure of the Events as I wanted but also questioning the differences in what I heard. Which is the better sounding monitor? Wait, make that which is the better monitor for tracking/mixing? I still don't know.

Jason

i use the event 20/20's. i think they rock. and that's all i have to say bout that...

Thanks Guys for the replys so far. I have a set of Event 20/20BAS V2 right now and am tinking about moving up to the ASP8 events or the Mackie H824's

Guys he said the asp8's not the event 20/20's big difference. the asp8's are freaking amazing. Didn't spend more than two minutes comparing the mackies to them before i made a decision.

I would like to know more about the SP8's if anyone can give it. i keep reading that lots of pro audio engineers are using these.

I think i need to find a monitoring solution...right now i monitor with my Sony MDR-7506 headphones and after mix-down i listen on my Sony bookshelve speakers powered by a Pioneer receiver.

-Blaumph

An update to my A/B Mackie HR824 & Dynaudio BM6a test:

After last minute advice (and a little pleading) from another longtime user of the Mackie HR824's I conducted another test.

Using my spectrum analyzer and test software (Audio Control 3052 & YMEC.com software & calibrated testing mics) I discovered the absolute optimal placement for the Mackie HR824's in my room.

Once positioned it was necessary to fiddle with the back settings for quite a while until everything was just right. It seems an absolute must to cut the Input Sensitivity setting to between half and 3/4 max when using good cables.

FYI, I now have have them imaging and responding ALMOST EVERY BIT as good as the Dynaudio BM6a's. In fact, the difference is extremely small and likely to be nearly indistinguishable to all but extremely discerning ears.

As per my colleague's recommendations (and now mine), for those of you with the Mackies who are not quite happy I would certainly suggest a little more tweaking before giving up hope.

What I did discover between the two is that the BM6a's are but 1/2 to 1 dB at small bumps and dips from true linear across the board in my room, with a high roll off beginning at about 17.6kHz and low at 78Hz.
The Mackie's now have a 1.8-3dB bump at 100-200Hz and a 3 dB dip at both 1.8-2kHz and 3.8-5.1kHz with a high rolloff at 17.1kHz and low at 62Hz.
(This result is at 88dB SPL at ear level in the principle seating position)
This translates to only a slight compensation in the mix to get it right on the HR's. Any errors are shining through just shy of capabilities of the Dynaudio BM6a's.

After this extra setup and tweak time, IMHO, there's just not enough difference to be worth the extra money for the BM6a's. While prior to it, I was just about completely sold and thinking the Dynaudios would be the hands down winner.

That's my tested opinion on things so far.

KJ
----------------
Kyro Studios

KyroJoe wrote:

Once positioned it was necessary to fiddle with the back settings for quite a while until everything was just right. It seems an absolute must to cut the Input Sensitivity setting to between half and 3/4 max when using good cables.

KJ
----------------
Kyro Studios

OK, I'm going to bite! :)

I've been using 824s for over two years and have spent a lot of time getting them to their best. Naturally, I am curious about what you mean here so some questions please:

1. Why should cutting the trim with good cables make any difference?

2. What do you define as good cable?

I don't ask those questions in a trolling manner but simply so I can understand what you have found and perhaps try myself.

Mark

MarkEdmonds wrote: [quote=KyroJoe]

Once positioned it was necessary to fiddle with the back settings for quite a while until everything was just right. It seems an absolute must to cut the Input Sensitivity setting to between half and 3/4 max when using good cables.

KJ
----------------
Kyro Studios

OK, I'm going to bite! :)

I've been using 824s for over two years and have spent a lot of time getting them to their best. Naturally, I am curious about what you mean here so some questions please:

1. Why should cutting the trim with good cables make any difference?

2. What do you define as good cable?

I don't ask those questions in a trolling manner but simply so I can understand what you have found and perhaps try myself.

Mark

Mark,

Personally I simply prefer Canare Star Quad with Neutrik X or XX connectors (in blue, purple and orange matte cable finish I might add - So I can recognize my cables at a glance )... but that's just me!

1. Don't know! I haven't looked at a schematic for their monitors. Perhaps it's simply the response of Mackie's amplification circuits and speakers to the attentuated input. But, it did gave me as close to the frequency response as I was looking for out of them - comparable to the BM6a's in the same room.

For testing this I mounted my calibrated mics at ear level on my chair in my seated position/height and head-width and adjusted the settings in various combinations until my spectrum analyzer revealed that I had as close to an equal spectrum response as possible. Also an oscilloscope will reveal that both speakers are delivering the exact same phasing and tell you when you have them positioned at the correct distance from your ears for exact signal delivery.

1&2. As for the "good cables":
I figured someone would ask!
There's a whole lot of bunkum about these topics to be found everywhere. (good cables does not mean $20,000 "Transparent" cables and those snake oil sales or the strange other-worldly exotic cables with metals that are worse conductors than copper! :) )
I mean one that is known/tested and does not experience the typical noise triboelectrics, or loss of the higher frequencies associated with crappy cables. (or some joined/coupled cables, for that matter).
If you can't hear the difference between a good cable and bad cable with your ears then you should test your cables with your meters and software/analyzers. Also keep your monitor cables at the same length and the same type, make/model for both.

KJ
----------------
Kyro Studios