Dyn's...Adams...Genelecs....These represent clarity and accuracy.A LOT of people mix on Mackie HR824's.A LOT of used Mackie HR824's to be found out there in the marketplace.Anyone can learn a speaker in their room.It will be true for anything you put up.The trick is to shorten the learning curve.The three I mentioned will enable you to do this.And in most rooms.Good Luck.

If your going to go with Genelec, get the 1031's and you should be able to live without having the need for a sub. The 1030's are great as a second pair to check againest a main pair, but are too small and underpowered for the real duty. I have the 1031's and just love them even though I still think they are a bit underpowered for the real loud check but are great at med-high to low levels where it's better to mix at. Sell some of that outboard that you have made from compaines that start with an "A" and you may find enough to make up for the upgrade difference.

My favorite are the Earthworks Sigma series. I like them better than anything I have heard from Genelec or Adams.

Personal choice mind you but they are VERY accurate and very easy to translate from.

Steve

A Studio where I do a bit of playing uses Earthworks Sigma 6.2 and they are absolutely dynamite. His Genelec 1031's are pretty much ornamental these days.
His studio specializes in acoustic music - classical and jazz, small and large.

I decided upon, and have just purchased the Adam P11a's. Thanks for everybodies input!

Originally posted by Davedog:
Anyone can learn a speaker in their room.It will be true for anything you put up.

I agree with this, to a point. However, with my Alesis monitors, there were problems in my mix that I could not detect, even though I had those speakers for two years. It was like trying to paint in the dark. My Event 20/20s made it ten times easier and less frustrating to mix, and it's not as if the 20/20s are high end speakers by any means. I'm sure that any of the speakers listed in the original post would be fine, and that you could get used to any of them. Any of those speakers will put the original poster's Alesis monitors to shame.

Originally posted by AudioGaff:
Sell some of that outboard that you have made from compaines that start with an "A" and you may find enough to make up for the upgrade difference.

You mean Avalon? I don't think that's the best tradeoff. :)

You mean Avalon?

If you bothered to go the website and see the gear list, you would know exacly what I'm refereing to...

I was joking. Sorry if I was too subtle.

I hate the event 20/20 's I think they are garbage. and have a real problem in the lows and low-mids. My KRK 6000 make me work harder for a mix but it translate much better.

Originally posted by kieran kelly:
I hate the event 20/20 's I think they are garbage. and have a real problem in the lows and low-mids. My KRK 6000 make me work harder for a mix but it translate much better.

Maybe so, but they are a hundred times better than the Alesis Monitor Ones. They may have some problems in the lows and low-mids (Then again, they may not. I haven't noticed any.), but at least they have some lows and low-mids. Also, $800 monitors were not in the budget for me. For my budget, I felt the 20/20s were my best option. The Yorkvilles seemed pretty good as well, but I had no way to audition them. I have no doubt that your KRKs beat my Events, but they're more than twice as expensive.

Originally posted by AudioGaff:
Sell some of that outboard that you have made from compaines that start with an "A" and you may find enough to make up for the upgrade difference.

As it turns out, the outboard stuff I list is mostly from my "band" days (the 90's). It was cheap stuff that worked well for slammin' rock in tiny bars where the beer was always more important than the act. :)
Now that I'm off the stage and in the control room, I've moved ontoplug-ins either in Pro-Tools or in my Mackie D8b, and can't say I've really ever used any of it for studio work.

Alas, I'm sure the value of my "A" equipment is not worth the effort to even try to sell it. I keep it around, just to remember where I came from...

I'm sure the value of my "A" equipment is not worth the effort to even try to sell it. I keep it around, just to remember where I came from...

That is all well and fine, but you might want to consider how you are being percieved when people see your gear list. Having that stuff around is one thing, having it on your list makes it appear as gear that you proudly use, and this affects your professional image. I know if I was looking and comparing places, prices and gear, I wouldn't choose someplace that had this kind of outboard they listed as a serious contender.

Originally posted by AudioGaff:

I'm sure the value of my "A" equipment is not worth the effort to even try to sell it. I keep it around, just to remember where I came from...

That is all well and fine, but you might want to consider how you are being percieved when people see your gear list. Having that stuff around is one thing, having it on your list makes it appear as gear that you proudly use, and this affects your professional image. I know if I was looking and comparing places, prices and gear, I wouldn't choose someplace that had this kind of outboard they listed as a serious contender.

Your point is well taken. Good thing I didn't post up the Panasonic monitors I got at Walmart, who knows the pummels I'd be undertaking... :)

Thanks for the observation, I do believe I will act upon it...do you by chance, have a website for your studio that I could check out to review what a good "perception" site looks like? I'm always looking for an "edge" on my competition...

do you by chance, have a website for your studio that I could check out to review what a good "perception" site looks like?

As of last summer, I sold off my share of the public studio I owned and worked at and have gone the solo freelance route as well as updating my home songwritting project studio. I have not yet finalized on how or what my future business image is going to look like or be.

If you would like to see my personal gear list look in this link at about the halfway point. Somewhere after that posting is my story for selling and going solo. You might want to share your story/history and some pictures to that thread as well.

...I updated my equipment list, lemme know if you find it now less offensive.
[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.fetzir.c…"]Spyder Byte Studios Equipment Page[/]="http://www.fetzir.c…"]Spyder Byte Studios Equipment Page[/]

I myself prefer to see the details of what specific equipment just like you had it, but just don't list the crap stuff like the ADA, ART, Digitech and so on. List only the things that are essential to recording and that are likely to attract clients, not distract and drive them away. As you have it now, it looks to me like your too embarrased to list the gear details. What people see is that there is some decent stuff, some crap stuff, and stuff no one can tell because the specifics are not mentioned. This is fine for an ad where space and the number of words cost money, but not on your own website.

If someone dosen't know exactly what you have then they have to go out of their way to either email or call to get the detailed info. Some, if not many of those, won't bother and just look somewhere else first. The way I see it is your website should include everything you'd want someone to know so that when they do contact you, your using that time talking about schedules for booking business and not burning up your time fishing for info.

genelecs: anything mono sounds weird in them, expesially vocals.

mackie824: hey, they work for me, AND I can afford them.

i got adam p-11s they my stuff comes out excellent with them

Originally posted by AudioGaff:
I myself prefer to see the details of what specific equipment just like you had it, but just don't list the crap stuff like the ADA, ART, Digitech and so on. List only the things that are essential to recording and that are likely to attract clients, not distract and drive them away. As you have it now, it looks to me like your too embarrased to list the gear details. What people see is that there is some decent stuff, some crap stuff, and stuff no one can tell because the specifics are not mentioned. This is fine for an ad where space and the number of words cost money, but not on your own website.

If someone dosen't know exactly what you have then they have to go out of their way to either email or call to get the detailed info. Some, if not many of those, won't bother and just look somewhere else first. The way I see it is your website should include everything you'd want someone to know so that when they do contact you, your using that time talking about schedules for booking business and not burning up your time fishing for info.

Point well taken, however, I've never had a client question my equipment. Most studio owners and engineers demand details, most musicians just want a great end product. The first thing all my clients ask is "let me hear what you've done". They never ask to peak in my mic closet. Because who knows, the Alesis AM51 mic may just sound better with their voice than the Neumann U47.

To date, I've never geared my business direction to impress my competition, only my clients, at their level. Maybe that's a bad decision, but it seems to be working pretty well for me so far! :)

But I do appreciate your viewpoint, really. If I had less crap and more vintage, I'd probably be more apt to advertise them, who knows. In some instances, I'm turned off by seeing a long list of equipment, it sometimes leads me to believe a studio is perhaps trying to hide an ugly picture by wrapping it in a beautiful frame.

I've heard magic made with a $400 Rode NT1000 and crap made with an $8000 Telefunken. The faders on a board don't always make it sound great, often it's simply the fingers pushing them.

Here's a couple recent projects from my studio, I'd really love to hear some thoughts.
[="http://www.fetzir.com/spyder/clients/AR_Scared.wma"]Abbi Rajasekhar - Scared[/]="http://www.fetzir.c…"]Abbi Rajasekhar - Scared[/]
[[url=http://="http://www.fetzir.c…"]Abbi Rajasekhar - Anywhere[/]="http://www.fetzir.c…"]Abbi Rajasekhar - Anywhere[/]

[ December 23, 2003, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: Spyder Byte Studios ]

I had the good luck to be able to A/B Earthworks Sigma 6.2s and Adam S3As for several days. Since in my searches all over the net I couldn't find any real comparisons, when I had the chance, I decided to just take notes on what I was hearing and offer them to others to use or ignore as they choose. Here they are, verbatim, FWIW.

The Sigmas were driven through a Bryston 4B (Earthworks' recommended amp).

------

Sigma: Crystal clear highs. hard to mix because things don't seem to fit together in a space. Solo instruments sound amazingly natural. Vocals, snare drum sound just like they sound in real life. There's like a sheen over everything (from the bass port?) "Digitalness" is not obvious. Non-fatiguing apparently. When you can hear something alone it sounds great, but it's hard to isolate things mentally. That clicking in Dixie Chicks 6, what is it? Can't identify. Piano sounds natural. It's cloudy in the low mids. Hard to identify stuff. Bass doesn't sound like a bass. Feels "mastered". Slightly compressed. Like dynamic range is fighting to get through. Dynamic range sounds limited. Low end does not have the correct musical effect. Doesn't pop, pump, whatever. Smoother. Tweeter overloading? Too much material to handle, not fast enough? Is there a "Sigmaspace?" Yes, really seems like there is. And it's easier to get into. Transients are softened? Brighter. Bass unusably unclear. Like there's additional 20k sheen on everything. No transient on the kick drum. Just a "lump" sound, and barely. Everything sounds like it has a little really excellent digital EQ on high shelf. Distracting and unmusical.

S3A: Sound very musical. Transients incredible. Things sound almost equally natural, but seem to mix together better. More distance to an individual element than with the Sigmas. Sounds more like a mix. Somehow things gather in the midrange better? Bass sounds like bass instruments. Things feel just a hair more distant. It's like if you get in "ADAMspace" you can hear everything individually. Things a bit more together. But somehow everything fits musically. Things mush too much? Brittle? Handles complex material better? Somehow gets the impression across of what they were looking to get musically. More distance from the instruments. More brittle, metallic. Less soft. Muddy area in the high mids? Dynamic range no problem. Almost feels "expanded".

paladyne, you sure it wasn't just maybe where you were sitting or the room/possition of the speakers, I'm used to listening to 1032A's in a great room, in stereo, 5.1, and mono, and I've never felt they sound weird in mono. Though it could of been you were listening to a track with way to much stereo info supporting what you heard in stereo as correct. A good example of this is "Airbag by Radiohead, in stereo it sounds great, in mono it sounds great but you lose half of the instrumentation and sound effects and effects they use on song, of course the CD version not wax.

Originally posted by missilanious:
paladyne, you sure it wasn't just maybe where you were sitting or the room/possition of the speakers, I'm used to listening to 1032A's in a great room, in stereo, 5.1, and mono, and I've never felt they sound weird in mono. Though it could of been you were listening to a track with way to much stereo info supporting what you heard in stereo as correct. A good example of this is "Airbag by Radiohead, in stereo it sounds great, in mono it sounds great but you lose half of the instrumentation and sound effects and effects they use on song, of course the CD version not wax.

1: the time I was using the Genelecs at my workplace, I primaraly worked on electronica stuff. I think my issue could be described as "what sounds good in the studio does not always sound good at the club" and vice versa.
(I now have a job teaching highschool kids how to run protools and reason, the genelecs there are much loved by my ears, more so than my mackies now.)
I still will not use small speakers to mixdown a track I intend to be "bangin" in the club, I use a big set of PA speakers and a sub that I used to dj with to do that. I think that highend speakers are just "too good" to mix for the limited frequency response of most club pa systems and their acoustic environment.(the producer whose sound I admire most,"Dillinja", has stuff that sounds downright awful on good speakers like the genelecs, but sounds SLAMMIN inside a club, a cut way above most of his peers.)

Basicially, a lot of my sound is in mono, including the drums. It sounded good to me panned out, but not in mono, but I was having the exact opposite reaction with the same material when I would bring my stuff into the club after mixing on them at work.(the panning made everything sound wimpy, less solid)

2:(red faced mode) Also, I used to grab the genelecs, and just put them on top of the console w/o consideration to the "equilateral triangle setup". Ya live and you learn...