I have the HS8 and love them.
Some have said they might be the grand child of the NS10 but I doubt they sound even close.. For me they just do a good job reveilling what I need to hear to mix well.
The HS5 and HS8 need at least 3 feet behind them to have a good bass response.. if you don't have that space, plan for a sub..

Man focal's are so hot.. I wish I had the money for the FOCAL SM9 ;)

I actually took home the HS8 when I was purchasing my first pair of monitors, along with the Mackies. I ended up choosing the Mackies. I have had good luck with Mixes translating well on the HS8, because my boss has a few pairs at the various studios. I've used them when the Meyers needed work. I was initially fooled w the mackie big bass and top detail when I was comparing the yams and mackies back in the day. I was totally new to monitors, having mixed on home stereo speakers for my first 6-8 years.

They don't sound like a lot like the ns10 but the mixes tend to translate fairly well on both. The NS 10s are more boxy with more limited response range. Different timbres, similar tendencies I guess. That's why I was wondering if the HS5s, with the small drivers would be even more so like a poor man's ns10.

Did your try the hs 5s?

The 8s would be at the top of the price range. For this interim set. They'll end up either in portable cases w the portBle rig, or as re p speakers in the hall or kichtenette for reverb re amping.

No subs until the room is done, then I will add two of the three reference subs, to whatever near fields I decide on. Until the reference mains show up. I like the focals because they had 5.1 in mind, and you can buy them individually. The odd 'third speaker' center channel absolutely drives me insane while picking speakers and particularly amps.

Lol I wonder if where drawn to focals because of our Frenchness.

kmetal, post: 440082, member: 37533 wrote: Lol I wonder if where drawn to focals because of our Frenchness.

Fab Dupont is sold to Focal since many years and I think he participated in some of the designs ;)

Ahhhhhh so the theory is developing some truth behind it. Lmao

Apparently butch Vig uses the cms 65's in his personal studio aside some barefoots.

I have the HS7's as you are aware Kyle, along with the KRK Rokit 5's for my B monitors.

The Yamaha-ha's are a really good set that may work well for you, that you could use as a B set if you upgrade down the track to better monitors again.

They have a clarity and definition in the upper-mids that the Rokits just don't have...I hear things with these that I just can't hear with the Rokits.

But like anything, as you know monitors are subjective to your room / environment...what sounds good in my room or anyone else's for that matter, as I'm sure you are most aware K-man, may be completely different in your environment. YMMV to say the least.

But having said that, I really like my choice of the Yamaha-ha's and truly believe they are a good performing monitor for their pricepoint / segment, delivering a really good response and representation of my mixes, that translate well across other listening mediums IMO.

Like many things in this medium we all love, its about finding what works best for you in your environment.

Disclaimer : I am in no way associated with the brand Yamaha-ha or its subsiduaries...all cheques will not be honoured.

For the last 15 years or so, I've been using the original M1's ( passives) with a Hafler Transnova amp. I've mixed a lot of projects on these, and they've served me well.

You may want to look to ebay, and see if you can get a pair of decent monitors on the cheap.

Here's one... $300:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Yamaha-HS5-PAIR-of-Active-Studio-Monitors-HS-5-Powered-Speakers-BEST-DEAL-/252467805027?hash=item3ac840fb63:g:kGcAAOSwFMZWtOmj

Sean G, post: 440087, member: 49362 wrote: The Yamaha-ha's are a really good set that may work well for you, that you could use as a B set if you upgrade down the track to better monitors again.

I'm not sure if I'm upgrading or just walking a tight rope act with no rope lmao. The quote I got a few days ago was $15,780 for a qsc cinema refernce system. (Speakers /Amps) Lol not counting the dsp/control unit, big main steroe pair, of near fields. Geronimoooooo.

I'm working various configurations. I found the next step up in amps, which are more expensive, but more powerful, with more ch per unit, and built in speaker management. So it's working out cheaper. A bit. I sacrifice iPad control, but still can save multiple presets, for flat, and wow settings.

I'm gonna do a thread on the whole process soon.

I'm not sure if I'm diving in the deep end or trying to breathe under water lol. Raman for life.

Sean G, post: 440087, member: 49362 wrote: They have a clarity and definition in the upper-mids that the Rokits just don't have...I hear things with these that I just can't hear with the Rokits.

Would you describe it as clarity, as in smooth, but detailed, or just forward or more pronounced.

Upper mids are a source of contention for me. I really hate them, and am sensitive to them. It's a double edged sword because with my mackies being scooped I like listening to them, but mix in all sorts of hollow and nasty.

In a $400 pair I don't expect a lot. But in general smooth and or detailed in that order is what I like/am looking for.

I'm asking that about both the rokits and hs.

Sean G, post: 440087, member: 49362 wrote: But like anything, as you know monitors are subjective to your room / environment...

Lol in my parents living room it's safe to figure on a fair amount of terrible as far as response. In all honesty it's not awful with plenty on curtains, and carpet and furniture. Bass response is good because it's like 14x28 and opens to a fairly long hallway.

There's a big diff between 'sounds good man' and an 'envolping listening experience'. Lol

The basement studio will be fully treated. The purpose of these is so I can mess around the next 6-12 months while the new rooms and gear are on their way. It felt so good to play guitar at GC the other day I finally got some inspiration brewing. I was dryed up for a few years.

I'm gonna archive my old stuff, bring it up to date, and start learning samplitude, xara web designer, and xara movie edit. It'll give me something to do in the meant besides building and number crunching.

I've got my beater squire and trusty old jasmine acoustic for now.

I've decided to break out the NAS and laptop to get things going once the last few truckloads of junk and building materials are out of the cellar.

DonnyThompson, post: 440095, member: 46114 wrote: For the last 15 years or so, I've been using the original M1's ( passives) with a Hafler Transnova amp. I've mixed a lot of projects on these, and they've served me well.

You may want to look to ebay, and see if you can get a pair of decent monitors on the cheap.

Here's one... $300:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Yamaha-HS5-PAIR-of-Active-Studio-Monitors-HS-5-Powered-Speakers-BEST-DEAL-/252467805027?hash=item3ac840fb63:g:kGcAAOSwFMZWtOmj

I'm looking new only. It works well with my taxes so I don't feel any hit from the instant depreciation, it's a deduction for me. It's symbiotic, I prefer to have to profit they have to have one, do their 30% gain I'd my 30% loss it keeps me balanced at 0. Right where I need to be at this stage.

Those alesis (mk2 powered)are something special. One of those diamonds in the rough. There's just something about them i love. I shoulda bought a pair when I knew they were stopping g production on them. Live and learn. I keep my fingers crossed that some watehouse has a pallet of them un opened.

You seem to mix well on the mk1's.

Id love to find another budget pair that had that type of sound. Basically I guess a hifi top easy mid, and decent low even if a bit tubby.

kmetal, post: 440108, member: 37533 wrote: Would you describe it as clarity, as in smooth, but detailed, or just forward or more pronounced.

I would describe them as smooth and detailed...compared to the Rokits which to me sound harsher and less defined in the mids when both sets are trimmed in an A / B scenario.

The lows are there, just not as boomy as the Rokits...which I find ironic considering the Yamaha-ha's are 7 inch and the Rokits only 5 inch. I have read that port location (front or back) has absolutely no effect on low end output, but I believe frequency response can change with rear-ported speakers placed in close proximity to walls. The HS7's are rear-ported whilst the Rokit 5's are front ported below the driver.

Maybe one of our members with more knowledge and expertise on the subject may chime in on this. In the words of my avitar..."Why Is It So?...."

Both the Yamaha-ha HS7's and the Rokit 5's are the same proximity from the rear wall, whilst not ideally located I do have four inch thick acoustic panels placed on the wall behind them to try to eliminate any resonance.

Sean G, post: 440113, member: 49362 wrote: I have read that port location (front or back) has absolutely no effect on low end output, but I believe frequency response can change with rear-ported speakers placed in close proximity to walls.

Yes the port location comes into play when speakers are placed closer than 3' to a wall.

The coupling between the rear port and wall is usually indicative of a boomy response or exhaggerate for bass, your probably just located in a null spot based. The lower frequencies the 7's and they're rear port, are pushing are more likely to exhibit low freq canceliztaion, than a smaller speaker pushing the next octave or so up. The yamahas are just more efficient at pushing lows inherently due to the design, and the placement.

I personally like sealed cabs, like the mackies are. But the alesis were front ported. So are they Meyers. So it's not a price thing where 'ported means cheap' it's just a design choice.

I'm wondering if we will see more sealed can designs as subwoofers become slowly more common.

Seems like the concensus is leaning towards the yamahas so far. Based on price it seems the 5'a or the 8's are the ones I'd opt for, with the 7's being only $50 cheaper than the 8's, I'd bite the bullet.

But I can get a pair of 5's for $400 asking retail price, or 1 hs 8. Lol so I'm leaning toward the 5's

Less cost, less space they take up.

I could get a pair of 5's, the top Scarlett (18i20) interface, and a 57 for 1k total. I could likely talk the salesman down a bit and have some headphones or cables tossed in for just about the 1k mark.

I think that's a nice little portable setup paired w my i5 laptop, which I've decided to employ soon, because the 'studio' is gonna take a while.

pcrecord or anyone. Have you tried the hs-5's? Seems like everyone who has the yammys has the 7 or 8's

GC has all of them up for demo at the store, but the focals I'd have to order. So my focus is on the budget set right now.

I have not auditioned the HS 5's...I really considered the HS-8's or the HS-80's as I found a new set of those when I was shopping around, but when I built the new desk I just managed to squeeze both sets of the HS-7's and Rokit 5's on top of the racks on either side...even then it was touch-and-go and I knew the extra few inches of the 8's were going to hang over the sides.

In hindsight I should have let the monitor size determine the size of the top of the rack, but C'est la Vie.

I think in choosing between the HS5 or HS8, the size of the room should also come to play.
Bigger room calls for bigger speaker, isn't it ?

http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/LSR305

Great budget speakers..

I spent 3hours at GC auditioning speakers. And luckily they had a focusrite scarelett connected to the iMac so I was able to mess a that too. Defiantly found no issues w tha scarelett so that's a go for the interface.

It came down to the Yamaha hs 8's and hs 5's as far as 'honest' speakers go. I liked the 8's better overall becuase they sounded bigger and fuller, but I think they were on the cusp of hype relative to the 5's. The 5's seemed to have a little less fat overall. I think a little of what I liked in the 8's was not going to be helpful in a mix reference situation. It was a very very close call.

When I weighed in cost, i felt like adding a sub to the 5's would give me a more useful refernce situation than a pair of 8's alone, and also more ability to tune/calibrate the system. It would allow each component to do what it's job more efficiently. Since the 8's woofer had to do both sub lows and mids, it's a lot to ask for in that price range, when 'accuracy' is a factor. So seperating the sub into a dedicated box w the 5's handling lows and mids seemed to make more sense to me. Cost is about the same for both configurations.

I think the 5's are gonna make me make more proper mix decisions than I would on the 8's. And really I'm unsure if i will even bother with the sub, becuase I like how small and portable the 5's are. I could easily take them around w my laptop and 1U scarelett when it shows up.

If I was only going to have one pair id likely opt for the 8's, but since this is just a desktop setting the 5's did the right job and the price is right. I based my decision solely on usefulness since neither was out of the question, and not the sub is a possibility.

@Sean G I was able to test the rokit 5's and I heard the same way you did as far as the mid range goes, relative to the hs series. Good call.

Chris Perra, post: 440131, member: 48232 wrote: http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/LSR305

Great budget speakers..

Chris I agree! I tried those and I was very impressed for the price, more so w the 8's of that model. The 8's had more propetional lows to highs. Those were my 3rd choice overall and a great bang for the buck.

If I was buying solely for listening I would have opted for the lsr 308's.

I typically hate jbl for their tweeters and those were definitely jbl, lol but not so bad relative to the many other jbl models I've used.

My main problem was the same w the mackies and most of the other speakers that they were hyped/scooped which I love. But when I mix I end up mixing way too much hollow 1-5k in when I work on speakers like that.

The Yamaha hs were more even in that area without being too forward or harsh there. Even at the crossover point.

I do like those jbls very much tho Chris, good call!

If I recall, wasn't it JBL that had an issue with some speakers in the range that had a coating on them that went all soft and gooey as it broke down over time and was a PITA to clean off?
Not sure if the LSR 308's was one of the models effected, but I remember there was a previous thread her on RO in the last 12 or so months where dvdhawk found a solution to remove the gooey residue that resulted in the coating breaking down on his particular model...maybe he could confirm if this was the case on the LSR 308's as well.

Just thinking out loud...;)

I searched and found the thread http://recording.org/threads/jbl-lsr-monitors-sticky-mess.58975/

I remember that thread I had to google the model number. Those are a big step up from the 303/308's. The 3's seemed to be made of mdf cabinet and a plastic front. In fact I remember thinking that the fronts felt 'cheap'

I wonder if that sticky thing had something to do w the 3's having that plastic or whatever front. Not sure when they came out relative to the 4 series. But I think the 3 series is pretty new.

My buddy has the 4 series in surround, and I borrowed another friends pair to track a demo at an old office building once. I remember not liking them much but my tracks translated well so I think when I pick refernce speakers I can't go w what I like. I'm starting to learn what I need from them.

Jbl has an unmistakable sound to their tweeters in all their speakers. Some dig it some don't.

Jbl is the defacto standard in cinema sound.

Mine are the LSR4328p, and cleaning the goo off of them was a PITA, but the polymer cleaning solvent from eBay worked very well.

Since posting my response on this thread many months ago, I've had the opportunity to work with Presonus Eris monitors, and I've been surprised at how well mixes through them have translated to other playback systems. I am using a pair of 8" actives that Dave Hawk (dvdhawk ) loaned me, and I have to say, they've been quite good. After I measured my space with IK's ARC 2 system, it's like things just kinda came together in a good way.
While there are positives to working with expensive nearfields, I've noticed that "budget" monitors can mostly hold their own - if you put a little time into treating your room, and, spend some time adjusting your ears to the sound of the monitors, too. Accuracy in translation is a fine balance between the room, the speakers, and knowing your monitors (and your space). None of these things are hard to do, or even expensive, they just take a little time.
IMHO
-d

DonnyThompson, post: 452009, member: 46114 wrote: Since posting my response on this thread many months ago, I've had the opportunity to work with Presonus Eris monitors, and I've been surprised at how well mixes through them have translated to other playback systems. I am using a pair of 8" actives that Dave Hawk (dvdhawk ) loaned me, and I have to say, they've been quite good. After I measured my space with IK's ARC 2 system, it's like things just kinda came together in a good way.
While there are positives to working with expensive nearfields, I've noticed that "budget" monitors can mostly hold their own - if you put a little time into treating your room, and, spend some time adjusting your ears to the sound of the monitors, too. Accuracy in translation is a fine balance between the room, the speakers, and knowing your monitors (and your space). None of these things are hard to do, or even expensive, they just take a little time.
IMHO
-d

What I've found isn't more expensive mics and monitors are far more sensitive to the environment, where the lesser expensive gears inherent limitations naturally ignore some of the flaws.

I was very disappointed in my mixes when I first got my mackie HRs which are on the lower side, and suprisingly dissapointed in my 414.

It wasn't the gear, it was the room and my technique. It took about 6mo for me to adjust to the speakers and a month or so about the mic, along w some bad trapping and RFZ treatment.

A pair of low cost monitors that are alluring to me are the Alesis monitor one Mk3 for $200 a pair.

To be honest what I've found is that in all but the best room I've worked in, which was modified by some bright minds who have forgotten more than I'll ever know, that the sound in the control room doesn't really have much bearing on what it sounds like on regular audio systems, phones, ect.

Balances between things move relatively easily, but EQ and Timbre are essentially a crap shoot.

While by no means HIFI or great, I found my older mixes I did on standard stereo equipment move around better than most of my others. They lack detail, but all around they seem to show fewer anomalies.

kmetal, post: 452016, member: 37533 wrote: To be honest what I've found is that in all but the best room I've worked in, which was modified by some bright minds who have forgotten more than I'll ever know, that the sound in the control room doesn't really have much bearing on what it sounds like on regular audio systems, phones, ect.

well, that's one of the things that makes those "best" rooms the best. Translation is important, knowing that whatever you mix there is going to sound great anywhere else you play it... that's an important thing, and inspires confidence in mixing.

The thing is, these days, since every one and their dog now has a "studio", you can't count on those rooms to travel mixes well. Basement and attic rooms, where the owner throws up a couple tiles of Auralex ( or carpet, or whatever) are generally not places you can trust to turn out mixes that translate well. I'm not saying it's impossible, there are probably a few home studios out there that do have good acoustics, merely by the luck of the draw, the ball takes a funny bounce and a room sounds good....But I don't believe that this is the "general" rule of thumb.

Personally speaking, I think people building home studios put more stock and trust into big dollar monitors, hoping that they will be the silver bullet to great mixes in less than good sounding rooms, when it's really more about the room in which those monitors occupy.
If given the choice, I'd rather mix through an old pair of passive M1's in a well treated and accurate room, than I would mix through $4000 Genelecs in a small, untreated space.

Just my opinion, of course.

DonnyThompson, post: 452037, member: 46114 wrote: well, that's one of the things that makes those "best" rooms the best. Translation is important, knowing that whatever you mix there is going to sound great anywhere else you play it... that's an important thing, and inspires confidence in mixing.

The thing is, these days, since every one and their dog now has a "studio", you can't count on those rooms to travel mixes well. Basement and attic rooms, where the owner throws up a couple tiles of Auralex ( or carpet, or whatever) are generally not places you can trust to turn out mixes that translate well. I'm not saying it's impossible, there are probably a few home studios out there that do have good acoustics, merely by the luck of the draw, the ball takes a funny bounce and a room sounds good....But I don't believe that this is the "general" rule of thumb.

Personally speaking, I think people building home studios put more stock and trust into big dollar monitors, hoping that they will be the silver bullet to great mixes in less than good sounding rooms, when it's really more about the room in which those monitors occupy.
If given the choice, I'd rather mix through an old pair of passive M1's in a well treated and accurate room, than I would mix through $4000 Genelecs in a small, untreated space.

Just my opinion, of course.

Well put D.

That's why I've been floating this theory around for all these years. Studio monitors have studios in mind, regular speakers have regular rooms in mind.

I'd be beyond my area of expertise to comment too much on speaker design, but i would imagine home stereo speakers designers are keeping the typical anomalies of typical rooms in mind. A common size room / furnished room is gonna have a decent amount of slap echo, and main modal issue in the 70-100hz range.

I understand there's different goals in mind, and maybe the stereo speakers would even expand on that mode issue for more enhanced bass. But to me the home speaker systems are expecting untreated residential size rooms, where the studio speakers, even aimed at home use, expecting a treated/flat room.

Again it's just a theory, and really me trying to figure out why those old mixes translated well, even tho I was a novice at home (untreated) on a soundblaster and home stereo.

For the record I did try my best to match my reference songs, but still.

Ya know D, 'mixing to the room/speakers' over at the good studio really really changed my mixdown experience, and perspective. I always knew acoustics were important and why, but to experience it, was a real life changer. Lol no 'mental mix' compensation for the room, which is something I've always had to do elsewhere.

I'd trade all the fancy analog and cool mics for a room and system that translates.

Lol maybe it's time I revisit those mixes to make sure my memory is accurate.

DonnyThompson, post: 452037, member: 46114 wrote: well, that's one of the things that makes those "best" rooms the best. Translation is important, knowing that whatever you mix there is going to sound great anywhere else you play it... that's an important thing, and inspires confidence in mixing.

The thing is, these days, since every one and their dog now has a "studio", you can't count on those rooms to travel mixes well. Basement and attic rooms, where the owner throws up a couple tiles of Auralex ( or carpet, or whatever) are generally not places you can trust to turn out mixes that translate well. I'm not saying it's impossible, there are probably a few home studios out there that do have good acoustics, merely by the luck of the draw, the ball takes a funny bounce and a room sounds good....But I don't believe that this is the "general" rule of thumb.

Personally speaking, I think people building home studios put more stock and trust into big dollar monitors, hoping that they will be the silver bullet to great mixes in less than good sounding rooms, when it's really more about the room in which those monitors occupy.
If given the choice, I'd rather mix through an old pair of passive M1's in a well treated and accurate room, than I would mix through $4000 Genelecs in a small, untreated space.

Just my opinion, of course.

MY dog doesn't have a 'studio' of her own per se, but she will hang out in the one provided for her by the 'management' at her hotel.......

The one thing I find that stands out to me in the home studio rooms I've been in, is the owner/engineers/producers don't use the stuff they do have to it's full potential. It's like their technique never got past a certain point and then they added money to it only to turn out similar quality results.

However....I will take a pair of $4000 Genelecs in ANY room any time over a whole bunch of "other' monitors.

My dog has a studio. She just lets me use it. ;)

Attached files

Davedog, post: 452068, member: 4495 wrote: MY dog doesn't have a 'studio' of her own per se, but she will hang out in the one provided for her by the 'management' at her hotel.......

The one thing I find that stands out to me in the home studio rooms I've been in, is the owner/engineers/producers don't use the stuff they do have to it's full potential. It's like their technique never got past a certain point and then they added money to it only to turn out similar quality results.

However....I will take a pair of $4000 Genelecs in ANY room any time over a whole bunch of "other' monitors.

I learned more in a year at the commercial studios than 5 years on my own. So I agree very much w your statement about technique ect.

I also found having someone else mix my recordings to be eye opening, and both a positive and negative learning experience. But I learned, nonetheless.

It's also interesting when everyone's using the same room and gear, you see the difference in technique. This can show you that yeah, not even long time / successful engineers can turn mid level gear and bands into much more than that, and that an ametuer can screw up a recording with the best gear out there.

The best thing however, is once you hear your stuff in a room that translates, you get a much better idea of what you are or aren't hearining in other spaces, that may be more compromised. This can cause significant improvements all around.

I wouldn't go as far as some engineers would with this concept, but their is truth to the notion that a good engineer can make 'a record' with a few sm 57's and a good band and song.