Thr dynaudio BM6A are excellent. They are self powered. The Mosfet version are very nice. $500 sounds like good deal if they are in good condition.

audiokid, post: 365191 wrote: Thr dynaudio BM6A are excellent. They are self powered.

Are they? Then they are not BM6A's and I'm a little off with my model name. I know they are passive because he told me I would have to buy an amp because he was keeping his. Either way, thanks for the input!

Here is the version I have, which are the older Mosfet Long & McQuade - Dynaudio BM6A - Active Studio Monitors

Here is the newer, which are SS Long & McQuade - Dynaudio BM6A MKII Active Monitors (Pair)

Good luck!

JesterMasque, post: 365225 wrote: Are they? Then they are not BM6A's and I'm a little off with my model name. I know they are passive because he told me I would have to buy an amp because he was keeping his. Either way, thanks for the input!

The "A" in the name stands for "actve", i.e. powered. The BM6 is the passive (unpowered) version.

Wow, Long & McQuade. I really miss that store. They had one store in the U.S over in Parsippany, NJ. It was exactly a 25 mile ride from the GW Bridge. The best rental terms of any music store I ever dealt with.

As for the speakers, I can't speak for the Dynaudios as I've never really used them. But, I'll give you a different choice. You said you really like the sound of the HS50's. Why not buy a set of HS80M's (self-powered) and still get the NS10M sub if you think you need it?

I'm going to agree that in most instances a 6" speaker is better than 8". The 8 just seems to be a not good size in most speaker designs for nearfield monitors.

In a smallish room, I'd go with what the JackAttack has to say. Smaller midwoofers will generally give you a better dispersion(could be good or bad depending on your goals and implementation) and less deep bass which won't excite low modes too strongly.

Dan

This would appear to make sense. However, we would have to take into account the dimensions of the room and the treatment involved. If Jester is recording a lot of local bands I would be interested in the type of music he is primarily encountering as that would also play into the size and selection, I would think.

DanTheMan, post: 365355 wrote: In a smallish room, I'd go with what the JackAttack has to say. Smaller midwoofers will generally give you a better dispersion(could be good or bad depending on your goals and implementation) and less deep bass which won't excite low modes too strongly.

Dan

lambchop, post: 365377 wrote: This would appear to make sense. However, we would have to take into account the dimensions of the room and the treatment involved. If Jester is recording a lot of local bands I would be interested in the type of music he is primarily encountering as that would also play into the size and selection, I would think.

My control room is an askew, but symmetrical hexagon, about 12' x 16' at it's short and long dimensions. It really varies from hardcore metal to acoustic guitars and brushes to student string quartets. But, for the most part, you could narrow it down to metal and medium rock music. I also do light-mastering for bands who don't quite have the ability to go to a dedicated mastering engineer. I don't usually like to depend on the nearfields themselves for bass response, which is why I want to upgrade/use a sub. I have found that without it frequencies around 115 Hz and under are usually sloppy and/or over-accentuated when transferred to car or standard home audio systems. It's just the way I've learned to EQ, I guess...

I really appreciate all the responses here. I just realized where the reputation button is and I'll be using now. Thanks guys!

For Metal, perhaps something a bit larger is in order. Not necessarily necessary with a sub, close placement and a highish crossover frequency. The higher the crossover frequency, the more difficult to integrate. Many here may not like subwoofers, but I'd say go for it so long as you use a room correction of some sort and use your smarts when combining outputs. Integration can be tricky. ARC Room Correction Software is recommended by some mastering engineers, but it doesn't come cheap. This applet could help you sum the outputs as well: [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.falstad…"]Sound Wave Interference Applet[/]="http://www.falstad…"]Sound Wave Interference Applet[/] You basically want to see one big lobe.

Dan

You can get smaller speakers so long as they are crossed over.

As of now I've gotten pretty good with using my intuition. I'll play something like Dave Matthews Band if I feel like things are ever a little off and I'll make adjustments to the sub. But that's why I like the idea of the HS10's. It's a really economic take on a fully integrated system how the crossover system is built into the sub and the inputs to the HS50's come out of the sub. Do you guys agree? That's more of what I wanted to get a feel for from this thread: would completing my Yamahas make for a good system or should I save my dough and go with higher-end gear?

I have my own kind room correction. I rent a pair of M30's and a pink noise generator. I use a dual 31-band EQ on my L-R mains and make adequate corrections to match the spectrum curves. I learned by watching T.C. Furlong (if any of you have ever heard of him) do room correction at my old church's sanctuary a couple times. Granted that it's a somewhat watered down version, I've done it to two of my control rooms that I've set up and it's done me pretty well so far.

I personally have little confidence with Yamaha monitors--yes I know they are famous and I'm sure they are not terrible. From what I've measured, I'm not sure there are any terrible monitors in production.

I'd also listen to a lot more than 1 cd before buying a speaker. Too bad there aren't more measurements available, but you can be sure that monitors from JBL, Mackie(at least the HR series), Genelec, and Neumann are good.

Dan