ADAM A5s are bare minimum monitoring for anyone serious about sounding good. If you want more than that, I'd stick with either ADAM or Focal.

___________________
Youtube || Soundcloud || Synth Patch Banks

Is there any reason you want 8" monitors, in particular? I strongly recommend not getting 8" monitors, especially if they are cheap (KRK, Mackie, Yamaha). You would be much better off with a 6-7" monitor.

Why?
The larger a woofer is, the slower it moves and the less high frequency it can put out. Unless you are buying a very high end pair of monitors (Genelec, Adam, etc.), you always get a scoop in the frequency response, before the woofer gets crossed over to the tweeter. You also sacrifice transient response.

mackie? cheap?

I think the hr824s are some of the best monitors ever made,,

quote:

Originally posted by altitude I think the hr824s are some of the best monitors ever made,,

I used to think that too until I heard offerings from Focal and ADAM. You may want to A/B compare the HR824 with a Focal Twin or an ADAM S3A and you'll hear the difference.

quote:

Originally posted by altitude I think the hr824s are some of the best monitors ever made,,

they were good for their time. for an 8" monitor though, yes, they are cheap. you need to spend a lot more to get a good 8" driver.

anything above 6" is when you SHOULD be starting to look into a three way design (a tweeter, midbass and big woofer in each speaker), not two way. this is the most ideal configuration, but it is very expensive. instead, monitor producers make mtm designs (focal twin) or 2.1 systems with a sub. mtms and 2.1 systems both have their limitations, but its sort of at a diminishing returns point.

buying a good pair of 6" monitors is the most sensible way, as you can simply add a sub later (if your acoustic environment is good enough).

Last edited by echosystm on Feb-18-2009 at 06:33

I'd probably go either yamaha hs80s/Mackies or save up for focals/klein and hummels/genelecs. I'd personally go the K&H.

Realise that if you take the cheaper option, its really only a bandaid, and that you'll want new monitors in a few years

___________________
New Mix: March 2010 Promo
Soundcloud|Facebook

cheers for the answers guys, it seems i should have done a bit more research. all i thought was that the bass response would be better with a bigger woofer and didnt take into consideration the effect it would have on other freq's. i may look into getting a sub to go with my current monitors instead then.

___________________
https://soundcloud.com/mac_music_1983

quote:

Originally posted by djandymac it seems i should have done a bit more research

isnt that what u are doing now?

quote:

Originally posted by djandymac i may look into getting a sub to go with my current monitors instead then.

Not really the best idea.

For a good 2.1 setup, you want your monitors to comfortably go below 90hz without ANY roll off. When monitor companies say their monitors go from "60hz to 20,000hz", it means 60hz at -3db or -6db etc. The filter on the low end already started rolling off frequencies well above this point. Unless they're pretty decent 5" monitors, I doubt they will crossover well.

Another factor is that your room acoustics are probably not up to the task of running a sub. In this case, a sub will do more harm than good.

My advice is to buy a good pair of 6" monitors and buy a sub in a few years or so. Personally, I find it hard to recommend rear ported monitors for home studios, because they are very sensitive to positioning. If you move house and you have no choice other than to put them in front of a window, you're fucked. Go front ported, IMO!

Actually, it would seem the Fostex PM0.5 is quite good for pairing with a sub. Below is the PM0.5 with the sub.



I can only assume others perform well too. One has to ask if such good low frequency extension is the result of excessive porting, though

Last edited by echosystm on Feb-20-2009 at 05:33

MY BAD!

The Fostex sub crosses over at 120hz.

FTL!