|
High end Monitors for late 90's to early 2000's Trance?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Surgoflight |
What is high end in this era? I guess the answer is dictated by the quality of the bulk gear back in those days that made trance?
All I know is my mid range Neumann 120 monitors are not impressing me anymore with late 90's - early 2000's trance, what are examples of High end monitors that give a big difference?
If this was jazz or classic music, I guess $8000 Dynaudio's. But I'm sure that's overkill for any trance.
Thanks. |
|
|
| XDR |
A good monitor will give you the sound as it is, regardless of what music you're listening to.
Recent years have brought advancements to monitor technology that allows for better monitoring for less money. It would seem logical to take advantage of that, rather than picking up something from the 90's.
| quote: | Originally posted by Surgoflight
If this was jazz or classic music, I guess $8000 Dynaudio's. But I'm sure that's overkill for any trance.
Thanks. |
That just depends on how good you want your trance to sound I guess. Of course having more detail could mean the imperfections in mixes become more apparant but that's exactly what a monitor is supposed to do. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
In that period, the studio standard was Mackie Hr824's (first the mk1's then from about 2001, the Mk2's).
Larger, higher end studios used the Dynaudios BM12 or 15's, Genes 1031a's Adams and slightly later (around 2002) Quested f11's became popular, but in terms of numbers, the Mackies were the most popular.
A lot of smaller, budget studios used Behringer Truth B2031A's. They lso looked a little like the Gene's they were sort of named after, but were basically good rip offs of Mackie's HR824's but cost half the money. They were actually, really good budget monitors; one of the few things that Behringer really nailed.
Now if you're asking for monitors that will sound good today, then I'd suggest any good detail, flat monitor. In terms of engineering back then, a lot of music was made on samplers and midi sequenced synths, so my personal take would be to avoid anything that has harsh upper frequency response, such as the newer ADAMs or Gene's.
I'd suggest Focals or Yamas (to make a change :p ) as they both will be detailed and have a rounded punchy mid/bass response. |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
| lol spot on. everyone had the mackies. |
|
|
| PivotTechno |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
A lot of smaller, budget studios used Behringer Truth B2031A's. They lso looked a little like the Gene's they were sort of named after, but were basically good rip offs of Mackie's HR824's but cost half the money. They were actually, really good budget monitors; one of the few things that Behringer really nailed. |
They still make 'em, and they're awesome if you're on a budget. Even better with the matched 2092A sub, which they unfortunately took out of production. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by PivotTechno
They still make 'em, and they're awesome if you're on a budget. Even better with the matched 2092A sub, which they unfortunately took out of production. |
Unfortunately, if I remember right, they changed them in about 2004/5 - the old 2031a's were really good but Behringer decided (I think because the could on longer make/get the parts for the drivers) to slightly change the design and they went from being great budget monitors to very average.
The "new" versions still aren't terrible as such, just they weren't quite as good as matching the mackie sound at the time, then things moved on brands like Yama and JBL put out budget monitors that made the Truth's look even more mediocre by comparison.
I remember in the 90's/early 2000's, it was literally:
On a budget? Truths.
Got Some money? Mackies.
Got a lot of Money? Dynaudio's or Questeds.
And please don't ever mention a sub for stereo monitoring again. Enough puppies have been drowned for that already. |
|
|
| PivotTechno |
| No, never for monitoring, but paired with the tops, they make for clear, warm listening/dancing sound in a small room. |
|
|
| PaULiN0 |
LOL, who uses a sub to monitor their mixes at home? :p
Warm listening? LOL |
|
|
| PivotTechno |
Hey, why don't you post something about yourself again, that has zero relevancy to the thread, so you can carry on with that facade of self-importance you seem to value so much?
Unless they have a production time machine, OP asked for monitors for listening. A sub is a perfectly legit addition to a setup for such purposes. "Warm" has been used as a descriptive for sound quality for aeons.
Maybe try thinking before you post, as the majority of the time that you do, you reveal yourself as a senseless, coddled twat who has far more money than he does brains. |
|
|
| PaULiN0 |
I never heard of someone mixing in a 2.1 system in room in a house. Well there you have it.
Sorry if I sounded rude but don't make fun of my ing reloops man. :p |
|
|
| PaULiN0 |
| Oh yeah. The funktion one system is like that kind of setup. |
|
|
| Surgoflight |
thanks for replies.
I tend to think smaller woofer & more compact speaker as I turn down the low frequencies in EQ & just focus on higher quality lower distortion in mid range & vocals. |
|
|
|
|
