[drphoto]

Just wondering if anyone had tried anything like this for home use. I know there are both powered and passive designs.

[nathanm]

I'll put in a plug for Mackie HR-824s.  I have a pair and they are an absolutely beautiful piece of equipment.  Well built, adjustable and great sounding.  The tightest and most slamming bass I've heard come from such a small box.  And my room sucks, so if you gave them some more space they probably are even more impressive.  What you give up in aesthetics is more than made up for by the sound and build quality.  Plus, amplified speakers are just cool IMO.  Your choice of RCA, phone and XLR inputs is very handy.  They even smell good!  I can understand why they may not be to everyone's taste (what is?) but they are worth a try.

[rhart]

The new Energy Pro series may be interesting. Information is on the Bryston.ca website. They are active monitors with DACs! Also, relatively inexpensive. I assume that Bryston is providing the amplification for these.

[Danny Richie]

I had a local customer that owns a recording studio bring by a pair of the 8" two way models with the built in amps.

I took some frequency response measurements for him and we adjusted the variable gain to get as accurate of a response as possible.

They were not exactly smooth.

Funny thing is that he bought them thinking that they would be a very uncolored and a neutral speaker to use as playback monitors when mixing.

He was very surprised to see just how colored they really were.

[nathanm]

The only way anyone gets the pretty flat graphs is by measuring in an anechoic space or taking a tiny slice in time before room reflections come in, neither of which are represenative of what you will actually hear.  Nothing is neutral or flat in real world practice.  I just don't think the phenomenon exists, and I wonder if it is even desirable.  If flatness correlated 1:1 with sonic satisfaction then everyone would be installing wire floors and 3 foot fiberglass wedges in a barn.  But what IS flat?

Anyway, Mackie will indeed give you a graph with a mostly straight line on it, but I wouldn't doubt for a second that if I did the same test in my own room it would be the rocky mountains.  Bare drywall will do that to a fella.  But subjectively....  Ethan Winer's video of his panel traps uses 824s if I am not mistaken and obviously that room is not giving up the flatness action!  heh!  But what microphone is flat either?  Hmmm...

Everybody performs a mental analysis of the various speakers they've heard in order to get a useful picture of what they're hearing.  Good recording engineers don't get that way by simply buying the flattest-measuring equipment, they have just trained their ears to compensate for the differences and the end result is something that comes across good on a variety of systems.  But nobody is going to hear it exactly the same.  It's just like color correcting, you have to see through the niggles in the monitor's response and get a feel for what's right.  Personally I doubt that most folks have ever experienced Measures Flat and get to correlate that with What I've Heard.  I would sure like to, though!

[JoshK]

I'd rather we drop the on axis FR analysis and use an average of 0, 15º, 30º, 45º & 60º (weighted if you prefer) it would be much more correlated with what we hear.   Making a speaker flat on axis doesn't mean all that much if we listen off axis.

[Tweaker]

If they sound good, who cares how they measure?

[JoshK]

If they sound good, who cares how they measure?

well for one, I do.... sound good, how? are they letting you hear all your can/want to hear?  I am more interested in raising the bar, and for that I believe you need measurement (correlated with hearing of course).

[ooheadsoo]

If they sound good, who cares how they measure?

Anyone looking for something neutral.  And I'm sure Danny does gated measurements.  As for the axis, things are almost always worse off axis than on.  If it's not even flat on axis...

The mackie provided response curve is smoothed so much that it might as well be a simulated curve.  If you looked at the curves of the 824 vs the 624, you'd conclude that they sounded identical but for the bass extension.  

That said, they sound nice, especially at half price/used.

[Russtafarian]

For Christmas I picked up a pair of KRK Rokit 5 powered monitors for my wife's computer since she uses that as her music system.  Guitar Center was blowing them out for $200 a pair.  Very well built, smooth top end, recessed midrange, punchy midbass, very dynamic.  They are a lot of fun to listen to, but it didn't take me long to figure out that they are colored as hell.

I feel sorry for the poor saps trying to record music with these things.  They're so laid back and warm sounding that anything mixed on them will turn out to sound thin and shrill when played back on more neutral speaker systems.

Russ

[Hogg]

Ihave a pair of ATC 20-2's,  one of the better monitors out there.  Monitors like this are exceedingly neutral.  Everything is presented unvarnished which is great on some recordings and has you covering your ears on others.

                                                        Jim

[Russell Dawkins]

Nicest sounding halfway reasonably priced powered monitors I've heard were Tannoy System 600s. Within very modest peak loudness limits they had one of the most accurate and sweetest mids down through mid bass region I have heard. Great imaging,too.
Not cheap at around $1200 a pair, but for nearfield listening at modest levels a revelation.

Another cheaper but worthy contender is the KRK powered 4" model - not the Rockit but the more expensive line.

Dynaudio BM5As are very good value at $1000.
Dynaudio BM6As are worth the extra if you can afford it

Or go the whole hog and get some Timepieces and an amp!

I don't think there should be any difference between studio and home speaker voicing.

'Accurate' shouldn't mean edgy or painful.

[JLM]

My experience is that studio monitors are highly analytical and detailed (as needed for recording/mixing work) and so aren't my cup of tea.

But the active aspect (one amp channel per driver) is a huge benefit.  I auditioned Paradigm Active 20's (small active woofer/tweater standmounts) years back and they blew away the Paradigm Studio 100's (fairly large passive 3-way floorstanders) that were supposed to be in the same family of speakers.  (Much more dynamic, flat response, and detailed.)  And the Active 20's with nice matching stands cost less than the Studio 100's (without amps).  Let the professional speaker builder match driver and amp and put your ego/tweaking habits away.

[Danny Richie]

The only way anyone gets the pretty flat graphs is by measuring in an anechoic space or taking a tiny slice in time before room reflections come in,

Measurements of the Mackies were taken in our anechoic chamber.

neither of which are represenative of what you will actually hear.

Actually the people that use these for mixing have them at the end of their mixing board aimed right at them (typically), so the on axis response is very representative of what they will hear.

Nothing is neutral or flat in real world practice. I just don't think the phenomenon exists, and I wonder if it is even desirable.

I have measured many speakers that are very accurate. We won't even release a speaker that doesn't fall within a +/-2db range and some of my work easy falls within a +/-1db range.

Is accuracy desirable? Certainly.

If flatness correlated 1:1 with sonic satisfaction then everyone would be installing wire floors and 3 foot fiberglass wedges in a barn. But what IS flat?

A smooth frequency response is only part of the picture. I have heard speakers with a flat (or fairly flat) frequency response fall short in other areas. A speaker might be good in other areas but have a roller coaster frequency response and be unusable or un-listenable.  

Still, a smooth frequency response is a vital display of accuracy.

The Mackies were just outside of +/-3db with some rather rough peaks and dips that were a little too close to one another.

but I wouldn't doubt for a second that if I did the same test in my own room it would be the rocky mountains. Bare drywall will do that to a fella.

Are you really listening in a room with bare drywall?

I'd rather we drop the on axis FR analysis and use an average of 0, 15º, 30º, 45º & 60º (weighted if you prefer) it would be much more correlated with what we hear. Making a speaker flat on axis doesn't mean all that much if we listen off axis.

Actually the more valuable information would be to see on axis, 10, 20, 30, 40, and maybe even 50 degrees off axis. In room response measurements in an average listening room are helpful as well.

Another big one is vertical off axis responses. You can have good horizontal measurements but have a huge dip in the vertical off axis and wind up with a dipped response in the room response measurement.

If they sound good, who cares how they measure?

The recording engineers that are using them for mixing. That's who.

They may want one instrument to have the same output level as another that is in a different frequency range. They balance it to their ears using a speaker with a rough response, but then when it is played back on a more accurate speaker then they realize that one instrument is over twice as loud as the other was.

I use to have a local recording studio bring over their recently mastered CD's to listen to them in out listening room. Then they'd go back and remix, and come back again...

[Ethan Winer]

> Just wondering if anyone had tried anything like this for home use. <

Here's another vote for Mackies. I have three HR-624s for left / center / right in my living room HT, and they are fabulous. The 824s Nathan mentioned my partner uses are flat to below 40 Hz, and that's probably better for 2-channel. But I have an SVS sub so the 624s I have (flat to below 50 Hz) are more than adequate.

Indeed, when I see audiophiles with huge expensive tower speakers, I always wonder why they don't just buy a pair of 824s and be done with it.

I also agree with Danny - the single most important feature of any loudspeaker is accuracy. This is not only on- and off-axis response, but also distortion (both THD and IM) and ringing.

--Ethan

[nathanm]

Measurements of the Mackies were taken in our anechoic chamber. ...The Mackies were just outside of +/-3db with some rather rough peaks and dips that were a little too close to one another.

Cool.  Do you have a plot of that?  I'd certainly be interested to see a measurement from a 2nd party.  One can never usually believe those artificially flat graphics.  I mean, my first pair of speakers I bought at a flea market had a mostly-flat response on a little sticker right on the speaker.   Who says marketing doesn't have a sense of humor?

Actually the people that use these for mixing have them at the end of their mixing board aimed right at them (typically), so the on axis response is very representative of what they will hear.

I hear you on the on-axis part, but I meant that nobody is actually listening in a test chamber nor can anyone only listen to a 200ms slice of time.  I actually really liked the method Ethan used, playing a slowly ramping up tone and recording it to see the waveform graphically.  It doesn't tell you the response of the speaker in isolation, but the whole picture of what you might hear.  To me that seems like a good real world measurement of numerous factors.  But of course, listening to this stuff is crushingly dull!

I have measured many speakers that are very accurate. We won't even release a speaker that doesn't fall within a +/-2db range and some of my work easy falls within a +/-1db range.  Is accuracy desirable? Certainly.

I agree, I'm just saying that one can measure a speaker under certain conditions and get the flat line but it changes once you actually use the thing in a room.  I don't doubt that accurately measuring gear is very desireable, however I can't quite be certain that my ears are being hit with equal sound pressure in room.  One thing I noticed when listening to test tones and staring at a SPL meter was a disparity between the loudness I perceived and how much the needle was moving.  So I totally agree that having a neutral source is good, but I just wonder if our ears are actually getting it and if so, does it sound "right" to us, whatever that might mean to the individual.  (It's more of a philiosophical conundrum rather than a scientific thing.)

Are you really listening in a room with bare drywall?

Not entirely, but close.  I just have a smattering of thin foam on the walls in that room.  Just enough to kill the HF pings.

[Tweaker]

The recording engineers that are using them for mixing. That's who.

These were being discussed in relation to home, not studio use. There are some  pretty good speakers (Magnepan for one) that don't measure flat that people somehow still manage to enjoy. Perhaps it's because they haven't seen a frequency response plot. As soon as they do I'm sure they will be unable to appreciate them any longer. Speaking of Magnepan, here's a qoute from a Stereophile review of a 1.6:

Big diaphragm dipoles like Magneplanar 1.6s are just not the kind of loudspeakers that are going to bench-test ruler-flat. That bit of softness at the extreme top, that bit of added energy in the upper mids, a small bit of suckout in the crossover region (these are two-ways, after all), and the emphatic authority of its mid-to-upper bass combine to give you a sweet, slight tly-darker- than -I ife sound (unusual for Maggies, which tend toward the dry, bright, up-front sound of magnet-driven plastic). There is nothing egregious about this balance (indeed, the 1.6s measure flatter than other Maggies); it just isn't textbook.

Don't give it a second thought. Rulerflat frequency response is oversold. Better the lightning transients, the superb dynamic scaling, the remarkable spaciousness, the nearly world-class inner detail, the single-driver coherence, and sheer presencing power-all of which the Maggie 1.6s have in abundance.

Perhaps I'm comparing apples and oranges, though, as the goals of a monitor are a bit different than speakers designed for the home.
 I'm aslo not saying a flat response isn't desirable. However, once the speaker is in my house I sure don't want it to be performing ruler flat. Gaaa. God forbid!
 I just find it interesting that the monitors in question seem to be found to be pretty darned good sounding then suddenly their merits are being based on how flat they measure. Sure, they are designed first and foremost for monitors but  from the reviews I've read doing a Google search they seem to do that very well, too. However, again, these were being originally discussed for home use and how well they sound in that enviroment. For home use nathanm found them to be great sounding. In that context I'll say it again. If that's the case who cares how they measure? And to those of us with digital equalizers it's even less of an issue.

[JeffB]

I have two questions when it comes to flat response.
I can see where flat response is important, but flat response is measured with a constant input level.  Music is not a constant signal.  The speaker needs to produce volume linearly with respect to the input signal.  
1) Are there any measurements that can be performed to measure how well a driver tracks the input signal?  To me this would be a much better measurement.
2) When I use my radio shack SPL meter, it jumps all over the place with my test CD.  While listening to a tone for 30 seconds, my meter can change 8db.  Does anybody have an explanation for this.  Dirty power, bad test tone CD, bad meter?

[ooheadsoo]

How is your spl meter mounted?  If it's being held in your hand and being moved around, it's likely room/reflection related.

I think 1) refers to the power response of a speaker.

[JeffB]

I just set the SPL meter on a table midway between the speakers.
So it is not moving.