WHICH NEAR-FIELD MONITOR should I buy?

[djbeatz]

I have trimmed down my NEAR-FIELD ONLY monitor list to the 4 models I am considering most likely buying. In decsending order of quality (with #1 being the best, and therefore my most likely choice) ...here is my UPDATED list:

#1. JBL LSR 4328P
#2. Event ASP8
#3. DynAudio BM15a
#4. Mackie HR824

A non-exhaustive list of criteria that determine whether or not models are elgible for inclusion in my monitor list above is included here... In no particular order:

Price: Max Budget (approx. $1200)
Price: Bang/Buck
Freq. Response: Width
Freq. Response: Uniformity
Availability: Replacement Parts
Availability: Retail Outlets
Space Considerations
Manufacturer Reputation
Support

Criteria that influenced my current opions are:

Imaging
Dynamics
Frequency Response
Volume
Price: Bang/Buck

Comparisons are based on the following info sources:

Manufacturer's Specs
Independant Spec verification (if available)
Personal subjective testing
Other's reviews

=====================================

So... Can anyone give me their personal advice or opinion on my findings? I already have beginner's knowledge on the usage and setup of monitors, and I'm aware of a few companies who have rather outstanding reputations.

Nevertheless, I'm always on the lookout for a good deal and hoping to learn even more about the recording industry and about studio monitor concepts and technology. I'd love to know if there are any other companies whose products should be taken into consideration for my list!

I'd also like to know if there are any additonal criteria which I SHOULD HAVE included in my comparisons, or that I did not weigh heavily enough. Please let me know, CYA!

[djbeatz]

.

[oldbuckster]

I'd like to say Good Job, but what are you talking about????

[Macho Nacho]

I am back too after a major journey at Piggly Wiggly. While I was there I had an epiphany and heard many good speakers. Lay off the beef jerky cause it will kill you in the short run. Life goes on and the jerky will always exists. Beware of the Jerky. Also I am not laughing.

[DrWho]

Your impressions sound about right, but....I would approach things a little differently.

It sounds like your intention is to obtain a studio monitor for doing

actual studio work...not a speaker for listening to and enjoying music?

Just wanted to make sure this assumption is correct.

There are a couple different schools of logic about this, but the

ultimate goal of a studio monitor is two fold: First, it needs to

reveal flaws. And secondly, the sound of the mix on the monitors needs

to translate well.

The actual ability to reveal flaws can be a bit misleading, but really

you should be compariing against a live acoustical source (say a

singer) instead of comparing speakers against each other (talk about a

rubber measuring stick). The goal is for the speakers to sound

realistic: just like the original sound, but not immersive or adding to

it in anyway. A single decent mic on a singer should sound very

one-dimensional (because in fact the mic itself is nearly

one-dimensional in its pickup).

Translating the mix is more a function of the operator. It's easy to

get things sounding great on your monitoring rig, but to get it to

sound the same way everywhere is quite an ordeal. The best thing to do

is pick a favorite piece of music that sounds great on a lot of

different systems and then go listen to it over and over everywhere you

can: the car, boombox, discman, ipod, computer speakers, home theatre,

etc etc...Bring a notepad with you and try to quantify the differences

between the different environments/systems. Now take these recordings

and your notes into the studio and listen to the monitoring rig. Though

you want it to reveal flaws, you still want things to "sound good" when

they will sound good elsewhere. The tonal characterstics of your good

recording in the studio is going to tell you what "good sound" sounds

like on those monitors. Ultimately, you'll want to go with monitors

where "good sound" sounds good to your ears.

I hope that made sense?

In your situation it sounds like the Mackies are going to be your best

bet. Though the ASP's "sound better", you're going to have a hard time

trying to maximize the feeling of immersion on other systems. I am very

much not a fan of the KRK's for all sorts of reasons, but I won't say

they are "bad".

[djbeatz]

Thanks Dr. Who, you are correct about that: I AM looking for monitors to produce the flattest, most transparent, most accurate playback possible. When I said that the Event "sounded better" what I meant was that they seem to have more extended high and low ranges in comparison with the other monitors.

I should also thank you for your monitor suggestions which you made to me quite some time ago. It was your response to one of my previous threads, in which you suggeseted I try the following 3 monitors, that prompted me to visit Guitar Center and check them (and the others) out:

ART SLM-1 Studio Monitors & SLA-1 Power Amp Package ($400)
Event Tuned Reference 8 TR8 Active Monitors ($500)
Mackie HR624 Active Studio Monitor ($450)

(I'm sure there are high-end "pro-audio" places in my city, which probably sell studio monitors as well, but I haven't bothered to check yet.)

[djbeatz]

BTW, Dr. who... What do you mean by "feeling of immersion"? Could you ellaborate please?

[DrWho]

Well you're the one that described the ASP8's as having an immersive stereo field [] You want the depth and width of the recording to end up on the recording, not necessarily on the speakers. Nearfield monitoring doesn't usually have a very good soundstage...that's what far-field monitors are for, which for the sake of reference will typically be a speaker on which you would playback music at home.

[djbeatz]

Well you're the one that described the ASP8's as having an immersive stereo field []

I know, but I was just wondering why you pointed it out. You said: "Though the ASP's sound better, you're going to have a hard time trying to maximize the feeling of immersion on other systems."

So I was just wondering if perhaps I used the term "immersive" incorrectly?

I was also wondering if it's possible that the ASP8s might actually "exaggerate" the stereo width?

If that is so, then I agree with you: it's an un-desirable trait, even though it may sound pleasing!

[DrWho]

The only way to find out is to take a few recordings that you know really well and go listen on a bunch of systems. If the ASP8's present a better stereo image than anywhere else, then chances are its an illusion with the speakers.

Why is it an issue? It makes it harder to accurately place instruments on the soundstage and it's harder to dial in any kind of effects - especially good old fashioned reverb.

Think about the recording process and what the kind of music you'll be producing will entail. Pick something that will make your job easier. You don't want the speakers to mask anything that will reveal itself elsewhere. Every speaker will have flaws - the goal is making those flaws not matter.

I've used both to good end, but I definetly prefer the Mackie's...That said, it really is a personal choice. If you're looking for some numbers to sway your decision, then I will mention that the Mackie's can play louder (which means less power compression) and have a flatter frequency response.

[djbeatz]

thanx for the help, Dr. Who. I really appreciate it.

BTW, when you say the Mackies can play louder and have a flatter freq. response than the Events, you are referring to:

Mackie 824 vs. Event ASP8

Am I correct?

[DrWho]

Ya - at least that's what the specs claim []

To be fair, I have way more experience with the Event 20/20's than the ASP8's. But they're both the signature Event sound.

And to help put things into perspective, I do really enjoy the Event stuff. I don't intend to come off as Event bashing if it seems like that...differences often get magnified when you focus on them in comparisons.

[djbeatz]

Well, here... I have updated my list. (Check the very top of this post to see my new list.)

Please note that my list includes Near-Fields only!

After extensive researching and inquiry, I've formed the assumtion that the JBL LSR 6300 & 4300 Series are the best Near-Field monitors currently available (that I'm aware of.)

Not only is their frequency response wider than any of the other near-fields I know of, but they are also the flattest (in fact, they're "better" than flat, according to their company terminology.)

I'm not gonna get into a "game of semantics" here, but I'm fully aware of what they mean by that. Basically they are touting the usefulness of the extensive EQ-ing options that their near-fields provide.

I'd be gald to add other companies and/or product lines to my list. If anyone here believes anything else is worthy of inclusion, by all means, Please tell me!

So whadya think? Any input you can gimme? Anyone?