# Best Speakers under $1400



## Freds (Feb 2, 2011)

I know this might be a matter of opinion and taste, but what do you think are the best option under this range?

I've been working with the originals Mackies 624 and even though I knew they weren't great, I had the opportunity to compare them side by side with the Adams A7 and I almost cry. The Mackies sound boxy, midrangy, lack bass definition, etc, etc...

I was suspecting something was wrong because when I mix I always have to do A LOT of guessing using reference mixes, so the music translates well in other speakers, but after hearing this I even wondered if my speakers were broken (they aren't).

Anyway, what speakers do you prefer? What translates good in other system? Particularly for mixing Film Music (which I guess includes every genre!)

Thanks!
F

EDIT: I could go up a little more if is worth (the Adams A8X could also be an option if they are really so much better than the A7X, for example)


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Feb 2, 2011)

I LOVE my Adam P11s.


----------



## jamwerks (Feb 2, 2011)

Just a suggestion. If you’re making a living with your music, consider that your monitors are something that you rarely need to "update". Computers last maybe 3-5 years, but monitors 10-20 years. So consider buying really good ones ! o-[][]-o


----------



## JT3_Jon (Feb 2, 2011)

I'm running the original mackie 824's through ik multimedia ARC and seem to be getting decent results, but like you I A-B'd them against the Adams I use at work and they were night and day, and thus am also wondering if I should upgrade my monitor set. It seems silly that I spend thousands and thousands of dollars on computers and samples, yet monitor on nearfields costing under a grand. 

Note, people are having port noise on the bass with the new AX8's, and ADAMS is working on a fix. There is a large thread at gearslutz on it.


----------



## Dracarys (Feb 2, 2011)

In buying pro Speakers you gotta consider these guidelines to make sure they will last and be accurate.

Frequency Range must be 20 – 20K
Frequency Response which is more important, must be around 40h – 20k +/- 1.5dB. 
If your speakers is producing frequencies well at 20k they sure as hell will at 40herts.

Make sure they don't have less than 110 SPL, thats good when you ahve musicians recording and need that shit cranked.
Also make sure a minimum of 93 db spl 1w at 1m.

The last is a given, most loud speakers for mixing have TWO drivers (tweeter and woofer), that have active cross overs, which essentially means that the drivers don't have to steal power from the Amplifiers, there for each driver is getting an accurate amount of wattage. 
If not your woofer will definitely be stealing frequencies from your tweeter and you will bathe in mud. 
Not sure if this is called an impedance mismatch, oh well.

Oh and the enclosure should be an infinite baffle .


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 2, 2011)

Freds, you might want to search this forum for speaker recommendations. There are a lot of threads.

And I agree with your description of the original Mackies. I like the way they sound, but like the Genelecs they're modeled after, they have a constrained sound.

While I don't particularly disagree with Casalena, I don't take their measured specs very seriously. Billions of speakers that sound like total ass meet those specs handily, and there are some really great speakers that probably don't (it wouldn't surprise me if my UREI 809As have terrible specs; who cares, I like them as a second pair). You have to listen to speakers to judge them; there are certain things to listen for, but it simply takes a little practice to get an overall feel for a particular model and what its strengths and flaws are (and they all have some).


----------



## Dracarys (Feb 2, 2011)

Also you can't go wrong with Mackies for mixing, and they are affordable.
Genelecs, I'd stay away from those hypers unless it's just for listening


----------



## Freds (Feb 2, 2011)

Thanks for the suggestions. I did try the search engine, but didn't find much info (I'm probably not using the engine correctly).

Jamwerks good point. It's funny how we expend so much money on sample libraries, computers, etc, and then get cheap when buying speakers when it's such a critical element of the studio and will probably outlast many generations of computer software and hardware...


----------



## midphase (Feb 3, 2011)

Have you considered Event Opal?

http://www.eventelectronics.com/


----------



## Dracarys (Feb 3, 2011)

midphase @ Thu Feb 03 said:


> Have you considered Event Opal?
> 
> http://www.eventelectronics.com/



Those have an amazing cross over slope and frequency response. Bad ass


----------



## John Rodd (Feb 4, 2011)

I myself would stay away from Mackie and Adam monitors, and try to get something in the Dynaudio line if you can....

plus get some bass traps - maybe GIK 244's.

but that is just my opinion.

8) 

john


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 4, 2011)

A little knowledge is very dangerous. Once again: stay away from the spec sheet!

That's especially true of anything to do with frequency response, because if you zoom out far enough a clock radio will appear perfectly flat.

To use the obligatory car analogy, the distance from Los Angeles to San Francisco is a little over 350 miles. But to an ant it's much farther.

Our ears are more like the size of bacteria in this analogy.


----------



## Hal (Feb 4, 2011)

i like my JBL LSR4328P i can not recommend them over anything but they are nice with room control and remote control and network its arounf 150 $ above ur budget


----------



## Freds (Feb 4, 2011)

Thanks guys, lots of good suggestions!



John Rodd @ Fri Feb 04 said:


> I myself would stay away from Mackie and Adam monitors, and try to get something in the Dynaudio line if you can....
> 
> plus get some bass traps - maybe GIK 244's.
> 
> ...



Thanks John! I'm very curious about your comment about the Adams monitors. What's the reason you don't recommend them? 
Your opinion weights heavy on this decision and one of the main contenders is the ADAM A8X. Another one on my short list is the Dynaudio BM 6A which is closer to my budget.

Today there was a speaker shotout at RSPE Audio and they compared the Focal Twin 6, Adam A8X, S2X, and Genelec 8050 (all WAY above my budget), but the ADAM A8X seemed to hold very well against them. The only thing that was a bit weird is that the A8X seemed to color the sound with too much bass.
Then again, those were higher priced speakers.

Decisions, decisions, decisions!!! :?


----------



## John Rodd (Feb 4, 2011)

Freds @ Fri Feb 04 said:


> Thanks guys, lots of good suggestions!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



hey there

in my experience... generally speaking... i have found Adam tweeters to sound seductive initially.... but fatiguing long term. also a bit 'honky' sounding.

i have not sound these things with Dynaudios.


----------



## Freds (Feb 4, 2011)

That's good to know.

That's something you can't really hear on a speaker shootout unless you work for a few hours with them.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 4, 2011)

I haven't heard the Adams, but I know a lot of people really like them too - point being that you have to listen yourself and figure out what you like. It shouldn't take hours to figure out whether you find them fatiguing - you'll learn to judge speakers with a little practice.

The Dynaudios, Genelecs, and Mackies are more alike than different to my ear, even though the Dynaudio is the best of that category. What they have in common is a quality that I don't know how to describe without sounding more negative than I intend: you're aware that you're listening to a box; it's a very tight sound.

I personally have been very happy with the Blue Sky System One (sats + a sub), but this is very subjective. And I'm not saying they're better than the Dynaudios, because they're different. For me they have a great blend of being nice to listen to and easy to work on.


----------



## John Rodd (Feb 4, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Feb 04 said:


> ..... It shouldn't take hours to figure out whether you find them fatiguing - you'll learn to judge speakers with a little practice.
> 
> The Dynaudios, Genelecs, and Mackies are more alike than different to my ear......



I would actually respectfully disagree with both of the above statements.

The best test of if a speaker is fatiguing is after 12 hours of mixing at a moderate volume.... and some speakers don't show this 'till after many hours of mixing.

and.... for a wide range of music - I think that Mackie speakers fall FAR behind the other two.

but that is just my opinion.

:wink:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 4, 2011)

I respectfully agree with that, John. The only thing is that while I don't spend 12 hours mixing very often - in fact I can count the times I've done that on my naughty bits - it doesn't take 12 hours for my ears to get fatigued by annoying speakers.

But I definitely agree that the other two are better than the Mackies - as they should be considering the price difference. All I'm saying is that all three have a similar overall character compared to, say, Tannoys or KRKs.

A few years ago - quite a few years ago now, like maybe 15! - I did a NFM shoot-out with two other guys (both of whom are great engineers, in fact one of them has done several classic albums) when I was at Recording magazine. Aside from almost losing my job by pissing off al those advertisers  it was very interesting. Manufacturers all seem to go for a particular sound, in fact they copy each other.

We had a loose "metric" in mind for evaluating everything, and it was surprising how we all agreed. I'll see if I can find it.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Feb 5, 2011)

midphase @ Thu Feb 03 said:


> Have you considered Event Opal?
> 
> http://www.eventelectronics.com/



Isn't putting an audio sample kind of strange? If I'm still listening though my home speakers, that doesn't seem to make much sense.


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 5, 2011)

John Rodd @ Fri Feb 04 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Feb 04 said:
> 
> 
> > ..... It shouldn't take hours to figure out whether you find them fatiguing - you'll learn to judge speakers with a little practice.
> ...



It is also my opinion.


----------



## rgames (Feb 5, 2011)

John Rodd @ Fri Feb 04 said:


> The best test of if a speaker is fatiguing is after 12 hours of mixing at a moderate volume.... and some speakers don't show this 'till after many hours of mixing.


Interesting - I do have that problem with my Mackies but I've never spent that much consecutive time working with anything else, so I can't say if it's because they're Mackies.


----------



## kgdrum (Feb 5, 2011)

no one has mentioned Focal:
http://www.focalprofessional.com/en/cms-line/ (www.focalprofessional.com/en/cms-line/)


----------



## Freds (Feb 5, 2011)

kgdrum @ Sat Feb 05 said:


> no one has mentioned Focal:
> http://www.focalprofessional.com/en/cms-line/ (www.focalprofessional.com/en/cms-line/)



Yes! The CMS 50 and the CMS 65 seem like great options too!

I did read about some issues with the CMS 50 on Gearslutz, but then again, I keep reading about issues with lots of brands! The Adams 7x & 8x also seem to suffer from some issues.

I'm toying the idea of getting the Focal CMS 50 or the Dynaudio BM M5A and adding the Adam Sub 8. Or maybe just the CMS65 or the BM6A and no sub for now. =o


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 5, 2011)

I'm not John, but I calibrate my speakers to 85dB with pink noise. And I don't know how accurate the iPhone meters are; I set the system up using the old Radio Shack one a few years ago, long before getting the iPhone. The Radio Shack meter isn't accurate at low levels, but at 85dB it's fine - from what I've been told anyway.

However, 85dB is just my reference level - I do still use the volume control. I'm using a Blue Sky BMC monitor controller, which is digitally-controlled analog; it lets you set a reference level that you can return to by pushing a button (actually the Ref button is a toggle between your reference level and wherever you set the volume control).


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 5, 2011)

"I keep reading about issues with lots of brands"

Every speaker has flaws.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 5, 2011)

This is courtesy of John LaGrou (his company is Millennia Media, who make really outstanding outboard electronics). John did another shoot-out for me when I was at Recording, long before the one I mentioned above:


Panelists were asked to evaluate each speaker using two methods. The first method looked at six sonic parameters, scoring between 1 and 10 for each parameter. Half scores were acceptable (e.g., 7Ω). 

1. Low frequency quality
2. High frequency quality
3. Overall accuracy and timbre balance
4. On-axis imaging 
5. Off-axis imaging
6. Personal preference, irrespective of other tests

Scoring

10 Phenomenal
8-9 Excellent
6-7 Good
4-5 Fair
2-3 Poor
1 Dreadful

While these six parameters reveal a great deal, they don't allow for subjective assessments. Audio engineers commonly use adjectives like "bright," "thin," or "clear" to describe a speaker. For this reason, our test also included a two pole subjective scale based on the findings of acousticians Gabrielsson and Sjogren. Participants circled the number closest to their "feel" of each speaker 

Softness 5 4 3 2 1	0 1 2	3 4 5 Hardness
Brightness	5 4 3 2 1	0 1 2	3 4 5 Darkness
Fullness	5 4 3 2 1	0 1 2	3 4 5 Thinness
Spacious	5 4 3 2 1	0 1 2	3 4 5 Constricted
Clearness	5 4 3 2 1	0 1 2	3 4 5 Veiled

Acousticians have found that loudspeakers appearing most true to nature are commonly described as "clear, soft (at least not too hard), full, and offering a feeling of space."


----------



## Freds (Feb 5, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Feb 05 said:


> "I keep reading about issues with lots of brands"
> 
> Every speaker has flaws.



Sure, but I'm actually talking about defective hardware. Some people are complaining about noise/buzz on the bass register when playing the CMS 50 at more than 60%. Also, ADAMS seems to be working on a fix for the A8X, also related to the bass register.

These speakers are really great...when they are actually working! :wink:


----------



## John Rodd (Feb 5, 2011)

cc64 @ Sat Feb 05 said:


> Hi John, what would be a moderate volume level in Decibels and what would be a good test to know how loud i'm working at? Would sending pink noise through my speakers and using an SPL meter(Have one on my iPhone) be a good method or should i actually play a cut rather than use pink noise?
> 
> TIA
> 
> Claude



Hiya Claude

It is hard to define my somewhat vague term "moderate volume" but think of it as not blasting, but louder than a conversation in a quiet room.



Playing pink noise out of your DAW - with zero VU = 85 DB is a good starting point.... but not definitive, as a mastered CD is WAY louder than an unmastered mix.... so use your best judgment. 

I can't say how good the SPL meter on the iPhone is (my iPhone arrives Monday - yay for Verizon ..... finally!) 

does that help?

John


----------



## kgdrum (Feb 5, 2011)

I have never had a problem w/ my Twin 6's but I have worked extensively with FocalPro,they have great support here in the USA and I can tell you if you ever have an issue they will take care of you and resolve asap.


----------



## cc64 (Feb 5, 2011)

Hey John, 

thanks mucho for the reply.

Even the term blasting is subjective, i used to be a touring musician thus enduring inhumane pressure levels on the ear drums.(Ah those gtr players and singer side-fills...).

The reason for my asking if there was a recognised norm as per what levels would be considered moderate, comes from the fact that i'm worried that i work at pretty high levels because of those R&R years... =o 

I use ADAM A7s btw and really like them but i was coming from Tannoy 6.5 and NS-10... 

I'm mainly a film/tv composer and mixing is far from being my forte but with dwindling composer fees i end up being the mixer 99% of the time, not by choice, but mixing ends up taking 1% of my time. I rarely spend 12 hours a day mixing :wink: But in the end, i guess i do mix as i compose...

Thanks also to Nick B for the cue.

Best,

Claude


----------



## PMortise (Feb 5, 2011)

Guy Bacos @ Sat Feb 05 said:


> midphase @ Thu Feb 03 said:
> 
> 
> > Have you considered Event Opal?
> ...



I guess they're so good they make your current monitors sound better! :lol:


----------



## synergy543 (Feb 5, 2011)

Guy Bacos @ Sat Feb 05 said:


> Isn't putting an audio sample kind of strange?


Are you kidding? Listen to the sound of these puppies! 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtZNNEb76Yg

You can really hear the frequency response and smoothness of the these high-end monitors.
Not only can you hear the clarity and low distortion but listen to the incredible off-axis response as he moves the camera around the room!

Or woud ja rather have a silent movie and put some composers out of work?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5z5QlX8fL5s


----------



## Freds (Feb 5, 2011)

So after some research I decided to get the Focals CMS 65. More than my initial budget, but I think is a good long term investment.

Thanks a lot for all the comments and let see how it goes!


----------



## P.T. (Feb 6, 2011)

Freds @ Sat Feb 05 said:


> So after some research I decided to get the Focals CMS 65. More than my initial budget, but I think is a good long term investment.
> 
> Thanks a lot for all the comments and let see how it goes!



Well, you may be able to evaluate things like the sweet spot,

The problem is that you are listening to those speakers through a mic, a preamp and YOUR speakers.
It's pretty difficult to impossible to hear what the speakers actually sound like.

And, I agree with Nick about spec sheets.
They are fairly worthless for speakers.
You could line up 10 speakers that all have 20-20k +/- 1 db and they would all sound different.

Those spec sheets are now what you think they are.
They rarely tell you what methodology was used, what weighting was used, how one weighting differs from another, what smoothing curve/methods were used to make the graph.
Then there is the fact that freq response is only a part of what gives a speaker it's sound.
There is distortion, phase alignment and other things.


----------



## John Rodd (Feb 6, 2011)

I would say that speakers are the weakest link in the (recording & mixing) chain.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 6, 2011)

No question, John.

Have you heard the B&O Beolab 5s, just out of interest? When I first heard prototypes - actually different speakers that use the same acoustic lenses - my reaction was to ask the guys who designed them whether they now hate all their microphones.


----------



## Freds (Feb 6, 2011)

> Well, you may be able to evaluate things like the sweet spot,
> 
> The problem is that you are listening to those speakers through a mic, a preamp and YOUR speakers.
> It's pretty difficult to impossible to hear what the speakers actually sound like.



You were quoting me, but I'm not sure how's that related to my comment... :?: 
Wrong quote, maybe?


----------



## sinkd (Feb 7, 2011)

John Rodd @ Sun Feb 06 said:


> I would say that speakers are the weakest link in the (recording & mixing) chain.



Interesting assertion...

But doesn't it present a sort of phenomenological problem? As in, how can you know that the audio that you recorded sounds better (or should sound better) than the way that it sounds coming out of the "best" monitoring system that you have to use? The way that I can tell that a mic or preamp is "weak" is that I can replace it with another that is "stronger."

Or do we know this because different monitoring systems each have different strengths that have yet to be combined into an ideal?

Or are you saying that this is the case for most users, but can be overcome with the best equipment?

Or, maybe everyone else can still see my profile pic except me? I have no way of knowing..... where did it go, if anywhere?

NOT trying to be a pest here, just waxing philosophical. :D 

DS


----------



## P.T. (Feb 7, 2011)

Freds;

It looks like I hit the wrong quote button.
Let me try again so that the post makes sense.



synergy543 @ Sat Feb 05 said:


> Guy Bacos @ Sat Feb 05 said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't putting an audio sample kind of strange?
> ...




Well, you may be able to evaluate things like the sweet spot,

The problem is that you are listening to those speakers through a mic, a preamp and YOUR speakers.
It's pretty difficult to impossible to hear what the speakers actually sound like.

And, I agree with Nick about spec sheets.
They are fairly worthless for speakers.
You could line up 10 speakers that all have 20-20k +/- 1 db and they would all sound different.

Those spec sheets are now what you think they are.
They rarely tell you what methodology was used, what weighting was used, how one weighting differs from another, what smoothing curve/methods were used to make the graph.
Then there is the fact that freq response is only a part of what gives a speaker it's sound.
There is distortion, phase alignment and other things.


----------



## Freds (Feb 7, 2011)

BTW B&H has a pretty good deal on speakers. The Focals CMS 65 are selling for $1,829 and they include the ARC system (usually $370 or more). Same with the Adams A7X.

Still trying to decide wether getting them with Sweetwater at a regular price or with B&H. (Sweetwater usually has very god support).


----------



## synergy543 (Feb 7, 2011)

P.T. @ Mon Feb 07 said:


> synergy543 @ Sat Feb 05 said:
> 
> 
> > Guy Bacos @ Sat Feb 05 said:
> ...



Oops....I thought everyone would realize that was a joke. /\~O 

But you can test your speakers bass with this one. Listen to see if you hear any distortion. :lol: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0w2oMvKpqWg


----------



## Guy Bacos (Feb 7, 2011)

It sounded so good from my cheap speakers that now I'm convinced I don't need these speakers.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Feb 8, 2011)

I like Dynaudio better than Genelecs. 


Out of Mackies, Genelecs, KRK's, Tannoy - I would still choose Dynaudio. 


Quested may also be a better choice. I am told by a trusted friend that they are significantly better than both Genelecs and Dynaudio. 

I am not sure what you will get for $1400 from Quested though.

Also, if you are not in a treated control room - I would buy half decent speakers and then spend the rest of the money on acoustic isolation/treatment. This is better than buying expensive monitors which will not perform to specification whatsoever unless you are in a controlled environment. You will waste money buying high-end Genelecs, Dyna's or Quested's unless you have some sort of acoustic treatment of some consequence. 



Best,

Tanuj.


----------



## Lunatique (Feb 22, 2011)

No matter what monitors you get, I highly suggest you make sure you are actually getting the most of of them by taking care of your room acoustics. I spent a long time perfecting my room and it was totally worth it. I have used the same pair of monitors in different rooms and depending on the room mode, some rooms can really mess with the response of the monitors. For example, in one room, some of the strings on my bass would sound very thin while some strings will sound very boomy and bloated--it was a nightmare. 

While acoustic treatment helps, it is by no means the end all be all solution. I highly recommend you also purchase a room mode correction product such as the IK Multimedia ARC System. I've been using it for a while and I absolutely love it. It made a huge difference, and it wasn't until I started using did I feel like my Klein + Hummel O 300D's were performing as they ideally should. And this is even if I already had extensive acoustic treatment in a studio space that was designed from the ground up to be acoustically ideal for music production. In addition to using the ARC System, I also fine-tune more on top with EQ to get the flattest response possible. 

At this point, with my monitors placed in optimal position, me in the optimal listening position, the ARC System and additional EQ activated, in an acoustically fully treated studio, the sound I hear is absolutely orgasmic. I can't find a single fault, and I now have the most natural, dynamic, punchy, smooth, detailed, and dimensional sound I've ever heard. 

The truth is, if I wasn't in a room where I feel like I can totally trust what I hear, I will not be using monitor speakers to do any critical audio work at all--I'd use them for just general listening and non-critical stuff. I would much prefer to use high-end headphones (such as my awesome Audez-e LCD-2, or Stax 007mkII, or even something mid-tier like the Sennheiser HD650, or even lower-tier cans like the Audio-Technica ATH-M50) with crossfeed/room sim (such as the Isone Pro) engaged to make critical decisions with. Headphones are not affected by room modes, and with quality crossfeed/room sim, they will sound much more like speakers than headphones. And you can take them anywhere and get the same trustworthy sound. Some of today's high-end headphones ($1,000 or more price range) outperform many of the reference studio monitors in the same price range. My LCD-2 has ruler flat frequency response from 1KHz all the way down to 20Hz, and sounds like there's subwoofer in the headphone driver housing. There are no monitor speakers in the world that can go down to 20Hz flat like that in the $1,000 range, and most far more expensive monitor speakers cannot do it either, even with the addition of a subwoofer.

But of course, I'd pick a kickass pair of monitor speakers in an acoustically ideal room over headphones, simply because I prefer to not have something on my head, and also because monitor speakers will almost always sound more dimensional and visceral in general, since you feel the sound waves as much as hear them.


----------



## Aaron Marshall (Mar 16, 2011)

What might work for me, might not work for you. We all have different ways we perceive the world.

and yes, the room acoustics is a very important issue. The room itself is big enclosure like a speaker. It has to be treated, and the placement of your monitors is incredibly important.

I have a set of passive Dynaudio BM15's. You could probably find them used for about a grand. They're powered by a Hafler P4000 amp, which will be about 400-500 used. In that price range I don't see how you can get any better. I vibe reallly well with them and my mixes translate very well. You might not like the audio response from them.

Avoid Mackies. That's my opinion. They sound too compressed. Everything that comes out of them sounds way too polished and falsely good. They tire me out. 

I can make a mix translate with the Events, but they're papery sounding. I know that sounds weird, but I can't think of a way to describe them any better. The music sounds like it's rattling a piece of notebook paper in the midrange. It gets old and my head hurts after a few hours. If I had to use them I could get pretty good results. It's sort of like driving to work in a Winnebago. It'll get you there, but it's not going to be pretty.

The Mackies are like a shiny Fiat. You get in it, and it won't start but you feel really nice sitting in it.

The Dynaudios are like a BMW, or Audi

Adams have those sizzling ribbon tweeters. Look, if you going to do ribbon tweeters it better be really high end. Adams just comes off as novelty to me in that price range. If the Adams monitors happened to be a car it would be a Geo Metro with a spoiler made out of PVC pipes, and shelving braces from home depot.


----------



## toddkreuz (Mar 16, 2011)

Ok, so to sum up:

I would suggest you like what i like, and that you dislike what i dislike, even though my mixes arent that great, and other people get stellar mixes from the monitors im telling you to stay away from.

Thanks for the comic relief guys. Hilarious stuff. 

TK


----------



## Dan Mott (Mar 17, 2011)

I certaintly wouldn't say that the adams have sizzling ribbon tweaters. I have my adam a5s and they are pretty comfortable to listen to and because they are ribbon, they're easy on the ear. IMO.


----------



## Justus (Oct 25, 2011)

Has anybody tested the new Event 20/20 BAS V3 yet?

Thanks!


----------



## Dan Mott (Oct 25, 2011)

I have discovered the world of PMC speakers. Amazing. Spend a little more and get PMC TB2i or TB2S. Or DB1i or S. Check them out.


----------



## dannthr (Oct 25, 2011)

www.equatoraudio.com

Check out their B-Stock Q8s.

This is from the guy that designed the Alesis One and started Event (before selling it to Rode).

Great concept for a modern day coaxial monitor.

We have the 12s and the 8s at Pinnacle and I just got a pair of D5s for my little home studio.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Oct 28, 2011)

This is way above your budget but if you ever decide to get high resolution full monitoring system, then I would seriously check these out:

http://reflexion-arts.com/productos/fabricantes/reflexion-arts/monitores-para-empotrar-main-monitors/reflexion-arts-239/ (http://reflexion-arts.com/productos/fab ... -arts-239/)


They are much better than your dynas etc but as Nick said that this is subjective. I am getting these next year for my studio. Of course I getting it done by a professional, in this case Philip Newell.

These will end up costing you about 10,000 euros. BUt they are really great. You should also get the book Loudspeakers by Philip Newell - excellent read.

They have the Tad-2001 HF driver and a JBL LF driver with Neva audio amps and crossovers made to really high standards in Russia. The TAD-2001 has a very fast response which is good for Cinema sound.

Of cours, these are just one pair, there are so many monitors out there. the only problem with these is that they are made to order so nobody is going to stock it. So difficult to check them out.


Otherwise, quested and dynas are great!


Best,

Tanuj.


----------



## Scrianinoff (Oct 28, 2011)

vibrato @ Fri 28 Oct said:


> They have the Tad-2001 HF driver and a JBL LF driver


Thanks for the specs! Now we can build them ourselves.


----------



## rabiang (Oct 29, 2011)

i just ordered the dynaudio bm5a mk II. i almost bought the adam a7x, but figured its better to go with the bm5 because it seems somewhat of a standard.


----------

