Genelec 1030s' vs Mackie 824s' (opinions)?

[Mt.Everest]

I own 824s at home studio and use the Genes at the studio. I like them both but I feel the mids are to smooth in the Genes and I actually like the low end on the 824s-- tight a real, not hyped like an AIWA stereo "bass boost" switch.

However, someone should do a scientific test. All of us have different amounts of hearing loss, different rooms, and possibly different settings on the speakers.

It would be interesting to see what would be the result of a NON BIASED, scientific test. Yeah those mackies come with that stupid "flat" graph but who knows how that was done...
Id like to see a sweeped tone from 20Hz to 20K recorded from both plotted on a graph to really see if there are scooped mids, hyped lows his etc...
MT

[Doug Ring]

MT, that is probably how the manufacturers did do their response curves... but in an anechoic chamber. Some independent reviewers in the press will do an averaged room response, but that means just what it says - in an average room. What exactly constitutes an average room, and how many of us have one? That's why you habve to hear speakers in your own or a very similar room, and also take care with their setup - decent stands, not too near walls, the right amount of absorption and so on.

Another problem is the build-up of bass energy in smaller rooms. It's possible that the Mackies (I admit I haven't heard them), because they have an accurate bottom-end which goes lower than competing monitors, may sound 'out-of-control' in a small room. Put it another way, the Mackies may claim an equivalent response to a 12 or even a 15 inch driver, but would you put something that size in your room?

[Steve MacMillan]

The Mackie low end response works much better with the speakers sitting on stands, than on the meter bridge of a console. I use the B curve,

I use the Mackies every day, and I'm very happy with the mixes I've done on them. For the last couple of weeks I've had them set up right next to 1031's and frankly the Genelecs make the Mackies sound broken. The Mackies are two dimensional in comparison, and it is much easier to hear detail in the bottom end with the 1031's. I did notice that the Genelecs were much more fatiguing and wouldn't play quite as loud.

Maybe I need to hear the Adam.

sm

[Robin Hughes]

I use both Mackies and Genelecs and agree with all the responses about frequency differences. One important point to consider is that the mackies are midfeild monitors designed to be around 6' from the sweet spot. If they are any closer or within 3 feet of a wall the tailoring via the dip switches is required.

Between the two I find that a good result is acheived. Tailoring mixes too sit between the two produces good results. The Mackies are definately less flattering than the genelecs and if choosing a single monitoring system then the mackies would be my choice. With the gene's you realy have to focus to pick out mistakes. But IMHO there is nothing better than NS 10s for that , appart from maybee those old Auratones [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

[shadowbox]

I've never heard the ADAM's but everyone that talks about them raves. I'm sure they are great. But I think it's fair to say they are in a different league than the Mackie's.

I have the Mackie's in my studio, and alternate between them, NS-10Ms, and Auratones. They work great for me in this way. I would prefer to have the Genelec 1031s, but they are out of my price range. I think what some people may be talking about as "hyped bass" compared to the 1030s could have something to do with the room they are in. They are completely different than the 1030's.The Mackie's have more low end the 1030s. Depending on what room they are in, and how they are adjusted, the Mackie's will sound boomy. If you have a small room and can afford them get the Genelec 1030. But they won't give you the bass you can get out of the Mackie's if you have a big enough room.
Let's be honest, for the money, the Mackie's are great. They are well made, have a very flat frequency response, and the Hi and Lo Freq cut/boost can help you tune them to any room you are in (well not any room).

[scottgreiner]

Greiner, can you elaborate a bit on the Blue Sky's? How do your mixes translate from them and is ear fatigue a factor? I really
liked them in the store but thought they might be a bit too bright.

thanks

Steven

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Sorry so late in replying. I only have the Blue Sky sub in tandem with Genelec 1030's, which after a little tweaking of crossovers, works great. I think Skywalker Ranch bought MANY 5.1 sets of Blue Sky's, and they tend to know a thing or two. Just buy what you like. Try to find a dealer who will let you demo stuff and return it if you don't dig it.

[emreramazanoglu]

Check out the ATC SCM30s . Much, much truer than mackie or genelecs, bottom end much less extended than either, but very usable

[haze]

Shadow, a search on www.prosoundweb.com & www.musicplayer.com will reveal lots of posts about the ADAM speakers. I really love my P11a's, and was initially looking at the mackie 824, genelec 1030a, an the Dynaudio Bm6a.

jh

www.johnhaze.com

[shadowbox]

Originally posted by haze:
Shadow, a search on www.prosoundweb.com & www.musicplayer.com will reveal lots of posts about the ADAM speakers. I really love my P11a's, and was initially looking at the mackie 824, genelec 1030a, an the Dynaudio Bm6a.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I am not disputing that the ADAMs sound great. As I said, I have read a lot of praise about them. I would say (from looking at specs) the P11a's are comparable to the Gen 1030a's in what they are designed to do. The Mackie's would be more similar to the P22a's or S2a's (which cost either 2 to 3 times more). I not saying they are as good as those speakers, I am saying they are designed to do the same thing. So if you compare your P11a's and the Mackie's in a smaller project studio and you come away thinking the Mackie's sounded more hyped on the bottom or a bit boomy, it's because the Mackie's were putting out more bottom end-plain and simple. And the ADAMs are probably a much better monitor for smaller rooms. Because in a small room you don't need the extra 10Hz down in your bottom end.

P.S. Don't flame me for quoting specs, I am fully aware that all that matters is what the speakers sound like in the real world. But it is true that different speakers are designed with different purposes in mind.

[deerock]

Wow, that is an awful comparison between Genelecs and Mackies. Like night and day.

Try the Blue Sky monitors. I have been a fan of Genelecs for years (but they are really too bright) and then M&K's too. These Blue Sky monitors are awesome. You will notice that Lucasfilm and many other post houses have opted in too.

Derek Sample
Post FX, Inc.