Sujet Choix de moniteurs

Citation : celle qui ne font qu'assembler des composants made in partout

Citation : Et je doute simplement qu'on puisse mixer quoique ce soit de valable pour le grand public sans avoir des écoutes un peu limitées

Citation : la belle basse de la mort qui tue a 40hz" ne devienne pas "un petit ruisseau pathetique" quand on la diffuse avec une limite basse à 80Hz

Citation : Reste quoi alors, Focal, Yamaha et Dynaudio?

Citation : comment tu choisis

Citation :
I understand your points. The term "flat" has two different meanings. Some of us are referring to "flat" meaning that each section of the frequency spectrum is equal. This is generally a desirable trait, in that the speaker isn't artificially boosting or attenuating certain frequencies. Some people use the term "flat" to mean that the sound is lifeless, without excitement. I would interpret that to mean that the top end doesn't have much "sparkle" or that the bass doesn't have much "kick" to it. Two completely different meanings for the word "flat".

I spent a good 90 minutes today listening to the Mackie hr824, Dynaudio BM6A, and similarly priced Genelec and Adam monitors at Long and Mcquade.

Each of them sounds distinctly different, but they all sound like "normal" speakers. They are not a purely analytical tool that only an engineer can utilize. Their sound character changes as you move closer or further away the same way "normal" speakers do. They each handle certain sonic elements in a particular way and have a soundstage that is unique.

Some comments-

mackie hr824: airy imaging, similar to b+w nautilus tweeter, a bit of boost in the 2-3k region that makes vocals pop out of the mix a little, they don't have "more" bass so much as they handle the bass better than most of the other monitors, so as you send them more bass they can play it back without getting hazy, kick drum had more thud like being near a real kick drum, tom rolls had more depth and you could hear them move left to right across the soundstage rather than snapping from center to right without the inbetween sound, the 100-300hz range was notably controlled relative to the other monitors, the sweetspot was wider such that you can move a bit and the image doesn't fall apart or skew left or right, frequencies in the 5-10k range were a tiny bit over-present, a proper room might alleviate this or you could use the -2db switch on the back

Dynaudio BM6A- very different imaging from the mackies, not as wide or deep but "taller" as if audio was coming a few feet above the tweeter, perhaps reflections of the glass backwall, bass in the 60-120hz range was less controlled than the mackie as if it was trying to do it but it's "little" 6"(?) woofer wasn't up to the task, and this was at low levels, say 80-85db peaks, the vocal range didn't have the slight boost of the mackie's so vocals tended to receed into the mix, good tone throughout say 500-2khz, things like acoustic guitar sounded warm and present, overall imaging just didn't do it for me, you had to sit dead center and fairly close for the soundstage to open up and it was still somewhat hazy

Genelec ($2400 a pair, didn't note the model) - I listened to these just to see what spending more got you, they had a rather tubby 150-500hz character that made them sound boxy, the 60-120hz range was present but a tad loose, it didn't have the detail or visceral kick that the mackie's gave with their 8.75" woofer+passive radiator combo, the vocal range was similar to the Dynaudio, so vocals tended to get swallowed in the mix, the upper end was soft, you could work on these all day without getting too irritated, not necessarily accurate of course

Adam (A7 I believe) - the ribbon tweeter was very directional, you had to sit dead center and not move or else the sound got very phasey, I didn't spend much time on these as I didn't care for the vocal range on up to the high treble, the ribbon was just a bit harsh in general

In the end, these are just speakers. They are powered, bi-amplified, and have way more controls for highpass, treble/bass contour, room position (whole, half, quarter) but they have varying sonic signatures just like "regular" speakers that we here use everyday. Overall I thought most of them were able to better delineate what was in the music than similarly priced "home" loudspeakers. At the same time, I don't think I would say any of them are "flat" with respect to the frequency spectrum.

All that said, I have 3 of the mackie's on order

Citation : An acquaintance of mine measured ten popular pro speakers at high resolution, and every single one of them except for the Mackie HR824s had a scooped out response in the harshness range between 2 and 4 KHz. The worst of the lot was the Dynaudio BM15A with a 10 dB null (!) at 3.5 KHz. So of course they sound more airy, and less fatiguing, etc. Personally, I'll take a flat response and low distortion over "pleasant" every time. In the larger picture, speakers that are more accurate also sound the best.

Citation : An acquaintance of mine measured ten popular pro speakers at high resolution, and every single one of them except for the Mackie HR824s had a scooped out response in the harshness range between 2 and 4 KHz. The worst of the lot was the Dynaudio BM15A with a 10 dB null (!) at 3.5 KHz. So of course they sound more airy, and less fatiguing, etc. Personally, I'll take a flat response and low distortion over "pleasant" every time. In the larger picture, speakers that are more accurate also sound the best.