Small 5.1 monitor systems

[Ken Paul]

I don't do sound for picture but have been experimenting with producing music in surround for many years. I'm looking for an affordable 5.1 system to use with a second workstation in parallel with my main stereo system (Genelec 1031s w/Bag End Infrasub). I experimented with using 5 of the Genelecs and an SPL monitor control but the majority of my real work is in stereo and I prefer to mix OTB and like to use the master module on my console (Soundcraft 1624)for the stereo monitors. I want a small system that I'll be able to tolerate listening to but won't cost a fortune. Any suggestions?

Ken Paul
Kengineering

[jason kanter]

What do you consider "affordable"? I use the 4326 system by JBL. They may not be gennies but they actually sound very good. They come with a room correction setting, 5- 6" self powered monitors and a 12" sub all for around $2500.

Was never a fan of JBL's until I picked these up and I highly recommend them.

[pethenis]

Originally Posted by jason kanter

What do you consider "affordable"? I use the 4326 system by JBL. They may not be gennies but they actually sound very good. They come with a room correction setting, 5- 6" self powered monitors and a 12" sub all for around $2500.

Was never a fan of JBL's until I picked these up and I highly recommend them.

Hi Jason,

Have you compared the 4326 to the 4328's? I don't get the price difference?

[jason kanter]

I haven't heard the 4328's yet, but the difference is size. The 4328's have 8" woofers while the 4326's have 6". I have a small room (10'x11') and (5) 4326's are already cramping things in here... I couldn't imagine trying to squeeze the 4328's.

[dogandpony]

The Blue Sky MediaDesk system is nice. Also, my dealer tells me that Genelec is working up a small system due out in December or January and based around their new 6010's. john.

[philper]

Pretty much the only low-budget surround systems capable of doing real work with accurate, calibrateable monitoring and good service are made by Blue Sky.

Philip Perkins

[Lifer]

Originally Posted by philper

Pretty much the only low-budget surround systems capable of doing real work with accurate, calibrateable monitoring and good service are made by Blue Sky.

Philip Perkins

2nd that!

[kk@jamsync.com]

Originally Posted by jason kanter

What do you consider "affordable"? I use the 4326 system by JBL. They may not be gennies but they actually sound very good. They come with a room correction setting, 5- 6" self powered monitors and a 12" sub all for around $2500.

Was never a fan of JBL's until I picked these up and I highly recommend them.

I'm still not a fan of JBLs unless it's for guitar amps...another vote for Blue Sky here.

[neilwilkes]

JBL are disco boxes IMHO. Sorry, but I just do not like them at all.
Have you considered Adam Audio?
They have just come out with a new model for budgets - the A5.
See Unity Audio

[ben@tfp]

I know they're not necessarily considered a small monitor system but what do you guys think of the JBL 6300 series?

Would you go for a 5.1 set up of these over a Blue Sky System One?

[kk@jamsync.com]

Originally Posted by neilwilkes

JBL are disco boxes IMHO. Sorry, but I just do not like them at all.
Have you considered Adam Audio?
They have just come out with a new model for budgets - the A5.
See Unity Audio

Agreed, Adams are very nice.

[TVPostSound]

Originally Posted by neilwilkes

JBL are disco boxes IMHO. Sorry, but I just do not like them at all.

Have you even listened to the LSR6300 series??
They translate perfectly!

[jason kanter]

Well it's nice to see that JBL hasn't lost it's charm. LOL. Yes, I too used to be on the Junk But Loud bandwagon but when it came time to upgrade to a 5.1 system, to get an active surround system with room correction, on my budget, the 4326's were really my only choice.

The Blue Sky Pro Desk system looks nice and it's comparable in price to the 4326's but without the self calibration and room correction they really weren't an option for me. When working in a room as small as mine room correction is very important. Yes I could do eq corrections myself but the accuracy in phasing due to placement restrictions in a small room are not to be overlooked. Without the timing corrections I'd have to move all surrounding monitors almost one foot closer to match the distance of my Center, and in my room that's not an option.

[minister]

The problem with "Room Correction" is you can "fix" it in one place, but you can't fix the rest of the room. As soon as you move your head, it is off. The "eq" may work for one spot, but as soon as you move, the issues are different. Also, the correction will not apply, or perhaps be worse for any clients, colleagues or supervisors who may be working with you and not be in the "corrected" spot. They also lead to comb filtering problems.

It's marketing, IMO.

Treat the room to get it as flat as you can within the budget.

[jason kanter]

Originally Posted by minister

Treat the room to get it as flat as you can within the budget.

True and I have. I really use the room correction for the corrective delay more than the EQ. I'd rather listen to 6 JBL monitors in phase than 6 of anything else out. And as far as the 4300 series not being able to be manually cal'd it's completely untrue. You can adjust level of any individual speaker by 1/4 dB increments.

[minister]

Jason,

I am not picking on you.

I am glad that you could get the room as flat as practical first. I understand about needing to work in a small room. (the first film I did was on a Steenbeck in someone's dining room -- the music was recorded in a wharehouse to a 1/2" 8 track Tascam and mixed to 1/4" and transfered to Mag and our "booth" was the bedroom behind the curtains -- and then we took it somewhere to check and he mixed the SFX SUPER HOT!.). My next design and "mix" was in a closet-of-an AV room in a museum's media department with a postage-stamp-sized movie (digitized off of beta and probably no bigger than an avatar) in DECK with only 4 tracks. "What's with that boomy low end on the 16mm print???" they all wondered at the festival. We sure had fun, though!! You do what you can, just have good ideas.

Never said that the 4300's didn't have fine gain adjustment.

Monitoring is personal, like glasses -- and I don't wear those so take all this with that in mind....

I personally am not crazy about the Blue Sky's, something goes funny in the high end, especially wrt to imaging (all due respect to Pascal who is a smart and dedicated guy). Genelec's can be aggressive and edgy on the high end, and music-->voice balances are hard to judge : you have to learn them. But you can do ok mixes on them. JBL's I am not crazy about either but they sound decent, the high end is not hyped or "hi-fi", and if you work hard on them and get it to sound great on them, your mix WILL translate. I think that is the most important thing. Also, the 6300 are much better than the 4300's. We have a set of Adam A7's in our C room and I think they are pretty good.

pick ones you can relate to and don't take too much advice off the internot.

[Fredo]

(Very) Happy owner of a 5.1 JBL LSR system over here. Although the Blue Sky systems are very good too, the JBL's (actually I have the "old" LSR32 system) are much better IMHO...

Fredo
Temple Of Tune
Belgium

[jason kanter]

Originally Posted by minister

Jason,
I am not picking on you....
Monitoring is personal, like glasses -- and I don't wear those so take all this with that in mind....

I know, Tom. I wasn't feeling picked on and I hope I didn't come off as too defensive. Your experience and insight throughout this and other forums is always greatly appreciated. (The mixing in a closet story really makes me appreciate my palatial 10x11' control room :) And the calibration comment wasn't aimed at you. It was toward a much earlier post stating that Blue Sky was the only low-budget system "capable of doing real work with accurate, calibrateable monitoring". Just felt it was an inaccurate statement that needed correcting.

100% agreed that monitors are a personal choice and it really boils down to whatever works for you. I'm not endorsed by JBL and I'm certainly not trying to escalate their sales in anyway. And like I said it was the last brand of monitor I ever thought I'd be mixing on. We all have brands we simply don't like and I get that. Either we did a mix on a set of monitors that didn't translate well or the company made a pre we used once that was a little too crisp on top. Or maybe we simply don't like the company logo (come on, you all know you're guilty of that one). Whatever the reason, the bottom line is that it's fun to hate on certain brands and saves a lot of time when picking out new gear. I just felt a lot of people were writing off an entire manufacturer without necessarily hearing the one model that was being recommended.

A lot of quality gear is being produced these days. Far more gear than the average person would ever have the time, money, or interest in using in a real world (ie paid) work environment. And when somebody finds a piece of gear they consider to be of decent quality at a reasonable price they should spread the word.... especially if it's from a manufacturer w/ a tarnished rep.

[Ken Paul]

Thank you all for the input! My current room treatments work really well with the stereo system and I'm making changes at the moment to improve it further. Things translate well to my clients' systems and the clubs so everyone's happy. My studio tends to be a test and evaluation place for the stuff I use to build studios for my clients so I'm in complete agreement with those of you who have pointed out the necessity of having the room right first.

As for speakers I have listened to the Blue Sky (system 1) and ADAMs (A7). Didn't like the ADAMs and the System 1 is bigger than I need. I have not listened to JBLs (though I have no bias against them). This isn't an immediate income producing need but rather a personal desire to add 5.1 monitoring to my room to serve my projects and gain experience with surround production. Anyone have any experience with the Media Desk system or anything in that $1500 price range? I can always upgrade to a bigger system when paying projects come around to support it.

Ken Paul
Kengineering

[Geert van den Berg]

Also have a look at the small Genelec system 8020's + matching sub 7050

[jimlongo]

Originally Posted by Ken Paul

Anyone have any experience with the Media Desk system or anything in that $1500 price range? I can always upgrade to a bigger system when paying projects come around to support it.

I have a couple of rooms with 2.1 MediaDesk systems. Can't beat them for the money. I bought them because of the satisfaction I had with my 5.1 ProDesk systems.

[Ken Paul]

I've had my 1031s since I was a dealer back in the QMI days and love them. A 5.1 8020 system is in the mid $3k range if I recall correctly. I'm seriously trying to keep this little distraction under $1500...

-kp

Originally Posted by Geert van den Berg

Also have a look at the small Genelec system 8020's + matching sub 7050

[kk@jamsync.com]

Originally Posted by TVPostSound

Have you even listened to the LSR6300 series??
They translate perfectly!

Unless you are working in a properly calibrated room, the word "translation" doesn't mean anything...and even then it only means the mix will translate to another properly calibrated room. The same speaker sounds different in different rooms due, in part, to variations in first reflections. Nothing "translates perferctly", nothing.

[jason kanter]

Originally Posted by kk@jamsync.com

Unless you are working in a properly calibrated room, the work "translation" doesn't mean anything...and even then it only means the mix will translate to another properly calibrated room

While technically that's true, KK, I've always taken the term in a practical sense to mean that what you were hearing in studio was what you heard when playing the mix outside the studio. No lies, no surprises. This of course will have more to do with your understanding of the speaker and the control room than the speaker itself, but none the less I don't think the intention was really lost here.

[kk@jamsync.com]

Originally Posted by jason kanter

While technically that's true, KK, I've always taken the term in a practical sense to mean that what you were hearing in studio was what you heard when playing the mix outside the studio. No lies, no surprises. This of course will have more to do with your understanding of the speaker and the control room than the speaker itself, but none the less I don't think the intention was really lost here.

If the "technical truth" isn't the "practical truth", then should we just all go shoot ourselves or what?

"No lies, no surprises"...HA! Do you really think what I mix in my studio sounds the same on a 5.1 sub/sat home system? Even on MY calibrated sub/sat system at home? There are plenty of lies and surprises when you move into the home theatre world, plenty of them.

If you think you are "hearing what you heard in the studio", you aren't being honest with yourself (you in the sense of "one").

The intention was to promote the speaker, that was clear. I simply disagree. "Translation" is one of those words like "transparent" that people use when they want to market something. Better information would be things like vertical dispersion.

Translation has been used by so many people in so many circumstances to sell product that it means zip to me now.

Environments are at least equally important in the "translation" of a mix as are speakers. If you are a decent audio engineer and you are mixing in a decent environment with a speaker setup that has no major flaws, you can do a good, "translatable" mix. If you are mixing in an environment with serious dips and peaks or with speakers that have serious dips and peaks, then, yes, you will have problems getting a decent mix. If you're running a sub/sat system in a fairly small room and you haven't moved subs around to compensate for room modes, yes, you're in trouble.

It's considerably more complex than brand of speaker...

[Ken Paul]

I never really thought about how we throw around that "translate well" term... in my earlier post I meant that stuff I mix or master in my room sounds similar to how it sounds in my client's studios and when they play their stuff in the clubs they are happy with it.

KK. When you say "calibrated" what specification are you using?

Ken Paul
Kengineering

[kk@jamsync.com]

Originally Posted by Ken Paul

I never really thought about how we throw around that "translate well" term... in my earlier post I meant that stuff I mix or master in my room sounds similar to how it sounds in my client's studios and when they play their stuff in the clubs they are happy with it.

KK. When you say "calibrated" what specification are you using?

Ken Paul
Kengineering

Dolby small room.

[TVPostSound]

Originally Posted by kk@jamsync.com

Unless you are working in a properly calibrated room, the work "translation" doesn't mean anything...and even then it only means the mix will translate to another properly calibrated room. The same speaker sounds different in different rooms due, in part, to variations in first reflections. Nothing "translates perferctly", nothing.

Wow, you are assuming you know me, my studio environment, and the quality of my work.

[kk@jamsync.com]

Originally Posted by TVPostSound

Wow, you are assuming you know me, my studio environment, and the quality of my work.

I don't know anything about you or the quality of your work. I just disagree with any statement that a speaker is responsible for the "translation" of a mix. It isn't.

I was asked to a "microphone shootout" a few years ago. All the other engineers chose the nearfields to make the critical decisions. I listened to the "big speakers". Strangely enough, all of us ranked