Real Monitors - Suggestions for another demo session

[BillEl]

Hey All,

After reading 100s of posts I thought I had a good or at least reasonable consensus of what quality monitors were at a price point of $800-$1000 a piece. I'm now not sure they exist at that price point. (sorry)

I don't think the KH120, Dynaudio or Genelecs in that price range are billed as reference, they're HI-FI so that could be a major factor. I could be wrong.

Regardless they had an old pair of Adam 2.5s lying around so we added those in and the difference was staggering. Really staggering to the point that I'm re-evaluating how much to spend on monitors. I think they were originally $2200ish a piece.

Demoing where I am isn't the easiest so I might have to travel which is why I'm hoping for some suggestions of what to line up etc...

Thanks for any info!

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by BillEl

Hey All,

After reading 100s of posts I thought I had a good or at least reasonable consensus of what quality monitors were at a price point of $800-$1000 a piece. I'm now not sure they exist at that price point. (sorry)

I don't think the KH120, Dynaudio or Genelecs in that price range are billed as reference, they're HI-FI so that could be a major factor. I could be wrong.

Regardless they had an old pair of Adam 2.5s lying around so we added those in and the difference was staggering. Really staggering to the point that I'm re-evaluating how much to spend on monitors. I think they were originally $2200ish a piece.

Demoing where I am isn't the easiest so I might have to travel which is why I'm hoping for some suggestions of what to line up etc...

Thanks for any info!

In that range the KH1020 are definitely reference monitors - they are not hi-fi loudspeakers at all.

Others to listen to are the ATC, PMC and Geithain.

The ATC are not cheap, but the 25s are very nice. I would skip the PMC DB1 and start with the TB2. The Geithain RL906 is nice and the vertical bass ports seem to be more efective than front or rear ports.

[rhizomeman]

Originally Posted by BillEl

I don't think the KH120, Dynaudio or Genelecs in that price range are billed as reference, they're HI-FI so that could be a major factor.

Originally Posted by BillEl

I could be wrong.

[BillEl]

Thanks for the suggestions.

Is there a "legal" definition of reference? Even Neumann's own site refers to the KH120 as a loudspeaker...?

Regardless they all seemed to have less mids and enhanced bass compared to higher quality monitors. (At least 5 people heard it that way at the time so I know it's not just me.)

What do you think of buying used? 5 year old monitors seem about half the price they were originally listed for.

[Arksun]

Originally Posted by BillEl

Thanks for the suggestions.

Is there a "legal" definition of reference? Even Neumann's own site refers to the KH120 as a loudspeaker...?

Because they are all loud speakers, anything that generates a sound that can be... well... loud. Loud.. speaker. The definition has nothing to do with its suitability for studio or home listening use, its just a very literal description of a product

The KH120 is definitely NOT some scouped smiley curve monitor, no idea where you're getting that from.

[BillEl]

From comparing it side by side to other monitors, albeit more expensive ones however that doesn't make how it sounds any different. "Good" within a certain price range is already qualified and it seems there is a tendency to ignore the bigger picture.

Some monitors get explicitly billed as reference quality, my point was this one wasn't when others by the same manufacturer are. Even on their own site.

I can see this thread is getting side tracked, opinions very, sure no problem, people like their gear but I don't think many will say a $750 monitor holds up to a $2000 monitor...why?...because the sound isn't as good/accurate what ever you want to call it. Relatively speaking that monitor is scooped when compared across the spectrum and that is the overall final measure.

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by BillEl

From comparing it side by side to other monitors, albeit more expensive ones however that doesn't make how it sounds any different. "Good" within a certain price range is already qualified and it seems there is a tendency to ignore the bigger picture.

Some monitors get explicitly billed as reference quality, my point was this one wasn't when others by the same manufacturer are. Even on their own site.

I can see this thread is getting side tracked, opinions very, sure no problem, people like their gear but I don't think many will say a $750 monitor holds up to a $2000 monitor...why?...because the sound isn't as good/accurate what ever you want to call it. Relatively speaking that monitor is scooped when compared across the spectrum and that is the overall final measure.

Anything marketed as a "full range monitor" should be aiming for reference quality. If they get there or not depends on price and design. The exceptions are things like the avantones, which are designed to be limited bandwidth. The ns10, though it wasn't designed as such, is used for the same reason.

Studio monitors should not be flattering by definition. Genelec and the others are NOT hifi speakers!

[BillEl]

Ya we can leave that dreaded word behind, the point is they didn't seem like a "full range monitor", or accurate enough to be reference quality. YMMV

I'm looking for some other suggestions so far only 1 out of 4 posts even mentioned any.

[Karloff70]

Originally Posted by BillEl

"Good" within a certain price range is already qualified and it seems there is a tendency to ignore the bigger picture.

Some monitors get explicitly billed as reference quality, my point was this one wasn't when others by the same manufacturer are. Even on their own site.

I can see this thread is getting side tracked, opinions very, sure no problem, people like their gear but I don't think many will say a $750 monitor holds up to a $2000 monitor...why?...because the sound isn't as good/accurate what ever you want to call it. Relatively speaking that monitor is scooped when compared across the spectrum and that is the overall final measure.

Que? Not at all sure what you are saying.

I wouldn't focus on terminology like 'reference quality' and such. Some speakers are flatter than others. Some resolve more detail than others. Some of these do so by help of exaggerating frequency areas in the mid and highs, like NS 10's. Not only ruler flat ones can be good tools. The 750/2000 monitor comparison is out of context to me, sorry. Although cost does relate to quality in some regard with speakers it doesn't directly relate. Especially with something as personal as monitors. Because what you don't seem to have thought of at all is that monitors are exactly that : personal. Some people love to mix on Genelecs, some hate them. Nothing to do with their quality or price.

Forget all the terminology and keep it simple if I may suggest, and pick a few contenders that you can afford and listen to them (in your room if possible). Pick a pair that work for YOU.

If you really can't try any out you will be on the 'buy some, try them, don't like them, sell them, buy another set, try them...." runaround for a bit I expect, regardless what people recommend you or whether something is 'reference' anything or not. It's a practical task, picking monitors that give you what you need, not an abstract thing based on made up terminology from sales departments.

[Karloff70]

Full range? To me that means something the mastering guy has and that you can't buy for 2k$, but that just highlights the terminology vagueness.......if you mean something like a decent nearfield with 8" cones or such and decent bass there are loads and reeling them off feels daft as there are threads full of them here if you search. In the end it's all academic until you hear them.

[mike vee]

Focal, Focal, Focal.

[Arksun]

Originally Posted by BillEl

From comparing it side by side to other monitors, albeit more expensive ones however that doesn't make how it sounds any different. "Good" within a certain price range is already qualified and it seems there is a tendency to ignore the bigger picture.

Some monitors get explicitly billed as reference quality, my point was this one wasn't when others by the same manufacturer are. Even on their own site.

I can see this thread is getting side tracked, opinions very, sure no problem, people like their gear but I don't think many will say a $750 monitor holds up to a $2000 monitor...why?...because the sound isn't as good/accurate what ever you want to call it. Relatively speaking that monitor is scooped when compared across the spectrum and that is the overall final measure.

Well K&H are one of thew few manufacturers that provide complete measured response of freq response, THD and power handling. It's all there on their website:

Georg Neumann GmbH - Professional Monitoring

It could just be you prefer the over-bright sound of monitors like the Adam S2.5. Therein lies part of the problem, one persons idea of reference is anothers idea of incorrect, for their ears and brain. Hence why auditioning is always best.

If you have heard much more expensive monitors and want that step up in sound then the answer seems simple, save up some more and invest in whatever those might be

[BillEl]

All good points appreciate the direction.

I do agree that gear is personal but with something that is meant to be "accurate" I figured there might be more to the quality vs cost ratio. Similar to converters to a degree you get what you pay for.

[rhizomeman]

Originally Posted by Karloff70

Que? Not at all sure what you are saying.

I wouldn't focus on terminology like 'reference quality' and such. Some speakers are flatter than others. Some resolve more detail than others. Some of these do so by help of exaggerating frequency areas in the mid and highs, like NS 10's. Not only ruler flat ones can be good tools. The 750/2000 monitor comparison is out of context to me, sorry. Although cost does relate to quality in some regard with speakers it doesn't directly relate. Especially with something as personal as monitors. Because what you don't seem to have thought of at all is that monitors are exactly that : personal. Some people love to mix on Genelecs, some hate them. Nothing to do with their quality or price.

Forget all the terminology and keep it simple if I may suggest, and pick a few contenders that you can afford and listen to them (in your room if possible). Pick a pair that work for YOU.

If you really can't try any out you will be on the 'buy some, try them, don't like them, sell them, buy another set, try them...." runaround for a bit I expect, regardless what people recommend you or whether something is 'reference' anything or not. It's a practical task, picking monitors that give you what you need, not an abstract thing based on made up terminology from sales departments.

This^

[Puffpastry]

+1 for Focal, especially the Twin6 BE.