Gearslutz (
-   So Much Gear, So Little Time (
-   -   Can't decide... Mackie HR824 and Adam A7 (

theaero 13th November 2009 06:10 AM

Can't decide... Mackie HR824 and Adam A7
I've been A/Bing these guys on a bunch of different sessions and projects... I just don't know. The Adam's sound VERY accurate, and I feel like I can hear everything in the upper mids and highs. Very clear. The Mackie's I feel have a tighter low end, with more clarity down there. I feel like kicks, bass, and bassheavy guitars tend to get lost in the mix in the A7s. The Mackie's sound... "bigger" as well. The A7s sound very small.

Gahh.. something just doesn't seem right. Maybe I'm missing something...

PTHD into LTHD card in Aurora 16 for conversion btw. Decent room, etc. I also notice that the A7's "notch" at -27db... is this unity for them? The A7's also seem to have a much higher noise floor... theres a bit of hiss, where with the Mackies there's a bit less (dirty power here, but conditioned to the best of my ability)

Comments + whatever appreciated kfhkh

Track 7 13th November 2009 06:21 AM

I don't think your missing anything. You pretty much nailed it already. I think the answer to your question is all about how your mix on either one of these two great monitors translates when you put it in the car cd player, or into the boom box.
I don't listen to my Adams for pleasure, I listen when I want an honest sound and I love the mixes I get from them. I think honest is what I want and honest translates for me into what I want.

theaero 13th November 2009 06:26 AM

I could see the A7's translating a bit better in certain aspects though, and the HR824s translating better in certain aspects... Perhaps I just need to learn them better. However, I think a large part of mixing, is getting into the song and enjoying it... FEELING it. I got that feeling more with the HR824s because of the huge sound I felt like I got from them. It allowed me to get into the mix. I don't know. Perhaps I just need some time with them... I'm debating which pair to keep...

AmongstTheLiving 13th November 2009 09:01 AM

I'd go for the A7's. You'll get used to the low end not being so abundant within a few sessions, and there are clearly benefits in the mids and upper mids on the A7's as far as detail goes. If the lack of the low end in the A7 just isn't enough after a while you could always add a hint of sub. HR824's low end is overwhelming for me personally.

Levon 13th November 2009 02:25 PM

Since you asked, A7s for me. But I use them with a sub.

My Tiny Circus 13th November 2009 02:42 PM

Another vote for A7s
I've tried both and bought, and love, the A7s. I have put off buying a sub until now but am about to as a result of reviewing my mixes on other systems.

The Mackies were impressive in a big boomy way, the Adams won on clarity and crispness.

AlexK 13th November 2009 03:12 PM

+1 on the Adams. I've also used Mackies (and will be A/Bing my A7s against a pair of 824s in a studio soon) and the Adams are much, much more accurate.

The Mackies are good, they're just very flattering and 'impressive' sounding.

I'd personally say the low-end on the Adams is better defined and tighter sounding. It just doesn't go as deep and there isn't as much of it...

ebot9000 13th November 2009 04:53 PM

The Mackies are fun to produce on. They are not fun to mix on.

electroninja 13th November 2009 06:15 PM

The Mackies seem to be by far the Speaker of choice in Drum and Bass Production, i think the Low end reproduction is the reason here..I love them for the Clarity down the bottom end which is the most important thing for such a Sub-bass dependant Genre, so I would say it is partly at least down to what kind of music you will be making on them, I would guess the Adams are probably more suitable for 'normal' pop/rock/commercial type production situations. Although I would be happy using the mackies in any given situation.

theaero 13th November 2009 08:05 PM

Thanks for the input. I'm going to be dicking around with both of them for awhile... I have a coleman m3ph mkii so maybe I'll use both...

hogo 13th November 2009 08:50 PM

I don't really think the mackies are in the same league as the adams. The bass on the mackies to me was not tight but muddy, and most certainly more abundant.(read hyped)
for mixing i vote for the adams, and did with my wallet.

WP- 13th November 2009 09:04 PM

Ethan from Real Traps had some interesting data from a test his friend had done on a handful of monitors. I'm sure you can find his post on here if you do a search. The test results showed all of the monitors having a bump in the upper range, but the Mackie's were the flattest overall.

Mplay 13th November 2009 09:22 PM

I was also going to buy the A7s. I got the A5 and Sub 7 subwoofer instead. The sub realy makes the difference for getting the bottom end right. Also for getting in the groove when mixing (I make house music). And with the sub I couldnt hear any difference between the A5 and A7

rack gear 13th November 2009 09:29 PM

824 owner here, the mackie's really suffer in the mids... I'm always having to compensate, and double check mixes.

theaero 13th November 2009 09:39 PM

I think I'm going to go with the A7s. Selling the 824s today for a good price. 650 for the pair. I don't think I will get a sub for the A7s... Yet. I'll see what I can do first just with learning the monitors and maybe using the active eq to bump up the low a smidge. We shall see... I don't feel like "taming" a sub :P

TheMarqueeYears 13th November 2009 09:42 PM


Originally Posted by ebot9000 (Post 4779248)
The Mackies are fun to produce on. They are not fun to mix on.

LOL - well said.

I miss my HR824's .... I upgraded to K&H0300's which I simply love mixing on - but in retrospect I wish I'd kept my Mackies for my programming rig coz they where darn fun to work with - really viby and exciting.

Ah now I have sellers remorse gruudge


Dean Roddey 13th November 2009 10:26 PM


Originally Posted by redvelvetstudios (Post 4780121)
824 owner here, the mackie's really suffer in the mids... I'm always having to compensate, and double check mixes.

If I was going to complain about mine (the mkII type), I guess that might be it. I think that they are quite flat, as Ethan's measurements would indicate. But I think that this will then lead towards a lower mid-range that will end up sounding forward on many other systems. At least that's been my experience so far.

Male (my) vocals, in the 'power' area down in the lower mid-range, will often be more forward on other speakers, so that what sounds like an approriate vocal level in the studio is too forward elsewhere. So I have to try to keep stuff in that range a little lighter than I'd otherwise feel is optimal. Comparing on headphones whlie mixing helps, since my Sony headphones are fairly heavy in that same area, so it helps to get a compromise.

Folks who say they are tubby in the low end (compared to something with less low end response) I think will often be folks without well treated rooms. Any speaker that reproduces more low end will sound worse in an untreated room, because it's not helping cover up the low end room response issues.