Monitors for around €300 - Yamaha HS50m's or KRK RP5 Rokit G2

spiderjazz

I'm looking around at monitors at the moment for around the 300 euro mark. These will be used pretty much solely for mixing rock/metal, though I'd imagine this won't be too much of a consideration when looking for flat range speakers!

The two pairs I've been looking at (and heard the most about) are the

Yamaha HS50m's
http://www.thomann.de/ie/yamaha_hs50m_bundle.htm

or the KRK RP5's
http://www.thomann.de/ie/krk_rp5_rokit_g2_bundle.htm

They're going to be used in a rectangular room, roughly 4 metres x 3 metres, no treatment or anything in it at the moment.

Would anyone have any particular recommendations for monitors at this range, or any opinions on the ones above? Thanks.

judas101

I just bought some HS 50s and find them good.
Very flat indeed.

I think the KRKs are supposed to be a bit bassier so are favoured for those who make electronic/dance music.

I think for that price range that yamahas are the best in class.

GTE

I would go for the Yammies.

I tested the HS50, HS80, KRK RP5 and KRK VXT and the Yammies are more in line with the VXT's for me. They walk all over the RP5.

spiderjazz

Thanks lads, look I'll go for them. One last question:

Would 2 of these cables do the job for connecting my interface to monitors, going 1/4" out to xlr on the monitors? Would there be any advantage using the xlr connection over the trs 1/4" input?

http://www.thomann.de/ie/the_sssnake_mxp2009.htm

Does it matter if the cable is stereo or mono, since i'll be having seperate left and right outs from the interface?

judas101

The Yamahas have both 1/4" and xlr input.

That lead (or even a regular guitar lead) would do the job.

woodsdenis

bbk wrote: »

I would go for the Yammies.

I tested the HS50, HS80, KRK RP5 and KRK VXT and the Yammies are more in line with the VXT's for me. They walk all over the RP5.

Are the HS 80 the better of the two. I have a friend with ears I trust who swears by them.

spiderjazz

judas101 wrote: »

The Yamahas have both 1/4" and xlr input.

That lead (or even a regular guitar lead) would do the job.

Thanks for the reply. Is there any sonic advantage to using the xlr over the 1/4". I'm sure I read somewhere that there is a lower signal to noise ratio with xlr, but I'm only going to be having cable runs of 1-2m so I imagine the impact would be pretty minimal.

GTE

woodsdenis wrote: »

Are the HS 80 the better of the two. I have a friend with ears I trust who swears by them.

I would be inclined to give the room that they will be placed in a consideration.

If you had a small room and the big 8" Yammies could be too bass heavy.
Maybe the people in the know here could give some insight as its not an area I really know enough about to comment on.

Sacred_git

man, save up a little more and buy higher end ones, in the long run if you stick at production your going to do this anyway and you shouldn't have much trouble selling them on if you need too! so its fairly safe!

omen80

If your not looking to spend more than 300 Euro you might like to check these out - http://www.thomann.de/ie/behringer_b1031a.htm

I know people are quick to dish Behringer stuff but I've heard good things about this monitor range..........and you are saving 50 quid!

spiderjazz

Sacred_git wrote: »

man, save up a little more and buy higher end ones, in the long run if you stick at production your going to do this anyway and you shouldn't have much trouble selling them on if you need too! so its fairly safe!

Any recommendations for higher end stuff?

To be honest, I'm stretching it at 300, and by all accounts the hs50's are a very good sounding speaker for the money. I'm going to be in a small room, thats currently untreated at the moment, so I'm not sure if I would have much of a benefit from higher end speakers.

spiderjazz

omen80 wrote: »

If your not looking to spend more than 300 Euro you might like to check these out - http://www.thomann.de/ie/behringer_b1031a.htm

I know people are quick to dish Behringer stuff but I've heard good things about this monitor range..........and you are saving 50 quid!

Thanks for the recommendation. I'm sure they're a good speaker, but to be honest, I've been burned on buying behringer stuff before so I'd be slow enough to go back to them.

GTE

Sacred_git wrote: »

man, save up a little more and buy higher end ones, in the long run if you stick at production your going to do this anyway and you shouldn't have much trouble selling them on if you need too! so its fairly safe!

The NS10's started out as cheapo hi fi systems for public consumption and yet they became one of the most important speakers in the history of what we do.

I disagree with what you say in terms of the Yamaha HS series as from what I have read and researched about the NS10's, the HS continue the same idea that NS's. They reveal what is going on but not make things sound good. I believe that, like the NS, if you hit a sweet spot with the Yammies you will have a great sounding mix which can translate very well to other systems.

That is an important aspect to mixing. If a mix sounds great on the best speakers you can buy they will probably only sound great in that setting. The big selling point about the Yammies is that they translate well to domestic systems because domestic systems dont really sound all that great all the time and the NS10 was a domestic speaker, and a horrible one at that.

So what I would say is that getting the Yammie now would mean you can get mixes sounding good when you hit the sweet spot, learn how that works with translation and in the future you have a solid set of speakers to A/B with.

The down side to the KRK's VXT's to me is that the translation is not there. They are fantastic and revealing and not as tiresome as what I thought the HS were but I wouldnt mind having "worse" sounding speakers to mix to domestic systems. I would definitely buy a set of HS in the future for translation purposes, no matter what other monitors I buy in the future.

PaulBrewer

bbk wrote: »

the HS continue the same idea that NS's.

Incorrect !

The only thing they have in common is the colour and manufacturer.

Perhaps the single biggest difference is the NS10 is a sealed box speaker (compared to the HSs ported) . NS10s work for a variety of measurable and technical reasons, none shared with the inferior HS range.

Both Philip Newell and Andy Munro have written papers on why NS10s 'work' which may be available online.

NS10s are a particular interest of mine.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=56268423

GTE

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Incorrect !

The only thing they have in common is the colour and manufacturer.

Perhaps the single biggest difference is the NS10 is a sealed box speaker (compared to the HSs ported) . NS10s work for a variety of measurable and technical reasons, none shared with the inferior HS range.

Both Philip Newell and Andy Munro have written papers on why NS10s 'work' which may be available online.

NS10s are a particular interest of mine.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=56268423

From my own research into them Yamaha themselves say that the HS was designed with the NS idea in mind.
The HS doesnt even have the same cone as the NS which is one of the reasons it was said, I think one of the peoples papers you mentioned, that the cone had a lot to do with the sound of the NS. That is why the NS was killed off, no special pulp apparently.

The HS was never ever going to be a copy of the NS, it could never be that bad without building the same speaker with a different cone and people giving out ****e to them. But all my point is is that in marketing speak the HS does at least attempt to continue the "tradition" of the NS.

Taking the physical and marketing sides out of it and just listening to the sound you still have the same revealing nature of the NS, they are still tiresome to listen too for a long time. The biggest difference is the low end. Something that the NS in my experience didn't do to well in.

So, despite its physical differences it still retains the NS characteristics but it has some more useful low end to it. That means it translates well onto domestic systems while having a bit more low end to check what the craic is there in your mixes. That is why its a good buy and one that can stay in your studio setup for ever.

The HS is a replacement to the NS but could never sound just like it, as I said Yamaha made a point to say they had no pulp left for the cone so they had to build a different speaker. The NS sounded they way it did for many reasons not worth getting into here but the HS is a continuation of the general sound while also making it more useable as a reference monitor. That is clear from my testing of the HS. You can hear so much that is going on in the mix and if you play a bad mix you know about it. Perhaps the HS doesnt have as good definition as the NS because of the ported design but overall I don't think it matters, unless you really really really really want a set of NS10's.

madtheory

Actually Yamaha still make spares for the NS10, the pulp thing is a myth.

A ported box is entirely different to a sealed box. What Paul is saying is spot on, there's no way around it, it's all about transient response.

What Yamaha probably had "in mind" was to sell a box that is cheaper to build than an NS10, but carries its reputation.

PaulBrewer

madtheory wrote: »

Actually Yamaha still make spares for the NS10, the pulp thing is a myth.

A ported box is entirely different to a sealed box. What Paul is saying is spot on, there's no way around it, it's all about transient response.

What Yamaha probably had "in mind" was to sell a box that is cheaper to build than an NS10, but carries its reputation.

Correct - We still sell a few NS10 spares every month!

PaulBrewer

This thread represents well the chasm between marketing and fact.

Buying speakers without a scientific examination of the facts is just guessing.

Listening is only part of the process.

woodsdenis

madtheory wrote: »

Actually Yamaha still make spares for the NS10, the pulp thing is a myth.

A ported box is entirely different to a sealed box. What Paul is saying is spot on, there's no way around it, it's all about transient response.

What Yamaha probably had "in mind" was to sell a box that is cheaper to build than an NS10, but carries its reputation.

Not wishing to hijack the thread but I am going to anyway:eek:

bbk/Mr Brewer/MT and any one else opinions on Focal CMS 40 v Adam A3X

Both in the mid affordable range

PaulBrewer

woodsdenis wrote: »

Not wishing to hijack the thread but I am going to anyway:eek:

bbk/Mr Brewer/MT and any one else opinions on Focal CMS 40 v Adam A3X

Both in the mid affordable range

I think of the models of both brands I've heard Focal have raised the bar in what a mid price range monitor is - we can supply both brands.

woodsdenis

PaulBrewer wrote: »

I think of the models of both brands I've heard Focal have raised the bar in what a mid price range monitor is - we can supply both brands.

I am leaning towards the Focal, the Adam is not magnetically shielded which is pretty daft in this day and age

GTE

madtheory wrote: »

Actually Yamaha still make spares for the NS10, the pulp thing is a myth.

A ported box is entirely different to a sealed box. What Paul is saying is spot on, there's no way around it, it's all about transient response.

What Yamaha probably had "in mind" was to sell a box that is cheaper to build than an NS10, but carries its reputation.

Indeed, apparently was an important word on my part. Its a very fishy area. It could be cheaper to do the HS but anyway, the NS10 died.

I am not denying that the ported box has an effect, I touched on what effect it had. To say it no more specifically on the low end the HS doesn't die off until about 70 or 80 Hz but then falls off compared to the NS which was dropping off, steadily at something close to 200. I can't remember the exact figures from when I did work on it. On top of that it would of course have a general effect on how the speaker reacts throughout the spectrum.

My whole point is that the NS family sound is there but where I think Paul is wrong is that from my reading of his posts here I get the sense he thinks the HS is a speaker with a total and fundamental different design brief sonically and that I am almost saying the HS=NS. That is what I have an issue with because it is easy to hear after a bit of mixing with them that they were designed to continue certain family traits but I never said they were like for like replacements.

PaulBrewer wrote: »

This thread represents well the chasm between marketing and fact.

Buying speakers without a scientific examination of the facts is just guessing.

Listening is only part of the process.

The thread does show marketing but I don't see anything being based on marketing. Depends on how you want to read it.

To be clear I don't base any of what I say on marketing talk though looking back I do feel Yamaha were truthful in terms of what sound they designed the speaker to have. I find it odd that they just ran out of pulp for the cones but I'm not interested in going into theories as to why the NS10 was killed off.

I get the sense off you that you think the HS has a fundamentally different sound to the NS10. That is the only thing I am on about and I think you are wrong in relation to that.

If it seems like it somehow I am not saying it is a replica of the NS10, that is stupid. If it is not clear enough I am merely saying that the HS does exhibit the family sound of the NS. It is very simple. That is what makes it a good speaker to have on the try out list for the OP. It is a speaker I feel could give you years of service despite what else you get, simply because they dont sound fantastic.

The next step up price wise is the KRK VST and to be honest I think price does not mean anything between these two. The HS is up there with it though the VST is more defined in all areas which is why I went for that.

I'll stop repeating myself now

woodsdenis wrote: »

bbk/Mr Brewer/MT and any one else opinions on Focal CMS 40 v Adam A3X

Both in the mid affordable range

Never used them sadly so I can't comment.

PaulBrewer

bbk wrote: »

My whole point is that the NS family sound is there .

I give up !

For anyone interested in the science of how speakers work and why that matters in relation to your work check out -

Philip Newell and Keith Holland's - Loudspeakers: For Music Recording And Reproduction

Dragons are slain and Fallacies buried left right and centre.

madtheory

bbk wrote: »

I don't see anything being based on marketing.

...apart from the fact that the HS woofer looks like an NS10 woofer...

There's a lot more to a speaker than frequency response- take a look at the Newell et al paper showing transient responses of various popular models. Very illuminating!

Personally I thought the HS's were nothing at all like the NS10, and that was only based on a listening test.

GTE

madtheory wrote: »

...apart from the fact that the HS woofer looks like an NS10 woofer...

There's a lot more to a speaker than frequency response- take a look at the Newell et al paper showing transient responses of various popular models. Very illuminating!

Personally I thought the HS's were nothing at all like the NS10, and that was only based on a listening test.

The marketing thing is in relation to my opinion that the hs has the ns traits not being based on marketing. What i do think is that after listening to them you can look back on yammies talk about the hs continuing the ns tradition or how ever they word it actually having elements of truth to it.

I think i know the paper you mention. Ill have to look back at it but your last line goes to show how different opinions can be derived from listening to the speakers.
I can hear the certain important traits across the two but they are vastly different in other areas. Definition being one area, perhaps not as considerable as the low end.

PaulBrewer

madtheory wrote: »

Personally I thought the HS's were nothing at all like the NS10, and that was only based on a listening test.

Nothing ....

PaulBrewer

madtheory wrote: »

...apart from the fact that the HS woofer looks like an NS10 woofer...

There's a lot more to a speaker than frequency response- take a look at the Newell et al paper showing transient responses of various popular models. Very illuminating!

Personally I thought the HS's were nothing at all like the NS10, and that was only based on a listening test.

If this isn't online Newell sent me a copy of the 'Studio Sound' mag it was in (in 2000 as I recall) and I can do a scan if there's interest ?

GTE

If this is the one it should still be available through Sound on Sound. Sept 07 or 08.

Edit: i had to go looking for it. Could be the wrong article at the end of the day but a good read. Boards doesn't like uploading from my computer.
It is in SOS Sept 08
http://www.soundonsound.com/pdfs/ns10m.pdf

woodsdenis

bbk wrote: »

If this is the one it should still be available through Sound on Sound. Sept 07 or 08.

Edit: i had to go looking for it. Could be the wrong article at the end of the day but a good read. Boards doesn't like uploading from my computer.
It is in SOS Sept 08
http://www.soundonsound.com/pdfs/ns10m.pdf

Nice find. Being of the vintage when these things appeared first in studios I for one certainly don't miss their passing. The big reason they became popular was because they were very rugged. Not easy to blow. If there was a trick in getting them to sound reasonable it was to drive them with a very big amp. Also as every body had them at least there was a reference. Big studio monitors in the 80s, were in the main unreliable..

I had a pair of NS10M with the the subwoofer which in it's day did give a reasonable representation of what was going on. I think that modern speaker design must give better results though.

PaulBrewer

woodsdenis wrote: »

I think that modern speaker design must give better results though.

You'd think Denis, wouldn't you ? But there's little evidence to back that up in my experience.

Either by design or luck or a combination of both, powered by a good amp NS10s and Auratones do the job like no other. (as per findings in the article)

Speakers ( and cabs ) are a well developed science at this stage so there's little evidence to suggest that (lower powered) ones of an older vintage are any worse than newer 'designs' .

The technical advances in speakers have been in areas such as power handling, rarely in absolute overall performance.


A couple of telling quotes from the article mentioned -

"What is also very significant is that many of the loudspeakers tested exhibit rather long low-frequency decay times (Figure 3) as a consequence of the use of both reflex enclosures and electronic protection filters. "

For clarification 'long low-frequency decay times' = 'shyt', plain and simple - unless you like an uncontrolled unremovable 'reverb' on your bass end. Whatever positives a speaker may have if it has long low-frequency decay time it's unsuited to the job we require.



"One consistent complaint from mastering engineers has been that from the less advanced studios, a common problem due to poor monitoring is a mis-balance in the relative mix of the bass guitar and bass drum that cannot be corrected by equalisation at a later stage. These mis-balances are almost
certainly due to time-related response problems in the mixing environment at low frequencies."

The latter quote being the crux .

Of note too, is one set of speakers I have been impressed with (making them the exception rather than the rule) are the Unity Rocks. A sealed box design , not by coincidence, having spoken to Unity about the design.

Monitors aren't for enjoying - they're for work.

woodsdenis

OK Certainly not going to debate the merits or otherwise of NS10 s for mixing. Many fantastic sounding records were mixed on them, I would choose today not to use them. Lets not pretend they are the most accurate monitors in the world, they aren't. Their plus I suppose was the ability for mixes to translate well onto different systems

So

The big question is for the experts ( not me for sure) is looking at the first graphs the flattest response seems to be from a Mackie. Not a speaker I would choose either. Really hyped sounding. So what does this all mean or am I misinterpreting the first set of graphs.

So

In the grand scheme of things which active monitors represent the best alternative

PaulBrewer

Fairish Question , but if I might respectfully suggest a schoolboy error too !

Frequency response alone is only one element of how one measures speakers.
It's easy to 'understand' ( flat is good, right ?)?which is why it's pushed by manufacturers.

Interestingly ports can be used to extend the frequency response ( making it better in a way Joe Bloggs 'understands' right ?) but destroying transient response (making it shyt, but hey Joe is busy looking at Frequency graphs, right?)

Last year I had some correspondence with Newell who explained that he'd gotten on to a well known speaker manufacturer to pull them up on this very point , the transient response was beyond rotten and was freely told it was to extend the frequency range down to 'class winning' levels ( flat is good, right ?)

Buyer Beware !

woodsdenis wrote: »

OK Certainly not going to debate the merits or otherwise of NS10 s for mixing. Many fantastic sounding records were mixed on them, I would choose today not to use them. Lets not pretend they are the most accurate monitors in the world, they aren't. Their plus I suppose was the ability for mixes to translate well onto different systems

So

The big question is for the experts ( not me for sure) is looking at the first graphs the flattest response seems to be from a Mackie. Not a speaker I would choose either. Really hyped sounding. So what does this all mean or am I misinterpreting the first set of graphs.

So

In the grand scheme of things which active monitors represent the best alternative

flyswatter

I have my new HS50m's set up now using two guitar leads to my interface.

Sounding really good. Will report back when I record some new stuff in Reaper.

I considered KRK's before these but from the reviews I believe these are superior for mixing.

madtheory

I've used the Mackie's (in a superbly well designed room admittedly) and they're very revealing. Kind of similar to the NS10 experience, in that a lot of mixes sound rubbish, but that's because they are rubbish mixes! I'd be quite happy with a pair.

I'm very interested in the Digidesign RM1/ RM2. Digidesign did the digital crossover, and PMC did the rest, with their transmission line thing, which is kind of a port only better. Interesting because they're not big money, and the best thing I have heard was PMC LB1S. So I'd like some PMC magic.

There's also the Neumanns, rebranded Klein and Hummel. They always made good boxes. Digital crossovers too.

When you read that Sound On Sound article, and the Newell paper, you see that the guy that designed the NS10 really knew what he was doing. Transient response is where it's at, frequency response is over rated!! I'd love to hear the 3 way model, the NS1000. The NS10 was the budget version of those!

woodsdenis

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Fairish Question , but if I might respectfully suggest a schoolboy error too !

Correct away sir:D I really aren't technically minded in this or any area so no offense taken. Like MT the only BIG monitors that I have really liked for accuracy are PMC but thats not what we are talking about here.

When I get my studio redone I will try out the small Focals and report back.

PaulBrewer

woodsdenis wrote: »

Correct away sir:D I really aren't technically minded in this or any area so no offense taken. Like MT the only BIG monitors that I have really liked for accuracy are PMC but thats not what we are talking about here.

When I get my studio redone I will try out the small Focals and report back.

That's cool too....

As I've said before the Focals are head and shoulders above the competition in that price range.

PaulBrewer

I think I'll get a t-shirt with " Transient Response is where it's at " on it!

madtheory wrote: »

I've used the Mackie's (in a superbly well designed room admittedly) and they're very revealing. Kind of similar to the NS10 experience, in that a lot of mixes sound rubbish, but that's because they are rubbish mixes! I'd be quite happy with a pair.

I'm very interested in the Digidesign RM1/ RM2. Digidesign did the digital crossover, and PMC did the rest, with their transmission line thing, which is kind of a port only better. Interesting because they're not big money, and the best thing I have heard was PMC LB1S. So I'd like some PMC magic.

There's also the Neumanns, rebranded Klein and Hummel. They always made good boxes. Digital crossovers too.

When you read that Sound On Sound article, and the Newell paper, you see that the guy that designed the NS10 really knew what he was doing. Transient response is where it's at, frequency response is over rated!! I'd love to hear the 3 way model, the NS1000. The NS10 was the budget version of those!

spiderjazz

Sweet lord, what did I kick off here

PaulBrewer - You don't seem to be a fan of the HS50M's, is there any set of monitors you recommend at the same price range?

I haven't really seen any recommendations on the thread for better monitors at this price range, so chances are I'll be ordering them soon.

madtheory

PaulBrewer wrote: »

I think I'll get a t-shirt with " Transient Response is where it's at " on it!

Maybe it should be "transient response is when it's at"?

PaulBrewer

spiderjazz wrote: »

Sweet lord, what did I kick off here

PaulBrewer - You don't seem to be a fan of the HS50M's, is there any set of monitors you recommend at the same price range?

I haven't really seen any recommendations on the thread for better monitors at this price range, so chances are I'll be ordering them soon.

I'd love to take your money Spider - but hand on heart I can't recommend any in that price range.

spiderjazz

Can't get more honest than that. Thanks Paul

spiderjazz

Got the HS50m's yesterday, as I said I haven't had much experience with monitors, but very happy with these so far. Looking forward to mixing on them in the coming weeks!

PaulBrewer

Gawd Bless You, my son ....

drumdrum

PaulBrewer wrote: »

I'd love to take your money Spider - but hand on heart I can't recommend any in that price range.

Hey Paul,

What are your thoughts on the HS80s? OR do you just not like the HS series in general?

I was thinking of a pair of Adam A7Xs or HS80s.....any thoughts on these? Or how they fare against the HS80s?

What DO you recommend?

PaulBrewer

drumdrum wrote: »

PaulBrewer wrote: »

I'd love to take your money Spider - but hand on heart I can't recommend any in that price range.

Hey Paul,

What are your thoughts on the HS80s? OR do you just not like the HS series in general?

I was thinking of a pair of Adam A7Xs or HS80s.....any thoughts on these? Or how they fare against the HS80s?

What DO you recommend?

I think the Adams are proper monitors that- like the Focals , perform better than their price would suggest.

We took a pair down to Middlewalk for a listen (while we were doing keyboards with J90) and were surprised how well they performed.