ADAM A7 monitors... awesome

[sinasl1]

Hey just wanted to give big props for these ADAM A7's... I bought a pair last week and they are just awesome. They sound light years beyond what I was using and I can hear EVERYTHING... it's almost unnerving at times listening to records I ve heard for years and having little things jump out that I've never noticed before.

They are around $1000 a pair, so not cheap, but not ridiculously expensive either- IMHO they easily hang in there with monitors twice the price (I listened to them next to Dynaudios, Genelecs, etc.). I was going to get Mackie 624's, and they ate those for breakfast.

Guitars sound right on these, I can't describe it any other way. If you need new monitors, check them out.

[LSchefman]

>>I was going to get Mackie 624's, and they ate those for breakfast.<<

And all along I figured they'd prefer Ruffles for breakfast, given their tweeters with the folded ribbon...



I've heard they're very good speakers, by the way. Interestingly, in the 70s, a company called AMT produced speakers with the Heil tweeters that were very popular in hi fi circles, the AMT-1. I always wondered why that design didn't stick, because they sounded darned good.

So it's kinda good to see the Heil tweeter back in action on the ADAMs.

[wooldl]

There's a review in this month's issue of RECORDING The Magazine for the Recording Musician.

I'd scan it and post it, but I'm in a hotel due to power outages.

[elambo]

Originally Posted by wooldl

I'd scan it and post it, but I'm in a hotel due to power outages.

Ouch! Sorry to hear that. What area are you from? We got hit good in Chicago but didn't lose any power, thankfully.

[elambo]

Originally Posted by sinasl1

Hey just wanted to give big props for these ADAM A7's... I bought a pair last week and they are just awesome. They sound light years beyond what I was using and I can hear EVERYTHING... it's almost unnerving at times listening to records I ve heard for years and having little things jump out that I've never noticed before.

I hear ya (this pun was unintentional, honest). I use Adams at home (S2a) and if I could convince my studio's owner to replace all of our Genelecs with Adams I'd do it. Unfortunately, they're awfully expensive and we have 9 Gennies to replace. As much as I love some other monitors for recording and playback, nothing is going to touch Adams for mixing. As you said, all the detail is there, and accurately! I've never had more confidence while mixing than I do now. It took my a good while to completely learn the Gennies, but I could almost start mixing out of the box with the Adams, and I'm trying not to be dramatic.

About the A7's - do you feel that a sub is mandatory or can they extend low enough by themselves? That small woofer has me nervous, but willing to believe since I know what Adam has been able to do with smaller woofers.

[sinasl1]

I swear, i can hear EVERYTHING... I mean, if I was doing real bass heavy hip hop or something, I guess you might need a sub, but I feel like they go down way low.

[elambo]

Originally Posted by sinasl1

I swear, i can hear EVERYTHING... I mean, if I was doing real bass heavy hip hop or something, I guess you might need a sub, but I feel like they go down way low.

I just saw the specs on the A7s and they claim bass down to 37Hz. I find that hard to believe from such a small monitor, but possible I guess. Wow!

[Jim S]

Do the A7 have low end similar to the Mackie 824?

[LSchefman]

>>Do the A7 have low end similar to the Mackie 824?<<

Not really.

It's hard to get around the laws of physics, and the 824s have larger drivers, a larger cabinet, and I think they have more power.

However, I find the 824s fatiguing after a while. I'd prefer the A7s to mix on, though in that price range, I'd probably choose a different speaker. I like the Dynaudios a little better for the same dough. That's just me, and as always, YOUR mileage may indeed vary.

Which is what makes horse racing. I use neither speaker in my own room, so have no dog in this hunt.

[ben_allison]

The A7's will need a sub for bass heavy music. For Top 40 stuff, you might get by. Adding a sub in a properly treated room will help, but in an untreated room, will probably do more harm than good. That said, I'm hoping to add a sub (kick and bass interactions are critical, and I want to be able to hear what's happening below 60hz).

Adams will eat Mackies for lunch until the end of time, and most anything else.

Next time I get monitors, it'll probably be a pair of Barefoots.

[LSchefman]

>> Adams will eat Mackies for lunch until the end of time, and most anything else.<<

And here the original poster said they eat other monitors for breakfast!

I wish you guys would make up your minds about which meal these speaker-eating monitors are supposed to concentrate on, so the rest of us can put our monitors away in time to avoid having them eaten.

I think the A7s are terrific little monitors for the dough - though I don't believe there is a "best" in this category personally - but they sound like hungry little beasts.

[Jim S]

I'm can consider spending more, up to $3k, an am consider Focal Twins, Adam P33, P22, A7, possibly JBL, etc but I don't know if it's necessary to spend that kind of green. However, as I'm going to have these for years and likely decades, the price difference of $3k over $1k is not an issue over that period of time.

I want my mixes to sound good and I take pride in what I do but I'm doing this for gits and shiggles, not for a living or for band demos to submit to record companies.

Interestingly, this board has threads on guitars and amp costing many thousand of dollars but nearly every monitor thread or post is about monitors costing several hundreds of dollars and rarely over a thousand dollars.

[ben_allison]

I hear the Focals are insane. If I had the $$, I'd have gotten the P22's or better. With anything, you generally get what you pay for.

[LSchefman]

>>Interestingly, this board has threads on guitars and amp costing many thousand of dollars but nearly every monitor thread or post is about monitors costing several hundreds of dollars and rarely over a thousand dollars.<<

I've had monitors ranging from $5700 a pair down to $1000 a pair in my own studio, and regularly work in a studio with a $50,000 pair of monitors as mains.

Most monitors in the range of 1-2K do a fine job as nearfields. That's one reason most people use them for this purpose. You really don't NEED more in this category of speaker. Though sometimes it's nice to have more, it isn't necessary in order to achieve a good mix.

The truth is, you can make mixes that "sound good and take pride in" in all of these price ranges - the money you spend on monitors is an interesting side fact, but mixing on monitors is much more about what you know than what you spend.

Some of the most classic records in history were mixed on things like E-V wall mounts, Yamaha NS-10s, the list is endless. Even little Auratones ("Horrortones", no longer made but loved by many, there's a new company making something similar) are still being used in some rooms to evaluate a mix.

And also, regardless of what you spend, you still have to "learn" your monitors. That means listening to your mixes against commercial releases, taking it to cars, to other studios, to your home system, to an iPod, to a boom box, and other stuff.

I find that because the room is one of the most critical components in getting a good mix that translates well to other systems, speakers that have electronics to compensate for the room itself work very well. I'm using JBLs and Genelecs in rooms I work in with this kind of room correction, and they do make things easier. In fact, my mixes sound quite consistent on both speakers when I go between rooms, which tells me that there is something to this concept beyond my own opinion.

There is also software that does this. Some people swear by it.

Point is, if you're working in the average home studio, a smaller speaker that isn't playing too loudly excites fewer room modes, and works surprisingly well.

[ben_allison]

Originally Posted by Jim S

Interestingly, this board has threads on guitars and amp costing many thousand of dollars but nearly every monitor thread or post is about monitors costing several hundreds of dollars and rarely over a thousand dollars.

It is interesting. Sometimes the things we obsess over have more to do with what seems like more fun, not always what will best enable us to realize an artistic vision.

I try to buy the best piece I can afford, with the greatest value. So for me, the A7's will probably allow me to mix a song reasonably well. Check it on the phones, on the hi-fi, in the car, done. Yes, I could spend twice as much – ten times as much – but for me, the price of A7 was optimum, beyond which I'd suffer from diminishing returns.

I paid $400 for a frankenstein-Telecaster... same thing. I could have spent more dough for an ASAT, but for me, $400 was the point of diminishing returns.