Mackie 624s

Discussion in 'Recording/Live Sound' started by MichaelK, Jun 18, 2004.


  1. MichaelK

    MichaelK Member

    Messages:
    6,477
    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    Fort Mudge
    Got em yesterday, set em up last night, listened to a couple of master tracks for reference. That's all I've done so far.

    They sound pretty g-dam accurate and super smooth to me. Much better than the Roland pieces of crap I'd been wrestling with for the last five years.

    Why I didn't do this years ago, I don't know. I spent my money on great gear that made a real difference to my recordings, but this will save me HOURS - if not weeks, over the course of a year - of compensating for "wrong" mixes using my car as the final testing room. TIME, baby - it's worth the money, too.
     
  2. LSchefman

    LSchefman Supporting Member

    Messages:
    13,448
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    >>They sound pretty g-dam accurate and super smooth to me<<

    That's the way I hear them, too.

    In fact, you're not gonna believe this, but my mixes have been translating better with these than they did with my $4000 Genelec 1031s.

    They don't sound as *gorgeous* as the Genelecs, but I'm definitely mixing faster due to their frequency balance accuracy. I'm quite satisfied with them.

    I am still thinking about getting the matching subwoofer, just to make sure I don't have low-end artifacts that might cause problems.

    On a personal note, I'm glad you like them, because I'd have felt bad about recommending them if you hadn't enjoyed using them. :)

    Oops, one last edit: The Genelecs could play cleaner, louder, due to their increased amplifier power and woofer size, but so far that's the only tradeoff. At normal levels, these rock.
     
  3. MichaelK

    MichaelK Member

    Messages:
    6,477
    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    Fort Mudge
    Well, as I told you before, I hold you personally responsible for my satisfaction with any purchases I make based on your advice. So for both of us, it's a good thing. ;)
     
  4. LSchefman

    LSchefman Supporting Member

    Messages:
    13,448
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    >>Well, as I told you before, I hold you personally responsible for my satisfaction with any purchases I make based on your advice.<<

    You and my wife.

    :rolleyes:
     
  5. Screamer

    Screamer Member

    Messages:
    343
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Location:
    Seattle
    Glad you like them!

    I've been messing with mine for a month now and have started seriously tracking my band's demo. I have really been enjoying mixing with them. I think it's the best money I've spent in quite a while.
     
  6. MichaelK

    MichaelK Member

    Messages:
    6,477
    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    Fort Mudge
    You say that now, but what will you say nine months on?
     
  7. TheArchitect

    TheArchitect Guest

    At a certain point monitors aren't necessarily better, just different. What ever you use you need to learn them and your room to really mix well on them.

    Glad you like'em
     
  8. Screamer

    Screamer Member

    Messages:
    343
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Location:
    Seattle
    Nine months later...I still say yes. :)
     
  9. Scott Peterson

    Scott Peterson Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,776
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    Michigan
    FWIW, I am running them for a half dozen months or so and am also in the fan club. They just sound damn good.
     
  10. Tonekat

    Tonekat Member

    Messages:
    8,150
    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    With any monitors, if you can have someone with a pink/white noise generator and calibration mic come over and get them equalized to show a flat response (or, as flat as you can come close to in a home studio), you'll find yourself doing much more satisfying mixdowns.
     
  11. LSchefman

    LSchefman Supporting Member

    Messages:
    13,448
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Tonekat, there are two schools of thought on that.

    One is that your mixes will sound better in your room, and therefore be better mixes. The other is that your mixes will not translate well to monitors that have not been equalized.

    I tend to agree with you, though I run my monitors flat. I may pick up a pair of the new JBLs that are designed for room equalization, they've been extremely well-reviewed, but I'd hang onto a pair that isn't EQ'ed just to have a real-world reference.
     
  12. Tonekat

    Tonekat Member

    Messages:
    8,150
    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    Good point LSchefman, esp for those who may be picking up their at-home mixes and bringing them elsewhere to be mastered, or for remote tracking in other studios, etc.

    Like the big studios with those little Auratone's sitting on top of the board for real world reference.

    I remember taking mixes down to CD and running them out to the car in the driveway to listen...
     
  13. jokerjkny

    jokerjkny Member

    Messages:
    9,590
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    how's the low end?

    i'm a HUGE stickler for a good even sounding low end, and i'm apprehensive of the 6" speakers.
     
  14. Scott Peterson

    Scott Peterson Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,776
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    Michigan
    Far better than you might imagine. Very solid and realistic, very clear. Not full of bass POWER but you can hear much more than you think.
     
  15. MichaelK

    MichaelK Member

    Messages:
    6,477
    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    Fort Mudge
    Truth?

    Could be better. I know how to get good mixes from them, but I know that there's a lot I'm not hearing.

    If you have the bucks and the desk space, IMO these are the most accurate nearfields I've heard.
     
  16. Screamer

    Screamer Member

    Messages:
    343
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Location:
    Seattle
    Just to clarify, they are 6.7", which definately adds more to them. It may seem trivial, but they are bigger than 6"s, just not big enough to be called 7"s. ;)
     
  17. LSchefman

    LSchefman Supporting Member

    Messages:
    13,448
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    >>Truth?

    Could be better.<<

    I'll disagree ever so slightly with Michael here. They really are quite flat in response down to around 55-ish hz. The 8 inch woofer Mackies go down to about 45-ish flat.

    My experience, however, with larger woofers in the typical home studio control room is that room modes, reflections off various surfaces, and other acoustical anomalies tend to exaggerate problems in the bass area, not fix them.

    I lived for 4 years with Genelec 1031As, with larger woofers, and a very big bottom end, and a writing partner had a pair of 1032s with ten inch woofers.

    We found that the 1032s gave us absolutely no idea of where the bass was; it was simply a guess, although he likes the impression of all that bass. The 1031s were more manageable, but I still had low end problems.

    As with all of the other monitors I've had over the years, I have the 624s mounted on ASC tube trap speaker stands a foot behind my console. I find that the bass is easier to get right with these than with my Genelecs, perhaps one reason is that I tend to monitor less loudly.

    Before I had the Genelecs, I used the highly accurate B&W 805, which is a monitor they use at George Martin's AIR studios, powered with a Krell amp. These had even smaller woofers than the Mackies, and yet my mixes were the least screwed up on them in the bass area until I got the Mackies.

    Here's the MIX magazine review, if you're interested:

    "When I fired up the HR624s, I was immediately impressed with their clarity and accuracy. After a few hours of listening to purpose-built mains within the confines of a professional control room, the HR624s, even in my modest studio, sounded right on the mark. The sound was tight, uncolored and nonfatiguing (which is a miracle in itself for near-fields).<<

    I am not a fan of KRK speakers; I don't think they get the midrange quite right, especially in the vocal area. I do think the Genelecs get it right; the Mackies are surprisingly close, although for some reason I found placement more critical than with the Genelecs; perhaps that has to do with the slightly different designs of the waveguides of the speakers.

    Anyway, I hope this helps. I just got two artists who I produced records for onto a major beer company promotion, and I mixed the records on the Mackies!

    Incidentally, as far as monitors go, I really love the PMCs and the Klein & Hummels if you really want accuracy, but they're very expensive, substantially more than even the Genelecs.
     
  18. TheArchitect

    TheArchitect Guest

    Intersting read. I guess I will just have to keep slum'en it with my Alesis M1 Actives.........:D :dude :D
     
  19. MichaelK

    MichaelK Member

    Messages:
    6,477
    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    Fort Mudge
    >> I'll disagree ever so slightly with Michael here. They really are quite flat in response down to around 55-ish hz. The 8 inch woofer Mackies go down to about 45-ish flat.

    That's not a disagreement, really. But those 10 Hz make a big difference! There's a lot of critical stuff going on in the 35-55 Hz area between the kick and bass, and that's what I'm missing. There are rooms costing tens of thousands in design and materials just to handle that range properly! Any shmendrick with a pair of ears can hear the rest.

    >> My experience, however, with larger woofers in the typical home studio control room is that room modes, reflections off various surfaces, and other acoustical anomalies tend to exaggerate problems in the bass area, not fix them.

    True, and this is one reason I don't mind so much that it's missing. I feel the KRKs I mentioned (but not all KRKs) do a better job with the low end, given the low end limitations of nearfields in general, but they are MUCH more expensive and not as "easy" on the ears.

    I really do love the little Mackies. I find it very easy to get a good mix FAST with them, and that's what I like most about them.
     
  20. LSchefman

    LSchefman Supporting Member

    Messages:
    13,448
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    >>Intersting read. I guess I will just have to keep slum'en it with my Alesis M1 Actives<<

    I haven't listened on those. I wouldn't be surprised if they're nice speakers.

    >>That's not a disagreement, really. But those 10 Hz make a big difference!<<

    True - my disagreement is more like a quibble, not because those ten cycles don't matter, of course, they do! But I think most home studio control rooms simply aren't acoustically all that great when the wavelengths get that low. I suppose this is more a personal preference than anything else.

    >>True, and this is one reason I don't mind so much that it's missing. I feel the KRKs I mentioned (but not all KRKs) do a better job with the low end, given the low end limitations of nearfields in general, but they are MUCH more expensive and not as "easy" on the ears<<

    Yes, it's that very slight bit of midrange something-or-other that we both hear. I feel it causes inaccurate mids in the vocal area, you feel it's something that makes them a bit rough to listen to for a long time. We are probably describing the same phenomenon in different ways.

    However, as you know, I've always liked your mixes very much, and most especially the way you do vocals, so who am I to quibble?
     

Share This Page