Phil Leigh wrote: > Bit of a sweeping generalisation there, Mudlark old chap...
Yes, I have not found Mudlark's complaints, my Mackie's sound great, they are just ugly. > and are usually used in conjunction with/as an alternative to large, > very powerfull "full range" monitors (I'm not talking about home > studios/bedrooms here). Right, to clarify for folks not used to studio monitors, the "full range" monitors are nearly always soffit mounted. They are big, they get driven by really powerful amps, and can play to ear breaking loudness without breaking a sweat. I can't imaging them passing WAF. > Nearfields are similar in response to many bookshelf speakers. Their > bass performance is usually superb (fast, accurate) - at close range. > They are not designed to fill a large space such as a lounge. > > Nearfields (on good solid stands) +sub is certainly a valid option for > domestic use. I agree, all mini-monitors, from BBC classics to the ADAMs, ATCs, and lesser Mackie, M-Audio, etc. all need stands and need to be away from the walls. The biggest downside (other than the looks) to studio nearfield monitors is that they are accurate. They sound like the music, warts and all. A lot of groups who use my studio complain that the sound out of the recording doesn't match how they think they sound. -- Pat Farrell PRC recording studio http://www.pfarrell.com/PRC _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
