Measurements on the Mackie HR624 mkII

[dantheman]

Polar response from 0-90 degrees in 11.25 degree steps:

9 overlaid impulse responses from above measurements:

Average from the polar response:

Vertical Polar: on axis, 11.25 and 22.5 off axis toward the tweeter:

Vertical polar: on axis, 11.25 and 22.5 off axis toward the woofer:




Thoughts?

Dan

[Zilch]

Re: Measurements on the Mackie HR624 mkII

Good directivity, but needs FR work in the top octave....

[dantheman]

Re: Measurements on the Mackie HR624 mkII

Not just the top octave, but the vertical window is sort of narrow as well. Funny that the top octave doesn't play into my subjective impression. Look at these close ups of the tree monitors I've measured. The B2031P is the one I modified for a smoother less diffraction.




Much of Dr Toole's book rings true as far as how these sound to my ear. Well actually all of it does.

Dan

[johnnyrichards]

Re: Measurements on the Mackie HR624 mkII

Where it actually matters, they are very nice. Studio monitors, do they necessarily need to exhibit perfect off axis response? You have a guy sitting there in one place, throwing little sliders up and down listening for stuff.

Also, is the region above 12kHz extremely important? I think people place way too much importance on flat FR in regions that are composed almost entirely of harmonics. Kind of like in the bass region, a little raggedness isn't anything to worry about.

Looks like a nice speaker for its intended purpose.

[dantheman]

Re: Measurements on the Mackie HR624 mkII

I'd actually say that for the near field, smooth off axis becomes more important as slight movements equate to a larger variance in listening axis compared to far field. Plus, if you're sitting at a console for hours, who wants their head in a vice.

Dan

[DS-21]

Re: Measurements on the Mackie HR624 mkII

Looks like a nice speaker for its intended purpose.

I agree with everything you wrote. What's interesting to me is that it doesn't look like a better speaker than the much cheaper Behringer for its intended purpose. And, more interestingly, it doesn't look like a better speaker than the much cheaper Behringerfor use in a home audio or home theater system.

Now maybe it is equal or better, due to virtues not captured in these measurements. Maybe, for instance, it goes lower, or its midbass has more throw or less dynamic compression. I don't know. But based just on polar response, I'd pick the Behringer.

[dantheman]

Re: Measurements on the Mackie HR624 mkII

In a subjective mood........I'd be happy with a fleet of any of them. I gotta tell you that I really wish that 1030A didn't have a defective amp on the tweeter and the rattling on the sweep. Even though the rattle wasn't heard during music. That broad polar response makes for nice listening. This is the most audiophile approved type speaker in the group--lush, detailed, spacious, etc... Their bass is a bit weak, but they are cheap. I imagine the Blades would sound similar. The Mackie feels like it's built the toughest and has remarkable bass. In fact, the bass is too heavy but it can be turned down with a flip of a switch. The Mackie or 2031P are great for imaging, but the Mackie do seem smoother an they measure the same way. It's amazing to me that even though that top octave looks nasty on the graph, I'd never know it if it weren't for the graph.

Interesting stuff,

Dan

[spasticteapot]

Re: Measurements on the Mackie HR624 mkII

Do these use Vifa drivers?

[dantheman]

Re: Measurements on the Mackie HR624 mkII

Don't know, but it does say the frame is magnesium. Seems Vifa did say that as well.

Dan

[foxfire3]

Re: Measurements on the Mackie HR624 mkII

I've never heard the 1030A.
I've been waiting several months for the 1031A with a 8" kevlar woofer.
Apparently, production for that newest model is way behind schedule.

I had the 2031A's for several months, but sold them on eBay when I heard the Yamaha HS80M's.
I've never been a fan of anything Yamaha, but their more forward sound was more to my liking.

[johnnyrichards]

Re: Measurements on the Mackie HR624 mkII

It's amazing to me that even though that top octave looks nasty on the graph, I'd never know it if it weren't for the graph.

Pretty sure that is because the top octave really doesn't matter, at least to the extent that a flat FR across the midband does matter. The lower and higher you go, linear distortion becomes less and less of an issue.

As far as the "head in a vice" etc, I believe that "near field" in most studios is more like several feet - a degree or three is probably all the off-axis deviation one need worry about in a monitor design. At least, from the pictures I have seen of professional studios it looks like they are limited in how much they get off axis being surrounded by a bunch of little sliders

In any event, what is the cost difference between the two (Mackie and Behringer)?

[dantheman]

Re: Measurements on the Mackie HR624 mkII

The Mackie is $480/ea. The 1030A is $100/ea. The 2031P I got for $152 a pair but you'll need amps. Watts are cheap, but the former are both biamplified with active crossovers. IMO, the 1030A is the screaming deal in this crowd, but when they release the 1031A, I might have to say that would be.

Say you are 6ft from the monitor, the the reverberant field becomes important as well--even in the live end/dead end studio environment. At 3ft, head movement will be an issue--if you want to lean back, stretch your legs, lean forward to adjust some sliders, etc... There's no way to really avoid a smooth off axis response if fidelity is a concern. There's a reason most studio monitors are doing it. Certainly not d/t cost.

As far as the Yammy's forward sound, that's why I wouldn't use them for mixing/mastering or even listening. YMV--no worries. I know many studios have the older version around, but that's part of the circle of confusion.

Dan

[WmAx]

Re: Measurements on the Mackie HR624 mkII

Interesting, indeed. The Behringer B2030P has a superior response/better waveguide design.

-Chris

[MSaturn]

Re: Measurements on the Mackie HR624 mkII

I'm not surprised; I use the Behringer C-3 microphone for recording live and in the studio, and it blows away stuff I've used at three times the price.

[dantheman]

Re: Measurements on the Mackie HR624 mkII

Chris, I'm sort of surprised by your response. Other than the top octave--the one that matters least-- the Mackie is considerably smoother and has much less diffraction. At least from your measurements on it and mine on the 2031p. Unless you just like the radiation angle of the 2030p.

MSaturn, I agree. That mic does sound nice. My cousin has one and I used it for a year. Now it's back in his hands. Too bad for me.

Dan