Hey slutz!

I'm in the market for a second pair of studio monitors for a studio I work sometimes doing mixes and masters for their customers.
The studio has KRKs V8 V2 which I don't really like or trust to do detailed mixing on, therefore I'm thinking to get an other pair of economical monitors that I can leave there (or perhaps take with me every time I go to work there).
I will also bring along my active MixCube and monitor controller.

It is very important that this second pair is very detailed, revealing and translates very well.
I don't want to invest a lot of money, as I already have APS Aeons in my own studio, so I don't need anything esoteric.

I have put my options down to these three

1.Focal Alpha 65
For what I read, it seems to be a very good and accurate monitor. I haven't heard it myself, but didn' t really read anything negative about it.

2. Yamaha HS8
Also I hear very good things about them, but I'm a bit worried they might be more fatiguing sounding than the Focals?
Everyone seems to agree that they translate very well.

3.JBL LSR 305
These are the cheapest and I guess the easiest to move around with me from studio to studio etc.
But would they be as accurate as the 2 pairs above?

Anyone has any experience with all 3 pairs?
Do you think the Focals would be too large to take with me every time I go to work there, and what about the HS8?
Are they too bulky to carry around?

In particular I'd like to find out how the Focals compare to the Yamaha's?
Do they offer the same detail or one of the pairs is more accurate?
I can get the Focals and the Yamaha's for the same price here in London, but obviously the JBLs cost half.

Any help greatly appreciated!

Noone?...

I owned the 305s briefly before swapping them for the 308s, which I love.

I demo'ed a pair of the Focals for a weekend. They were really nice monitors--just not nice enough, or better than the 308s to justify a purchase.

I have no experience with the Yamahas, so I'm no help there.

Thank you for your reply.
So you found that the Alpha 65 didnt offer anything more than the Lsr308? Not more detail or resolution?

I've have spent WAY too much money on Monitors but my older brother is trying to teach me that good can come out of bad, so maybe if I can help you, that will be good

To answer your questions, yes, I have had experience with all three.

By far the Focal Alpha 65's were the best as far as being more 3D, having a tighter, more accurate bass and more detail and accuracy across the entire mix..

When I mixed on them, the translation as far as how a mix sounded on other systems was better than the other two as well.

You're throwing in the LSR305's which is not apples vs apples.

Of course they would be the easiest to carry around, as they weigh hardly anything.

I'll throw this in as well.

If you have a good ear, you can learn how to mix on any monitors, and once you understand them, you will get the desired result.

As far as the Focal's or Yamaha's being too bulky, how big are you

If it were me, I wouldn't want to carry around the Alpha 65's or the HS8's unprotected, which means I'd have to buy some cases for them and then they would REALLY be big and bulky.

I hope this helps, and if you have any more questions, feel free to ask more

Jerry

I've owned the LSR308's as well

Same thing applies from my previous Post.

Thank you very much for your reply.

The only reason I'm considering the Lsr305 is their size, as I start getting more work around studios as a mixer, so having a portable pair I can trust and carry around easily would be fantastic..

I know you can learn every speaker eventually, just trying to find out which one I should get in the first place.
So, do you think the 305 would be good enough or should I go for the Focals?
What about the Alpha 80? Have you heard those? Are they much better than the 65?

Thanks again!

IMHO, you're trying to kill two birds with one stone

What is more important to you, Monitors that will be the easiest to carry around and get a good mix on

OR

the Monitors that will sound the best in YOUR Studio?


Yes, I've owned the Alpha 80's as well

I preferred the 65's tighter bass.

Heard the Alpha 80,only briefly liked what I heard, the consensus seems to lean toward the 65's though. I also did like the 65 quite a bit.
Of course I am in a whole other realm these days monitor wise, kinda spoiled I think.
I would say the 305/308 are the best bang for the buck under $500 easily shooting above their price point. I would also say the Focal Alpha Series is the best under 1k monitor. Once you get over 1k it starts getting really interesting as there are some interesting options.

cms 65 or alpha 65,

Well, as I mentioned, I need a pair of monitors not for my own studio, but for a studio I work for whenever they need me, and also it could be great if it was easily portable, since from time to time I go mix in other studios around London as well.
So, ideally I'd like a pair I could rely on and which it would be kind of portable.
I have APS Aeons at my own studio, but they weight almost 20kilos each and they are very big. Also I wouldn't like to move them around.

So, are the Focals so much better than the HS8 you reckon?
And could the Lsr305 (besides being the easiest to carry around) work for my use, or I shouldn't bother?

Please note that many of the tracks I'll be mixing / mastering will be release material, not just demos.

Thank you again!!

Thank you for your reply.
I read in one review that the Alpha80s sounded like having a hole in the midrange, whereas in an other review read that their midrange is better than the 65s.
Did you prefer more the sound of the 65s or the 80s?

Yes.


Of course than can work.

I have listened extensively to both the Alpha 65 and Alpha 80.

Alpha 80 :

Good : Best, most realistic 3D image or all the monitors I have heard under £800 or $1000. I think that in a well treated room the Alpha 80's would be a great addition. It also had loads of power in reserve, and long before I could discern any compression or distortion, I had far more volume/loudness than would be good for me in a nearfield or even mid-field position, i.e up to 3 meters away from the monitors, these babies sounded very lifelike, like the music was being played by a band in front of me....more so than any other monitor in this price range.

Bad:

The bass on the 80's is not as tight as I would have hoped for, although it is certainly deep.

I prefer non ported monitors or block ports on ported monitors, which is quite difficult to do on the Alpha's.....even though this leads to a lower level but tighter bass, which I like. - more accurate.

Positioning needs to be away from walls, at least 2 feet. Any closer could increase the perception of bass from reflections on the rear or side walls.

Alpha 65 :

Good : Excellent all rounder, the lack of deep bass makes the mid range stand out a bit more.

Alternatives are the Presonus Eris 8's. - which are acceptable but probably not as accurate as the Focal Alphas.

The Focal Alphas were simply more believable, very clear as in - less distorted, more dynamic less compressed, like the speaker did not introduce its own sound, and I could hear much more into the music, separation and positioning of instruments.

The Focal Alphas competed very favorably with the Adam AX7, and are probably as good, only different and a matter of preference. Yes they were that impressive. Main difference was more about the difference in tweeters - ribbon in the Adams vs Metal tweeters in the Focal Alphas. Each technology sounds different.

If you are mixing music with lots of sub bass - get the 80's, otherwise the 65's will do just fine.

The 80's are very tempting, effortless and just being able to hear the entire spectrum of the frequencies was a revelation......like listening to a really expensive set of speakers..

I found the Yamaha HS's have a smiley, top and bottom, but nowhere near as clear and balanced as the Presonus Eris and the Focal Alphas. Definitely not the most accurate, - slightly sharp and piercing at the top end. On the other hand the Focal Alphas are not hyping the top end..

My usual test involves acoustic - vocals, and the most realistic presentation of voices was on the Focal Alphas.

The only caveat of the Alphas is that they border on the analytic, while cheap and cheerful monitors such as the M-Audio BX5, though not accurate have even more vibe, - interpret as boom, with slight over emphasis in the voice range., i.e playing music on the Alphas may not be as enjoyable for some, depending on what they are familiar with listening to

Hi kodebode

Would you also agree that you had to play the Alpha 80's a little louder than the 65's to get the deep bass you refer to?

I'm no pro so hardly qualified to hand out advice or recommendations but I bought the Focal Alpha 65s and have (at the moment) an untreated room and I am sitting here on day 2 still playing music and just sitting in front of these things with a huge smile on my face, I love them, I'm hearing things I had no idea were there and I know these speakers will only get better. I thought they would have more bass, but compared to the Yamaha HS50 I sold for these, the Focals have more. I will see how it evolves but right now, I'm feeling very happy with my purchase, these are not toys.

In my comparison, I had a monitor controller which allowed me to switch the same signal between the monitors Alpha 80, and 65 and others.

Because the bass amp on the Alpha 80 is more powerful, and its woofers are larger, with a larger bass port, sending the same signal to the Alpha 80 is louder than the 65. To compare them at the same perceived volume i would have had to attenuate the audio signal to the 80's.

But in reality, its impossible to compare them at the same volume cos their frequency response is different.

The 80's are more than loud enough for studio monitoring, at distances of up to 3 meters from the monitors with ease, and at that distance can be much louder than you will ever need.

What I loved about them was they, IMHO, had the least coloration of all speakers in this mid priced range, giving you a perception that the band was right there in front of you, and every instrument was easy to hear. Like being in a concert. Especially on acoustic instruments, and voice, they were stunning.

The 80's were the only monitors in this price range that did not demonstrate the usual distortion your hear on any speaker when played loud, which subliminaly tells your ear - oh that's music from a speaker, cos we know when an audio signal is artificially produced - from the distortion(harshness/compression) which our ears can deduce. With the 80's the speakers disappeared the most, and I simply heard the music, and deep into the music, as if it was being performed right in front of me, and not through speakers. An analogy would be like a veil was lifted on the music.

Even at very loud levels, it still maintained its distortion free sound. Clear without being harsh/distorted.

I would say as I've commented in other posts on GS, the 80's could sound a bit dark - compared to some other monitors which highlight a bit more mid range, but its so much like being there that the immersive experience is really great, moreso I daresay than the Adam A7X which is also a very good set of monitors.

Listening to good jazz acoustic instruments, such as Miles Davis - Kind of Blue was a phenomenally immersive experience on the 80's.

If money was no object, I'd have both the 65's and the 80's. the 65's to listen in to the mid range, the 80's to get lost in the music, with is fuller spectrum sound.

If I may add, I have learnt that many inexpensive monitors sound good by "compressing" the sound, reducing the dynamic range, so everything sounds more controlled, instead of showing you the full dynamic range, so that you can deal with it in your mix. The 80's showed their mettle from whisper quiet to loud.

The final test for me of really good speakers, is when the only time you realise how loud you've been listening, is when you try to speak, zero fatigue even at high levels. On lesser quality monitors, you know its loud from the distortion your ear can discern. With the 80's I never got the impression that they were too loud. It made me wonder - is this how high end monitors sound?

Let me end with this. If I was critically listening, and I did not want to add a subwoofer, it would be the 80's. to hear what it would sound like in a full range sound system, and the 65's would educate me on the sound in a high quality bookshelf set of stereo speakers, but a much clearer accurate version than I've heard in most home stereos, no matter how expensive.

You may not want to listen to mp3's on the alpha 80's, which would reveal their shortcomings. You will need full fat, 24 bit 96 Khz, or at least 44.1khz 16 bit audio files to enjoy them.

Thanks for the reply!

What I was trying to say/ask is if you found at lower volumes that the 80's bass advantage was not as obvious because I found that you had to start cranking up the volume to start hearing/feeling the difference.

I take it that it sounds like if you're mixing you prefer the 65's but if you're listening to music for enjoyment you prefer the 80's.

Also, what monitor controller did you use?

Thanks,

Jerry

the answer is always Focal

Until you hear Amphions.

I only played at loud volumes, for some of the audition, to "test" the monitors. Most of the time I was listening at much lower sensible levels, even at low levels, both the 65s and the 80s were the pick of the bunch. With the 80's having the more real presentation from its more complete audio spectrum.

One more thing, when most people compare monitors, they do not take into account something which I would call the minimum ideal listening distance (MILD). This is the distance at which the sound from both the tweeters and woofers blend into one whole cohesive sound. Any closer to the monitors, than the MILD, you are more likely to be listening to more of the tweeter or more of the woofer, which would "colour" your perception of the sound, and any slight movement could drastically change your perception. Much further away from the speakers, than the MILD, the room reflections removes focus from the direct sound of the monitors. Its made more complex by the fact that this MILD varies with volume.

The MILD for the 65's is about 1 meter and at loud volumes - increases to almost 2 meters.

The MILD for the 80's is a bit further - starting at about 1.2 meters and can go all the way to about 2.5 meters at higher volumes.

So it, IMHO, is not possible to compare two monitors with different MILD, from the same listening position!.

Most listeners do not compensate for the MILD, and this is why monitor opinions can vary quite a bit.

For the auditions, I was using a Presonus Central Station (the 1st version) - silver/metallic finish, which some do not consider the greatest monitor controller, in the world. In my own studio, I use only one monitor, and prefer to bypass controllers completely, using only the volume dial on my audio interface, so I do not usually need a monitor controller.

I am a bit of a purist, in a nearfield/mid field scenario, trying to eliminate as much of anything that could colour the sound during monitoring, e.g walls and reflective objects, so I do not advocate using alternate monitors, cos I think that the other monitors become part of the reflection boundary in however slight a manner, and interrupt the audio presentation, like having a piece of furniture or a mini wall close to your monitors. So for this reason, I would still choose only one monitor - the 80's.

All listening is a bit subjective and all monitors are a compromise, the 65's have smaller woofers which are slightly more accurate than the larger woofers on the 80's, but do not go as deep.

The 80's deliver an effortless bass, but are not as distinct in the low end.

Whatever monitor you choose or use, there will be a period of acclimatization, to learn how it sounds, using ideally a variety of different sounding recordings or commercial mixes, as well as your own recordings, which you are most familiar with, and every time you change anything in your listening environment, your ears will have to relearn this change. Simply adding an 88 note keyboard and stand between me and the monitors, perceptively changed the sound, and it took me a few weeks to get used to this.

You may find some of my hypothesis on the difference between how speakers sound here interesting. I try to explain the variation in speaker impressions. and other thoughts on this price range, in the thread.

active monitor pair under 450 eur

One more thing, different speaker technologies sound different - especially tweeters. Metal tweeters like on the Focal Alphas, have their own sound, Horns like on the JBL LS 305 are different, Soft dome tweeters - usually silk for most studio monitors, such as the Presonus Eris, also have their own sound. The ADAM F series use ribbon tweeters, but I think good ribbon tweeters start at a price range above the Focal Alphas, which are the most expensive in this "mid" priced range, with the ADAM A7X.... I am cautious to recommend the ADAM F series, because I have head the ADAM A7X, and the price compromise of the ADAM F series is a compromise too far, in diminished audio transparency. ribbon tweeters have their own sound, and have the smallest sound stage - you really do not want to listen to them too far off axis.

Monitors - with ported woofers, sound a bit different from non ported woofers. I prefer non ported, but there are no non ported monitors in this "mid" priced monitor range!

In conclusion - I would choose the 80's so that at low volumes, I could feel and hear the bass more, and not have to "compensate" for it as much as I would on the 65's.. On the other hand the 65's go low enough to hear all that you need to on most music, and definitely lower than any other monitor in this mid price range - with the exception of the 80's. It's a tough one - even I am undecided between the 65 and the 80's. - Just goes to show how good these are, compared to their competition.

I'll end on this note. Probably more important than all this, IMHO, is proper use of the monitor controller or volume dial on your audio interface, that allows you to adjust whatever you are listening to, to the ideal listening volume (ILV), cos due to differences in frequency perception at different volumes (Fletcher - Munsen), this way you can audition each audio piece at the right volume, e.g. I end up lowering volume for highly compressed pop tracks, to avoid being deceived by their "loudness". Its probably the most useful complement, probably more important than the choice of monitors - learning how to use this as a most important "instrument", to bring to the "same level" different audio tracks, instinctively.

Much more focus should be paid to the MILD and the ILV, and where possible acoustic treatment and positioning, to get the best from any monitor.

Thank you so much, that is very informative, especially about the MILD.

I'm about 42" away from each monitor and the more I mix, I'm getting better mixes by listening at low and medium volumes, and never truly playing the monitors really loud.

As far as what I want from a monitor, ideally I want more accuracy across the entire spectrum, especially in the midrange and the bass.


This is what I found about the 65's vs the 80's.

As far as the 80's, I felt that I had to crank them up and pump up the lows to notice a significant difference.

In the end I thought that the Focal Alpha 65s were more homogeneous and better suited for what I "think" I need.


That being said, I just HAD to buy some NS10M Studios to see what all the hype is about

I'll have them Monday, so I'll see.


Thank you again for all the time it took to reply.

Jerry

@ jerrydpi

I think yur a monitor slut bro, enjoy those anemic NS10's, no thank ya

I plead the fifth

Have you ever actually heard them in person being driven by a good power amp?

I did, I learned on NS10's I never liked them. Did not mean I could not mix on them just did not like them at all.

The reason I bought them is because I have never actually heard them, only of them, so I HAVE to know what it is about them as to why so many people use them

Unfortunately in an era where many of us who have these interests may not have the inclination/time or opportunity to work with certain kit in a major commercial studio, the learning experience ends up being at our own cost.

There is hope, and light at the end of the tunnel. Eventually we learn what works and what to avoid, but there's no running away from the investment in our own time, some money, and lots of listening.

The only thing I'll add is I've found that:

1. Lots of listening to a huge variety of good and poorly produced music, from a huge variety of producers/mixers/genres/cultures/times in the history of the recorded audio art form, poor quality streaming from sites + good quality CD's + High Definition 24 bit high sample rate audio.

2. at sensible healthy volumes,

3. proper positioning

4. in a very quiet environment,

5. and getting good sleep, with a healthy lifestyle

6. With lots of ear rest - periods where we listen to no amplified audio.

in my opinion trains, our ears to hear so much better - kind of like muscles that develop strength and effectiveness through regular and intensive use.

It gives us a strong foundation to know exactly how to transform our audio into what we want it to sound like. Like art - there are no rights and wrongs, only preferences, and like great art - new preferences are added to the palette each day, without taking any value away from previously established preferences.

Guess that's the value of the NS10, the newer, better shiny toys, do not eliminate its value, even though I may not have the inclination or budget to acquire one.

Agreed. I have never heard these, but clearly they are today's poster boys, increasingly showing up in lots of online monitor conversations, and in studio photographs.

But clearly they are not cheap, and in a completely different price range to the Focal Alphas, starting at about 4 times more than the most expensive Focal Alpha - the 85's, in the price of entry to the Amphion One 15's, which I consider their real entry level.

Not sure if they are Amphion One 15's are 4 times the value though.

All depends on what one's priorities are :

1. Impress Clients or Self
2. Track/Mix/Master as a Hobby/Commercial Vocation or hybrid of both
3. Budget/Revenue Stream

I am very confident that the Alpha range is good enough to provide a foundation for commercial quality results, at a fair price. - You get a lot for the money - Caveat - if you have the skill and well developed ears.....

Anything above the price of the Alpha 80's - we are in the land of diminishing results, incremental improvements that cost a lot more money, almost like like sitting in 1st class on an airplane.

Yep, still hate them haha

I looked that Alpha 65's but then found the CMS65's for $1000 used. The CMS are much better. They have almost double the power and I can hear down to 35 hz with a sine wave sweep. They also have some good EQ options including a 160hz cut if you are against a wall and also get reflections from the desk. The translation is superb . I tried a lot of different monitors including the Neumann KH120's and these work better for me.