Recommended Studio Monitors to use with Scarlett Solo

[KentuckyJones]

Right now I just have some older Bose speakers that plug directly to my mobo via 3.5mm cable. I have thought about getting some studio monitors to pair with the Scarlett Solo but there are an overwhelming amount of options to choose from. Preferably I'd like something that can be placed on the desktop without taking up a ton of room but I'm open to any recommendations. Budget = less than $400 

[Derkoli]

2 hours ago, KentuckyJones said:

Right now I just have some older Bose speakers that plug directly to my mobo via 3.5mm cable. I have thought about getting some studio monitors to pair with the Scarlett Solo but there are an overwhelming amount of options to choose from. Preferably I'd like something that can be placed on the desktop without taking up a ton of room but I'm open to any recommendations. Budget = less than $400 

Just nab a pair of Adam T5V's.

[OfficialTechSpace]

Mackie MR524's. They beat out everything in this pricerange, and I actually find the T5V's to sound a bit hollow and lifeless by comparison. Mackie's have a wider soundstage, better imaging, and more filled-in midrange. They're also cheaper, I own them myself. Here's a comparison video and FR chart:

 

[H713]

On 5/2/2022 at 11:07 PM, OfficialTechSpace said:

Mackie MR524's. They beat out everything in this pricerange, and I actually find the T5V's to sound a bit hollow and lifeless by comparison. Mackie's have a wider soundstage, better imaging, and more filled-in midrange. They're also cheaper, I own them myself. Here's a comparison video and FR chart:

 

That FR plot is garbage. Notice how both speakers have the same bizarre characteristics? That's a measurement issue. Given where the garbage is, it's almost certainly a room issue.

 

[OfficialTechSpace]

1 hour ago, H713 said:

That FR plot is garbage. Notice how both speakers have the same bizarre characteristics? That's a measurement issue. Given where the garbage is, it's almost certainly a room issue.

You don't read plots often, do you? There's standard amounts of deviation between every mic rig and every test environment. There is no such thing as an accessible, industry-standard, stamped and certified test environment. I'd say standard placement in a treated room is perfectly representative of a realistic scenario. It's not easy to find measurements taken from dead-neutral environments, those kinds of things are usually done privately. As in paying to gain access to a room to perform your measurements in. If you've read loudspeaker plots before, this is very common.

 

This particular reviewer (DSAUDIO.review / Digital Stereophony) has measured what I'd estimate to be at least a hundred different loudspeakers in this environment. Not to mention, 629 loudspeaker sound demos and comparisons in general. This gives us an abundance in data to draw reference from, including the two monitors we've recommended. Based on those measurements and the sound demos, I think we can come to an accurate conclusion. Or, we could endlessly discuss resonances and room characteristics. I can go either way, but I'm sure the OP isn't planning on spending $$$ on excessive room treatment to combat that. Most of us don't.

[H713]

8 hours ago, OfficialTechSpace said:

You don't read plots often, do you? There's standard amounts of deviation between every mic rig and every test environment. There is no such thing as an accessible, industry-standard, stamped and certified test environment. I'd say standard placement in a treated room is perfectly representative of a realistic scenario. It's not easy to find measurements taken from dead-neutral environments, those kinds of things are usually done privately. As in paying to gain access to a room to perform your measurements in. If you've read loudspeaker plots before, this is very common.

 

This particular reviewer (DSAUDIO.review / Digital Stereophony) has measured what I'd estimate to be at least a hundred different loudspeakers in this environment. Not to mention, 629 loudspeaker sound demos and comparisons in general. This gives us an abundance in data to draw reference from, including the two monitors we've recommended. Based on those measurements and the sound demos, I think we can come to an accurate conclusion. Or, we could endlessly discuss resonances and room characteristics. I can go either way, but I'm sure the OP isn't planning on spending $$$ on excessive room treatment to combat that. Most of us don't.

 

I read frequency response plots on a pretty regular basis. There is, in fact, an industry-standard test environment, and that's an anechoic chamber. Alternatively, there's the Klippel system that mathematically compensates for the room the speaker is being measured in. There are a few online reviewers who have them, and Klippel does measure loudspeakers for a fairly reasonable price ($100 IIRC).

 

There are also ways to get a quasi-anechoic response using DIY measurements. I'm not going to go into too much detail on this, mostly because there are several really good online resources on the subject. 

 

Yes, the sort of data you posted is common - because there's a lot of garbage speaker data out there. The data you posted tells us almost nothing about the two speakers, other than that their characteristics aren't grossly different. The effects of the room are a good 10 dB larger than the differences between the speakers.

 

Essentially, because the room effects are so large, the scaled needs to be a ridiculously coarse 10 dB/div, by which point it's difficult to see the effects of the speakers themselves.

 

 

[OfficialTechSpace]

52 minutes ago, H713 said:

There is, in fact, an industry-standard test environment, and that's an anechoic chamber.

Nobody here has disputed that. Keyword used being "accessible". If we don't have access to an anechoic chamber, or aren't willing to fork over the cash to gain access to one for measurements, that doesn't automatically invalidate results taken from different environments. We do the best we can with what we got, and standard placement in a treated room is about as good as you can get otherwise. This isn't some random untreated room with dramatic harmonic resonances or reflections. They're not on a hardwood floor, pressed up against a wall either. The only characteristic of a room I see on that plot is potentially the 70-100Hz hump, which is not significant. Everything else is within standard variation.

[H713]

6 minutes ago, OfficialTechSpace said:

Nobody here has disputed that. Keyword used being "accessible". If we don't have access to an anechoic chamber, or aren't willing to fork over the cash to gain access to one for measurements, that doesn't automatically invalidate results taken from different environments. We do the best we can with what we got, and standard placement in a treated room is about as good as you can get otherwise. This isn't some random untreated room with dramatic harmonic resonances or reflections. They're not on a hardwood floor, pressed up against a wall either. The only characteristic of a room I see on that plot is potentially the 70-100Hz hump, which is not significant. Everything else is within standard variation.

Just about everything below 800 Hz on that graph is a room issue.

 

And you're right, just because it wasn't taken in an anechoic chamber doesn't make it "invalid". What makes it useless, however, is the fact that the data sucks. There are ways to get good data without an anechoic chamber, but this is not a good example of that.

[OfficialTechSpace]

27 minutes ago, H713 said:

Just about everything below 800 Hz on that graph is a room issue.

 

And you're right, just because it wasn't taken in an anechoic chamber doesn't make it "invalid". What makes it useless, however, is the fact that the data sucks. There are ways to get good data without an anechoic chamber, but this is not a good example of that.

Okay I mean, I think it's safe to assume the whole moral compass of this conversation was just to discredit the measurements of a recommendation you took opposition to. Nobody even @'d you. The Mackie's kinda blew everything out of the water in the budget segment when they released. Made KRK's sound like a tin can, and JBL's sound old. On top of that, Yamaha has been out of the game for at least 5-10 years. The Adam's however, were still a viable competitor besides a few limiting factors. One of them being that the Adam's have a higher MSRP, at $220 vs $170 on the Mackies. That also pushes them over the OP's budget by $40 unless they can be found for less.

[H713]

1 minute ago, OfficialTechSpace said:

Okay I mean, I think it's safe to assume the whole moral compass of this conversation was just to discredit the measurements of a recommendation you took opposition to. Nobody even @'d you. The Mackie's kinda blew everything out of the water in the budget segment when they released. Made KRK's sound like a tin can, and JBL's sound old. On top of that, Yamaha has been out of the game for at least 5-10 years. The Adam's however, were still a viable competitor besides a few limiting factors. One of them being that the Adam's have a higher MSRP.

Really not the case. I don't have any strong preference here. While I've heard the T5V, I don't own any active monitors in this price range. I thought the T5V was voiced bright, but with an HF shelf it was pretty tolerable. I really have no opinions on the Mackies. The brand preferences I do have are all way outside the OP's budget, so they don't factor in.

 

 

I do, however, take issue with people posting bad measurement data and using it as a point of argument.