In article writes:

What are my ears NOT hearing by not buying a better power amp?

Why not borrow a better one and decide for yourself? My first
amplifier upgrade (to a Hafler) allowed me to hear smaller changes
that I was making in EQ. A borrowed Bryston gave me a little better
low end (because of the way it controlled the speakers, not because it
had better low frequency response than the Hafler, which it didn't)
but not enough to spring for the $500. I decided that the Hafler was
fine, but it was definitely worth upgrading whatever I was using
before it, a small BGW, I think, to the Hafler.




--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

Road Warrior wrote:

I've spent a pretty good deal of $$$ on my home set up. I mix with a Mackie
24X8 but I have 6 nice preamp channels to record tracks. I have nice mics,
good compressors, etc. and I spent a lot of time and $$$ on making a small
room sound better than average. I'm happy with the sounds I get. The only
time I have to use the Mackie pre's are when I'm tracking drums and I
usually use those pre's on tome. The tom sounds are at least satisfactory to
my ears.

Other than mixing on a Mackie, the only other "cheap" item I have (use) is
an Alesis RA 100 power amp to drive Tannoy Reveals.



When MARS was still open, and I was auditioning monitors,
they had stuff rigged to where you could switch amps in/out.

They had an RA 100 and a Hafler. The Hafler sounded
less grainy, but it wasn't a *huge* difference. The
Hafler was also a little tighter in the bottom end,
a tad less flubby on a sloppy mix I'd brought.

If you can lay hands on a Hafler and try it, compare. I
doubt the RA 100's holding things back much, though.

For some reason I keep neglecting to replace that power amp.

What are my ears NOT hearing by not buying a better power amp? I'm pretty
stuck with nearfield monitoring because my mix room is just "OK", so just
wondering if I can do any better with a cleaner power amp. I've never tried
anything else for comparison.

Thanks for any help.

--
Jeff
http://www.mp3.com/JeffLiberatore


--
Les Cargill

Road Warrior wrote:


Other than mixing on a Mackie, the only other "cheap" item I have (use) is
an Alesis RA 100 power amp to drive Tannoy Reveals.

For some reason I keep neglecting to replace that power amp.

What are my ears NOT hearing by not buying a better power amp? I'm pretty
stuck with nearfield monitoring because my mix room is just "OK", so just
wondering if I can do any better with a cleaner power amp. I've never tried
anything else for comparison.

You've gotten some other reasonable replies. Here is my $0.02 worth. I
have an RA-100 and still use it with some small AR speakers for check
mix. It used to power a pair of Tannoy PBM6.5-II. When I acquired a
Bryston 4B-ST I compared the two amps. What I noted was an improvement
in clarity and definition, especially in the low end to low mids. The
Tannoys had a more mushy, muddy quality with the RA-100 than with the
Bryston. It would be definitely worthwhile to check out the Hafler
mentioned and see if you hear an improvement for yourself.

bobs

Bob Smith
BS Studios
we organize chaos
http://www.bsstudios.com

In case you don't know already, never turn a solid state power amp off, keep
it warm.

Road Warrior wrote:
For some reason I keep neglecting to replace that power amp.

What are my ears NOT hearing by not buying a better power amp? I'm pretty
stuck with nearfield monitoring because my mix room is just "OK", so just
wondering if I can do any better with a cleaner power amp. I've never tried
anything else for comparison.

Go to a local high end audio place. Borrow a good amp for the weekend on
loan. You'll find out, very quickly.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Sugarite wrote:

In case you don't know already, never turn a solid state power amp off, keep
it warm.

Yeah, right, keep that RA100 cookin', and love that electricity.

"Dood, I NEVER turn off my Alesis!!! I just can't use it if it's not all
the way warmed up!"

--
ha

"jazzman" wrote in message
news:CWf5b.255376$cF.80202@rwcrnsc53...
"Road Warrior" wrote in message
...

To me your post implies that you think your mixes could/should be
something
other than what they are. Are they not translating to other systems the
way
they sound in your control room? Or are the tracked sounds just not full
enough, or similar?

Actually, my mixes sound fine to me. But I find that I mix something about a
zillion times till I get what I want. My monitoring system sounds muddy to
me, but I've "learned" how to mix around it. I just want to cut mixing time
down, a LOT!

I used an RA100 with some passive 6" monitor speakers for years. Those
mixes never translated well, so I finally bought some Mackie HR824's. The
difference was astounding to me - I made far fewer EQ adjustments to get
the
sounds I wanted and everything I mixed translated quite well.

Interesting...

So what's missing for you?

Just too much time mixing I guess... Like I said, I'm happy with the final
mix, but I may mix and test 25 to 30 times (CD's) till I'm happy, and that
aggravates the hell out of me...

Thanks all, for the replies. It doesn't go unappreciated.


--
Jeff
http://www.mp3.com/JeffLiberatore

"Justin Ulysses Morse" wrote in message
...

Road Warrior wrote:
Just too much time mixing I guess... Like I said, I'm happy with the
final
mix, but I may mix and test 25 to 30 times (CD's) till I'm happy, and
that
aggravates the hell out of me...

Let's step back a minute and gain some perspective.

OK... I'm here! Listening!

Although you've
learned to work around the limitations of your monitors, you're very
much aware of them and they cost you a LOT of time.

VERY true...

I can only imagine
how long it takes to adjust a mix 25 or 30 times and go listen to it on
other systems.

Indeed... The main reason for my post.

Think for a minute about what a good monitoring system
could do for you. Imagine you had a monitoring system that really
WORKED so that you heard what was really happening, and could be
confident that what you heard in the control room was really what you'd
hear elsewhere as well.

I'm just afraid of what I'd also have to do to the room though... I'm not
sure (at all) how much of it's the room. The room is fairly dead and I have
acoustic foam in logical places, bass traps, etc... But... that probably
isn't enough. I don't really know.

What would that be worth to you?

A lot, but $$ is an object. Mostly because I think something will also have
to be done to the room and I can't pay for frequency analyzation specialists
and such. And I certainly don't have the gear to do it myself. all I have is
some common sense and a decent pair of ears.

Sounds like
it would save you 20 hours, maybe 200 hours per project, depending on
how long it takes you to knock out an "adjusted" mix now.

20 to 30 hours may be realistic and that doesn't include listening time! Not
to mention a case of CD's..

How many
projects do you record in say a month? How many hours is that?

Well, basically it's just me and my own stuff... I get a drummer and bassist
to do their parts, and I rarely record anyone else, but I have when I wanted
to buy some gear or something. But honestly, this is a decent "home" studio
and I don't really need 4 or 5 guys in my house at a time using my time when
I could be spending valuable time on my own stuff.

If you
shaved off say 75% of that time (arbitrary figure), and used that time
say...recording other projects for money, or hell, even working at
McDonalds... How much extra money would you make?

Really, I'd just be saving a LOT of time, but that's what I want!

I suggest you visit your nearest pro audio dealer and listen to some
Dynaudio BM-15's through a Hafler P3000.

I am grateful for your advice... Thank you!


--
Jeff
http://www.mp3.com/JeffLiberatore

"Justin Ulysses Morse" wrote:

Think for a minute about what a good monitoring system
could do for you. Imagine you had a monitoring system that really
WORKED so that you heard what was really happening, and could be
confident that what you heard in the control room was really what you'd
hear elsewhere as well.

What would that be worth to you?

Jeff Liberatore wrote:

I'm just afraid of what I'd also have to do to the room though... I'm not
sure (at all) how much of it's the room. The room is fairly dead and I have
acoustic foam in logical places, bass traps, etc... But... that probably
isn't enough. I don't really know.

A lot, but $$ is an object. Mostly because I think something will also have
to be done to the room and I can't pay for frequency analyzation specialists
and such. And I certainly don't have the gear to do it myself. all I have is
some common sense and a decent pair of ears.

20 to 30 hours may be realistic and that doesn't include listening time! Not
to mention a case of CD's..

Well, basically it's just me and my own stuff... I get a drummer and bassist
to do their parts, and I rarely record anyone else, but I have when I wanted
to buy some gear or something. But honestly, this is a decent "home" studio
and I don't really need 4 or 5 guys in my house at a time using my time when
I could be spending valuable time on my own stuff.

Really, I'd just be saving a LOT of time, but that's what I want!

Okay, you've clarified your situation so we understand where you're
coming from, but it still doesn't change things much. Seriously,
consider what you could do if you spent those 20-30 hours per project
doing something else. What do you make at your day job? I'm betting
that if you do the math, you'll justify working some overtime and
hiring a professional to analyze and rebuild your room as well as buy
new monitors.

This isn't true for everybody. Most people would simply settle for
mediocre mixes, rather than put in the amount of time and effort you're
putting into getting your recordings to come out right. It wouldn't be
worthwhile for a lot of people to invest heavily. But you're obviously
willing to do what it takes to make recordings you're happy with. All
I'm saying is that the money you'd spend on a good (well, decent)
monitoring environment (speakers, amp, room) is probably less than what
you're investing (time, effort, etc) in making your current system
work.

Sometimes it's hard to see where being frugal costs more than spending
the money. It's taken me a long time to come to the conclusion that
new computer hardware and software may save me enough time and headache
to warrant the cost. In the meantime I've become an expert on the care
and feeding of obsolete Macintosh systems, but what good is that
knowledge going to be in the future?

I just think you're putting SO MUCH effort into struggling with your
monitors that you would be MORE frugal doing it "right."


ulysses