Hi Group,

I need a pair of nearfield passive Mix monitors and I was wondering if
anyone out there could help me decide if the Dynaudio BM6 is worth double
the price of the BM5, and if so, what the difference is besides the fact
that the tweeters and crossover points are a bit different.....

Thanks.

Ron Charles

In article ,
"Ron Charles" wrote:

Hi Group,

I need a pair of nearfield passive Mix monitors and I was wondering if
anyone out there could help me decide if the Dynaudio BM6 is worth double
the price of the BM5, and if so, what the difference is besides the fact
that the tweeters and crossover points are a bit different.....

Thanks.

Ron Charles



Yes it is. No knock on the BM5, but the BM6 is a grade a monitor and
perfect for me in any case. A friend has the BM5 nd they sound nice and
he uses them for mixing, but it´s still a big difference.

"Ron Charles" wrote in message
...

I need a pair of nearfield passive Mix monitors and I was wondering if
anyone out there could help me decide if the Dynaudio BM6 is worth double
the price of the BM5,

I've never heard the BM5 so I cannot really comment on those.
I do have a pair BM6A and I think they are definitely worth their price.

what the difference is besides the fact
that the tweeters and crossover points are a bit different.....

The tweeter in the BM6 is (IMO) the best part of the whole package!
The rest is not bad but I've not heard another dome tweeter with this
incredible amount of detail and precision withouth any harshness or
listening fatigue.

YMMV

Sander

"Ron Charles" skrev i en meddelelse
...
Hi Group,

I need a pair of nearfield passive Mix monitors and I was wondering if
anyone out there could help me decide if the Dynaudio BM6 is worth double
the price of the BM5, and if so, what the difference is besides the fact
that the tweeters and crossover points are a bit different.....

If you need a fork, don't by a hammer just because it's cheap

If you are serious with your mix BM6A is what you need. BM5 is not a pro
monitor..

But Mackie HR824 is also a good choise and priced around BM6A

Thanks.

Ron Charles

Along the same lines... Is the BM6a worth twice the price of the BM6? I
already have a quality crown amp, is there THAT much of a difference having
a custom built amp into the back of the speaker?

Anyone with experience care to shed some light? I dont trust sales people
Cheers
~Tor

In article ,
"Catherine Gale" wrote:

Along the same lines... Is the BM6a worth twice the price of the BM6? I
already have a quality crown amp, is there THAT much of a difference having
a custom built amp into the back of the speaker?

Anyone with experience care to shed some light? I dont trust sales people
Cheers
~Tor



Depends how you look at it!
If your amp is a good one, no big difference.
I got the actives and love them. I didn´t have a decent amp and to be
honest, it´s not cheaper to get the passives unless you own an amp. You
will need to spend about the same as the bm6 on a decent amp, so its
kind of even.
Some people prefer the sound of the passives. I can´t find anything to
complain about on the actives. They sound stunning.
Also, plug and play is cool. No speaker cables and easy to move with you
if you want to.
PS: They are biamped, so you have an amp for the HF and an amp for the
LF.

In your case, assuming your amp is a good one, I´d get the BM6
I love my BM6a though!

I´m sure I really cleared things up here ;-)
David

"Catherine Gale" wrote in message
...
Along the same lines... Is the BM6a worth twice the price of the BM6? I
already have a quality crown amp, is there THAT much of a difference
having
a custom built amp into the back of the speaker?

IME Dynaudio speakers are very sensitive to the amp you're using them with.
With some amps they seem to do miracles and outclass almost any speaker.
With some other amps they sound mediocre. Not bad but not great (which they
absolutely are capable of).

I while ago I was listening to a lot of different speakers all on the same
poweramp.
There was a set of Dyn's and they were not bad at all but did not stand out
between the others.
Then we changed the poweramp for a different one and suddenly the Dyn's
really stood out and were really in another leage than anything else.
That really amazed me because both amps were very respectable very high
quality.

Try them with your amp to see how you like the combination. Compare them
directly with a pair ov actives if you can.
I never did that because I didn't have a suitable power amp and liked the
actives a lot.
Also I think it helps that it is biamped so the drivers and amps are
directly connected, no passive crossover.

YMMV but they can definitely be great monitors when used right.

Sander

"Ron Charles" wrote in message ...
Hi Group,

I need a pair of nearfield passive Mix monitors and I was wondering if
anyone out there could help me decide if the Dynaudio BM6 is worth double
the price of the BM5, and if so, what the difference is besides the fact
that the tweeters and crossover points are a bit different.....

The BM5's are the cheapest speakers -- home or "pro" -- that Dynaudio
makes. I haven't listened to them, but the tweeter doesn't look like a
"real" (Esotec family) Dynaudio part. With that said, even cheap
Dyn's are often better than others' rave-reviewed-in-trade-rags
products. *cough* b&w *cough*. I can't see buying a Dynaudio without
one of their "real" tweeters, though we might all be surprised.

This *does* raise an interesting question, though: what is the difference
between a BM6 (not A) and an Audience 52 from their "home" line besides
the fact that the BM6 lacks a grille and adds tweeter bumpers? Audience
52's sell for a hundred or two less than BM6's, but the difference could
easily be explained by lower production numbers for the "pro" version.

It's also interesting that people work in megabuck recording rooms and
think one of Dynaudio's cheapest speakers (BM6) is Grade A monitoring
material. Me, I would want a coupla Contour 1.3SE's -- they cost less
than a Big Name Vintage Mic, and they'd get used a lot more. What gives?

-DrBoom

In article ,
(tony espinoza) wrote:

i will point out that if you decide to go with speakers as small as
the BM6, you should think about adding a sub. i just heard a project
in here today that was initially mixed on BM6A's with no sub -- it was
obvious that this really great mixer was adding/preserving way too
much low end (100Hz and below) because he just couldn't hear what was
really going on down there.

-tE

Then he was doing it wrong ;-)
Sorry, but sure they don´t go down that low, but to suggest a sub for
mixing is the wrong route imho. I´m used to my room and don´t ever have
that problem despite doing electronic stuff with 808´s, Sine bass etc
etc.
It´s a question of being used to what you have. They are nearfields
after all not main monitors.

Also, they need careful placement. When I first got mine I felt there
was not much real low down, but placement made the world of difference.

I think they give a great overall balance and they have the nicest mid
and high end I´ve heard. Occasionally I would like to have the BM15 for
extra oomph but much prefer the midrange on the BM6.

Of course, I could be wrong ;-)

David Morley wrote in message ...
In article ,
(tony espinoza) wrote:

i will point out that if you decide to go with speakers as small as
the BM6, you should think about adding a sub. i just heard a project
in here today that was initially mixed on BM6A's with no sub -- it was
obvious that this really great mixer was adding/preserving way too
much low end (100Hz and below) because he just couldn't hear what was
really going on down there.

-tE


Then he was doing it wrong ;-)

oh, i don't know. he's won a few grammys doing it this way. it's
just been extra work for his mastering engineer to deal with really.
now that he's got the sub, his mastering engineer has the easiest job
in the world.

It´s a question of being used to what you have. They are nearfields
after all not main monitors.

i don't agree. you can't hear what you can't hear. little speakers
like BM6's just don't produce the lowest frequencies and if you can
get them from placement in the room then what you're hearing is not at
all accurate. that said, it does depnd on what kind of music you're
working on. if the only low end you need to think about is a sampled
808 kick drum, then you know where that goes and you know how to deal
with it -- you may not even need to hear it. if you're mixing a bunch
of microphones from live recordings it sure does help to have a
monitoring system that includes the lower octave. it's obvious when a
mixer is working without enough info around 100Hz. i think it also
distracts people from getting the mids right because they over boost
stuff on the bottom.

Also, they need careful placement. When I first got mine I felt there
was not much real low down, but placement made the world of difference.

definitely. on my console, the BM15A's sound best (and measure most
accurate) upside down with the woofer on top.


I think they give a great overall balance and they have the nicest mid
and high end I´ve heard. Occasionally I would like to have the BM15 for
extra oomph but much prefer the midrange on the BM6.

yeah, for mids i like the NS10's. i've found they're shockingly flat
in the very middle, and they don't have all that super hi fi sound of
thet dynaudios which can really help keep me focused on sorting out
the mids. there's so much beautiful lush sound coming out of the
dynaudios i can get lost chasing after stuff that doesn't matter.

-tE

SAN FRANCISCO SOUNDWORKS
www.sfsoundworks.com
415.503.1110 vox
__________________________________________________ ____________
Introducing the only SSL 9000 mix room in Northern California

In article ,
(tony espinoza) wrote:


Then he was doing it wrong ;-)

oh, i don't know. he's won a few grammys doing it this way. it's
just been extra work for his mastering engineer to deal with really.
now that he's got the sub, his mastering engineer has the easiest job
in the world.

It´s a question of being used to what you have. They are nearfields
after all not main monitors.

i don't agree. you can't hear what you can't hear. little speakers
like BM6's just don't produce the lowest frequencies and if you can
get them from placement in the room then what you're hearing is not at
all accurate. that said, it does depnd on what kind of music you're
working on. if the only low end you need to think about is a sampled
808 kick drum, then you know where that goes and you know how to deal
with it -- you may not even need to hear it. if you're mixing a bunch
of microphones from live recordings it sure does help to have a
monitoring system that includes the lower octave. it's obvious when a
mixer is working without enough info around 100Hz. i think it also
distracts people from getting the mids right because they over boost
stuff on the bottom.


Ah, the old grammy argument.
No I don´t have a grammy but I´ve mixed stuff no one else could and I
did it on my BM6a´s in my room and have never had a problem with low
end. I think you´ll find there is plenty of info in a BM6a at 100hz. I´d
be more worried about what´s below 40hz to be honest.
Never used a sampled 808, so can´t really argue that point.
Are we arguing chalk and cheese here? Huge amounts of low end aren´t
what I look for in nearfields. Normal low end I can hear on my BM6a´s. I
find it hard to believe that a grammy winning engineer handed a mix over
to a mastering engineer where he was "adding/preserving way too much
bottom end" Didn´t he check on another system? No main monitors? Boom
Box?

Anyway, who cares, I don´t have a problem with lack of bass (I´m not
saying I wouldn´t mind them going down to 20hz but, I´d also like a bar
of chocolate that lasts forever.)

Also, what this has to do with BM6a is beyond me as surely all monitors
of this size have the same situation, no?

Cheers
David

Ah, the old grammy argument.

sorry david - my only point was that he definitely "knows what he's
doing."

No I don´t have a grammy but I´ve mixed stuff no one else could and I
did it on my BM6a´s in my room and have never had a problem with low
end. I think you´ll find there is plenty of info in a BM6a at 100hz. I´d
be more worried about what´s below 40hz to be honest.

oh, true true - i think it's somewhere around 100Hz and certainly
below.

Are we arguing chalk and cheese here? Huge amounts of low end aren´t
what I look for in nearfields. Normal low end I can hear on my BM6a´s. I
find it hard to believe that a grammy winning engineer handed a mix over
to a mastering engineer where he was "adding/preserving way too much
bottom end" Didn´t he check on another system? No main monitors? Boom
Box?

boom boxes aren't a useful compliment to near fields in the bass
department. unless you're thinking of the maxed out bass tone control
or "hyper-bass" button on those things.

the fact is that a lot of people working in project studios only have
near fields. he's done a lot of mixes on his BM6's and they've done
well. this was a case where there was more low end do to live stand
up bass and a few other things that were really well tracked at a
higher sampling rate.

these days, a lot of great producers are doing their own mixing,
that's the case here. so he wasn't in a big facility with mains
(although most mains are pretty useless for mixing anyway).

Also, what this has to do with BM6a is beyond me as surely all monitors
of this size have the same situation, no?

good question since this is really the only point i wanted to
contribute to the thread --- i use the BM15's because they have the
lower octave, sure the mids aren't as sweet but i'd rather have more
info. they measure relatively flat to 50Hz and at least have
something down to 40Hz.

-tE

Tony Espinoza
SAN FRANCISCO SOUNDWORKS
www.sfsoundworks.com
415.503.1110 vox
__________________________________________________ ___
Introducing the only SSL 9000 mix room in Northern California

In article ,
(tony espinoza) wrote:

Ah, the old grammy argument.

sorry david - my only point was that he definitely "knows what he's
doing."

No I don´t have a grammy but I´ve mixed stuff no one else could and I
did it on my BM6a´s in my room and have never had a problem with low
end. I think you´ll find there is plenty of info in a BM6a at 100hz. I´d
be more worried about what´s below 40hz to be honest.

oh, true true - i think it's somewhere around 100Hz and certainly
below.

Are we arguing chalk and cheese here? Huge amounts of low end aren´t
what I look for in nearfields. Normal low end I can hear on my BM6a´s. I
find it hard to believe that a grammy winning engineer handed a mix over
to a mastering engineer where he was "adding/preserving way too much
bottom end" Didn´t he check on another system? No main monitors? Boom
Box?

boom boxes aren't a useful compliment to near fields in the bass
department. unless you're thinking of the maxed out bass tone control
or "hyper-bass" button on those things.

the fact is that a lot of people working in project studios only have
near fields. he's done a lot of mixes on his BM6's and they've done
well. this was a case where there was more low end do to live stand
up bass and a few other things that were really well tracked at a
higher sampling rate.

these days, a lot of great producers are doing their own mixing,
that's the case here. so he wasn't in a big facility with mains
(although most mains are pretty useless for mixing anyway).

Also, what this has to do with BM6a is beyond me as surely all monitors
of this size have the same situation, no?

good question since this is really the only point i wanted to
contribute to the thread --- i use the BM15's because they have the
lower octave, sure the mids aren't as sweet but i'd rather have more
info. they measure relatively flat to 50Hz and at least have
something down to 40Hz.

-tE

Hi Tony!
I was a bit short with my first response! Sorry too. I didn´t mean it
bad. Just doesn´t enhance the argument to me.

I´d agree that that extra octave is useful, but I´m thinking the other
way. I can test "roughly" how the bass is doing on any large monitor,
but for me the mid range is so critical, I´d rather use the BM6a´s
accuracy there.

Mabye specific music sorts require specific monitiors and I´ve found the
monitors that match my music. Not saying I wouldn´t like some BM15a´s
for blasting it a bit, but am very happy with the Bm6a´s
Cheers
David

[[email protected]]

Am Dienstag, 15. Juli 2003 10:50:52 UTC+2 schrieb Jesper Buch:
"Ron Charles" skrev i en meddelelse
...
Hi Group,

I need a pair of nearfield passive Mix monitors and I was wondering if
anyone out there could help me decide if the Dynaudio BM6 is worth double
the price of the BM5, and if so, what the difference is besides the fact
that the tweeters and crossover points are a bit different.....

If you need a fork, don't by a hammer just because it's cheap

If you are serious with your mix BM6A is what you need. BM5 is not a pro
monitor..

But Mackie HR824 is also a good choise and priced around BM6A

Thanks.

Ron Charles



So BM5 is not a pro monitor, but the Mackie are?

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
wrote:
Am Dienstag, 15. Juli 2003 10:50:52 UTC+2 schrieb Jesper Buch:
"Ron Charles" skrev i en meddelelse
...
Hi Group,

I need a pair of nearfield passive Mix monitors and I was wondering if
anyone out there could help me decide if the Dynaudio BM6 is worth double
the price of the BM5, and if so, what the difference is besides the fact
that the tweeters and crossover points are a bit different.....

If you need a fork, don't by a hammer just because it's cheap

If you are serious with your mix BM6A is what you need. BM5 is not a pro
monitor..

But Mackie HR824 is also a good choise and priced around BM6A

Thanks.

Ron Charles



So BM5 is not a pro monitor, but the Mackie are?

Well, you're replying to a 15-year-old post.

And back then, the HR824 was something of a miracle... it came from Mackie
but it was remarkably clean and didn't honk. I don't think Mackie has
managed to make any monitor anywhere near as good since then.

I suspect the BM5 is too delicate to be a pro monitor. The number one
requirement of a professional monitor, even more than sonic accuracy,
is that it doesn't blow up when you mispatch a cable somewhere. The
most accurate monitor in the world doesn't help you when it fails in
the middle of a session because someone unmuted the wrong thing on the
console.
--scott

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 2/9/2016 5:59 PM, wrote:
So BM5 is not a pro monitor, but the Mackie are?

What's a "pro monitor?" Probably more money has been made from music
mixed on Mackie HR824s than Dynaudio BM5/6 speakers. That doesn't mean
they're better, it just means that professionals can work on them and do
successful work.

These days I read reviews of monitors that cost $3,000 each (and more)
that sound fabulous, and reviews of monitors that cost under $500 each
that are usable.

How "pro" are you?

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote: "What's a "pro monitor?" "

If a product has the word "Pro" on it, it's
just advertising. Serious professional
sound equipment, for the recording or
live sound sectors, doesn't need to
have "Pro" stenciled on it. Same goes
for anything labeled "Collectors Edition".
The Star Wars toys issued in the late
1970s didn't have "Collectible" printed
on the boxes they came in, did they?