5.1 Mix Room B - Monitor Setup Suggestions

[spicyitaliano]

Hey guys (and gals) - I'm putting together a secondary smaller 5.1 mix room next door to my larger surround room, most likely for mixing smaller projects. The room is about 14X16, acoustically treated to the best it can be. I've got all the gear picked out except for the monitors, and hopefully you all can give me a little insight. Here's what I'm thinking:

Right now I've got a couple different monitors lying around.
1) Pair of Yamaha HS50M's
2) Pair of Mackie HR824's

I'm fine with buying all new monitors, but I think I could possibly take advantage of what I have and build off of it.

Idea 1 - Considering the size of this room, I don't need a ton of power; the size of these speakers may be just right. That said, I could buy 3 more Yamaha HS50m's along with the Yamaha HS10W sub - all for only about $1,000. Serious bang for the buck. Plus, I've been doing more and more mixes on these little guys and they are translating almost perfect on every system. Yamaha did a great job on their design.

Idea 2 - I could take advantage of the 824's, buy three more all around and add the Mackie HRS120 sub. This would come to around $2400. Well worth the price, but this is some serious power for a little room. Maybe too much. Plus, the lower price of the Yamaha's really looks tempting, especially considering I've had a lot of time to learn those babies.

Let's hear it! Thanks :)

[analoguepilot]

from what it sounds like, you know your yamahas and you trust them. from that standpoint, i'd recommend you expand by three more of them and get a good subwoofer. go with what you know and are most comfortable with. while a mackie setup would be awesome, it is a small room so unless you mix at high levels, the yamahas would suit it fine...

[spicyitaliano]

That's a great point. I think it may be the best idea to go with the less powerful system in this case. However, would it make sense to move up to the bigger HS80M's?? They're a little more powerful, have a wider frequency response, and may be worth the extra money. However, once I build a complete 5.1 rig out of these, I'm spending almost the same amount of money as with the Mackie's. Your thoughts?

[Audioholic]

Blue Sky has an affordable surround package, that is also very compact.

[spicyitaliano]

I've heard good things about Blue Sky. I think I would rather try to take advantage of what I've got - and I've pretty much made up my mind on it.

As for the sub, I'm not quite sure which way to go. For the sake of the "made for it" attitude I have with equipment brands, the Yamaha HS10W sub would be my first choice. But I never buy speakers without hearing them. Well, I went to Guitar Center and Samash, neither of which had any in stock or at any of the surrounding locations. They would have to order it to get one in stock just so I could listen to it, at which point I already have to own it before the crack open the box. What kind of deal is that??

Perhaps I should consider another sub - or just go with my gut and the online reviews...

[analoguepilot]

That's a great point. I think it may be the best idea to go with the less powerful system in this case. However, would it make sense to move up to the bigger HS80M's?? They're a little more powerful, have a wider frequency response, and may be worth the extra money. However, once I build a complete 5.1 rig out of these, I'm spending almost the same amount of money as with the Mackie's. Your thoughts?
i think in that case then you might as well spring for the mackies... in the long run- if you were to move your room into a bigger one or just want to upgrade later on- then the mackies would make more sense...

[Joseph Hanna]

Hey guys (and gals) - I'm putting together a secondary smaller 5.1 mix room next door to my larger surround room, most likely for mixing smaller projects.

I'm still amazed that you have enough 5.1 "work" to justify a second smaller room to handle the smaller projects.

Even here in Hollywood that's a bit of a rarity.

What's your secret???

[analoguepilot]

I'm still amazed that you have enough 5.1 "work" to justify a second smaller room to handle the smaller projects.

Even here in Hollywood that's a bit of a rarity.

What's your secret???
thats a good point- since he's an italian producer from florida like me- i guess the work just finds you- just like the smell of meatballs and lasagna from 3 miles away can find my nose...

[spicyitaliano]

thats a good point- since he's an italian producer from florida like me- i guess the work just finds you- just like the smell of meatballs and lasagna from 3 miles away can find my nose...


How did you figure it out?? Well now you know my secret! :smokin:

Actually, the larger room is not used for surround all the time - it's primarily a music mixing room with an option to mix in surround if the client wants to. It's nothing real fancy, just an extension of the nearfields if the project calls for it. Plus, staying almost completely in-the-box means that it's not a big deal when it's time to go surround. For those of you with big consoles, you know how expensive it can be to expand your studio in such a way!

The smaller room was exactly for handeling more work at one time, and may eventually become the full-time surround room. We'll see how it develops :)

[analoguepilot]

capitalize on that second room ;) ... theres money there if you promote all the 5.1 capabilities you have...

[Joseph Hanna]

theres money there if you promote all the 5.1 capabilities you have...

I dunno...you guys must have some pretty highly kept secrets.

Give me a "real world" for instance.