No-audiophile Mackie CR3 review rant (*resolved)

EDIT: Rant resolved. No-audiophile (though anybody that owns these: http://noaudiophile.com/Selah_Mejor/ is proly an audiophile) cleared things up. He seems to know his shit.

***

For the most part I wouldn't say anything. Furthermore, I tend to find No-audiophile reviews quite on the mark for the most part (except this time). But I learned recently that Guitar Center is moving the MRx family out of their shelves, and this alarmed me enough to give one shit, though perhaps not two. I feel the MRx speakers are decent (unlike Rock-tits), and are getting a bad rep for questionable reasons.

I will caution that I have not heard the CR3s, but their construction is very similar to the MRx's, and found many of No-audiophile's comments a bit off the mark.

So let's start digging into No-audiophile's review (http://noaudiophile.com/Mackie_CR3/) on the similar CR3 commercial entry level 3" woofer speaker which he tends to compare with the LSR305 5" pro entry level 5" woofer speaker (particularly the baffle construction) for whatever reason.

1) "There is a tiny waveguide built into the plastic baffle cover and a slightly raised ultra green ring for styling and possible edge diffraction in the upper treble"

The ring is common to both the CRx and MRx family. I may be wrong, but there was no edge diffraction in the upper treble when I measured the MR5s as far as I could tell. So it seems to me he kind of pulled that out of his ass.

2) "The back of the tweeter is covered by this makeshift enclosure, with staples and hot glue holding it together. I'm not sure why Mackie would go to the trouble, but I'm guessing it is there to stop air leaks through the front baffle."

This tweeter enclosure is also common in the MRx family (my MR5s have it), and I'm not certain why it's there. But I don't think it's for leaks because the whole front baffle is covered by A ONE PIECE PLASTIC.

3) "The Woofer is about 3.5 inch and appears to a poly cone. The inverted dust cap is odd. CR3's have a very delicate exposed dome with no grill, but still inverted the dust cap on the woofer. Another thing that caught my eye about the woofer placement is the recessed mounting of the woofer. It is way back in the baffle with its own waveguide of sorts."

WTF is this guy talking about, is he seriously saying he has not seen this type of woofer before? What about the Scan-Speak 18W/8535-01, or pretty much the whole Aperion Intimus line, or the Denon SC-39 (which are sort of warmish and me likes)... Where has this guy been?

4) "The port is 1.25 inch in diameter and 3.5 inches deep. Seems pretty firmly attached, but is tuned higher than most other speakers this size I've tested. I'm not expecting deep bass."

Based on the dimensions of the speaker, the volume of the box is somewhere around 0.16 ft^3, and if I plug the 1.25" diameter / 3.5" length port number in a calculator, I get a tuning of about 65 Hz which is quite respectable for a 3" woofer speaker. Is he comparing this 3.5" driver commercial speaker with the 5" LSR305?!

Dude! It's a 3.5" f'ing driver, what did you expect? 20 Hz?

4.5) "The baffle cover over MDF is a bit strange. JBL had success with running just a thick plastic baffle, so I see no reason why Mackie felt the need to go with wood behind it. Not only that there are voids between the baffle and the wood, and the front still rings like plastic when you tap it. I guess I should give Mackie props for trying to make a good box, but the whole baffle and driver mounting appears to be thrown together. It's over engineered in some ways, and under in most ways. I guess I would call it rigged if I had to classify the end product."

What is this ring, voids bullshit. And "over engineered"? Really dude? Is that why you modified the wimpy baffle of the 308's in your review?

Look for "Modifications"
http://noaudiophile.com/JBL_LSR308/

5) "Also, a headphone output port if you would like to run your low level headphone signal through the gauntlet of possible electrical noise inside of the speaker."

Noise which possibly is not significantly high. But let's just keep piling hypothetical shit.

6) "Note this is a 2 channel amp, and the speaker is not biamped."

Dude, this f'ing speaker pair is $100 bucks, what did you expect? I'm actually surprised they put an class A/B amp in it.

7) "From what I can tell the tweeter has a 2nd order crossover, and the woofer is just running wild without a crossover at all. I did see some resistors, but they were tiny through hole resistors, and I doubt they were used in the crossover."

This may be a problem. I will check my MR5s. But this dude credibility just f'ing tanked in my book by this time.

8) Here are his measurements:



There is some sort of a big spike around 150 Hz, but I have no idea what this dude's room does. His JBL LSR305 measurements weren't too bad, but the dB axis is way more zoomed out in those measurements. The speakers go down to about 70 Hz or even 65 Hz which is not bad IMO for a 3.5" woofer. In fact, that's close to the port tunning. I dunno about that 2 Khz suck out, but his closed mic measurements don't show it.

BTW, dude's LSR308 measuremetns also show a hump in the same 150 Hz area... which like in the CR3s, don't show in his closed mic measurements.

9) "Starting from left to right we see no bass until 80Hz"

Get over it man, these are 3.5" woofer speakers! They are not going to go as low as a 5" properly designed woofer with lower Fs. It's physics. And no, these seem to go a little lower than 80 Hz for whatever that's worth.

I've no interests with Mackie. I don't even know a friend, or a friend of a friend that works there. But I hate to see half ass reviews with destructive impact on otherwise reasonable product.

It is possible the CR3s are fucked, but the commentary the IMO has... issues.

I'll check my MR5's closed mic and other stuff when I find time.

 

Yes. Both the MR5 and the LSR305 are very good. I feel the MR5 is more relaxed sounding and the LSR305 is a little brighter. But I consider both in the realm of neutral monitors. Which is why I feel a bit irked at how the MR5 has been received by some folks. I read their reasons and I go into facepalm mode.

They both have their set of issues. The LSR305 has a perhaps cheaper amp and less reinforcement in the baffle. Both use similar tweeters but different approach on the waveguide. The bass tuning is very similar and competent. I love the mids in both.

 

I agree with him about the LSR and Transparent One speakers. I think they are great. I also think the cheapo Parts-Express subs he recommends are a good deal for the money. He seems to have good ears and like his review style. And I'm sure many folks do as well.

Which is why his Mackie review irked me. Mackie entry level stuff is IMO not bad and my impression is that it's been dragged through the mud recently. If it didn't matter I wouldn't care. But after seeing that the MRx line is getting moved out of the shelves in stores and forums quote No-audiophile left and right, I started to get concerned about the disappearance of yet another decent classic.

 

I don't think the LSR is rough piercing. Is just a livelier presentation than the MR5. Could be there is a relative elevation in the treble on the LSR. Or the other way around (relative roll off on the MR5).

Resolution on both is great as long as you don't listen too loud. The integrated amps on these monitors are not necessarily designed to fill an auditorium. They are sort of near field monitors as far as I know.

I'll check the MR5 again, but if I push it too loud with the RCA connectors it will distort. The balanced connector option does not seem to distort as readily. Again, I will double check this again.

I talked to some dudes at Guitar Center and they are cool with me measuring their shit. Not sure if I get an-echoic conditions though, but I'll give it a shot.

Be aware that a small room will change the characteristics of any speaker. My MR5s love my leaving room w/o any corrections, but they get a little u-shaped in my bedroom. The knobs help, but for the bass I needed a DSP for corrections. Me things this would be true for an LSR305 as well (or any other decent or uber-expensive-reference speaker).

 

Dude does need a break IMO. He does try and for the most part I think he does a decent job.

He is not nearly the worse one. Consider this:

http://recording4.com/jbl-lsr305-vs-mackie-mr5/

"Class-D Amps offers much higher power efficiency than Class-A/B Amps, but sometimes compromises the high-frequency audio reproduction. However, JBL LSR305 ameliorates the issue completely by having a sophisticated internal design to enhance high-frequency details."

So "sophisticated internal design" solves Class-D amp sound compromises. Right.

"You can hear greater depth, better ambiance, and more subtle details in your recordings with JBL LSR305"

I felt they were both pretty competitive at that.

"Thus, it is quite evident why JBL LSR305 has a stronger total amplification than Mackie MR5. The RMS Power Rating of JBL LSR305 is 82 Watts while Mackie MR5’s is 50 Watts. You can experience louder yet still precise sounds from JBL LSR305"

That's less than 3 dB. Further consider that the JBL delivers 41W to the woofer, while the Mackie delivers 30W. That's like 1.3 dB more. And since when more power means more bettar. Specially with Class-D amplifiers.

"Also, JBL LSR305 is room-friendly, capable of delivering neutral sounds regardless of the room acoustic, so the speaker allows more versatile and flexible usages."

That is bullshit. The LSR305 is not immune to room acoustics.

"Unfortunately, it does not support RCA inputs. If you desperately need to use RCA inputs, then Mackie MR5 is a viable option here."

Yeah... Use the TRS connector for unbalanced dude. It says so in the JBL LSR305 manual.

 

Don't mind me. I'm a bit bitter. Proly suffering from from male PMS, or late mid-life crisis.

 

The DALI Zensor 1 appear to use a 5.25" and more than likely it can play bass better than a CR4. A more fair comparison might be the MR5 or the MR6.

Bass will also depend on the room characteristics and can become bloomy depending (DALI Zensor 1 included).

Also, the DALI Zensor 1 is more than twice the price of a CR4 and I think the Zensor 1 is passive. So probably more $ went into the construction and drivers. In fact, the drivers of the Zensors sort of remind me of some Scan-Speaks Classic paper woofers and dome tweeters. I haven't heard the Zensor 1, but I would think that at x3 the price the Kef LS50 would kick the Zensor 1's ass, but I could be wrong (diminishing returns may apply).

You could try comparing with the Mackie HR624s, which are a bit more expensive than the Sensors, but include the amplifier since they are active.

 

Props up, for showing up and defending your stuff.

Understandable that CR3 != MR5. Indeed they might have purposely, and misguidedly, eq it with mid-bass boost. Possible the volume is lower.

You are also correct about these being 0.09 cu ft actually. Mackie might indeed tuned these too high.

The over-engineering of the baffle might have been that they are using the same manufacturing for the MRx family and perhaps leveraging. Otherwise I dunno.

The Mica's look like a better deal (based on your work) in the $100 range.

You are correct about me extrapolating the CR3 into the MR5 (or the other way around). I really got annoyed at the MR5 getting phased out of some stores. It may be that the MR5 are inferior to the JBL LSR305s. But I didn't think they were that off. CR3 might be shit.

 

BTW, noaudiophile. Welcome to our forum!