Mackie HR824

The mackies are not ...repeat not a home audiophile speaker.They are a terrific value for a project studio monitor or studio on limited budgets.Yes I have offended many people but until you live with the better monitors like adams,genelecs,dynaudios,lipinskis and others you would'nt realize the difference they make in a mix.Essentially no one BUT crazed audiophiles would care about the mix differences but since you am who you is you should know whats up.

The Mackies beat Dynaudio 1.3's in both shoot-outs and beat Revel M20's
driven by a Bryston amp in another. I've heard both the Revel M20's and
Mackie HR824's and I wouldn't necessarily say the Mackies sound better, but I
think the Mackies sound just as good for less money -- especially when you
consider that the Mackies are powered. Revel M20's are certainly considered
audiophile speakers so it is kind of silly to say Mackie HR824's are not
audiophile grade speakers.

I did say they were a terrific value.Certainly good enough for 99% of the music out there but no audiophile label that I am aware of mixes or masters using mackies

Using that criteria, most audiophile grade speakers wouldn't qualify because they don't happen to be used by an audiophile label to mix or master. But, that wasn't the criteria set out by the original poster.

I'm not concerned with the original posters criteria since it was far too narrow to address the issues.Our speakers we use to recreate an event are quite different than the idea of a mix monitors flat response.Check out the frequency response curves on your audiophile speakers and tell me what the curves look like.I bet they aren't any where near flat.My reference 3a decapo i's are not even close to flat yet sound alive and smooth.So this is why mix monitors are usually not very good at mirroring a performance but are terrific at achieving balanced compromises in the way the mix will end up.Why use a surgeons knife for everyday listening?