(I posted this earlier on Gearslutz, but I'm sure that most of the responses there will be reasons why my monitor choices suck and how I can't test monitors without an oscilloscope and an anechoic chamber.)
 
I'm getting new monitors for my little project studio (KRK Rokit 5G3 and KRK10 subwoofer) and I'm getting some albums and sound samples together to test them and optimize them for my room. I've got some Pink Floyd and Beethoven, but I've wondering what others use. 

I'll mostly be recording Americana bands, but the dynamic range on many of those albums isn't very wide. I want to give the system a good workout so it's producing the most honest sound possible.

If there's a FAQ or other threads about monitor setup, I'd appreciate some links. I searched, but couldn't quite find what I was looking for.

Thanks!

Cindy

+1 Pink Floyd, Steely Dan Aja.  The important part is that it sounds good to YOU.  Use that as a reference...and try to match what they did with what you do.  Hearing these incredibly clean mixes through the new monitors will help.

I want this new setup to be as honest as possible. I figure set it up so the best recordings sound as awesome as they are and my mix sounds will be more accurate.

Another vote for Pink Floyd here! 
But my No.1 reference album is - same league - Roger Waters' "Amused to Death".
Incredible mix with some really nice "Wow" effects ("out of speaker", "in your face", etc.).
 
Some "effects" didn't show up until I treated my room acoustically (reducing early reflections at "mirror points" of my listening position made the biggest difference in that regard), so the progress into knowing your monitors is easier with a "tuned" room.
 
Best,
Klaus

Klaus
Some "effects" didn't show up until I treated my room acoustically (reducing early reflections at "mirror points" of my listening position made the biggest difference in that regard), so the progress into knowing your monitors is easier with a "tuned" room.
 

This is something that I definitely need to learn more about. I think my room is pretty good acoustically, but I'd like to know more. It certainly records well.
 
Cindy

cballreich
This is something that I definitely need to learn more about. I think my room is pretty good acoustically, but I'd like to know more. It certainly records well.

 
Warning - I'm one of "those" people that thinks there is value to using proper test instruments to set up a monitoring system...
 
regardless, I just want to point out that a room that records well may not (and very likely will not) be a great monitoring environment.

The object of a recording space is to sound interesting.
 
The object of  a monitoring space is to sound accurate.

They are not the same thing.

Other reference material I've used:
 
Marillion - Misplaced Childhood
Zappa - virtually any of his studio recordings
Yes - 90125
Dream Theater - Black Clouds & silver Linings
 
d Black Clouds & Silver Linings,

Throw some modern productions in there too.  i'd rather listen to PF and the older stuff, but that was all recorded and mixed in a different style than music today.  The drums are in the background (usually) instead of loud and proud and tape helped smooth the sound.  It doesn't matter what you listen to, only that it has been produced in the last 5 years (or 10).  And more delicate stuff, too - Goldfrapp's Trees or something like that with a lot of depth.
 
As far as tuning your room - it doesn't take much.  Mine sounded pretty good but I got some rock wool to put up but even with it covered and just sitting in the corner waiting to get put on the walls it did good stuff for my bass.   My sound used to dissolve in the level noise, obscuring the lower registers bass.  Now it is clear and fully formed.  Not a world of difference, but much more pleasant.  And since I record in it too, double whammy, going in and mixing out.  Once I got the "panels" (I never framed the 3-inch rock wool which seemed a might thick) put up in the top corners a lot of the slap back echo dissipated, too.  Instead of frames (see Jimmy Landry's blog on Cakewalk) I just bought some standard pillowcases from Amazon @ $2 a piece, trimmed the height of the rock wool (4 ft.) a foot or so to slide the rock wool into it and fold over the opening and sewed it shut.  You can tie-die the white pillow cases or I just slide mine horizontally into burlap coffee bags (free from my coffee roaster), folded that over and sewed it shut w/ suitable twine (also used some sealer so the burlap edges wouldn't unwind).  Now you can use the triple wide burlap to attach the whole thing to the wall and it keeps it an inch or more off the wall for better absorption.  All for less than $100 bucks and a few hours work. 

Cindy, those speakers are going to be just fine, so don't let anybody second-guess you on your choice. We all have to work with what we can afford, and plenty of commercial records have been mixed on KRKs.
 
The speakers themselves aren't the problem. It's your room. 
 
Consider this: even entry-level monitors like yours are flat across the most critical frequency range, perhaps varying by 3 dB or less. Not a problem. But your room may be causing frequency dips and peaks of 30 dB or more! That's a problem.
 
The good news is you don't need an oscilloscope or spectrum analyzer to identify problems. A good microphone is all you need. Here's an old post I made on how to do some simple testing using only SONAR and a free spectrum analyzer plugin.
 
Next step up in sophistication is to use something like the free Room EQ Wizard (REW). This kind of tool is needed because it shows frequency response over time. If certain frequencies ring out longer than others, it will distort what you hear and lead you to make incorrect adjustments that might make things sound better on your speakers but no one else's.
 
But the very best thing you can do costs nothing at all and is pleasurable to boot: spend as much time as you can listening to your favorite recordings through those speakers while sitting at the mix position. That's it. And it truly works, because what you're doing is subconsciously training your ears and brain to recognize what a good mix sounds like on your system and in your room. This is explained well in a book called "Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms" by Floyd Toole, the now-retired head of research for Harmon.
 
He also explains how to position a subwoofer, and why where you place it is more important than the speaker itself. Low frequencies are especially troublesome. It takes a great deal of acoustic treatment to tame them, and most people don't have the space or the budget to do it right. Placing your sub will be the most critical choice you make. Knowing where your room's worst resonances are will be the most important piece of information you can arm yourself with.
 

patm300e
+1 Pink Floyd, Steely Dan Aja.  The important part is that it sounds good to YOU.  Use that as a reference...and try to match what they did with what you do.  Hearing these incredibly clean mixes through the new monitors will help.

this
 
could be the single worst album to use
 
if
 
you play hard rock.
 
or folk.
 
or anything that DOESN'T sound like steely dan.
 
 
LOL
 
that said, i LOVE that album,
and could listen to it over and over.
 
 
i once ripped a comparison frequency graph off of 'Josie' and blended the frequency of one of my mixes exactly to that song....
man, did it sound like @ss.
 
LOL
 
 
so, you can learn how clean sounding your monitors will play back using classic mixes that had tons of headroom and dynamics, like steely dan anything....
 
but, when it comes down to mixing your own material,
you need to focus on listening to playback material that is very similar to what you want to produce.
 
Tool, and the Beatles, are probably closer in tones,
than Tool and Steely dan.
you get the picture.