On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 20:07:13 -0000, "TonyL"
wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I'm puzzled, I thought the whole idea of hi-fi was to reproduce
accurately what was recorded. Why should "modestly priced monitors"
be better ? Comments please ?

No simple answer. Plenty of speakers originally designed as monitors
end up on the domestic market - the BBC designed ones being one
example. And some domestic designs end up as being a de facto
standard for pro use as 'average quality' monitoring.

The most accurate speakers by some margin would be the Quad
electrostatic designs - but these were rarely used as studio monitors.


So, is there anything fundamentally different about studio monitors ? Are
they not just high spec. speakers...or sold as such ?



Their intention is to be ruthlessly revealing, rather than kind to the
sound.But of course, provided the music is well recorded, that is a
good thing for Hi Fi.

They will also typically be rated for producing high levels for
extended periods without wilting.

d