View Single Post
  #8 (permalink)  
Old March 8th 09, 08:16 AM posted to uk.rec.audio
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 637
Default Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers

Sounds like snobbery on both sides to me. There is however some truth in the
fact that people like 'a sound' and I suppose if the studio is doing things
well, it can afford to adjust the environment to be a neutral as possible.
However, the proof that this does not work only needs you to listen to
recordings made in different studios, or even the same studio with a
different producer.
I would also say that some real monitor speakers are able to take abuse
better than hi fi units often do... grin...

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"TonyL" wrote in message
...
I sometimes read a magazine called Computer Music, aimed at wanabee and
real music "producers" to use the current vernacular. In this mag I keep
seeing references to monitor speakers being preferable to hi-fi speakers.
The line they take is that hi-fi speakers are designed to "enhance the
sound" while studio monitor speakers are designed so that you hear "what is
really there".

But there is more..they say "..even modestly priced monitors will give you
a more accurate picture of what you are hearing,"

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 ?