"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
TonyL wrote:
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 ?

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.


Decca had a magnificientr pair of the black Quad ELS
(the prof version wiv 'andles on!) donated by Peter Walker.

They were OK in the listening room, but hopeless for control
room monitoring. The concensus was that the mids were
beautiful but the LF weak (comparted with Tannoy or JBL)
and, most important of all, the sweet spot was *far* too narrow.

Iain