Serge Auckland 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 ?


The term "monitor" can mean several things:- It can be a loudspeaker
of extremely high quality on which you can make judgements about
audio quality, equalisation, compression etc. It should be as
accurate as possible, so that whatever decisions are made about
changing the sound of a recording shouldn't reflect the character of
the 'speaker. Main monitors of this sort tend to be large, whether
floor standing or soffit mounted.

OK, I'm getting the idea now from yours and others comments.

Apart from saying they are extremely high quality, rugged, acoustically
transparent etc. What do the numbers say ? In other words...what would you
read in the specs. that would show that speaker A is best as a studio
monitor whereas speaker B is better in a real-world listening situation ?