"TonyL" wrote in message
...
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.

Cost, size, placement requirements, limited dynamic range.

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

There are actually two markets for studio monitors. There are small monitors
designed to be used close up, and there are large monitors designed to fill
or even blast a good-sized control room.

There are a number of different uses for studio monitors being tracking,
mixing and mastering. Each usage might be ideally met by a different
speaker.

IME studio monitors tend to have more dynamic range and stronger response
above 2 KHz than similar home speakers.

Home speakers are often designed to sound good with a wide range of
recordings, while studio monitors are often designed to make problematic
recordings sound really problematical. They aren't so much for listening
enjoyment as technical analysis.

Small studio monitors are often designed to be listened to at close range,
so the accuracy of their on-axis frequency response may be a higher
priority, as opposed to their response in the reverberant field.

Speakers like the Quad electrostats have not been widely accepted as studio
monitors due to their size, cost, placement requirement, and perhaps
somewhat limited dynamic range. They are a little more widely accepted for
mastering.