View Single Post
  #5 (permalink)  
Old March 9th 09, 03:15 PM posted to uk.rec.audio
tony sayer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,042
Default Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers

In article , Iain Churches
scribeth thus

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
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.


Indeed. You need something more robust for that. And usually capable of
much higher SPL.


Yes. I would have been afraid of breaking them just doing a drum check:-)

The concensus was that the mids were
beautiful but the LF weak (comparted with Tannoy or JBL)


The LF isn't 'weak' - or at least not in a decent room - but not as
extended as would be the norm. They have a pretty sharp cutoff below 42
Hz.


When I was a 2E we carried the ELS down to studio III for some
tests. The general concensus was that the bass was weak,


Was that the 57 ELS?..


--
Tony Sayer