Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

"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 ?



A similar question (what are monitor speakers) was asked on another Forum,
and here was my reply:-

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.

The second use of the term, sometimes also called near-field monitors, are
small, good quality loudspeakers, typical of what will be used by home
listeners, and on which you can check that the mix you created on the main
monitors will also sound reasonable on "real-world" loudspeakers. They are
also often used in production areas, edit suites etc as convenient small but
decent loudspeakers on which to work.

The third use of the word "monitor" is a small, low quality loudspeaker used
just to make sure there is a signal there, and that what you're listening to
is what you expect it to be. These can be 1U rack-mount units, talking
bricks, or the small Fostex units which you see everywhere on people's desks
in broadcast organisations, music companies etc.

The BBC had Grade 1, Grade 2 and Grade 3/ungraded for the above categories.


To which somebody also added a fourth meaning, that of loudspeakers on stage
so musicians can hear themselves.

Consequently, the term "monitor" can mean whatever you want it to mean!

S.

--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

"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

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

Iain Churches wrote:
"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.


I'd imagine it all got rather intimate in those studios that had ESLs

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

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.

WRONG ! It's intended to flatter the ear.

A good *monitor* will make a great mix shine and a crap mix sound crap.That's
its job.

Graham

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

TonyL wrote:

So, is there anything fundamentally different about studio monitors ?

Yes, they're designed to be consistent and very accurate. You might HATE a
monitor.

Graham

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

Brian Gaff wrote:

Yeah, strange that the BBC seem to have a lot of Bose speakers then...

They do ? News to me.

Graham

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

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.

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.

and, most important of all, the sweet spot was *far* too narrow.

That could be a problem in a control room with loads of people, I suppose.
But even the best monitors tend to have a sweet spot.

I believe ABC TV originally using them at Teddington Studios and actually
built them in to a 'baffle' along with the picture monitors. Thus reducing
the output even more and doing gawd knows what to the response. Quickly
replaced by BBC LS5/1.

--
*The most wasted day of all is one in which we have not laughed.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:
Yeah, strange that the BBC seem to have a lot of Bose speakers then...

They do ? News to me.

I doubt they still have them, but they were popular for pop foldback etc
in the '70s. Not the domestic ones with rear firing speakers, though, but
ones designed for this sort of thing. They were very good in their day.
Electrovoice took over the torch from them. Dunno what the flavour of
the month is now.

--
*A chicken crossing the road is poultry in motion.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Dunno what the flavour of
the month is now.

PMC?

http://www.pmc-speakers.com

--
Adrian C

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

In article ,
Adrian C wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Dunno what the flavour of
the month is now.

PMC?

http://www.pmc-speakers.com

They wouldn't last 5 minutes for foldback use.

--
*We waste time, so you don't have to *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.