Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...


But,. as mentioned above, they did not meet anyone' expectations in pop
recording, due probably as you say to the familiarity with infinite
baffled and ported enclosures. In addition, one gained the impression
that the ELS was much too fragile for a Ginger Baker bass drum:-)

They can be OK for that - but only at limited sound pressure levels in a
small enough room. So not a very 'safe' choice for such a task I guess in
pop studios. Hence suitable for careful home use, but probably not for use
at sound levels that try to match the orginal for such a source. :-)

Tannoys and Lockwoods - which used the same drivers - were never known
for their neutrality. Fine speakers though they were.

They were used because they met the expectations of producer, engineer,
client and musician. You can't ask much more than that, can you?

That seems fine given that the people using them have presumably gained
experience in 'calibrating' the change in sound between what they hear when
at work using these, and what the results then tend to be with domestic
systems.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

I'm not much of
a Tannoy fan - despite having owned a couple of pairs. Autographs and
Yorks.

Neither of those rate very highly in the Tannoy range IMO.

Quite possibly.

The old
Lancaster was good,

Didn't much like those - in 15" form at least.

also the old (and new) Canterbury. The Westminster
is wonderful.

Haven't heard either.

But so was the Little Red Monitor. albeit in a different
class.

There we must differ. Absolutely hate the things, despite their
popularity. Perhaps I just dislike large speakers in small boxes.

--
*Always remember you're unique, just like everyone else.

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

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

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


IME studio monitors tend to have more dynamic range

I wonder what you mean by "more dynamic range" in the context of
loudspeakers. Is this simply a euphemism for "can make a lot of noise"?

David.

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
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?..

No. The later "pro" version intended for USA export IIRC.
Black with handles on the side.

Iain

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

IME studio monitors tend to have more dynamic range

I wonder what you mean by "more dynamic range" in the context of
loudspeakers.

Get loud, clean.

Is this simply a euphemism for "can make a lot of noise"?

No, the sound needs to meet a purity standard.

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

Iain Churches wrote...

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, compared with
JBL, Tannoy, Lockwood etc etc. The bass drum sound was very odd,
no "thump" at all, just lots of "whack" as someone described it.

Peter Walker once remarked that if you wanted more bass than the ELS
produced then one could kick a cardboard box in time to the music.


--
Ken

Feeble audio links site
http://unsteadyken.sitegoz.com/

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

"UnsteadyKen" wrote in message
m...
Iain Churches wrote...

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, compared with
JBL, Tannoy, Lockwood etc etc. The bass drum sound was very odd,
no "thump" at all, just lots of "whack" as someone described it.

Peter Walker once remarked that if you wanted more bass than the ELS
produced then one could kick a cardboard box in time to the music.


Walker was a bit of a chauvinist about his own products. ;-)

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

IME studio monitors tend to have more dynamic range

I wonder what you mean by "more dynamic range" in the context of
loudspeakers.

Get loud, clean.

Is this simply a euphemism for "can make a lot of noise"?

No, the sound needs to meet a purity standard.

So yes, your caveat notwithstanding, you are just talking about "loud". So
really "dynamic range" is not the most appropriate phrase to use, because
dynamic range refers to the difference between loud and quiet, and you are
not talking about quiet.

As a rule I prefer to reserve the term "dynamic range" to programme
material, not equipment. And the sort of use you are have made of it is why.

David.

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

IME studio monitors tend to have more dynamic range

I wonder what you mean by "more dynamic range" in the context of
loudspeakers.

Get loud, clean.

Is this simply a euphemism for "can make a lot of noise"?

No, the sound needs to meet a purity standard.

So yes, your caveat notwithstanding, you are just talking about "loud". So
really "dynamic range" is not the most appropriate phrase to use, because
dynamic range refers to the difference between loud and quiet, and you are
not talking about quiet.

That's a point that I think is moderately well taken.

As a rule I prefer to reserve the term "dynamic range" to programme
material, not equipment. And the sort of use you are have made of it is
why.

Dynamic range is clearly defined for audio equipment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range

"Dynamic range in analog audio is the difference between low-level thermal
noise in the electronic circuitry and high-level signal saturation resulting
in increased distortion and, if pushed higher, clipping.[2] "

In the case of speakers, the logical low level noise level would be set by
human hearing at 0 dB SPL, or the "room tone" of the room the speaker is
used in. Since both values are the same for all speakers being compared to
each other in a fair way, dynamic range in a given room could be a logical
means for comparison.

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

IME studio monitors tend to have more dynamic range

I wonder what you mean by "more dynamic range" in the context of
loudspeakers.

Get loud, clean.

Is this simply a euphemism for "can make a lot of noise"?

No, the sound needs to meet a purity standard.

So yes, your caveat notwithstanding, you are just talking about "loud".
So really "dynamic range" is not the most appropriate phrase to use,
because dynamic range refers to the difference between loud and quiet,
and you are not talking about quiet.

That's a point that I think is moderately well taken.

As a rule I prefer to reserve the term "dynamic range" to programme
material, not equipment. And the sort of use you are have made of it is
why.

Dynamic range is clearly defined for audio equipment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range

"Dynamic range in analog audio is the difference between low-level thermal
noise in the electronic circuitry and high-level signal saturation
resulting in increased distortion and, if pushed higher, clipping.[2] "

That's SNR, it seems pointless to also call it "dynamic range". Programme
material doesn't have a SNR, but it *does* have a dynamic range (the ratio
of the quietest to the loudest wanted signal) and it just seems logical to
me to reserve one term for programme, and the other for equipment.


David.

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...


But,. as mentioned above, they did not meet anyone' expectations in pop
recording, due probably as you say to the familiarity with infinite
baffled and ported enclosures. In addition, one gained the impression
that the ELS was much too fragile for a Ginger Baker bass drum:-)

They can be OK for that - but only at limited sound pressure levels in a
small enough room. So not a very 'safe' choice for such a task I guess in
pop studios.


Much depends on the recording engineer's routine and way of
working. Most have mics rigged and tested and the desk set up with
all routing established before the players arrive. We were taught to
place the faders at about unity gain, but turn the mic presets to minimum
to prevent "surprises"

I certainly would not take a chance with them, any more than I
would use a high-value condenser mic at the other end of the chain,
inside and within 2cms of the front head the bass drum:-)


Hence suitable for careful home use, but probably not for use
at sound levels that try to match the orginal for such a source. :-)

Agreed. I would be terrified of using ELS on anything but the most
gentile and dignified of Baroque sessions:-) But I can see they they
might/could have a place in mastering facilities or listening rooms.


Iain

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

IME studio monitors tend to have more dynamic range

I wonder what you mean by "more dynamic range" in the context of
loudspeakers.

Get loud, clean.

Is this simply a euphemism for "can make a lot of noise"?

No, the sound needs to meet a purity standard.

So yes, your caveat notwithstanding, you are just talking about "loud".
So really "dynamic range" is not the most appropriate phrase to use,
because dynamic range refers to the difference between loud and quiet,
and you are not talking about quiet.

That's a point that I think is moderately well taken.

As a rule I prefer to reserve the term "dynamic range" to programme
material, not equipment. And the sort of use you are have made of it is
why.

Dynamic range is clearly defined for audio equipment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range

"Dynamic range in analog audio is the difference between low-level
thermal noise in the electronic circuitry and high-level signal
saturation resulting in increased distortion and, if pushed higher,
clipping.[2] "

That's SNR,

Pretty much.

it seems pointless to also call it "dynamic range".

I didn't make up the lexicon of audio. ;-)

In audio interfaces, the portion of the dynamic range calculation referred
to above as "thermal noise" is increased by any nonlinear distortion created
by a -60 dB 1 KHz sine wave stimulus tone. Since loudspeakers are usually
very linear at such low levels, the stimulus won't add much.

Dynamic range and SNR are very closely related.

Programme material doesn't have a SNR, but it *does* have a dynamic range
(the ratio of the quietest to the loudest wanted signal) and it just seems
logical to me to reserve one term for programme, and the other for
equipment.

Your idea is certainly not illogical, but it is simply not how things have
evolved.

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


I didn't make up the lexicon of audio. ;-)

Maybe not, but you choose to use it. And I have never before met the term
"dynamic range" applied to loudspeakers, so as far as I am concerned in this
context you did make it up.


David.

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

"David Looser"
"Arny Krueger"


IME studio monitors tend to have more dynamic range

I wonder what you mean by "more dynamic range" in the context of
loudspeakers. Is this simply a euphemism for "can make a lot of noise"?


** Not a "euphemism" exactly - but another irritating example of Arny's
addiction to meaningless "purple prose".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_prose


Arny is a self confessed compewter geek ( and born again Jesus freak ) - so
he does not inform.

He just manipulates the data.




...... Phil

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

"Arny Krueger"
"David Looser"
"Arny Krueger"

IME studio monitors tend to have more dynamic range

I wonder what you mean by "more dynamic range" in the context of
loudspeakers.

Get loud, clean.

Is this simply a euphemism for "can make a lot of noise"?

No, the sound needs to meet a purity standard.



** By that definition, the Quad ESL57s and 63s etc have the largest "
dynamic range" of any speaker available.

Assuming that Arny's purple prose use of the word " purity " is not an
allusion to his pseudo-religious concepts.




..... Phil

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

"David Looser"
"Arny Krueger"

Dynamic range is clearly defined for audio equipment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range

"Dynamic range in analog audio is the difference between low-level
thermal noise in the electronic circuitry and high-level signal
saturation resulting in increased distortion and, if pushed higher,
clipping.[2] "

That's SNR,


** Nope.

The above wiki quote defines the POTENTIAL maximum range of signal levels
over which an item of CAN operate.

SNR is the actual range encountered in some particular real or defined
circumstance.


Programme material doesn't have a SNR,


** It often does.

Recordings can have noisy or quiet backgrounds.



...... Phil

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

"David Looser"
"Arny Krueger"
I didn't make up the lexicon of audio. ;-)


** What Arny failed to mention is that HIS version of the lexicon derives
from forums full of audiophool ****wits like " rec.audio opinion ".


Maybe not, but you choose to use it.


** Straight from rubbish tip to you - delivered by Arny the compewter
geek.


And I have never before met the term "dynamic range" applied to
loudspeakers,


** It is a hot favourite among pompous Yank audiophools with chronic verbal
diarrhoea.


so as far as I am concerned in this context you did make it up.


** Ridiculous false logic.



...... Phil

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
IME studio monitors tend to have more dynamic range and stronger
response above 2 KHz than similar home speakers.

Not any of those I like - perhaps that's why I so dislike the Little Red
Tannoys. I balance for what I hear - and having over bright speakers means
the end result would be dull. And having to listen to over bright speakers
is terribly tiring. But of course I'm referring to GP monitors rather than
pop ones. Indeed, early BBC designs had a deliberate mid range suck out to
counteract the results of close micing.

--
*I'm already visualizing the duct tape over your mouth

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

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


I didn't make up the lexicon of audio. ;-)

Maybe not, but you choose to use it.

Just like I choose to primarily read/write English of the 6 languages that I
am fluent in! ;-)

And I have never before met the term "dynamic range" applied to
loudspeakers, so as far as I am concerned in this context you did make it
up.

Thank whatever you will. I've used the term many times and never been
challenged until today. I'll probably keep on using it...

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

"Arny Krueger"
"David Looser"
"Arny Krueger"

I didn't make up the lexicon of audio. ;-)

Maybe not, but you choose to use it.

Just like I choose to primarily read/write English of the 6 languages that
I am fluent in! ;-)

And I have never before met the term "dynamic range" applied to
loudspeakers, so as far as I am concerned in this context you did make it
up.

Thank whatever you will. I've used the term many times and never been
challenged until today.


** Since you have no valid case to justify such nonsensical use - it's
high time to quit.


I'll probably keep on using it...


** Like the smug, Septic ****head you are - naturally.



...... Phil

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

Iain Churches wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
Iain Churches wrote:
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, compared with
JBL, Tannoy, Lockwood etc etc. The bass drum sound was very odd,
no "thump" at all, just lots of "whack" as someone described it.

I'm afraid that's because you were used to the sound from those cabinet
speakers where the boxes have a voice of their own. Good deep male speech
proves it - an ELS is far more natural.

Tannoys and Lockwoods - which used the same drivers - were never known
for
their neutrality. Fine speakers though they were.

You do know Lockwood started off as coffin makers ?

Yes:-) I went to their factory in Harrow a couple of times.
They used the same handles on the Lockwood Major cabs
as they had previously used on the coffins.

One of my pals at Island Studios used to knock on the top
of the cabinet and in a Pink Floyd voice say: "Is there anybody
IN there?"

That's classic ! :~)

Graham

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Iain Churches wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote

You do know Lockwood started off as coffin makers ?

Yes:-) I went to their factory in Harrow a couple of times.
They used the same handles on the Lockwood Major cabs
as they had previously used on the coffins.

One of my pals at Island Studios used to knock on the top
of the cabinet and in a Pink Floyd voice say: "Is there anybody
IN there?"

That's classic ! :~)

Graham

It alway got a laugh:-)
Iain

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

Eeyore wrote:
You do know Lockwood started off as coffin makers ?

http://www.lockwoodaudio.co.uk

only sez...

"The original Lockwood Company was formed in 1929 in Harrow,
specialising in display cabinets for museums and embassies in many
countries"

Well, I s'pose a coffin is a type of display case ... :-)

--
Adrian C

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

In article ,
Adrian C wrote:
You do know Lockwood started off as coffin makers ?

http://www.lockwoodaudio.co.uk

only sez...

"The original Lockwood Company was formed in 1929 in Harrow,
specialising in display cabinets for museums and embassies in many
countries"

I first heard of them as makers of studio furniture for the BBC - things
like the wood casing for control desks etc. They also made the cabinets
(or some of them) for the LSU10. It wasn't put about then they were coffin
makers.

--
*Always remember you're unique, just like everyone else.

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

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:15:44 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Adrian C wrote:
You do know Lockwood started off as coffin makers ?

http://www.lockwoodaudio.co.uk

only sez...

"The original Lockwood Company was formed in 1929 in Harrow,
specialising in display cabinets for museums and embassies in many
countries"

I first heard of them as makers of studio furniture for the BBC - things
like the wood casing for control desks etc. They also made the cabinets
(or some of them) for the LSU10. It wasn't put about then they were coffin
makers.

Nice steady work though - you can see why they would do it (and why
they wouldn't necessarily talk about it to other customers too).

d

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

"Adrian C" wrote in message
...
Eeyore wrote:
You do know Lockwood started off as coffin makers ?

http://www.lockwoodaudio.co.uk

only sez...

"The original Lockwood Company was formed in 1929 in Harrow, specialising
in display cabinets for museums and embassies in many
countries"

Well, I s'pose a coffin is a type of display case ... :-)

They also made very high quality broadcast and studio
furniture, console housings etc, so speaker cabinets were
probably a logical step for them, at a time before Tannoy
had a professional products division.


Iain

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
news:49b8b0a5.897928093@localhost...
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:15:44 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Adrian C wrote:
You do know Lockwood started off as coffin makers ?

http://www.lockwoodaudio.co.uk

only sez...

"The original Lockwood Company was formed in 1929 in Harrow,
specialising in display cabinets for museums and embassies in many
countries"

I first heard of them as makers of studio furniture for the BBC - things
like the wood casing for control desks etc. They also made the cabinets
(or some of them) for the LSU10. It wasn't put about then they were coffin
makers.

Nice steady work though - you can see why they would do it (and why
they wouldn't necessarily talk about it to other customers too).

I wonder if they hired a skeleton staff.
Ouch!

Iain

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
They also made very high quality broadcast and studio
furniture, console housings etc, so speaker cabinets were
probably a logical step for them, at a time before Tannoy
had a professional products division.

Surely Tannoy started out as a pro manufacturer - making public address
equipment? Hence it being at one time a generic term?
Dunno where the famous dual concentric came from - I'd guess it was
originally made for some pro purpose like cinema use etc before ending up
in domestic speakers.

There's a bit of history here but doesn't cover non Hi-Fi stuff.

http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/hfw/olde...yspeakers.html

--
*The e-mail of the species is more deadly than the mail *

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

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 09:18:31 GMT, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

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

In what application? I've seen 802s pointing at the audience when
recording talk shows, a job those units are well suited for. What
else?