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

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"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.

--
*Xerox and Wurlitzer will merge to market reproductive organs.

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

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

Which ones?

--
Eiron.

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

Used for monitoring? Not in my experience. They were used for things like
foldback or PA.

--
*It's not hard to meet expenses... they're everywhere.

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

Brian Gaff wrote:

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

They do ? News to me.

Graham

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.

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

PMC?

http://www.pmc-speakers.com

--
Adrian C

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
. ..

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

I think you are referring to the fact that the LS3/5a had small drivers in a
small box.

The comparison fails on numerous grounds.

The LS3/5a had a dedicated tweeter - very un-Bose like.

If memory serves, the LS3/5a predated the Bose 901 by a number of years -
maybe 5 or 8.

The LS3/5a lacked active equalization. On balance, the LS3/5a passive
crossover was complex and performed some equalization functions.

The LS3/5a was designed for close-up listening, and did not depend on the
room to bounce sound around.

The LS3/5a was designed for accurate on-axis frequency response, despite
its lack of deep bass.

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?

"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

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