Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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.


Ahhhh... Opps ;-)

--
Adrian C

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

Adrian C wrote:

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

PMC?

http://www.pmc-speakers.com

Those are monitors, not foldback. Damn fine product too btw.

Graham

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...

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


Yes. That's their strength. In addition, very few
domestic listening rooms have the acoustic treatment
found in a studo control or listening room. The
speaker/room interface is critical. And there
are not many homes where one can play at
studio levels (without your neighbour
beating on your door with a Purdey.

Iain

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

"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, 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.


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

Even with three at a large format console it was a problem. The
producer had to sit behind the engineer.

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.

Yes of course, but to nothing like the same extent.

Iain

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

"Rob" wrote in message
...
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

Never saw a studio that had them:-) Many listenng rooms did though,
where the client sat alone or just with the engineer or producer. At Decca
there were two chairs in the listening room placed on behind the other.

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...

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


Yes. That's their strength. In addition, very few domestic listening
rooms have the acoustic treatment found in a studo control or listening
room. The speaker/room interface is critical.

It's something that can't be emphasised enough. Half decent speakers in a
good acoustic will sound many times better than the very best in a poor
one. And the current trend for bare wood floors does no favours to sound.

The best room I ever heard was the old chapel at BBC Wood Norton Hall -
shaped like a small church so few standing waves to start with then
heavily treated. The soundstage was positively amazing. Never heard
anything near as good in any control room which are usually too small.

And there are not many homes where one can play at studio levels
(without your neighbour beating on your door with a Purdey.

Although the levels some pop balancers use can damage your hearing...

--
*A bartender is just a pharmacist with a limited inventory *

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

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

In article ,
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.

--
*Change is inevitable ... except from vending machines *

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

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

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

I did several spoken word albums for Argo with Richard Burton, and also
many sessions with Sir John Gielgud, and the wonderful Michael Hordern
- maybe the ELS would have been good for those!

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:-)

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?

Iain

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

"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 ? Agreed about the lack of
neutrality. The Monitor Golds never sounded as clean as the older Reds to me. I
really didn't like the Golds at all.

Graham

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

Serge Auckland 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 ?


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.

OK, I'm getting the idea now from yours and others comments.

Apart from saying they are extremely high quality, rugged, acoustically
transparent etc. What do the numbers say ? In other words...what would you
read in the specs. that would show that speaker A is best as a studio
monitor whereas speaker B is better in a real-world listening situation ?