"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.

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.

"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

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.

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

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/

" TonyLummox "

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 ?


** Sure - you are a 100% damn troll.


For anyone curious, wiki has a pretty good explanation of the topic.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studio_...Hi-Fi_speakers

BTW:

One of the best 3-way box speakers ever made was the Yamaha NS1000M -
it was popular as both a professional studio monitor and domestic hi-fi
speaker.

http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/hfw/olde...hans1000m.html

Interestingly, it has the uncanny ability to sound very much like a Quad
ESL57.



...... Phil

Sounds like snobbery on both sides to me. There is however some truth in the
fact that people like 'a sound' and I suppose if the studio is doing things
well, it can afford to adjust the environment to be a neutral as possible.
However, the proof that this does not work only needs you to listen to
recordings made in different studios, or even the same studio with a
different producer.
I would also say that some real monitor speakers are able to take abuse
better than hi fi units often do... grin...

Brian

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


"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 ?

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".

Sweeping generalisations are not unknown to occur in magazines. :-)

But there is more..they say "..even modestly priced monitors will give
you a more accurate picture of what you are hearing,"

....as above. :-)

I'm puzzled, I thought the whole idea of hi-fi was to reproduce
accurately what was recorded.

....or in some cases may mean, 'produce a result that the customers (or
reviewers) like and cause them to buy (recommend).' :-)

Why should "modestly priced monitors" be
better ?

Might be best if you asked the person who wrote the assertions in the
magazine to explain.

Comments please ?

Don't believe everything you read in magazines?...

More seriously, you'd have to get them define *which* 'monitor' or 'hifi'
speakers they are on about, what they mean by 'enhance', etc. A genuine
studio monitor might be designed to cope with things like sustained
ultra-high power levels, be rugged and survive rough treatment that might
damage domestic designs, be designed for a nearfield listening environment,
etc. ... or not. Similarly, there is large variety of 'hifi speakers'.
Ditto for kinds of music being recorded, replayed, etc. Are they thinking
of teenagers with cheap recording gear in their bedroom, or of large studio
recordings of classical music, etc.

Do they list any of the speakers they have in mind, or report any of the
comparison tests they did to reach their opinions? if so, judge on that
basis. If not, regard it as a sweeping opinion on their part that may or
may not be useful in any given case. :-)

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

"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