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...