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".

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.

Dave Plowman (News) 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 ?

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.


So, is there anything fundamentally different about studio monitors ? Are
they not just high spec. speakers...or sold as such ?

On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 20:07:13 -0000, "TonyL"
wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) 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 ?

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.


So, is there anything fundamentally different about studio monitors ? Are
they not just high spec. speakers...or sold as such ?



Their intention is to be ruthlessly revealing, rather than kind to the
sound.But of course, provided the music is well recorded, that is a
good thing for Hi Fi.

They will also typically be rated for producing high levels for
extended periods without wilting.

d

TonyL wrote:

So, is there anything fundamentally different about studio monitors ?

Yes, they're designed to be consistent and very accurate. You might HATE a
monitor.

Graham

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

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.

Cost, size, placement requirements, limited dynamic range.

So, is there anything fundamentally different about studio monitors ? Are
they not just high spec. speakers...or sold as such ?

There are actually two markets for studio monitors. There are small monitors
designed to be used close up, and there are large monitors designed to fill
or even blast a good-sized control room.

There are a number of different uses for studio monitors being tracking,
mixing and mastering. Each usage might be ideally met by a different
speaker.

IME studio monitors tend to have more dynamic range and stronger response
above 2 KHz than similar home speakers.

Home speakers are often designed to sound good with a wide range of
recordings, while studio monitors are often designed to make problematic
recordings sound really problematical. They aren't so much for listening
enjoyment as technical analysis.

Small studio monitors are often designed to be listened to at close range,
so the accuracy of their on-axis frequency response may be a higher
priority, as opposed to their response in the reverberant field.

Speakers like the Quad electrostats have not been widely accepted as studio
monitors due to their size, cost, placement requirement, and perhaps
somewhat limited dynamic range. They are a little more widely accepted for
mastering.

"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.

"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.

"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

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.