"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

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 ?

On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 10:17:30 -0000, "TonyL"
wrote:

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 ?


Unfortunately the bare numbers for speakers don't tell you a great
deal. Sure they will give you a rough idea of the frequency response
on axis, but that is probably ten percent of the story. It is the
off-axis response that reacts with the room generally and determines
things that have been talked about already - the size and nature of
the sweet spot, for example. It is the control of all the peripheral
details that sets the monitor apart from a run-of-the-mill speaker.

Choice of monitor depends on the size of the control room, the width
of the desk and in some cases personal choice. If the engineer knows
he has a tendency to mix too bright (yes, people will have told him),
he can choose a bright monitor, knowing that a mix to his taste on
this monitor will result in a well-balanced product. For organizations
like the BBC, where four or five engineers might use a room in a
single day, a good flat average is the thing to choose.

d

TonyL wrote:

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 ?

To be honest as Don says, the numbers typically found tell very little.

Let's just say certain *brands* are known as monitors ( and you're unlikely to
see them in hi-fi shops as a rule ) and others aren't. A LOT of it is
reputation too.

Graham

In article ,
TonyL wrote:
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 ?

Often, the badge. Or pedigree if you prefer.

--
*Corduroy pillows are making headlines.

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

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

Often, the badge. Or pedigree if you prefer.

Some clients I knew would not book a controlroom that
coulkd not offer Altecs or JBL's. These days, people often
*insist* on Genelec - it's what they know. And, as they are
paying the bill, I guess they have the right to insist:-)

Iain