Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

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 ?

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

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.

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

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

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

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 ?

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

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

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

" 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

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

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 ?

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

Yeah, strange that the BBC seem to have a lot of Bose speakers then...
Brian

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


"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.

--
*Xerox and Wurlitzer will merge to market reproductive organs.

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

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

Brian Gaff wrote:
Yeah, strange that the BBC seem to have a lot of Bose speakers then...
Brian

Which ones?

--
Eiron.

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

In article ,
Brian Gaff wrote:
Yeah, strange that the BBC seem to have a lot of Bose speakers then...

Used for monitoring? Not in my experience. They were used for things like
foldback or PA.

--
*It's not hard to meet expenses... they're everywhere.

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

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

"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

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

"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.

Iain

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

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

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

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.

WRONG ! It's intended to flatter the ear.

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

Graham

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

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

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

Brian Gaff wrote:

Yeah, strange that the BBC seem to have a lot of Bose speakers then...

They do ? News to me.

Graham

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

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.

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:
Yeah, strange that the BBC seem to have a lot of Bose speakers then...

They do ? News to me.

I doubt they still have them, but they were popular for pop foldback etc
in the '70s. Not the domestic ones with rear firing speakers, though, but
ones designed for this sort of thing. They were very good in their day.
Electrovoice took over the torch from them. Dunno what the flavour of
the month is now.

--
*A chicken crossing the road is poultry in motion.*

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

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

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

PMC?

http://www.pmc-speakers.com

--
Adrian C

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

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.

--
*We waste time, so you don't have to *

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

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 ?

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

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

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
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!

It certainly would. I've been to several speaker comparisons where the
speakers are hidden and on speech no moving coil unit came close to the
ELS on a live versus recorded comparison. The same with most single
acoustic instruments too.

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:-)

Absolutely - but it was really designed for domestic use. Provided it's
working within its maximum SPL it will sound good on near anything. Add a
sub and you could say everything.

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?

Yes - as with much the badge is the most important thing. I'm not much of
a Tannoy fan - despite having owned a couple of pairs. Autographs and
Yorks.

--
*The longest recorded flightof a chicken is thirteen seconds *

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

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:
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 ?

They also made cabinets for the BBC long before making speakers in their
own right.

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.

Yup - and Tannoy dropped the gold name going back to red.

--
*He who laughs last has just realised the joke.

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

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

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.

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

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

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


"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 ?

Yes:-) I went to their factory in Harrow a couple of times.
They used the same handles on the Lockwood Major cabs
as they had previously used on the coffins.

One of my pals at Island Studios used to knock on the top
of the cabinet and in a Pink Floyd voice say: "Is there anybody
IN there?"


Iain

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

"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.

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
. ..

Yeah, strange that the BBC seem to have a lot of Bose speakers then...
Brian

I think you are referring to the fact that the LS3/5a had small drivers in a
small box.

The comparison fails on numerous grounds.

The LS3/5a had a dedicated tweeter - very un-Bose like.

If memory serves, the LS3/5a predated the Bose 901 by a number of years -
maybe 5 or 8.

The LS3/5a lacked active equalization. On balance, the LS3/5a passive
crossover was complex and performed some equalization functions.

The LS3/5a was designed for close-up listening, and did not depend on the
room to bounce sound around.

The LS3/5a was designed for accurate on-axis frequency response, despite
its lack of deep bass.

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

"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

Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
 

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

I'm not much of
a Tannoy fan - despite having owned a couple of pairs. Autographs and
Yorks.

Neither of those rate very highly in the Tannoy range IMO.
The old Lancaster was good, also the old (and new) Canterbury.
The Westminster is wonderful. But so was the Little Red Monitor.
albeit in a different class.

Iain