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.

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

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

" 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 ?

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.

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

Which ones?

--
Eiron.

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.