[audioengr]

Read this - a sad situation IMO:

http://www.eetimes.com/design/audio-design/4214420/Loudspeakers--Objective-evaluations---Part-5--Professional-monitor-loudspeakers?cid=NL_Audio&Ecosystem=audio-design

[baldrick]

There are serious shortcomings with many "pro" monitors - one of the worst offenders is the Yamaha monitor that they mention.

More commonly committed recording crimes are the butchery performed by the recording engineers through over-equalization, overprocessing (I've seen instances where segments of the digital master were converted from digital to analog, compressed and reverbed, and then re-digitized), and and overdubbing, and the over-compressed mess often created by mastering engineers.

What you invariably end up with in these cases is something that is totally unacceptable to someone with reasonable gear.  Not that any of it matters to the mp3 listening earbud wearing crowd.

One of my friends in the "biz" let me try his earphones ("cans") to see how they stacked up against my Grado SR-80s. I plugged them into my home system and all I said to him was "how the @#$& could you do any useful work with these?" 

Then he tried my Grados (in his mp3 player) and complained they were rolled off.
Can you see a problem here?

I think that one of the problems in the "biz" (someone correct me here) is the formation of a culture around equipment with perceived superiority just because a few engineers who've recorded big popular acts (whether or not the recordings themselves are any good) have used the same equipment.
Nobody trusts their own ears anymore...

[Mike Nomad]

I think that one of the problems in the "biz" (someone correct me here) is the formation of a culture around equipment with perceived superiority just because a few engineers who've recorded big popular acts (whether or not the recordings themselves are any good) have used the same equipment.
Nobody trusts their own ears anymore...

Gear Snobs are a long standing problem in the business. Yamaha's NS-10 sound horrible when used near-field. That's well known. Interesting that the author didn't compare Yamaha's powered monitors (maybe he did, I only looked at the first page): They sound _way_ better near-field, and pretty dang great with a little bit of room.

The important thing is, you nailed it: Trust your own ears 

[JLM]

Baldrick, I know you're speaking the truth, but it hurts.

To answer the OP's question: I know that there are good and bad pro monitors, just like there are good and bed consumer loudspeakers.

Which is better overall pro monitors or consumer loudspeakers?  It would take a ton of research, testing, and comparisons to answer that question.

[baldrick]

Gear Snobs are a long standing problem in the business.

Gear snobbery....interesting point.
let's say for argument's sake you are a recording engineer with morals and a talented ear for quality.
You insist on using your own high quality monitors with excellent linearity and great dynamics.  That automatically makes you a "gear snob", albeit one with good intentions.  On the other hand - it could start an encouraging trend.

[baldrick]

Which is better overall pro monitors or consumer loudspeakers?  It would take a ton of research, testing, and comparisons to answer that question.


Maybe the legendary BBC LS3/5a monitor is one of these.  There are a number of derivatives of this monitor aimed at the home market.  The Harbeth P3ESR is one of these derivatives and it receives almost universally positive reviews. 

If you're looking for something with a pro lineage and is "golden ear" approved maybe the Harbeth P3ESR is what you're looking for.

Someone might flame me for this but I remember the powered "pro" Hafler TRM8.1 sounding pretty good too...

[Quiet Earth]

I always thought that understanding how to properly use studio monitors was more about understanding their translation. This is a skill that is learned and earned, and not necessarily the same thing as owning the correct speakers or just having an EE degree.

[xr2]

Pardon my ignorance on the topic, but don't professional monitors and home speakers have different design goals?  At a basic level, we like to assume that what sounds good on pro monitors will sound good on home speakers.  But I imagine pro monitors being designed for durability and for a single listener, and I would guess in a near field environment since it would be impossible to assume characteristics of a room.

On the other hand, my home setup is concerned with aesthetics and providing a sound field that is pleasing for multiple people.  I would think this would be enough to create products that are specialized to each market. 

[baldrick]

Not necessarily.  Ideally you'd want something with a flat frequency response, good linearity, low distortion and good voicing throughout the frequency range.  Not so much different from what discerning consumers want to buy, with the proviso that there is the added step (for the audiophile speaker buyer anyway) that the speaker should sound good in the room in which it is expected to be used.

Reality is somewhat different.

Some of the best recording engineers will monitor the recordings and mixdowns on a variety of different speakers to get a representative diagonal slice of what the recordings might sound like to the consumer.

Most of the recording engineers will monitor their recordings and mixdowns on Yamaha NS-10s, pass it on to the mastering engineer who will turn it into boiled crap and then the pop music radio stations will screw it up even further.

[Quiet Earth]

I think you have a good handle on things rick. Nice replies. Me? I'm still learning about all this stuff.

don't professional monitors and home speakers have different design goals?

Well, here's my take on things with very limited experience trying to make a recording or two. Home speakers are really supposed to be all about pleasure, and about enjoying the final product in a home environment. Pro monitors are more about getting work done, and about creating a final product from a bunch of tracks, a pre mixdown, or whatever other mess the client hands you. I'm not really sure why "pro" gear is even mentioned in Audio Circle.

And just to be fair (or to play devil's advocate ) about the record labels that we constantly criticize. Sometimes I wonder how they can produce anything of quality at all considering the amount of good musicians out there using typical home recording equipment. I'm guessing that they bring you what they bring you and then you have to do the best that you can with it. I think it would be a hard job to do.

Just a thought to consider as we bite the hand that feeds us.

[jimdgoulding]

Baldrick- Hi.  Haven't read your posts before that I can remember, but I think you're right as rain here.  It's hard to put the blame on who for recordings that are objectively weak, by our standards, anyway.  The artists?  The producers?  The record companies?  They all have something in common . . sales.  When I say artists, I mean popular artists.  The lot of em could take a lesson from the best of British bands and their producers tho I think The Who- rather, their producer- compromised the shit out of what their opus recordings might have been.  Compressed dynamics, you know, particularly on the vocals.  It's a dis-service to audiophiles that some artist runs out to his car to hear it on the radio to approve.  But, hey, if they depended on us for a living . . forgetaboutit, I suppose.

I don't listen to much popular music myself.  I'm a snob.  I think that comes with the territory of acquiring good equipment. Or, maybe age.  So what, anyway.

[JLM]

Like it or not, due to the volumes, pop music and MP3 earbud playback I'm sure drive industry practices.

Actually I used to own LS3/5a spin offs, but never thought of them as analytical enough to use for mixing.

I think its most useful to consider this aspect of the recording process as well as the differences between the speakers used for recording versus playback.  Occasionally we find a studio engineer that enjoys listening in his free time and on those occasions its been an eye opener to them as they discovered better speakers.  They've found their recordings to be hit and miss in terms of quality.  Think in terms of eyeglasses and the advantages in terms of quick/easy recognition with a proper prescription.

Nearfield listening helps me a great deal to take the room out of the equation.  OTOH dipoles, bipole, and omni-directional designs can't really present like pro monitors.

[kirch]

I always thought that understanding how to properly use studio monitors was more about understanding their translation. This is a skill that is learned and earned, and not necessarily the same thing as owning the correct speakers or just having an EE degree.

Excellent point. Been around this industry in one way or another over 30 years. Guys used to mix on flat mini monitors.  The idea being "if it sounds good coming thru these, it's gonna sound great in anyone's radio/stereo/car".  But that was commercials.  Music was/is a totally different animal. 

While having good equipment is key, imho it's experience and the "ear" that are paramount. 

[Mike Nomad]

Gear snobbery....interesting point.
let's say for argument's sake you are a recording engineer with morals and a talented ear for quality.
You insist on using your own high quality monitors with excellent linearity and great dynamics.  That automatically makes you a "gear snob", albeit one with good intentions.  On the other hand - it could start an encouraging trend.

What you just described is not snobbery. The engineer is using good kit that helps him get good results. Gear snobbery is when a person says "I won't use [Brand X]*," when they've never given the gear a run-through. I've heard and used plenty of expensive stuff, and just for laughs, stacked it against other less known, less expensive gear. In some cases the less expensive gear gave better results.

Gear snobbery is also "I use [Brand X]* because [Insert person's name here] uses it." That's BS too. I've _tried out_ gear because a particular engineer or producer uses it. Some of it sounded incredibly ho-hum, and I passed on it. However, there is obviously something to it: That other person got great results.

One of the highest compliments someone in The Biz can be given is, "they've got good ears." Not equipment. Ears.

*Not picking on the band that Phil Collins used to be in. Livestock is a great record.

[audioengr]

Which is better overall pro monitors or consumer loudspeakers?  It would take a ton of research, testing, and comparisons to answer that question.


Maybe the legendary BBC LS3/5a monitor is one of these.  There are a number of derivatives of this monitor aimed at the home market.  The Harbeth P3ESR is one of these derivatives and it receives almost universally positive reviews. 

If you're looking for something with a pro lineage and is "golden ear" approved maybe the Harbeth P3ESR is what you're looking for.

I've always been a fan of Harbeths.  I like them at CES always. One of my favorite speakers.

How many studios other than in the UK use them though?

Steve N.

[audioengr]

Pardon my ignorance on the topic, but don't professional monitors and home speakers have different design goals?  At a basic level, we like to assume that what sounds good on pro monitors will sound good on home speakers.  But I imagine pro monitors being designed for durability and for a single listener, and I would guess in a near field environment since it would be impossible to assume characteristics of a room.

On the other hand, my home setup is concerned with aesthetics and providing a sound field that is pleasing for multiple people.  I would think this would be enough to create products that are specialized to each market.

What this and the other reports conclude is that the off-axis dispersion is really just as important as on-axis.  This is particularly the case for consumer far-field speakers, but according to the paper, even near-field monitors, because of all the typical near-field reflections in a studio.  There is usually not much done to treat it acoustically.  This is another failing of pro audio.

Steve N.

[Mike Nomad]

I've always been a fan of Harbeths.  I like them at CES always. One of my favorite speakers.

How many studios other than in the UK use them though?

Steve N.

I've never gotten to hear Harbeths. I hate asking this kind of question... sonically, what would you compare/contrast them to?

[Duke]

What this and the other reports conclude is that the off-axis dispersion is really just as important as on-axis.  This is particularly the case for consumer far-field speakers, but according to the paper, even near-field monitors, because of all the typical near-field reflections in a studio.  There is usually not much done to treat it acoustically. 

Once upon a time I built a series of prototype speakers to investigate various approaches to getting subjectively good sound in a small room (this was before Toole's book came out).   My test room is 10' by 10.5' by 6.5' high.  All of the designs I tested had unusually uniform dispersion; what I was primarily looking for was subjective information about the radiation pattern width.  The results of my informal testing indicated that a fairly narrow pattern works best in a small room.  This leads to the highly counter-intuitive conclusion that large drivers are preferred for a small room, because they are more directional than small ones. 

Not troubling ourselves with the bass region for now, I would say that, in a small room (wherein the onset of reverberant energy is inevitably quite early), the first level of loudspeaker optimization is smooth power response.  Smooth power response doesn't necessarily call for a uniform radiation pattern - for example, the off-axis response can zig where the on-axis response zags.  The next level of optimization would be achieving smooth on-axis and off-axis response at the same time, which generally implies radiation pattern smoothness.  And then the third level is for that smooth radiation pattern to be fairly narrow, as this facilitates aiming the pattern to get as much delay before the onset of reverberant energy as possible.

I also like the Harbeths quite a bit, and used to be a dealer for them before I launched my own speaker venture.  All of their models that I heard got the power response right, and their three-ways also had very good radiation pattern smoothness. 

Imho, ime, ymmv, etc.

[fredgarvin]

One of the better speakers I've heard were the Earthworks 'studio monitors'. They definitely are not just for the studio. http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/equipment/0402/earthworkssigma62.htm

Another would be the Lipinski: http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/1205lipinski/

[Russtafarian]

One area where I think pro speakers spank consumer speakers pretty consistently is with lower cost powered monitors.  Powered monitors from M-Audio, Mackie, KRK, etc. in the $150 to $500/pr range perform much better dollar for dollar than similarly priced computer speakers or consumer amp+speaker combos.  For computers, ipods or bedroom TVs, these are tough to beat.

I've used KRK Rocket 5's with my bedroom TV for years and recently replaced the speakers on my teenage boys' computers with M-Audio AV-40's.  The AV-40s can mix two different sources so they can listen to their ipods and hear computer game sounds at the same time.  They sound good too.