Studio Monitor vs other types of speakers.

Rclark · « **on:** 21 Mar 2012, 09:44 pm »

I've never really understood the difference.

They say the point of a studio monitor is to sound flat. Well aren't all speakers designed to have flat response?

What are the real differences here?

I just watched a youtube video where are guy was comparing different studio monitors and he said that in a studio monitor you get absolute flat response and true to signal sound.

With a home speaker, you get colored, pleasant sound.

What's the "truth" here?

That said, I love my Maggies, and they sound more real than any monitor I've ever heard, especially with vocals, stringed instruments, bass, piano you know the drill.

I have monitors. They're just a midrange driver and a tweeter in a ported box, maybe a waveguide. Mine are even nice monitors. I've got GR Insignia's. Danny Richie crossover, No Rez, augmented enclosure, super light carbon fiber driver. Excellent sound. Nowhere near my Maggies.

mrhyfy · « **Reply #1 on:** 22 Mar 2012, 12:00 am »

I think the fella was optimistic about his assesment of studio monitors being "flat". They are perhaps within a certain bandwith.

Rclark · « **Reply #2 on:** 22 Mar 2012, 12:10 am »

Well, true. Buy this was actually across several vids. One of the common themes was that studio monitors aren't meant to sound pleasant, instead accurate. And that home speakers of any type are meant to sound pleasant.

I find that interesting because my planars are more accurate than my monitors. Of course accuracy can mean a lot of things but for me it's a lack of smearing, a precision and realism of the instruments, lack of box sound.

Vapor Audio · « **Reply #3 on:** 22 Mar 2012, 12:11 am »

Flat depends on how you're defining flat. Flat on axis? If so, in what frequency range ... and what +/- deviation is allowed and still remain flat? If you're talking a flat power response, then you have a whole new set of variables that need defined.

I personally don't think the +/- 3db on axis is enough to call something flat. I'd say more like 1.5-2db, and power response must also be flat for all but the top octave or two.

I have a pair of modded Insignia's myself. They're made as flat as can be, but still not flat at all. And the tweeter in those things is average at best, there are just too many compromises from having to stuff a tweeter assembly in the pole of a woofer that negatively affect function. My pair lives in the garage.

With regard to what many call studio monitors, they're brute forced flat through DSP in many cases. So they may measure flat, but that isn't necessarily indicative of the quality of the drivers being used.

Rclark · « **Reply #4 on:** 22 Mar 2012, 12:33 am »

bdiament · « **Reply #5 on:** 22 Mar 2012, 12:36 am »

I've seen so much silliness about "studio monitors", mostly from folks who've never been in a studio or monitored anything in one.

When I started as an engineer, a typical studio monitor was the size of a modest washing machine and was designed for high intelligibility at extremely high playback levels. Often there was a midrange prominence, above a double hump in the bass and not much high top to speak of. These things were great for listening... if you were 1/4 mile away. ;-}
What came from them had very little to do with what one heard on the other side of the glass, where the musicians were.

In those days, having alternative speakers, little boxes atop the meter bridge of the mixing console, started to become popular. Part of this, I always believed, was because the sound from the larger monitors had nothing to do with the sound of the recording itself. Unfortunately, neither did the sound from the smaller speakers.

First, there were the single 4" Bose driver in a cube, called Auratones (but more often referred to as "Awfultones").
A few years later, Yamaha NS-10s became the fashion. (I always called them "NaSty Tens".) When a famous engineer modified his by covering the tweeter with a square of toilet paper (the "Charmin mod"), this started turning up in other studios too. (I always asked, "Just what is coming from that tweeter, that toilet paper is being used to 'absorb' it?" ;-{ )

Nowadays, the term "studio monitor" is applied to self-powered little boxes that once again (to my ears) have nothing to do with the sound of the recording itself. I refer to these as "shoeboxes". Like their predecessors, they are most often placed on the meter bridge of the recording console, where the reflection from the console surface will guarantee a midrange dip at the listening position.

Unfortunately, producers and engineers still take their recordings to outside sources "to see how they sound". At one time, I'd have thought the studio should show better than anywhere else. Over time, I learned that unfortunately, in most (but not all) studios, the control room sound is more like a typical automobile's system, only louder.

Bottom line: "Studio monitor" is a marketing term and has no bearing whatsoever on the quality of the device.

That's how I hear it anyway. The few studios I know that I have any trust in at all, all use speakers that might be defined as "audiophile" (i.e. designed for enthusiasts who seek something representative of the recording itself rather than something capable of being heard from long distances).

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

Rclark · « **Reply #6 on:** 22 Mar 2012, 01:17 am »

Bam. Thank you for that. Cut right through it.

Muser · « **Reply #7 on:** 22 Mar 2012, 05:06 am »

Well, Barry cut through it, but maybe he also cut the baby in half.
First, I'll give props to Barry for his experience and because his recordings are apparently well received. However, I think he wrote over broadly and was to rapid to dismiss a whole category of speakers.

First, a monitor is a speaker used to monitor a recording. Barry uses Magnepans and perhaps other speakers to monitor his recordings. If all monitors are crap, then Magnepans are . . ., no, I don't think that's what Barry is saying, but that's the line of thinking that I think is problematic and why I'm following up here.

In consumer hifi there are a collection of speakers sized to be placed on a book shelf; sometimes these are called monitors and mini monitors. It's safe to say that the majority of these speakers don't have the fidelity to properly monitor a recording/mastering session. These consumer variety speakers are related to speakers that some engineers use to monitor a recording by placing the "studio monitor" speaker about two feet away from the engineer, at ear height, on something called a bridge. These would be the size of a consumer monitor.

Some of the speakers that sit on those bridges sit there to monitor the fidelity of the recording. Some sit there to let the engineer know what the recording might sound on a sub-optimal system, e.g. Yamaha "Natural Sound Monitors" also known as NSM10s. Barry and I agree that these sound terrible, but they weren't there because they sounded fantastic. Imagine how many records you'd sell if your music only sounded great on Magnepans, but like crap on most other speakers? Bad business. So, some speakers are used not for fidelity, but for other purposes like to make sure the recording sounds OK on a boombox. And, some engineers use the speaker they can afford - just because cost no object would be best doesn't mean cost wasn't a huge object in the way of an engineer doing it "right."

Not every "studio monitor" sounds bad, however, nor do they all sound alike. The monitors placed on bridges are designed to sound their best at two feet (nearfield); other monitors are designed to sound better further away (midfield) and are of different sizes, e.g. bridge monitors might be 20 liters in size and midfield monitors might be 50 to 300 liters in size. So, not only do monitors sound different one from the other, but different monitors are used in different circumstances. Different tools for a different jobs.

J. Gordon Holt listened to ATC SCM (studio control monitors) 70 speakers near the end of his career. He commented, and I'm paraphrasing, they were so good that perhaps those speakers should be compared to live music rather than to other speakers. Not sure if you recall, but for years before he bought the ATCs, he listened to SoundLab A1 speakers - fantastic speakers if you ask me, so it's not like he was unaware of other choices. Sony used ATC to rollout SACD. Chad Kassem used ATCs to rollout the remastered "Wish You Were Here" from Pink Floyd at RMAF 2011. Some reviewers in attendance remarked that the sound couldn't be better.

Would you like those speakers? Maybe, maybe not. Would Barry? Maybe, maybe not. But Magnepans, while respected aren't everyone's first choice, either. Can't please everyone all the time. So, just a different two cents to what a monitor might be.

Oh, and I haven't heard your speakers. While many people like GR Research, I have no opinion on a speaker I haven't heard. Could be a great speaker for monitoring, might not. I'm sure, however, it doesn't sound like a Magnepan and if that is the ultimate critierion for you, then it's a Maggie World you get to live in. Happy listening, too.

Cheers,

Larry

Rclark · « **Reply #8 on:** 22 Mar 2012, 07:53 pm »

An education in both posts. Exactly what I was hoping to read!

JLM · « **Reply #9 on:** 25 Mar 2012, 11:16 am »

The classic/primary comparison between studio and home (audiophile) speakers is that the studio speakers are hyper-detailed while home speakers are less fatiguing, maybe even "warmer". Reviews of studio monitors often mention suitability for home use.

Studio speakers must (try) to fully hear into the tracks to come up with the best possible recording, yet marketing realities also dictate that they allow the producer to know what the recording will sound like in a wide (at least expected) range of playback scenarios: iPod/earbud; boombox; automobile; TV; home audio systems.

Rclark · « **Reply #10 on:** 26 Mar 2012, 04:44 pm »

Nice, thanks for that JLM

spinner · « **Reply #11 on:** 28 Mar 2012, 04:21 pm »

Great post ..thanks for the opinions .

JBLMVBC · « **Reply #12 on:** 29 Mar 2012, 09:25 pm »

Studio monitors are precision tools not ego satisfying pieces of furniture peddled through glossy magazines and philosophical dissertations at 20 times the price of the hardware.
Here is an example of one of the best studio monitor ever made:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1IdFA5ZozM&feature=related

Rclark · « **Reply #13 on:** 29 Mar 2012, 11:03 pm »

Those are pretty goofy looking. They should get them off of wheels and onto some proper stands or spikes.

JLM · « **Reply #14 on:** 29 Mar 2012, 11:24 pm »

Quote from: JBLMVBC on 29 Mar 2012, 09:25 pm

Studio monitors are precision tools not ego satisfying pieces of furniture peddled through glossy magazines and philosophical dissertations at 20 times the price of the hardware.
Here is an example of one of the best studio monitor ever made:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1IdFA5ZozM&feature=related

So how do you really feel about home speakers versus studio monitors?

Why do people try to demo audio gear over low resolution source?

JBLMVBC · « **Reply #15 on:** 29 Mar 2012, 11:51 pm »

Quote from: JLM on 29 Mar 2012, 11:24 pm

So how do you really feel about home speakers versus studio monitors?

Why do people try to demo audio gear over low resolution source?

May I suggest you inform yourself about Kenrick Sound at http://jbl43.com/?mode=f3
These guys are using high quality microphones when making these videos. They are also specialists of restoration of these iconic monitors that were virtually in most professional studios in the 70s and 80s.

redbook · « **Reply #16 on:** 30 Mar 2012, 01:21 am »

Bravo , well put

Danny Richie · « **Reply #17 on:** 30 Mar 2012, 03:36 am »

Most of the studio monitors that I have measured are not exactly flat.

The Mackies that I tested were just outside of +/-3db and pretty hard to listen to. Vocals were muddy and smeared. The highs were overly aggressive.... Just horrible.

The smoothest that I have measured were a cheap pair of Behringers and they weren't exactly flat either. They had their own set of problems.

I certainly have not seen any higher standards in speakers marketed for studio's.

Quote

Unfortunately, producers and engineers still take their recordings to outside sources "to see how they sound".

Very true. I used to have one local recording studio come by quite often. They'd always wind up hearing things that they didn't know were in the recording. Then go back to change a bunch of stuff...

Russell Dawkins · « **Reply #18 on:** 30 Mar 2012, 05:22 am »

I would be interested in knowing which were the flatter measuring speakers in your experience, Danny, and whether you found that some of these still had problems, and what those problems typically were.

JLM · « **Reply #19 on:** 30 Mar 2012, 09:10 am »

Quote from: JBLMVBC on 29 Mar 2012, 11:51 pm

May I suggest you inform yourself about Kenrick Sound at http://jbl43.com/?mode=f3
These guys are using high quality microphones when making these videos. They are also specialists of restoration of these iconic monitors that were virtually in most professional studios in the 70s and 80s.

I've owned JBL, am an active advocate, bought my son JBL computer monitors for college graduation, use custom single driver speakers in my main rig, and currently use Altec Lansing 2.1 desktop monitors, so I'm with you. Just can't imagine getting a meaningful read from a u-tube video.