Studio Monitor vs. PA Speakers

[102455]

My point is that some people seem to think that when a company brands their audio reproduction device as "studio monitors" it will somehow reproduce "raw audio" whereas if a company calls their audio reproduction device "hi fi" it will somehow produce the same audio but with an added "nice" veneer.

No....."some people" are NOT saying that ALL studio monitors have a ruler flat response, and ALL hi-fi speakers are tweaked.

What "some people" are saying (as per the SOS article that you linked to) is that a typical hi-fi speaker is more likely to have been tweaked to sound appealing than a typical studio monitor. It's the nature of the beast. Also the term "the right tool for the job" comes into play.

Is that specific enough for you? I can be even more verbose if you still haven't got it.

[reeloy]

...to end this...
there are some hifi speakers out there, that are honest enough to mix with...
and there are some monitors, you better don't try that...
pa's won't help in this case....so or so...

and whatever you're using, a mix is allways only that good as your level of experience...
if you really know your speakers and the room they're standing in, you can mix....if not, you can have the best gear around, you'll end up with bad surprises....

i tried so many monitors.....but since i use neumann ka 120, yeah nearfield (sorry bob), for about a year now, i finally know what i'm doing for real and where ever my music comes along now in the end, it sounds pretty much the way i heard it in my studio....and that's what it's all about....

[crumhorn]

I think it depends on how good your hi fi is. It's at the cheap end of the market where the differences are greater.

It's all about the engineering compromises that need to made when designing a speaker system - the cheaper the price point the more compromises need to be made. do you favor extended bass, flat frequency response, loudness, low distortion, ... the list goes on.

For a monitor speaker flat frequency response is the main priority, even at the cost of higher distortion and lower efficiency, for a hi fi speaker the main priority is to sound impressive when auditioned in a hi fi shop.

I've got an old pair of low to mid budget Tannoy Hi Fi speakers (cost about £300 in 199?). I think sound lovely on most source material. The bass in particular sounds very powerful and extends pretty low, But any mix I made on them is pretty much unplayable anywhere else because, certain bass frequencies that they don't seem to reproduce at all, end up dominating the mix.

I now have a pair of 60W Yamaha MSP5A monitors that I bought for sub £100 on ebay. They don't suffer that particular problem, and my mixes sound ok on most peoples Hi Fi, but they come with their own built in lack of low end which means it's easy to make mixes that are too bass heavy to play on the crappy portable speakers that most people seem to use these days.

I think the most important thing to do, whatever your monitor budget, is test your mix everywhere that you possibly can. In practice it mostly won't be heard on high end studio monitors but on run of the mill hi fi, portable systems, car stereos, club sound systems, etc.

[Sional]

For a monitor speaker flat frequency response is the main priority, even at the cost of higher distortion and lower efficiency, for a hi fi speaker the main priority is to sound impressive when auditioned in a hi fi shop.

Possibly at the lower end of the market, but I would also suggest that with the current proliferation of "studio monitors" the main priority may be to sound impressive when auditioned in a music store. After all, it is often the same company which makes both "hi fi" and "studio" products. And of course a manufacturer could repackage what is sonically the same product to attract buyers from both markets.
When auditioning different speakers in the same room, it is always volume that makes the initial impression (the louder one appearing to sound better). Not something manufacturers use to great advantage (speaker efficiency does not tend to vary wildly) but a trait often used by unscrupulous salesmen to offload products.

At the end of the day the label a manufacturer applies to a speaker (particularly at the lower end of the market) is less meaningful than the actual specifications of the item (when adequately provided). Also I suspect that the Genelec "hi fi" and "nearfield monitor" speakers, I referenced above, may be identical apart from the RCA connectors on the "hi fi" model. So what does that tell you? Maybe Genelec are catering for people who like (or have) to sit close to their hi-fi.

[fishmonkey]

most manufacturers actually provide very little information about the performance of their speakers/monitors. most will provide a frequency response graph, but often the actual measurements are pretty useless.

most will omit other equally important measurements, like transient response, phase, and time domain characteristics, even though they almost certainly have that data too.

and in the end the measurements only tell you how the speakers will handle simple test signals at fixed loudness levels; they don't tell you how the speakers will actually perform when trying to reproduce the complex waveforms of actual music at various loudness levels...

[Sional]

What "some people" are saying (as per the SOS article that you linked to) is that a typical hi-fi speaker is more likely to have been tweaked to sound appealing than a typical studio monitor. It's the nature of the beast. .

By typical if you mean at the lower end of the market in terms of price, then the design of all audio speakers ( particularly active ones), no matter how they are labelled, will have to be compromised.
I presume that the way different manufacturers implement the compromises is what you call tweaking the sound.
One manufacturer may decide to provide a degree of bass boost at the expense of clarity and stereo imaging, and another manufacturer may decide to clearly articulate the midrange at the expense of the bottom end. Different customers will prefer one solution to the other depending on their listening preferences. I suggest that both of these scenarios occur in "hi fi" and "studio monitor" labelled speaker designs.
Even at the upper end of the market some compromises and decisions have to be made because a design feature which enhances one area of sonic perfection may have a detrimental effect on another area.
By their nature "studio monitors" are not mass market items so cannot be bought in a supermarket unlike "lo" or even "no fi" systems that can be purchased from supermarkets. So when I use the term "hi fi" I am talking about products of a comparable price to "studio monitors".

Also the term "the right tool for the job" comes into play.

So which is the right Genelec speaker for my studio as their hi fi and studio versions seem so similar?

[Sional]

and in the end the measurements only tell you how the speakers will handle simple test signals at fixed loudness levels; they don't tell you how the speakers will actually perform when trying to reproduce the complex waveforms of actual music at various loudness levels...

Well yes but test and measurement is the only valid reference for comparison and certainly can tell you more than labels like PA, Hi Fi or Studio Reference, as I don't think there is a required standard which has to be met to apply such a label.
Peoples listening experience is purely subjective and what pleases one person may annoy another and therefore the SOS article was correct to use measured data as opposed to the reviewers personal opinion of the speakers based on just listening to them.
I think these days it is possible to test and measure using a complex audio signal. But you are indeed right that it is difficult to compare using manufacturers published data. Thankfully we have equipment reviewers.

[102455]

So which is the right Genelec speaker for my studio as their hi fi and studio versions seem so similar?

Is that a rhetorical question or do you really not know the answer?

First and foremost Genelec are manufacturers of monitor speakers. That's what they started out doing in the 70s and that's what they're still known for.

In comparison, their entry into the home speaker market is a recent one. In the UK at least, you wouldn't be likely to find Genelec in stock at a hi-fi store.

So.....considering they're Genelec, they make monitors, they're famous for it and well regarded, if there's very little difference in the spec then take your pick.


As ought to be clear from this thread, no one is saying the world will end if you use a hi-fi speaker as a monitor - just that if you're in the market for monitors, buying something that's designed and marketed as a monitor will be more likely to result in aural happiness.

[Sional]

As ought to be clear from this thread, no one is saying the world will end if you use a hi-fi speaker as a monitor - just that if you're in the market for monitors, buying something that's designed and marketed as a monitor will be more likely to result in aural happiness.

I appreciate what you are saying, you make a valid point and indeed it should make sense to purchase a "studio monitor" if your intention is to produce, mix and master music. My point is that an active or passive speaker marketed as a studio monitor has not necessarily been designed any differently to one marketed as a hi fi loudspeaker.

In a reverse situation, Genelec "appear" to have added RCA connectors to one of their nearfield monitor designs and are marketing the result as a hi fi loudspeaker. People don't normally sit as close to their hi fi speakers as people who use nearfield monitors. Therefore it could be reasonable to assume that there was no specific design features to support nearfield use.

[fishmonkey]

In a reverse situation, Genelec "appear" to have added RCA connectors to one of their nearfield monitor designs and are marketing the result as a hi fi loudspeaker. People don't normally sit as close to their hi fi speakers as people who use nearfield monitors. Therefore it could be reasonable to assume that there was no specific design features to support nearfield use.

it depends on the speaker design. some nearfield studio monitors have a relatively narrow sweet spot, some don't.

[Angstrom]

I'm sure it says this in that old Sound on sound article, but the idea of "monitors are golden linear response references" and "hifi speakers are coloured junk" is very often just a myth.

Just read up on the history of nearfield monitoring and know that you have been had. The old "grot box" they kept on the side to make sure their lovely full range main monitor mix would translate to the radio, that's the origin of the "nearfield monitor" . An Ns10 is just a more rugged 1980s best selling hifi speaker, that's all. Nothing special.

You get what you pay for, call it what you like.

The concept of the beautiful uncoloured monitor is based on a golden ideal of 40 grand of drivers installed by technicians into a bespoke room. When you get down to some prosumer $200 box , It's really not at all the same thing.

I can tell you right now that those hifi nuts with thousands to spend are buying clarity and response. They want to "hear it exactly as the artist did". Not some coloured effected rubbish like a 50 bucks plastic speaker aiming to boost low end with phoney porting. Drawing false parallels is just designed to flatter the concept of the cheap "monitors" as an ego booster for a home musician.

My brother used to have a HiFi system worth tens of thousands that sounded like freaking crystal. I listened to a Tipper album on it (Surrounded DVDA) and I swore blind it was a different album because I could hear so much more in his speakers! ( I have Adam A7s) .

Remember that this market is a con, and we are the marks. It's like "vitamin water" or "magnetic bracelets". Don't believe the hype. A quality speaker in a well treated room, balanced well, unflattering, this is all there is.

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/Jun02/a ... nitors.asp

[Sional]

You get what you pay for, call it what you like

+ 1.

[crumhorn]

Friend of mine has just bought himself one of these



and two of these



He's invited me around this afternoon to show it off so I'll get a chance to hear what equipment at that price level can sound like.

I'm cynical TBH, surely a 19 inch box full of electronics can't possibly justify that kind of price tag. It's off the scale of anything I would ever consider buying - but obviously I'm going to wax lyrical about how wonderful it sounds in any case.

I'm more than happy with my ancient arcam/tannoy system.

[102455]

Yeah, it is kinda funny that even the respected hi-fi manufacturers make kit that plays MP3s now.

It's a standard format now though, so I suppose they have to meet the demands of their customers.

[Sional]

Hell we can turn this thread into hi fi corner.