monitors in the spotlight

charles-l · Post by **charles-l** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 1:55 am

Are studio monitor speakers required or are hi-fi speakers up to the task?

I'd don't have monitors but use hi-fi speakers and I was under the impression this was a bad thing - but now I think I'll save my money by not getting some.

Why check this out
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/Jun02/a ... nitors.asp

charlie

www.silverkyoto.com

knotkranky · Post by **knotkranky** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 2:18 am

No to the first part and yes to the second. Save your money. A phat amp is just as important. Where the speakers are in your space will make a bigger dif than specs. Yeah, new speaks seem like it will be an automatic music improving thing to most of us, but if you think your car runs better after you wash it, save your dough.

Meef Chaloin · Post by **Meef Chaloin** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 12:07 pm

knotkranky wrote:but if you think your car runs better after you wash it, save your dough.

that's not a very good analogy, the difference between monitors & hifi speakers is not cosmetic, its flatter freq response.

I also use hifi speakers. im not happy with them but if you know your speakers well it doesnt matter what you have, proper monitors will mean that you get a more accurate representation of the actual freqs.

HD1 · Post by **HD1** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 1:58 pm

well ... depends on the monitors you buy...
i used hi-fi speakers, knowing this was wrong for various reasons, for a while. I also had two pairs of pro monitoring headphones so it was no big deal. Anyways, I decided to get a pair of monitors...got genelec 8020a's , and I was dissapointed in the detail of the higher frequencies. Perhaps it will make my compositions sound better in some way, but I am still going to my headphones to get an accurate 'picture' of those higher frequencies. Really, the 8020's seem to miss out on -alot- of detail. A sound is almost non-existant through the monitors, and very obvious through the headphones. This could be down to the lack of acoustic treatment in my room, but thats just a wild guess.

anyways, its handy to have your hi-fi speakers in the studio, at the end of the day most people will want their sounds to sound good on average hi fi systems.

Meef Chaloin · Post by **Meef Chaloin** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 2:56 pm

i have to admit i had posted that without reading the article. Its very interesting. I think it does all depend on how well you know your speakers though and where the dips/peaks are. I guess it just comes down to find some that you like the sound of.

Angstrom · Post by **Angstrom** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 3:21 pm

yes, very interesting article.

My brother is a hi-fi nut, so he tends to have some excellent speakers. He has a pair of modified first edition KEF 105s that look like daleks , those things have an incredible sound to them.

the old idea that "hi-fi speakers are made to flatter the sound while monitors are true and flat" , it just doesn't hold up when you consider 'audiophile' speakers.

No audiophile wants a 'flattering' sound they want 'transparency' and a 'flat response' . Only low price consumer 'boombox' and cheapo hi-fi equipment can be covered by the coloured sound argument. When you start looking at hi-fi speakers that cost 2k each you are not going to have a big artificial bass hump on them - these hi-fi nuts pay thir money for a reason.

I monitor through Alesis M1 active mk2 , not exactly the pinacle of monitor design. I would trade them for the 'hi-fi' daleks in an half an eyeblink.

knotkranky · Post by **knotkranky** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 3:49 pm

Meef Chaloin wrote:
that's not a very good analogy, the difference between monitors & hifi speakers is not cosmetic, its flatter freq response.

It's not an analogy, it's a humorus metaphor about hearing, perception and shinny new gear........ There is actually no difference between those speakers, exept the name and the cosmetics. Components, build quality and specs can be great and suck in both camps. NS-10 are studio monitors but their not flatter than commercial home Dynaudio's or a zillion other call them what you want speakers. Speakers is speakers. The hifi guys want honest reproduction and so do we. High fidelity means just that. This is not to be confused with bookshelf speakers that say hifi on them. If flat response is the objective, then why do all studio monitor models sound different? flat response cannot be heard, only measured with test tones. Add the fact nobody here has a flat room, or flat ears, add good amps crappy amps, personal taste, punk rock, house, classical etc. The only speaker issue to adress is quality and taste.

Meef Chaloin · Post by **Meef Chaloin** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:22 pm

Fair point.

Angstrom, would you not recommend the m1's? Im thinking about getting some soon (although i havent heard them), be interested to hear a more detailed opinion on them.

Angstrom · Post by **Angstrom** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:48 pm

RE: the M1 active mk 2
they are Ok, but as you will probably have read - you should stick some socks in the bass ports to get a more acurate response.
Most visiting people say 'hey these speakers produce a lot of bass' in an admiring way. So it needs a sock or two in my experience to get a better/ more acurate performance when testing mixes on other systems.
when that is done the mid to low region is fine, they did produce a matched sub unit for a while although I havent got one.

also I wouldnt say the highs are particularly detailed, I've been watching the development of cheaper ribbon HF drivers which were once reserved for the expensive end of teh market. Now we can see them appearing in something like the Samson rubicon.
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul05/a ... udicon.htm

At the end of the day the M1mkII actives have served me well for the last few years and compare pretty well to others in the price range.
But I have used some pretty expensive (other peoples) monitoring set-ups in my time and know what I am missing, so I'm never really going to be happy with something that cost me £300.