Why don't we use Pro Monitors in our Homes? - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 513 Old 06-23-2009, 06:14 PM
Advanced Member
 
Bone215's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Cherry Hill NJ
Posts: 749
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
a less expensive alternative is the JBL 4410A and the 4412A. I picked up a pair of the 4412A at a very good price.
It looks like the precursor to the lsr 6338, in horizontal layout.

http://www.jblpro.com/pub/recording/4400.pdf

deeper than the deepest ocean
Bone215 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 513 Old 06-23-2009, 06:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ifor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: La Quinta, CA
Posts: 2,434
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by rock_bottom View Post



Those speaker stands look anemic compared to the monitors.
ifor is offline  
post #93 of 513 Old 06-23-2009, 06:21 PM
Advanced Member
 
Bone215's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Cherry Hill NJ
Posts: 749
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Attachment 146108


Jay1
This is the set up I was refering to.
LL

deeper than the deepest ocean
Bone215 is offline  
post #94 of 513 Old 06-23-2009, 06:27 PM
Senior Member
 
rock_bottom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 430
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by ifor View Post

Those speaker stands look anemic compared to the monitors.

Yeah. They are steel, so they're plenty strong, but they are a bit more tippy than I'd like (but not quite as tippy as they look). Blu-tac and spikes help that quite a bit, but there's no way I'd use these if there were toddlers around.
rock_bottom is offline  
post #95 of 513 Old 06-23-2009, 06:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jay1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: AZ
Posts: 3,980
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone215 View Post

Attachment 146108


Jay1
This is the set up I was refering to.

That guy is crazy.


ifor,
Those monitors have 12" woofers, there aren't many stands that won't look anemic.
Jay1 is offline  
post #96 of 513 Old 06-24-2009, 02:56 PM
 
markwriter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: AZ
Posts: 878
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone215 View Post

The listening environment that JBL uses for blind listening tests, I think, is designed with the very purpose of eliminating the room's effect and just letting the listening group hear the speaker.

No, a room that lets the listener only hear the speaker (eliminating all room effects) would be called an anechoic chamber. The MLL room is definitely not that.
markwriter is offline  
post #97 of 513 Old 06-24-2009, 03:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Looneybomber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Lawrence, KS
Posts: 4,668
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Well, I have not read hardly any posts in this thread so I hope I'm not repeating information, but one of the most respected sound studio's Skywalker, uses 5 B&W 802's in their studio, which are not even close to studio monitors.



So if one of the greatest sound studio's uses consumer speakers, what does that mean?

YID DIY
Looneybomber is offline  
post #98 of 513 Old 06-24-2009, 03:43 PM
Senior Member
 
///3oris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 318
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Even though I didn't like sivadselim's arguments, being completely non-technical, unsupported by any evidence and generally based on circular logic, he might actually have a point.

According to this source, particularly in the 3rd paragraph:
Quote:


DIFFERENT WORLDS

A common misconception among those new to music production is that home-stereo speakers are adequate for monitoring. That is, in fact, not the case. The problem is one of purpose: whereas manufacturers design reference monitors to reproduce signals accurately, home-stereo speakers are specifically designed to make recordings sound better. Typically, that perceived improvement is accomplished by boosting low and high frequencies. Although it may sound like an enhancement to the average listener, such hype is really a move away from accuracy.

Home-stereo speakers may also be engineered to de-emphasize midrange frequencies so as to mask problems in this critical range. That makes it difficult to hear what's going on in the midrange, which can tempt mixers to overcompensate with EQ. It can also lead to fatigue because the ear must strain to hear the mids.

Yet another reason home-stereo speakers are inappropriate for monitoring is that they are meant to be listened to in the far field, where much of the sound is reflected. But as we've seen, close-field monitors are designed to be used in the near field, in order to help minimize the effects of room acoustics. Of course, it's important not to sit too close to near fields. Rather, they should be positioned far enough back to allow the sound from the speakers to blend into an apparent point source and stereo soundstage. As you move in closer than three feet or so, the sound from each speaker becomes distinguishable separately, which is not what you want.

Now, the author of the article is talking about 'general' speaker designs, not the 'HiFi' stuff.

Are there any sound engineers who can break this down and explain the differences once and for all?

I'd like to add a few more question, if it's alright with the OP. It seems that one of the 'studio monitors' purposes is to have a pretty flat response as to actually produce exactly what was recorded and it sounds like engineers use the studio monitors to remaster everything so it sounds as it should. Then why do we use pre-amps to re-EQ everything based on various X-curves and the such? Do we even know what the engineers end-goals are when they master a DVD for example? Are they gearing their stuff towards HiFi systems with decently flat curves, or towards the standard living room theaters, etc?

Sorry if that should be a separate thread.

Thanks

Internet Certified Electrical Engineer
"I am just looking for an honest man."
///3oris is offline  
post #99 of 513 Old 06-24-2009, 04:38 PM
Senior Member
 
aBlueSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San Rafael, CA
Posts: 277
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Looneybomber View Post

Well, I have not read hardly any posts in this thread so I hope I'm not repeating information, but one of the most respected sound studio's Skywalker, uses 5 B&W 802's in their studio, which are not even close to studio monitors.



So if one of the greatest sound studio's uses consumer speakers, what does that mean?

Just to be clear, the picture you are showing is of the scoring stage at Skywalker Sound (music recording) and there are a number of monitoring systems that are available to clients of the scoring stage (M&K, Blue Sky, Wilson Audio, B&W, Tannoy, Meyer, ATC, Genelec and Yamaha). There is also a custom Allen Sides / Ocean Way monitoring system built-in the front wall, behind the acoustically transparent material.

In the rooms dedicated to post production audio editing and mixing, most of the smaller rooms use Blue Sky monitoring systems (well over 50 systems), a smaller number of M&K and Dynaudio systems are used as well and the larger rooms feature semi standard cinema speaker systems.

Cheers!
aBlueSky is offline  
post #100 of 513 Old 06-24-2009, 04:54 PM
Senior Member
 
aBlueSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San Rafael, CA
Posts: 277
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ///3oris View Post

Even though I didn't like sivadselim's arguments, being completely non-technical, unsupported by any evidence and generally based on circular logic, he might actually have a point.

According to this source, particularly in the 3rd paragraph:


Now, the author of the article is talking about 'general' speaker designs, not the 'HiFi' stuff.

Are there any sound engineers who can break this down and explain the differences once and for all?

I'd like to add a few more question, if it's alright with the OP. It seems that one of the 'studio monitors' purposes is to have a pretty flat response as to actually produce exactly what was recorded and it sounds like engineers use the studio monitors to remaster everything so it sounds as it should. Then why do we use pre-amps to re-EQ everything based on various X-curves and the such? Do we even know what the engineers end-goals are when they master a DVD for example? Are they gearing their stuff towards HiFi systems with decently flat curves, or towards the standard living room theaters, etc?

Sorry if that should be a separate thread.

Thanks

I think you are confusing several different applications; when people refer to studio monitors, they are typically referring to monitoring systems for smaller recording studios, such as near-field and mid-field monitors and rooms under about 5k cubic feet.

When you mention the x-curve, that is only for large rooms / movie theaters, cinema applications and dubbing stages. However, it is important to note, that when you close-mic and measure a cinema speaker system, it does have flat response. However, as you move into the room, away from the source, using the SMPTE / Dolby specified measuring techniques, you get a roll off in the HF range. This roll-off was written into several standards, including SMPTE 202M / ISO 2969. However, it was found that the roll off, especially at the top end, may be a little too extreme and therefore audio mixed in large rooms, that are EQ'd to the X-curve, can sound a little bright in smaller rooms (home theater setting, for example). Tom Holman's / THX's solution to this was to add a bit of RE-EQ, which corrects for this discrepancy (note, this doesn't apply the X-curve, just a slight correction at the top end). Complicating this issue, is that many newer movie soundtracks are purposely remixed for consumer playback, so RE-EQ may not always be necessary for home DVD / BluRay soundtracks.

I hope this information helps a little...

Cheers!
aBlueSky is offline  
post #101 of 513 Old 06-24-2009, 04:54 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sivadselim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: CO
Posts: 16,081
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by ///3oris View Post

Even though I didn't like sivadselim's arguments, being completely non-technical, unsupported by any evidence and generally based on circular logic.............

Yeah, you're right, I can't tell you the technical nitty-gritty of what makes a so-called nearfield monitor different from a traditional home speaker. Or vice versa. So what? All I had to say is that studio monitors are not designed to be used in most in-home environments. That says plenty. There was nothing at all "circular" about anything that I said.

And there are more differences between monitors and home speakers than are cited in the article you quoted, btw. No, I don't have to list them or even know and understand what they are to know that they are there. I don't know much about tire design, but I know that a road tire differs from an off-road tire, which differs from an oval racing tire, which differs from a GT racing tire. I know that the differences are there and that the tires are designed differently for a reason. I may even be able to speculate about some of the differences, but I don't have to understand the detailed physics of the tread or the intricacies of synthetic rubber's chemistry.

Sh!tty analogy? OK, fine, I'll come up with another. Point is, I don't have to be an acoustic engineer to know that there is a difference between a studio monitor and a typical in-home speaker.

"All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it."
sivadselim is offline  
post #102 of 513 Old 06-24-2009, 05:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jay1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: AZ
Posts: 3,980
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by ///3oris View Post

Even though I didn't like sivadselim's arguments, being completely non-technical, unsupported by any evidence and generally based on circular logic, he might actually have a point.

According to this source, particularly in the 3rd paragraph:


Now, the author of the article is talking about 'general' speaker designs, not the 'HiFi' stuff.

Are there any sound engineers who can break this down and explain the differences once and for all?

I'd like to add a few more question, if it's alright with the OP. It seems that one of the 'studio monitors' purposes is to have a pretty flat response as to actually produce exactly what was recorded and it sounds like engineers use the studio monitors to remaster everything so it sounds as it should. Then why do we use pre-amps to re-EQ everything based on various X-curves and the such? Do we even know what the engineers end-goals are when they master a DVD for example? Are they gearing their stuff towards HiFi systems with decently flat curves, or towards the standard living room theaters, etc?

Sorry if that should be a separate thread.

Thanks

That part you highlighted explained why home speakers are typically not good for studio use.
Jay1 is offline  
post #103 of 513 Old 06-24-2009, 05:30 PM
Senior Member
 
///3oris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 318
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

Yeah, you're right, I can't tell you the technical nitty-gritty of what makes a so-called nearfield monitor different from a traditional home speaker. Or vice versa. So what? All I had to say is that studio monitors are not designed to be used in most in-home environments. That says plenty. There was nothing at all "circular" about anything that I said.

And there are more differences between monitors and home speakers than are cited in the article you quoted, btw. No, I don't have to list them or even know and understand what they are to know that they are there. I don't know much about tire design, but I know that a road tire differs from an off-road tire, which differs from an oval racing tire, which differs from a GT racing tire. I know that the differences are there and that the tires are designed differently for a reason.

Sh!tty analogy? OK, fine, I'll come up with another. Point is, I don't have to be an acoustic engineer to know that there is a difference between a studio monitor and a typical in-home speaker.

sivadselim,

No offense, but I don't want to get into an argument with you, because I'm not an expert on sound nor speakers. However, I would consider myself an expert in logic (no degree required ). When one makes a statement and is completely ****-sure of it, that statement is usually based on having knowledge of something. You claim to not have the knowledge, yet you make the statement as fact. That's a paradox. "I have no clue what colors are, but that chair is definitely green."

As far as your example about tires, a tire expert would definitely know the difference and could describe it. The difference is a bit more subtle than a F1 tire vs a truck tire. I'm guessing the OP is looking for such an expert, not a lay person who just states that there must be a difference based on packaging or the name of the product. There obviously are differences, the question is what are the differences? Are these differences good or bad for enthusiasts? The OP isn't asking you which tires he should buy, he's asking for technical differences between tire A and tire B and what precludes one from using tire B in place of A.

Anyway, since you're obviously not an expert in this field nor can you even put in words your intuitions, your posts don't really add to the OPs or others' understanding of the subject. Normally, this isn't a problem, because your opinion would just get discarded by the intelligent readers of this forum, however you keep making statements as if they're fact and as if you have credentials while Pro's say things to the contrary and post evidence to support their claim. It's not right, if you want to state an opinion, state it as such. If you don't know something, it's best to be humble and swallow your tongue.

I hope you don't take this post as an attack on you, I'm merely trying to open your eyes so that you appreciate what everyone else has said. How would you feel if you walked into a Best Buy and the sales guy tells you "I wouldn't buy those $10 HDMI cables, I'd buy these $150 HDMI cables." When you ask the guy why, he says "Well, if you look at the label, these are obviously better shielded and if you just bought a $2,000 1080p HDTV why would you want a crappy picture?" You are being that guy in this thread.

Sorry...

Internet Certified Electrical Engineer
"I am just looking for an honest man."
///3oris is offline  
post #104 of 513 Old 06-24-2009, 05:33 PM
Senior Member
 
aBlueSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San Rafael, CA
Posts: 277
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

Point is, I don't have to be an acoustic engineer to know that there is a difference between a studio monitor and a typical in-home speaker.

Actually, if you are going to argue that studio monitors don't work for consumer applications, then you are going to have to provide something more than your "hunch" as evidence. Certainly, in overly broad terms, consumer speakers may not always be the best choice for professional applications***, because of some of the items listed in a previous post, but that doesn't mean that the inverse is true. From my own personal experience at Lucasfilm THX, M&K, Audio Design Labs and Blue Sky, I know that studio monitors can work and excel in consumer environments, especially for those enthusiasts looking for accuracy (understanding some of the caveats laid out previously).

*** Also, and just to be absolutely clear; I personally believe that there are a number of very high quality 'consumer' speakers, which certainly would be more than suitable for professional studio monitoring applications as well.

Anyway, I better do some more work...

Cheers!
aBlueSky is offline  
post #105 of 513 Old 06-24-2009, 05:34 PM
Senior Member
 
///3oris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 318
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay1 View Post

That part you highlighted explained why home speakers are typically not good for studio use.

Hmm, good point... I don't know how I missed that

Thanks for pointing it out.

Internet Certified Electrical Engineer
"I am just looking for an honest man."
///3oris is offline  
post #106 of 513 Old 06-24-2009, 06:09 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sivadselim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: CO
Posts: 16,081
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by ///3oris View Post

No offense, but I don't want to get into an argument with you, because I'm not an expert on sound nor speakers. However, I would consider myself an expert in logic (no degree required ). When one makes a statement and is completely ****-sure of it, that statement is usually based on having knowledge of something. You claim to not have the knowledge, yet you make the statement as fact. That's a paradox. "I have no clue what colors are, but that chair is definitely green."

It's not like I am declaring that the earth revolves around the sun. The answer seems pretty simple to me. Can you demonstrate to me that studio monitors are, indeed, specifically designed to be used in living rooms and dens and not in studios? Have you ever heard a studio monitor in a home environment?


Quote:
Originally Posted by ///3oris View Post

As far as your example about tires, a tire expert would definitely know the difference and could describe it. The difference is a bit more subtle than a F1 tire vs a truck tire. I'm guessing the OP is looking for such an expert, not a lay person who just states that there must be a difference based on packaging or the name of the product. There obviously are differences, the question is what are the differences? Are these differences good or bad for enthusiasts? The OP isn't asking you which tires he should buy, he's asking for technical differences between tire A and tire B and what precludes one from using tire B in place of A.

The OP is asking why he can't use a racing slick on his 4x4. And the answer is the same.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ///3oris View Post

Anyway, since you're obviously not an expert in this field nor can you even put in words your intuitions, your posts don't really add to the OPs or others' understanding of the subject. Normally, this isn't a problem, because your opinion would just get discarded by the intelligent readers of this forum, however you keep making statements as if they're fact and as if you have credentials while Pro's say things to the contrary and post evidence to support their claim. It's not right, if you want to state an opinion, state it as such. If you don't know something, it's best to be humble and swallow your tongue.

Sorry, but saying that studio monitors aren't designed to be used in your den is not much of a leap of faith. Is it? Can someone show me that that statement is patently wrong? No. Because it is true. If a manufacturer's studio monitor can work well in an in-home environment, there is a reason, and it may well have been a design goal for the speaker in the first place. Maybe the guy from blueSky can answer this about his speakers. But I can almost guarantee you that the engineers at a company like Behringer, Alesis, or KRK design their studio monitors very specifically to be used in a studio environment. Does that necessarily preclude them still being able to be used in-home? Of course not. But they still weren't specifically designed for that use. They just weren't. The design goals are different. To say that they aren't is either silliness or stubbornness. There is a difference in the design goals and that difference goes beyond aesthetics. They didn't set out to design a good speaker, first, and then happen to slap it with a "studio monitor" moniker, later.

I can ride a mountain bike on the road and may even be able to keep up with many road bikers. So what? My mountain bike wasn't designed to be used on the road. What's the big deal?

Would you allow that some studio monitors, due to differences in their design, may work better in-home than others? Why?



Quote:
Originally Posted by ///3oris View Post

I hope you don't take this post as an attack on you, I'm merely trying to open your eyes so that you appreciate what everyone else has said. How would you feel if you walked into a Best Buy and the sales guy tells you "I wouldn't buy those $10 HDMI cables, I'd buy these $150 HDMI cables." When you ask the guy why, he says "Well, if you look at the label, these are obviously better shielded and if you just bought a $2,000 1080p HDTV why would you want a crappy picture?" You are being that guy in this thread.

That is a crap analogy. How about if I went to BB and wanted to buy a car sub for my house? A really big one. Why shouldn't I use it? I'm sure there are reasons that can be detailed, but why bother? All that needs to be said is that it won't work as well in-home because it's not designed to be used there.

Or better yet, how about I want to use tube amps for my HT setup? All you have to say is that they aren't really designed for that use. That says plenty.

"All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it."
sivadselim is offline  
post #107 of 513 Old 06-24-2009, 07:06 PM
Member
 
EvilRonin_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 70
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Well, I won't jump into this cat fight about whether they are good or bad for use in our homes - but I just bought a Blue Sky Exo system for listening to music in my home office and these things rock!
EvilRonin_ is offline  
post #108 of 513 Old 06-24-2009, 08:03 PM
 
markwriter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: AZ
Posts: 878
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post


They didn't set out to design a good speaker, first, and then happen to slap it with a "studio monitor" moniker, later.

With regard to sound quality, good speaker companies do exactly this. For Harman, good speakers are good speakers. The "pro" part comes in with aesthetics (no wood veneers on JBL studio monitors, for example) and other features like connectivity (balanced inputs) and the eq-ing circuits I mentioned. They also might be designed for more heavy use (higher spl's for more hours per day for example). But as far as fidelity and sound quality goes, the JBL's go thru the same double blind user preference testing that the consumer equipment goes thru. Competent speaker companies go for accuracy in both their pro and consumer lines. The 'hacks' go for making things sound 'better' than accurate.
markwriter is offline  
post #109 of 513 Old 06-24-2009, 11:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Raymond Leggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,612
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by rock_bottom View Post

Okay, I just took this. I am the world's worst photographer . This is the view from my listening chair. They are passively biamped with a pair of cheapo Outlaw monoblocks per channel that you can see behind the speakers. The amps are resting on cutting boards that I bought at Target.

I know the CD rack shouldn't be where it is because of the reflections, but I don't have another place for them. My apartment is pretty small. By the way, I have that REG review in PDF form somewhere. It is of the LSR32, its predecessor.



CD racks don't cause reflections, untreated walls do.

One shall stand... One Shall Fall... - Optimus Prime
Raymond Leggs is offline  
post #110 of 513 Old 06-24-2009, 11:32 PM
Newbie
 
kinguin7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I have to admit, I have never used pro monitors in my home. But, I am assuming (yes, assuming) that they would be more accurate in a home environment than would a standard home system. I also assume that they make good speakers, then label them monitors, for whatever my opinions are worth. I admit that I am currently using home speakers, a pair of Technics SB-L200, in my main system until I get the parts for my DIY speakers. Now for some speculations with a foundation in actual knowledge: both home and pro speakers should ideally have a low amount of intermodulation and harmonic/nonlinear distortion, period. Some companies, however, *cough*Boze*cough* either underestimate the importance of harmonic distortion, or purposely add it, due to the fact that a certain amount of distortion, particularly the second harmonic, adds a degree of perceived "musicality" (note, tube amps add second order harmonic distortion, this is why they sound more musical than solid state), but any harmonics, however musical, reduce accuracy, and are thus in my opinion, the opinion of studios, and what should be your opinion, a bad thing. So if we have a theoretical set of speakers, one the perfect monitor, the other a perfect home system, both will share these characteristics (besides the obvious efficiency, power handling, etc):

1. No nonlinear/harmonic distortion or intermodulation, which is linked to rise/fall times
2. Close driver spacing, optimally a coaxial setup (or true fullrange, if one could be made that does not "beam", a.k.a. have poor performance off-axis) so as to combine into a point source at the nearest range possible and have the best performance off axis. If directionality is required, waveguides or horns may be implemented.
3. As flat as possible a frequency response in their intended environment.

As we can see, 3, frequency response, is the only one where environment, home or studio, comes into play. If a designer is creating a monitor for a treated studio, he may (more speculation in this part) wish to engineer it to be flat in an anechoic chamber, which would resemble a full 4 pi radiation pattern. A home speaker, on the other hand, may be placed on a floor, resulting in 2 pi radiation, mounted on a wall, again 2 pi, on the floor against a wall, resulting in pi radiation, or in a corner, resulting in half pi radiation. If free space 4 pi radiation is assumed, mid field or far field frequency response would be flattest with full baffle step compensation, or BSC (look it up, others can explain it better than I). Against a wall, radiating in 2 pi or less, BSC is unnecessary (as any sound that "leaks" behind the speakers is reflected back, this however causes early reflections, reducing sound quality). In a 4 pi radiation, near field environment, such as what should exist in the ideal studio, and as such how most monitors are/should be designed, partial BSC is what is used to achieve the flattest response (in the near field, the "leakage" of the lower frequencies behind the speaker cabinet is less apparent, the closer you are to the speaker the less effect it has).

So in conclusion, the only difference between my "ideal" monitor and home speakers are the amount of baffle step correction applied. That being said, many speaker designers simply ignore BSC, and the results are acceptable. And if you did want to adjust the level of BSC, so as to convert a monitor for home use or vice versa, it would not be that difficult, requiring only a change in value of one inductor in some instances. (The instance I am referring to is a 2nd order electrical passive crossover). My question now is, where do DIY speaker fit in the debate? Oh wait, they're better. /rant
kinguin7 is offline  
post #111 of 513 Old 06-25-2009, 12:59 AM
Member
 
Thunder-rush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 148
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay1 View Post

I'm jealous... That looks like a pretty sweet bass trap in between your JBLs

That looks like a good sounding head phone...jejejeje. Just sit in that sofa with each speaker at ear level should be fun...

Seize the Day..!
Thunder-rush is offline  
post #112 of 513 Old 06-25-2009, 02:00 AM
Senior Member
 
Tonmeister2008's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Westlake Village, CA, USA
Posts: 291
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by rock_bottom View Post

Jonathan,

I couldn't resist answering the title of your original post with the punchline of an old joke:

"What you mean we, kemosabe?"

I'm using a pair of JBL LSR6332 passive monitors in my audio-only system and am very happy with them. These replaced a pair of Magneplanar MG-III that I bought in the 1980s and had for about 20 years. The 6332s are classified by JBL as nearfield/midfield monitors. I listen to them from a distance of about 9 feet - midfield I guess. With the right recording, imaging is very, very good (I hesitate to use the term "holographic" here, even though that's a good description). I can move my head from side to side as much as I can while still sitting in my chair, and the tonal balance is substantially unchanged from the "sweet spot" position. If I stand up to play air guitar (or air tenor sax or whatever ), the imaging magic goes away, but that happens with all the home audio box speakers I've tried too. The Magneplanars were very good in this respect, but I'd expect that from a six foot tall speaker. I'm sure listening from a larger distance and raising the speakers a bit would help a lot, but my apartment configuration doesn't allow that. Going from sitting down to standing up at a distance of 9 feet changes the subtended angle with respect to the center of the speaker quite a bit. I'm sure that's the culprit.

The only thing I can think of that makes them slightly different from home speakers performance-wise is that, despite their rather large size for a monitor, their lower -3 dB frequency is only 54 Hz. In return for this, though, is a fairly high sensitivity (93 dB) and the ability to play extremely loud with low distortion. Since I live in an apartment with construction that's not so hot, the lack of deep bass is desirable to keep from disturbing my upstairs neighbor. But when I move into a house, I'll get a couple of subwoofers for them.

I believe these speakers were designed according to the criteria that Floyd Toole and Sean Olive of Harman developed. These criteria established the measurements that correlate to perceived sound quality. Then they set out to design the speaker to have such measurements. I'd need Sean to verify this for sure, but I'm pretty sure this approach is being used pretty uniformly across the Harman line - even for the studio monitors. Maybe Sean could chime in here.

Yes, these speakers were designed to meet the performance targets identified in our research that listeners prefer: flat, smooth on-axis frequency response that is well maintained off-axis, smooth directivity, high sensitivity, high SPL in a good-sized room with low distortion. You will want to supplement them with subwoofers. The specifications are here -

They are used in all of our Harman reference listening rooms, so we clearly think they are good loudspeakers.

Cheers,
Sean Olive
My Audio Blog
Tonmeister2008 is offline  
post #113 of 513 Old 06-25-2009, 04:13 AM
Senior Member
 
///3oris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 318
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
To the OP: according to this Wikipedia on Studio Monitors:

Quote:


Monitor vs Hi-Fi speakers

While no rigid distinction exists between consumer speakers and studio monitors, manufacturers more and more accent the difference in their marketing material. Whereas in the 1970s the JBL 4311's domestic equivalent, the L-100, was used in a large number of homes, and the Yamaha NS-10 also served both domestically and professionally during the 1980s, there are no present-day equivalents. Professional companies such as Fostex, Genelec, Event, KRK Systems, Mackie, Klein and Hummel, Quested, PMC, and M & K sell almost exclusively to the professional monitor market, while most of the consumer audio manufacturers confine themselves to supplying speakers for the home. Even companies that straddle both worlds, like Tannoy, ADAM, Focal/JM Labs, Dynaudio, and JBL, tend to clearly differentiate their monitor and hi-fi lines.

Generally, studio monitors are physically robust, to cope with the high volumes and physical knocks that may happen in the studio, and studio monitors are for listening at shorter distances (e.g., near field) than hi-fi speakers. As well, studio monitors are increasingly self-amplified (active), although not exclusively so, while hi-fi speakers usually require external amplification.

Studio monitors are marketed that they are designed to yield a flat frequency response while hi-fi speakers may favor marketing that makes claims of pleasing sound. If a speaker makes everything sound great, that may be seen as a benefit by audiophiles listening to music at home but studio engineers will see this as a weakness. However, in conclusion and in light of the above, the suitability of any given speaker for monitoring duties can not be predicted purely on the market segment for which the speaker was originally advertised.

Many inexpensive hi-fi models are designed to make a pleasing sound by deliberately manipulating the frequency response curve of the audio signal they receive. No speaker, monitor or hi-fi, regardless of the design principle, has a completely flat frequency response; all speakers color the sound to some degree. The 'monitor' speaker is assumed to be as free as possible from coloration.

So it would seem, based on reading this, that the difference is that audiophiles may prefer a speaker that sounds pleasing to their ears, whereas an engineer may only care about accuracy and not really how pleasing a sound is?

Internet Certified Electrical Engineer
"I am just looking for an honest man."
///3oris is offline  
post #114 of 513 Old 06-25-2009, 07:36 AM
Senior Member
 
rock_bottom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 430
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond Leggs View Post

CD racks don't cause reflections, untreated walls do.

Maybe "scattering" would have been a better word.
rock_bottom is offline  
post #115 of 513 Old 06-25-2009, 08:16 AM
Senior Member
 
rock_bottom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 430
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonmeister2008 View Post

Yes, these speakers were designed to meet the performance targets identified in our research that listeners prefer: flat, smooth on-axis frequency response that is well maintained off-axis, smooth directivity, high sensitivity, high SPL in a good-sized room with low distortion. You will want to supplement them with subwoofers. The specifications are here -

They are used in all of our Harman reference listening rooms, so we clearly think they are good loudspeakers.

Thanks Sean. As a "sample of one" over here, and from a subjective POV, I'd say what you're doing is working out well. Wish I could have subwoofers in my apartment, but I'd probably be evicted if I did!
rock_bottom is offline  
post #116 of 513 Old 06-25-2009, 09:54 AM
Senior Member
 
bborzell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 245
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 57
After several pages of nearly mind numbing back and forth on the question of using near field monitors for home audio (and I presume HT), I recalled the info sheet on the Speakers I bought many years ago that had both studio monitor and home audio applications

I still have them and they do quite nicely for home audio as they did for studio monitoring way back then. As you can see from the spec sheet, the version that was specifically identified as suitable for studio (Energy 22 Reference) differed from the other models only in the configuration of the bass port which allowed for different mounting scenarios.

The Pro 22 RefConns differed in cabinetry and porting, but that change was mainly designed to drop the bass to 25 Hz (and to present a strikingly beautiful speaker where the other models appeared a bit more utilitarian).

Here is a copy of the 30 year old brochure. I own a set of each.

http://www.borzelleri.com/photos/Ene...2-brochure.pdf

2nd round OPPO BDP-83 EAP Selectee
bborzell is offline  
post #117 of 513 Old 06-25-2009, 11:09 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
penngray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay1 View Post

I'm done arguing with you, you don't understand how speakers work, and are unwilling to learn. You ignore the facts presented, and you bring none to the argument.

Jay, Siv has not built anything in his life...I do not know why you are even continue to argue with him. He is as stubborn as they come. Im NOT surprised he still has not posted one once of proof in this thread (ITS because he has no proof!!)....his opinion is meaningless without proof. He is a guy that owns just an adequate sound system, he does not test speakers, he does not test systems, he does not build anything and I doubt he has even heard pro monitor speaker but he thinks his opinion in a thread like this is meaningful....welcome to the internet

It is not "open-minded" to reject knowledge - Bob Lee
penngray is offline  
post #118 of 513 Old 06-25-2009, 11:11 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
penngray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:


C'mon. That we don't use studio monitors in-home because they aren't designed for that use is the purest logic that there is. Why is that nonsense?

Siv,
I would love for you to explain how studio monitors are designed but you and I know that you have ZERO knowledge in this field....as I said before you need to leave this world and go back to be book worm on how Audyssey works, you can help people there and not here.

It is not "open-minded" to reject knowledge - Bob Lee
penngray is offline  
post #119 of 513 Old 06-25-2009, 11:15 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
penngray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond Leggs View Post

I prefer an innacurate speaker to a dead accurate one.

This is an extremely inaccurate, uneducated way to think about a proper design and setup. It sad that many people take this appoarch actually.

People should research and buy the most accurate speakers THEN EQ them to their favorite curve in room! Its that simple, every other choice is a compromise to the best SQ.

It is not "open-minded" to reject knowledge - Bob Lee
penngray is offline  
post #120 of 513 Old 06-25-2009, 11:37 AM
 
markwriter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: AZ
Posts: 878
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

This is an extremely inaccurate, uneducated way to think about a proper design and setup. It sad that many people take this appoarch actually.

People should research and buy the most accurate speakers THEN EQ them to their favorite curve in room! Its that simple, every other choice is a compromise to the best SQ.

It almost sounds like you're saying that the person should buy accurate speakers then make them less accurate by dialing in their 'favorite' room curve with an eq. That's not what you're saying though, is it? Also, what kind of eq are you talking about? Will any eq do?
markwriter is offline  
Reply Speakers

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off