ifor - I bring up "outrageously expensive "consumer" speakers" because of the skepticism-inducing claims I have read in reviews and comments of such speakers. Remarks about "retrieving detail" or "lifting a veil" or other remarks that basically imply that $20,000+ "consumer" speakers are superior to the very speakers with which the recordings were made! I just wasn't buying it and I wanted to know what could possibly be "wrong" about simply using the exact same speakers at home that were used to make the recording in the first place.
For me, it was the same sort of logic-based question as it was with cables and wire. If bulk Belden cable is good enough for the studios that make
the content, why on Earth would it be necessary to spend multi-thousands of dollars per foot for exotic cables?
It's a similar thing for video too: if the pros that make the content adhere to strict, clear video standards, doesn't it make sense to also adhere to those calibration standards at home?
So applying that same logic to speakers, I wondered why we do not look to the very same speakers that are used to make the content when it comes time to play back that content at home. It seems to me that it has always been a greater divide between "pro monitors" and "consumer speakers" than it has been with cables or video displays. We pretty much all came around to accepting that broadcast quality cables - as inexpensive as they are - are perfectly well suited to home use as well and we also came around to the idea that adhering to the same video calibration standards as the pros made sense at home as well.
But with speakers, it seems to be, "Pro Monitors in the studio; Consumer speakers at home. And never shall one trade places with the other!" That just didn't make logical sense to me, but I did not know for sure...perhaps there really was a clear difference in design that would make professional monitors unsuitable for the home for some reason.
In the end, from what everyone has said here, it seems as though my suspicions were correct and there really is no reason why pro monitors - the very same ones that are used in professional recording studios - cannot be used at home as well. A great-sounding, accurate, flat frequency response speaker - whether labelled "Pro" or "Consumer" - is a good speaker regardless...just like cables...just like video displays.
And much like video displays, it seems to be mostly a matter of looks and user control options, with the "Pro" versions worrying less about looks and giving more potential control, while the "consumer" versions worry more about looks (understandably) and "simplifying" (ie. reducing) calibration control so as to avoid consumer confusion.
I may still be wrong though - perhaps there really is something to this "near field" design that makes pro monitors unsuitable for a listening position that is further away. Genelec's website seemed very helpful in this matter though where it appeared rather clear that the only major distinction came from maximum undistorted output. Their larger and more powerful speakers were suggested for ever increasing room size and distance from the speakers. That implies that professional monitors can, indeed, be used at longer seating distances, provided they simply have the undistorted output capabilities to handle the greater distance.
All of it makes sense to me and is in line with what logic would suggest: that there really is no reason we cannot use pro monitors at home. My personal preference is to adhere to standards and aim for utmost accuracy, so I feel greatly confident now that I can use professional speakers at home, just as I can use professional cables and a display that adheres to the same standards as a professional display