Why don't we use Pro Monitors in our Homes?

So this has been bugging me:

The sound engineers, the mixers, the guys in the recording studios who are actually putting the recordings together - they use Professional Monitor speakers. Typically self-powered, bookshelf sized speakers from companies like Genelec, Focal Professional, KRK, Tannoy, etc.

Many of these companies also have "consumer" speakers, but there is typically a pretty clear distinction between the "Pro" speakers and the "consumer" speakers.

What are the real differences?

If the professionals who are actually making the music recordings are using certain speakers, why do we not use the exact same speakers in our homes?

It isn't price, because professional speakers often cost a lot less than "consumer" speakers and they are usually self-powered to boot!

I would just like to understand what is going on here. Do "consumer" speakers really sound different from "Pro" speakers? If so, in what way do they sound different and why would we want a different sound than what is actually being used to make the recordings?

Thanks for any enlightenment

Jon

Thanks for the reply.

Perhaps I should clarify my question a little more because it isn't the self-powered part that really interests me. Not all professional monitors are self-powered anyway and that whole issue doesn't really change the sound - it's just a matter of where the amplifier(s) reside.

I'm talking more about the sound qualities: what makes pro speakers different from consumer speakers when it comes to the sound they produce?

buzzy_ mentions that recording studio rooms are different and that mixers/sound engineers etc. aren't using their speakers in the same way? Could you clarify on that a bit for me? The room being different - that I understand...but what does that mean for the speakers? Do they actually produce a distinctly different sound from consumer speakers in order to compensate for the room in some way? And in what sense are the mixers/engineers using their speakers in a way that is different from a consumer at home?

I'm just trying to wrap my head around why or even if we are hearing something different at home than what they heard when they made the recording

Okey Doke...so I think that what I am really asking is:

Is there any reason - in terms of sound quality - that I should avoid using professional monitors as my speakers at home?

If I don't care about looks, I'm able to run an XLR connection from my pre/pro to the speakers and all I care about is getting accurate, high-quality sound reproduction...is there something about professional monitors that will totally ruin the sound?

One thing that has crossed my mind is that virtually all professional monitors are designed for near field listening...where the listener is only 1-2 meters away. If I were, say, 8-10 feet away, is there something about the dispersion from a pro monitor that would adversely affect the soundstage or the imaging?

Finally, if pro monitors can be used at home; if they can be used while sitting 8-10 feet away: what exactly do these $10,000+ "consumer" speakers really provide that is "better" in terms of sound quality? The looks part - I can understand. But I can literally get the exact same speakers that they use in professional recording studios for, what, about $3000-$4000/pair? And there are many pro monitors that don't cost even nearly that much!

It just seems to me that pro monitors could potentially provide a very high value. But if they can only be used for near field listening, then that would explain things somewhat at least

Edit: ifor - I must have been typing as you posted your reply Can you explain in what way they will sound "different" from further away?

Interesting! My thanks to everyone

The whole distinction between "Pro" gear and "Consumer" gear has puzzled me for a long time. It would be one thing is "Pro" gear were always more expensive, but that is certainly not the case! Video Monitors are the same situation in many ways: they offer more calibration control and can be dialed in to near perfection and many do so for a lower price than the "consumer" models! But they forego things like pretty looks and "simplicity". No one can really argue that "consumer" models produce a "better" or more accurate picture. It's just that you normally can't buy the "Professional" model in a big box store!

If Professional Audio Monitors are to "consumer" speakers what Professional Video Monitors are to "consumer" displays, then I would rather go for the "Pro" monitors! I want accuracy! I want to see and hear what I am supposed to see and hear! I want to see and hear what was intended by the people who made the recording!

So my final question: other than looks - what justification is there for these outrageously expensive "consumer" speakers? I read these reviews and see these comments from people claiming such amazing performance. The whole time, I'm thinking to myself, "but these are not the speakers that were used by the recording engineers. Are these mega-buck speakers somehow improving upon the sound that was heard in the recording studio? Doesn't it make more sense to use equipment that approximates the same performance as the equipment that was used to make the recording? And if that idea is correct, what could be better than using the exact same equipment as what was used to make the recording?"

I think that, however, I am well aware the the equipment is only half of the equation. The room itself is the other half and most of us are not watching and listening in a room that mimics a recording studio. That said, as Jay1 said, professional audio monitors include active cross-overs that can be adjusted in order to compensate for room and placement acoustics. Combine that with pre/pro and outboard equalization and I have to believe it is possible to closely approximate the "studio sound" without actually building a "studio" as one's home theatre.

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