or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Why don't we use Pro Monitors in our Homes?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why don't we use Pro Monitors in our Homes? - Page 5

post #121 of 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay1 View Post

That is true. You still can't easily find cheap a pre/pro or receiver with pre amp outputs though.

There are a lot of cheap AVRs with 7.1 pre outs. Harman Kardon is selling refurbs AVR 247's for less than $200 and AVR 254's for less than $300. Even the low end Marantz AVR's have 7.1 pre outs.
post #122 of 513
Quote:


. But the logic that if I use the exact same speakers at home that were used in the studio, I can come that much closer to hearing the same sound - exactly as it was intended - that logic seems to stand.

That logic only works if you're using the exact same monitor that was used in the recording you're listening to.
Put on a different recording and it was probably mixed with different monitors, so you're back to square one.

But good studio monitors can be used in the home.
post #123 of 513
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.

So you shouldn't buy a speaker based on listening preference?

You just contradicted yourself.
post #124 of 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by markwriter View Post

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?

Many people prefer a house curve, where the mid-range is over emphasized. Penn is just saying start with as flat a response as you can get and then if you want a house curve adjust your equalization to suit you. I do have to ask why some one would not like their music to be accurately reproduced so that the kick of the drum sounds real rather than what you get with many consumer speakers. If I had the room I would love to use some pro monitors.
post #125 of 513
Accurate speakers aren't going to have an accurate response in most typical rooms in a house. So you need to add eq to get it right. Or to get a house curve to maybe a bit more bass or whatever is wanted.
post #126 of 513
i tried Barefoot MM27s in my house next to my Dynaudio C1s. the MM27s are the hottest studio monitors on the planet right now (go over to gearslutz). I found the MM27s were better nearfield, then far field (i experimented with them several ways in my place)

I also had a pro audio friend over to do the comparison---he found for me the C1s were better, but for his nearfield mixing station, he would prefer the MM27s. The MM27s have built in dual subs which is really cool on stands---as the bass in on the same plane as the listener.

I also looked into K&H, but as i recall they clip at pretty high dbs, which could be hit in HTs occasionally.

fyi- neither were cheap. Barefoots are 7500/pair although that includes built in amps, etc.

KR
post #127 of 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjg100 View Post

Many people prefer a house curve, where the mid-range is over emphasized. Penn is just saying start with as flat a response as you can get and then if you want a house curve adjust your equalization to suit you. I do have to ask why some one would not like their music to be accurately reproduced so that the kick of the drum sounds real rather than what you get with many consumer speakers. If I had the room I would love to use some pro monitors.

I pretty much understood, but thought it was a little strange to get accurate speakers then muck them up with some generic equalizer. Toole recommends parametric eq, and that for bass only (400hz and below IIRC). He has as lot of caveats for equalization above that range (not that it's impossible, but that it's really easy to make things worse).

I agree that accurate is more enjoyable in the long run, and NRC research indicates that as well -- people with normal hearing tend to prefer the speaker which 'editorializes' least.
post #128 of 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4DHD View Post

Accurate speakers aren't going to have an accurate response in most typical rooms in a house.

This is theoretically true, but what type of eq is going to remedy the problems, and how are most people going to go about accurately measuring their room? Sitting there with a huge graphic eq and twiddling until it 'sounds good' isn't what's being advocated, is it?

Also, it's best to start out with the least problematic speakers possible, so you're not having to dig yourself out of a sonic hole. I've been lead to believe from reading Toole et al, that you can't truly fix all speaker FR problems with EQ.
post #129 of 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by markwriter View Post

This is theoretically true, but what type of eq is going to remedy the problems, and how are most people going to go about accurately measuring their room? Sitting there with a huge graphic eq and twiddling until it 'sounds good' isn't what's being advocated, is it?

Also, it's best to start out with the least problematic speakers possible, so you're not having to dig yourself out of a sonic hole. I've been lead to believe from reading Toole et al, that you can't truly fix all speaker FR problems with EQ.

A Behringer DCX 2496 would work very well.
post #130 of 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by markwriter View Post

This is theoretically true, but what type of eq is going to remedy the problems, and how are most people going to go about accurately measuring their room? Sitting there with a huge graphic eq and twiddling until it 'sounds good' isn't what's being advocated, is it?

Also, it's best to start out with the least problematic speakers possible, so you're not having to dig yourself out of a sonic hole. I've been lead to believe from reading Toole et al, that you can't truly fix all speaker FR problems with EQ.

part of the answer why this is true is because if you start eq'ing the on-axis frequency response, you start to mess up the power response.
post #131 of 513
the reasons why pro-audio equipment are not typically seen in the home environment are severalfold. some of these reasons have already been mentioned, so consider my restating them as just lending a +1 to each of the points.

1. aesthetics - pro-audio equipment doesn't have to blend into a living room. as a result, most are just black boxes, many without grill cloth. real wood veneer and gloss finishes are time intensive, so comprise a good chunk of the cost for speakers with these finishes.

2. marketing - consumer audio products have more marketing dollars in the cost of the product than component costs. since pro-audio equipment is designed to be used as a "tool" vs. a "toy", the pro-audio guys focus largely on the performance, while the home audio guys focus on whatever they fixate on in their favorite audiophile magazine.

we also purchase brands with which we are familiar. many of the consumer brands don't have a pro-line and the pro guys don't waste their time and money trying to convince consumers to buy them.

3. connectivity - many pro-audio speakers use balanced xlr connections, though many pro audio speakers now includ both options.

4. amplified - many pro-audio speakers have the amps and eq built in. this limits the ability for the consumer to "upgrade" components over time. with pro-audio, you get a decent set of monitors and decent xlr cables, plug them in and you are done for 20 years. that is not very much fun for the tinkerers. this is why powered speakers (pro or not) have never caught on in the home audio market.

5. tuning - many pro audio speakers have high -3db points, this way they blend nicely into a system with a second order high pass at 80hz, creating a 4th order acoustic slope. the result is a speaker that integrates nicely with a subwoofer. the downside is that if the monitors are used without subwoofers (which many home audio guys prefer, the bass will sound thin). this is the only "performance" difference that i can identify.

6. availability - pro audio equipment is sold in different stores from consumer equipment, so most consumers don't even know that the world of pro audio exists or they believe mistakingly that pro audio is only for clubs and bands.

7. audiophiles who don't eq - many audiophiles attempt to correct for room problems or listening preferences by purchasing speakers with non-flat frequency response, non-smooth power response, or other distortions. you will notice that a large hump in the bass is not a popular "design" feature of many consumer speakers. it is because most people prefer a little extra energy in the bass, particularly for home theater. if you are religious against using eq, the only way to get that bass is to move the speakers around the room or buy speakers with a non-flat frequency response.

as for other performance arguments, i can't find any, except maybe the pro-audio equipment is much clearer about describing the performance of their systems--distortion vs. spl charts, maximum spl, directivity, etc. as for things such as baffle step and directivity differences of a studio or a home, good pro audio monitors will typically have eq switches to account for placement. the pro audio companies know that some studios will soffit mount while others may use stands while others may place the speakers on a shelf just above the mixing board.

it is important to recognize that while most people "say" performance is the most important aspect of their buying decision, that is actually not the case. if it were, many more people would be using pro audio equipment. we have all seen the kids at best buy standing around the pair of subwoofers, with glowing lights, plastic pieces glued on the drivers, and we have shaken our heads...then we have all seen the adults in high end audio stores sitting in front of amplifiers the size of television sets, with cables the size of garden hose, all while plugged into a little set of 6.5" two way mini-monitors, and we have shaken our heads...but this is america where we all get to spend 50% of our money however we wish (the government spends our other half for us).

so this is a very long winded way of saying to the op that it is okay to use pro audio equipment in the home environment. not only that, but the pro audio equipment will outgun most consumer grade equipment across every performance dimension.
post #132 of 513
I prefer a somwhat bright speaker because of the types of music I listen to so a pro monitor would be of no benefiet to me. As for buying the most accurate speakers, the amount of money availible to spend is what limits people from getting the most accurate speaker in the world.
post #133 of 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Seaton View Post

The catch in this is that not all studio monitors are designed to sound great in typical listening rooms.

post #134 of 513
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?

More importantly is the context of your statement in a discussion that is quite technical in nature. Leave well enough alone. The statement that you referenced by Mark Seaton has a much broader implication....other than one off hand built speaker systems NO speaker system is designed for a specific listening environment....period. Wrap your head around that one for a minute before you add another post to this thread.
post #135 of 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by mayhem13 View Post

More importantly is the context of your statement in a discussion that is quite technical in nature. Leave well enough alone. The statement that you referenced by Mark Seaton has a much broader implication....other than one off hand built speaker systems NO speaker system is designed for a specific listening environment....period. Wrap your head around that one for a minute before you add another post to this thread.

Mark said almost exactly what I said. Studio monitors are not designed for in-home environments. Somebody jump in his ****.

Wait, there's more!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Seaton View Post

I should have been more specific... Studio environments, especially in cases of near field applications, are quite different than your typical home listening area. When you are only sitting 3-6' from the speakers and 1-3x that distance from the nearest walls which may be treated pretty heavily, things are very different than listening at the other end of a relatively live listening room.

This, too, is almost exactly what I said.

I'm sure there will be a bunch of people who try to say that what he said is different from what I said. Laughable.


Sorry, mayhem13, do I have permission to post?
post #136 of 513
i've always understood true pro gear is designed to run 24/7/52 if necessary. it's made with long haul durability in mind.

usually, consumer gear isn't.
post #137 of 513
pages 6-15 in the following pdf talk a little bit about the science of engineering speakers.

one bit that is quite interesting is reference to the actual measured results of recording studios. it might make for a reasonable strategy to try to get the average equalization curve of these studios as the equalization curve in our homes, as this would provide the best match between what the recording engineer was shooting for and what we are hearing in our rooms. (a couple db hot in the bass and a gentle roll off above 10 khz).

http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_i...ritic_28_r.pdf

(the document is around 3 megs, so it may take a bit of time to load in.)
post #138 of 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by markwriter View Post

This is theoretically true, but what type of eq is going to remedy the problems, and how are most people going to go about accurately measuring their room? Sitting there with a huge graphic eq and twiddling until it 'sounds good' isn't what's being advocated, is it?

Also, it's best to start out with the least problematic speakers possible, so you're not having to dig yourself out of a sonic hole. I've been lead to believe from reading Toole et al, that you can't truly fix all speaker FR problems with EQ.


IIRC, eq can best be tuned for only one (maybe two) positions in a given room. Other spots may be a sonic mess. I think the wise approach would be to tame room acoustics first.
post #139 of 513
I use speakers that are not intended for HT use and they actually sound better in my room than in the cinema. It must be from me not rolling off the upper end like they do in the theater. Still has that big dynamic sound but with more resolution.
post #140 of 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

Mark said almost exactly what I said. Studio monitors are not designed for in-home environments. Somebody jump in his ****.

Wait, there's more!
This, too, is almost exactly what I said.

I'm sure there will be a bunch of people who try to say that what he said is different from what I said. Laughable.

That's all true, but that doesn't mean some studio monitors can't work quite well in a home environment, especially if they're midfield monitors. I'm not suggesting all monitors will work to ones satisfaction but some will.

The oppposite is also true, as I'm doing it right now. That is using what was designed as free standing towers, and with their bases removed, wall mounted and used in a nearfield situation (3~4 ft). With the room out of the picture, I hear details in the music that I didn't hear in the normal situation. The trade off is that when wall mounted I don't get a deep soundstage as is the case when freestanding and away from the walls.

So this all means that just b/c a certain speaker isn't specifically designed for a certain use doesn't mean it can't be used that way.
post #141 of 513
This conversation, as any large discussion, has tendency to move the target. There are questions of a system's synergy with its particular environment. Cost is a heavily weighted concern; both monetarily and in ease of use. Quality & price are often at odds (cheap, fast, good: pick one) and quality tends to come in second to cost, but it is the most controversial of subjects. Factors such as WAF or a system's fit in the home are also a primary focus. With the coming of the smartgrid, I'll make an assumption that power consumption will come into play as a defining factor for potential system buyers.

Regarding quality, I think it's hard to argue against pro audio monitors in general. As Mark has stated and linked and quoted time and time again in this thread, Harman is expanding knowledge of the audio universe. I'll add that they are pushing the state of the science more resourcefully and more publicly than any other audio company today (see Sean Olive's blog). As Pascal from BlueSky has shown, monitors can work in home environments and are well suited to some aesthetic dispositions. Qualitatively, studio monitors can perform as well or better than similar priced consumer specific offerings, and I'd guess some perform worse than their consumer-centric counterparts.

Outside of tests, speakers never stand on their own. Arguing that nearfield design is different from other consumer loudspeaker design without proof or reference, however, is not an arguement at all. To argue that studio monitors don't work in an untreated room is to argue that no loudspeaker works in an untreated room. To argue that studio monitors price-performance ratio is somehow off is to argue for... I don't know, something dumb. To argue that studio monitors are ugly is to move the target away from the measurably qualitative and towards an arguement for aesthetics. This leads me to opine that on their own, as in a test, monitors are bang for buck tough to beat.

The only techincally affecting design difference between a 2-way home loudspeaker and a 2-way pro monitor I can come up with is max SPL. If my $1500 2-way bookshelves aren't capable of more than 100dB at 1 meter, how can they be considered better for the living room than a pair of $1500 2-way studio monitors capable of the same?
post #142 of 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post

pages 6-15 in the following pdf talk a little bit about the science of engineering speakers.

one bit that is quite interesting is reference to the actual measured results of recording studios. it might make for a reasonable strategy to try to get the average equalization curve of these studios as the equalization curve in our homes, as this would provide the best match between what the recording engineer was shooting for and what we are hearing in our rooms. (a couple db hot in the bass and a gentle roll off above 10 khz).

Unfortunately this doesn't work due to the differing room acoustics involved.

You also can't just gather "the frequency response" of many rooms. What response? Measured how? A measurement with an RTA vs. a time gated measurement will be dramatically different in any case other than outdoors or an anechoic chamber. More importantly, the difference between these two measurements will be different for every room having different acoustic characteristics.

Matching one particular frequency response measurement in different rooms will most certainly NOT produce the same perceived sound.
post #143 of 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4DHD View Post

So this all means that just b/c a certain speaker isn't specifically designed for a certain use doesn't mean it can't be used that way.

I agree 100% and never said otherwise. In fact, I think I said something similar to that.
post #144 of 513
Sivadselim
I would have appreciated it if you would have responded to my previous post, I was sincerely interested in your response.

Anybody have an email address for Sean Olive, it would be interesting to read his take on this subject.
post #145 of 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

I agree 100% and never said otherwise. In fact, I think I said something similar to that.


No you were agreeing with this statement:

Quote:


Originally Posted by Mark Seaton
I should have been more specific... Studio environments, especially in cases of near field applications, are quite different than your typical home listening area. When you are only sitting 3-6' from the speakers and 1-3x that distance from the nearest walls which may be treated pretty heavily, things are very different than listening at the other end of a relatively live listening room.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

This, too, is almost exactly what I said.

How do those statements, in any way, transpose into "studio monitors can't be used in a home environment with good results?" Which is what you keep saying.

I agree that the two listening environments are quite different, but that doesn't translate into an idea that a monitor can't be used in the home.

That would be like saying a particular type of consumer speaker will only work in a certain type of room. Like saying b/c you have a very small room, you can't use full range tower speakers. You can only use a bookshelf speaker.
post #146 of 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithR View Post

I also looked into K&H, but as i recall they clip at pretty high dbs, which could be hit in HTs occasionally.

Do you remember which model?
post #147 of 513
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.

Sean,

Other than aesthetics and bass extension, how would you compare the LSR6332 to the Revel Studio2 and F52? What are the advantages/disadvantages of these pro vs consumer lines from Harman?

I REALLY wish that Harman would publish for its consumer lines the same types of measurements as it does for the pro studio monitors http://www.jblpro.com/catalog/suppor...pe=3&docid=569, particularly the distortion data and power compression data, which tend to be missing from Stereophile reviews.

If you could post that sort of info here, for the Studio2 and F52, it would be greatly appreciated!
post #148 of 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4DHD View Post

No you were agreeing with this statement:

No, I was agreeing with what you said in the post I responded to.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 4DHD View Post

How do those statements, in any way, transpose into "studio monitors can't be used in a home environment with good results?" Which is what you keep saying.

I NEVER said that. In fact, if you read the thread, you will see that I acknowledged more than once that they certainly COULD be used successfully in-home. So, how can you say that I keep saying that when I never said it once?

Get your argument together if that's what you want to call it. But as far as I am concerned there is no argument. Studio monitors are not used that often in-home because they weren't designed for in-home use. Is that so hard to fathom? If that means because they're ugly, fine. If it means that they don't provide the sound many people prefer in-home, fine. However you want to interpret it, that's all I'm saying.
post #149 of 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post


I NEVER said that. In fact, if you read the thread, you will see that I acknowledged more than once that they certainly COULD be used successfully in-home. So, how can you say that I keep saying that when I never said it once?

well, you did say it. your words, "Suit yourself. There is a reason we don't use them at home and it is not because of aesthetics or the way they're marketed. If there was no difference and the performance was identical, there'd be no such thing as a studio monitor. But there is."
post #150 of 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post

well, you did say it. your words, "Suit yourself. There is a reason we don't use them at home and it is not because of aesthetics or the way they're marketed. If there was no difference and the performance was identical, there'd be no such thing as a studio monitor. But there is."

He's been slowly changing his argument this whole thread. In post #63 I quoted all of his false claims about studio monitors having worse performance in the home. That's not what/why he's arguing anymore

sivadselim, why do you insist on spreading misinformation?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Speakers
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Why don't we use Pro Monitors in our Homes?