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 3

post #61 of 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by aBlueSky View Post

Just because it wasn't the designers primary design goal, doesn't mean that they cannot perform well in that application.

I never said otherwise. Not overtly, anyway.

Can you answer the OP's question on the basis of something besides the aesthetics or convenience? Because, ultimately, for someone who wants the best option for the best SQ, those are totally non-issues.
post #62 of 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

If they were so great for in-home use, many people would use them. But they don't. Why not? Presenting why you think we SHOULD use them in-home doesn't answer the OP's question. And it's not because they are inconvenient, complicated, or ugly. Most of us can get by ALL of that if they truly provide the best option.

That's not true. Many people do use them. You find speakers like Genelec in many high end home theaters. You choose not to believe this fact.

Why does it matter what "many people" choose to purchase? Many people choose to purchase Bose. Many people choose to buy burnt Starbucks coffee.

IMO, many people simply do not prefer accurate speakers. If everyone wanted dead accurate speakers that produced a nice graph, companies like Mirage and B&W would never sell a speaker.
post #63 of 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

Studio monitors may not image as well as standard speakers in normal (i.e. non-studio) circumstances.

wrong

Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

They do it nearfield. Studio speakers are not designed to cast the type of soundstage most people want in larger rooms.

wrong

Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

That's not all I've said. I said they were not designed to cast the sort of soundstage that is usually desired in-home. This is because they image differently. If you are asking me to describe what design properties contribute directly to the imaging characteristics of a speaker, and how these characteristics differ between monitors and home speakers, I can't . Not without doing some online research/plagiarizing . Why is it inconceivable that they would image differently? Does that not make sense considering their intended uses?

wrong

Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

A common answer to this question is that they are designed for nearfield use. Well, what does this mean, exactly? It doesn't JUST mean that they are designed to be used close to the listener. What it also means is that they are NOT designed, as most home speakers, to be used at a distance in an in-home environment where the room significantly influences and affects the sound of the speaker, and more importantly, a pair of the speakers. That is not at all a consideration or concern in the design of a studio monitor. It just isn't. They're meant to be used in a relatively inert environment and at a distance where the room is not expected to contribute anything to the sound of the speakers. Now, that is not to say that a pair of studio monitors wouldn't work in-home, but it would not be by design. That is just not a design goal with a studio monitor. Some studio monitors may work fine for HT applications, but many will sound plain bad, in many in-home environments, with standard music applications such as 2-channel CD listening.

How about this? We could ask the converse. Why wouldn't a pair of home bookshelf speakers make good studio monitors? And the answer would be that they are NOT designed for nearfield use. Well, what would THAT answer mean?

wrong

Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

I'm not arguing . What I said is correct and what you just said falls right in line-with that. In-home speakers are not designed solely with a flat response in an anechoic chamber as a goal. There is a whole lot more than that. They are designed, yes, to be used in a typical in-home environment. A room. This is just not a design goal or concern with a studio monitor. It isn't. Does that mean that a studio monitor won't perform OK, in-home? No, not necessarily. But a speaker designed specifically for in-home use is what (hopefully) works best in that environment. I won't buy a studio monitor because my listening environment and situation do not resemble that of a studio. The design requirements and considerations for an in-home speaker are different. I do not really see an argument, here. Does that not make sense?

wrong

Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

I never said otherwise. Not overtly, anyway.

Can you answer the OP's question on the basis of something besides the aesthetics or convenience? Because, ultimately, for someone who wants the best option for the best SQ, those are totally non-issues.


You've tried to make a point using misinformation this whole thread, its all been proven wrong.

Ultimately the answer to the OPs question is, these speakers are marketed and sold to a different consumer.
post #64 of 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by chandra.hp View Post

I've always wondered what the studios used to author/mix audio. Just never bothered to look into it. Regardless, this is what audiophiles should strive for. Because from my understanding... this would produce a sound that is closer to the as-intended by the artist/engineer.

A friend of mine, who has sound engineered over 200 movies, uses M&K S150's. His studio isn't as large as a movie theater, it's about the size of a very large living room with high ceilings. He sits about 10-12 feet from each monitor when mixing.

http://www.mksoundsystem.com/propages/mkprof_S150.htm
post #65 of 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

If they were so great for in-home use, many people would use them. But they don't. Why not? Presenting why you think we SHOULD use them in-home doesn't answer the OP's question. And it's not because they are inconvenient, complicated, or ugly. Most of us can get by ALL of that if they truly provide the best option.

Maybe it's because most consumers go to Best Buy or Walmart to purchase their speakers. Also, it could be in the marketing of consumer audio... example, Bose.

Personal opinion, marketing is more than likely why people choose consumer lines vs pro audio. Not to mention that pro audio usually has next to no marketing behind it anyways.

A little education and actually going out and testing the pro stuff however usually changes that.
post #66 of 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay1 View Post

wrong



wrong



wrong



wrong



wrong

Sounds like you're arguing.
post #67 of 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

Sounds like you're arguing.

Yeah I know, I can't help it sometimes
post #68 of 513
Thread Starter 
My thanks to all!

I'm going to try and clarify, as the OP, my questions, responses and what I have gleaned from this discussion.

My thread title, "Why don't we use Pro Monitors in our Homes?" was, perhaps, a somewhat poor choice in phrasing. However, I believe in my subsequent posts that I clarified my query - and obviously, I cannot write such a lengthy set of questions in the thread title! That is what the body of the post is for, no?

sivadselim has continually said, "there is a reason", without ever being able to clarify what that reason is. It is very clear to me that sivadselim is not here to help and is simply stuck in a way of thinking, much in the same way as people who continue to espouse that broadcast quality cables are somehow unsuitable for home use. The mere existence of separate names does not necessarily mean that there is a true difference. The exact same product can be marketed under different names and sold at different prices in order to appeal to different demographics. Such is the case with many consumer products where the OEM manufactures and sells a given item to several different brand name companies who put their own brand name on the product and then charge whatever price they see fit.

I wanted to know if there was a real performance and sound quality based reason that would make professional studio monitors unsuitable for home use. sivadselim is the only one here saying "there is a reason", but he has not been able to explain what that reason is - merely stating that because there is a distinction between "pro" and "consumer" gear that there must be a reason. Well by that logic, there must be a reason why super-expensive cables cost so much. And there is a reason: it's called ripping people off! So I guess what I'm really asking is:

is there a GOOD reason why we don't normally use professional audio monitors as our home speakers?

From the knowledgeable people who have been able to explain things with technical descriptions and something other than flawed and circular logic, it is clear to me that there is no sound quality reason why professional studio monitors cannot be used at home. And, in fact, if our goal is accurate sound that reproduces recordings very similarly to the way in which the recording engineers intended for it to sound, pro monitors can be a cost-effective way to achieve that goal.

There was never any question in my mind that when it comes to non-sound related things such as looks and retail availability that consumer speakers obviously offer something different from pro monitors.

It all boiled down to this:

If I want to hear, in my home, recordings reproduced as the sound engineers intended, is there any sound quality reason why I cannot go straight to the exact same speakers that were used to monitor the recording in the studio?

Logic says that I should be able to do just that - in exactly the same way that I can use the exact same broadcast quality cables and I can use the exact same video calibration standards - but I was simply uncertain and thought that I might be overlooking something.

sivadselim is the only one here saying that I am overlooking something, but he hasn't been able to explain what that something is - despite many of us repeatedly asking him to explain. That indicates a lack of knowledge and a reliance on flawed logic.

From the makers and users of professional audio monitors, all information has been clear that there is no sound quality reason what-so-ever that precludes the use of studio monitors in the home.

I can see average people not wanting to use studio monitors for many other reasons: the looks, the connections, the greater complexity of optional active cross-over adjustments, not being able to buy them in big box stores - things like that. But not the sound quality, which was my only concern.

I greatly appreciate the input from everyone. This is something that has been puzzling me for some time.

And to sivadselim, I hope, for your sake, that you will consider altering the way in which you draw your conclusions. Your stance on this subject has been a bit like the people who are adamant that the only replacement parts you should ever use in your car are the ones that come directly from the manufacturer. Those people use the same argument - that the manufacturer's parts were specifically designed for a given vehicle and therefore, must be a better choice than other 3rd party alternatives. Of course, that is NOT the case in many instances. There are so many ulterior reasons, other than performance, for why things are sold.

To finalize, are professional studio monitors the "last word" on getting the "best" audio performance at home? No. Of course not. I don't think any professional would say that because even amongst pro monitors, there are many different levels of quality and many different design choices. 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.

This has been enlightening and enjoyable. Thank you all very much
post #69 of 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay1 View Post

its just more difficult to run an active setup. Pro monitors are powered and use xlr inputs, you cant just get a cheap pre/pro or even receiver with xlr outputs, you cant even get a cheap receiver with regular preouts

I believe that most Powered monitors use blanced XLR and unbalanced single-ended RCA connectors for the amplifiers. I have yet to see 1 model that doesn't have both inputs, but then again, I am not specifically looking for them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

Because they're not specifically designed for that use.

Even though pro monitors were not designed for home use, there is nothing saying that they will not work in this area.
Speaker manufacturers can change the dispersion pattern of speakers to meet certain requirements.

THX specifies a certain pattern for speakers to be THX certified. This is the reason for THX Ultra and THX Select versions, The Ultra is for larger rooms, with a narrower dispersion pattern, where the listener is further back away from the speaker causing the speaker to have less interactivity with the room.

Just because a speaker has a wider dispersion pattern for nearfield listening doesn't mean it will not work for farther away listening, but the room will become more important in terms of room interaction.
post #70 of 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by ifor View Post

I believe that most Powered monitors use blanced XLR and unbalanced single-ended RCA connectors for the amplifiers. I have yet to see 1 model that doesn't have both inputs, but then again, I am not specifically looking for them.


That is true. You still can't easily find cheap a pre/pro or receiver with pre amp outputs though.
post #71 of 513
Cmon, quote me correctly!
post #72 of 513
already fixed before you replied
post #73 of 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Teller View Post

If I want to hear, in my home, recordings reproduced as the sound engineers intended, is there any sound quality reason why I cannot go straight to the exact same speakers that were used to monitor the recording in the studio?

So, you live in a studio, I presume?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Teller View Post

And to sivadselim, I hope, for your sake, that you will consider altering the way in which you draw your conclusions.

Nope. Sorry. I'm standing by my answer. Profoundly beautiful in its simplicity. Or was it beautifully profound in its simplicity? Or beautifully simple in its profundity? Or profoundly simple in its beauty. Or...............?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Teller View Post

Your stance on this subject has been a bit like the people who are adamant that the only replacement parts you should ever use in your car are the ones that come directly from the manufacturer. Those people use the same argument - that the manufacturer's parts were specifically designed for a given vehicle and therefore, must be a better choice than other 3rd party alternatives. Of course, that is NOT the case in many instances. There are so many ulterior reasons, other than performance, for why things are sold.

No, it's not like that example at all. If you asked if it was OK to use an off-road tire on the car I would say, sure, you can, but it is not designed for that purpose.
post #74 of 513
I prefer an innacurate speaker to a dead accurate one.
post #75 of 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

If you asked if it was OK to use an off-road tire on the car I would say, sure, you can, but it is not designed for that purpose.

Wouldn't that depend on what town you live in? If I lived in Hazzard County with the Duke boys, I would want off-road tires just like them!
post #76 of 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by ifor View Post

Wouldn't that depend on what town you live in?

I knew someone would say this.

If you needed off-road tires on your car, I would say to get yourself a truck.
post #77 of 513
I think Jonathan's on the right track. JBL does not have differing sound quality criteria for pro recording monitors than they do home speakers because there is no standard blueprint for recording studios. When I had a chance to discuss across-the-board (Infinity, Revel, JBL home, JBL pro) sound quality with some of the Harman engineers, none of them differentiated home speakers from studio monitors. They don't think in terms of a "consumer" sound versus a "studio monitor" sound. To be fair to sivad, other companies may try to design to two different sound profiles, but the Harman people don't.

In this blog post, note that their new reference home theater rooms use JBL LSR 6332's, and that room is a treated living room, not a recording studio.
post #78 of 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

I knew someone would say this.

If you needed off-road tires on your car, I would say to get yourself a truck.

Where would I put my cousin, who is my wife, and our kids? One of which is my uncle!
post #79 of 513
Jay1
Pretty sure I didn't say they were....
You are correct, I did not state my thought correctly.
I stand corrected.
Please excuse the delay, this thread has grown quite quickly.
post #80 of 513
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.
post #81 of 513
And... It's not there that there are only two classes of home and studio monitors. There are also PA speakers, stage live music speakers, cinema speakers...

Many of us chose to use cinema-like speakers for HT and even stereo music. As examples, some like MKtheater use JBL Pro speakers and I use Klipsch speakers from the Heritage line.
post #82 of 513
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.

Very nice! Thats a speaker that I've always coveted. It seems to be thoroughly engineered to deliver uncompromised sound from 60hz up. Do you have a pic of your setup by chance?
post #83 of 513
Sivadselim wrote
I'm not arguing . What I said is correct and what you just said falls right in line-with that. In-home speakers are not designed solely with a flat response in an anechoic chamber as a goal. There is a whole lot more than that. They are designed, yes, to be used in a typical in-home environment. A room. This is just not a design goal or concern with a studio monitor. It isn't. Does that mean that a studio monitor won't perform OK, in-home? No, not necessarily. But a speaker designed specifically for in-home use is what (hopefully) works best in that environment. I won't buy a studio monitor because my listening environment and situation do not resemble that of a studio. The design requirements and considerations for an in-home speaker are different. I do not really see an argument, here. Does that not make sense?

You have posted many useful posts that I have read since being a member, so please don't take this post as an attack. I have both studio monitors and in home speakers in use in my home. I have an interest in this thread from the 'theoretical' point of view, as well as the 'practical' point of view.
How does one design a home speaker with a "whole lot more than that. They are designed, yes, to be used in a typical in-home environment. A room."

It may may make sense, in a sense, to speak about a typical in-home environment but . . . that concept, in reality, encompasses so many variables that to design to carpeted floors, partially carpeted floors, wood floors, marble floors, bare walls, heavily draped walls, high ceilings, low ceilings, long rooms short rooms, rooms with french doors, open backed rooms etc etc, hopefully I have made the point that in-home environments are not typical, they are rather diverse. Why would a designer take a design that is flat in an anechoic chamber and then make changes to the speakers response in an effort to guess what in-home environment the speaker will be placed in? It does not make sense, that would be the objection I would make to your statement.
If we could get some speaker designers to weigh in here in what they design for and how they do so, it might help with the case you are trying to make.

Yes, for what it is worth, much of what we hear 'in our rooms' is our speaker interacting with our room's acoustic signature.

Interestingly enough, mention is made in this thread of the JBL LSR series of speakers. Their design concepts have helped them create a very flat studio monitor, their wave guide is now being used in the home speakers and more and more in-home speakers are also using wave guides.
The LSR 6338 speakers sure looks alot like JBL's S38 in-home speaker they offered a while back. Also the E-50. Except for the smaller woofer 8" rather than the 12" woofer in the studio monitor they look very very similar.
The in room response of the home versions was well reviewed.

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. Why would they do that if the home speaker lines are designed with the room in as part of the design?

Just thought I would throw out some of my thoughts. Perhaps you can think of another way of saying what you think the designers do differently?

Thanks to all.
post #84 of 513
Jay1
over in the lansing heritage site there is a fellow in either Denmark or Sweden who posted pictures of his set up which is the 6338 along with the 6312 sub, one on each side. It looks sweat, and, I can only imagine just how nice it sounds.
I don't think I have ever seen any other pictures of the LSR's in someone's home.
post #85 of 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone215 View Post

Jay1
over in the lansing heritage site there is a fellow in either Denmark or Sweden who posted pictures of his set up which is the 6338 along with the 6312 sub, one on each side. It looks sweat, and, I can only imagine just how nice it sounds.
I don't think I have ever seen any other pictures of the LSR's in someone's home.

I've never been to that site. I've tried searching the internet for users/reviews of the 6332 with no luck.
post #86 of 513
there is an old review by R Greene from Audio review, he did a credible job. I will have to see if I still have the review, maybe I could scan it at work and pdf it to you.
check out the lansing site, lot's of jbl info/knowledge there
post #87 of 513
That would be pretty cool
post #88 of 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay1 View Post

Very nice! Thats a speaker that I've always coveted. It seems to be thoroughly engineered to deliver uncompromised sound from 60hz up. Do you have a pic of your setup by chance?

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.

post #89 of 513
I'm jealous... That looks like a pretty sweet bass trap in between your JBLs
post #90 of 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay1 View Post

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

As you can see, the Magnepans would not work well in this setup . I have a nasty room mode at 40 Hz, but the speakers are about 10 dB down there. This makes the bass seem a bit deeper than the speakers can actually put out. I found an internet seller that sells them for $2400 per pair new with free shipping, so they are not all that expensive.
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?