Get an exclusive sneak peek into our new project. >>> Click Here
Our native mobile app has a new name: Fora Communities. Learn more.

Studio monitors as HT speakers?!?

1623 Views 27 Replies 16 Participants Last post by ksoza, Apr 16, 2003

rpverret

Discussion Starter · Apr 8, 2003

Call me crazy, but shouldn't the most "accurate" speakers in the world be those used in recording studios? Then why aren't we as HT connoisseurs taking advantage of these relatively cheap speakers? Add to that amplifiers matched to the drivers being fed by active crossovers and in some models servo technology controlling the movement of the cone... why wouldn't you buy them??? I only ask because I am in the market for some new speakers and am serisouly considering a pair of these gems.

Take for instance, the Mackie HR line of monitors - in particular, the HR626. They have active crossovers, bi-amplification, and servo feedback for the LF drivers. In any other system, this would make an audiophile drool... but I haven't heard of anyone using speakers such as these for HT. And as a soon-to-be engineer, they are definitely more appealing than any other comparably priced solutions. They have balanced inputs - much better at rejecting noise than unbalanced, no long runs of speaker cable - ending the debate over which cable is best, and SERVO FEEDBACK. I mean, c'mon... in my mind, this puts them above almost any other non-servo-controlled speaker. People spend tons of money on expensive electronics and expensive cables and all kinds of stuff only to have the speaker at the end of the chain severely distort the signal. I don't understant the resistance to a configuration such as this.

Sure a company like Mackie doesn't have your average consumer in mind, and they might not have fancy wood finishes or $200 speaker stands, but I'm sure they produce good stuff. We all claim to want the most accurate reproduction, right?!? I think its staring us right in the face! I understand that people have their preferences, and they might like a certain speakers sound, or even a distorted tube amp, but these are all effects that can be added to a line-level signal, with either digital or analog means. It is my belief that the speaker/amp combo should accurately turn whatever electrical signal is fed into it, into an identical sound wave. And I think such a system could do a better job than many other elaborate ones that cost much more.

Someone please stop me if there is a reason not to go with a system like this, 'cause I just can't see what could be bad about it. Please let me know what you guys think!

Thanks,

Ryan

See less See more

Status: Not open for further replies.

1 - 20 of 28 Posts

EC

· #2 · Apr 8, 2003

Ryan, I just bought some "professional" monitors for my HT speakers namely the PMC TB2's. Although these are a conventional design (passive crossover), I would still classify them as professional as they are used by the pro's for location monitoring. I just got these speakers and posted a thread on them yesterday but the thread is sinking faster than high tech stock. Maybe I should have posted "The best speakers ever made beats brand x, y, z" and it would have garnered more attention.

I think people go with what they know or what the majority knows and that being the more popular "brands". Also there are other considerations such as size, look etc and general availablity to the public.

Khoa Tran

· #3 · Apr 8, 2003

Recording Studios use high end speakers in their studios such as B&W in Skywalker recording studio

brothermaynard

· #4 · Apr 8, 2003

in THX?

rpverret

Discussion Starter · #5 · Apr 8, 2003

Quote:

Originally posted by Khoa Tran
Recording Studios use high end speakers in their studios such as B&W in Skywalker recording studio

I'm sure that they do use fancy speakers for editing... but I'd be surprised if it were anything other than a plug for B&W. And I'm sure plenty of the best music ever mixed was done on standard studio speakers. It is hard for me to believe that this material was tweaked beyond what could be reproduced in the studio.

In addition, it just makes more sense to match your amps to your drivers and filter line-level signals. If it were up to me, the whole analog chain would move inside the speaker enclosure... If Meridian's DSP8000 speakers weren't so darn expensive, I'd have a pair. I can't wait for the day that you plug in each speaker enclosure with a firewire cable, tell the processor where it is physically located, and voilla! No more jitter, no more debates over cables and crossovers and bi-amping... only room-calibrated, phase-linear, distortionless audio! Just like the guy in the booth wanted it to be...

See less See more

tonygeno

· #6 · Apr 8, 2003

See this thread for lots of discussion on this question:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...hreadid=210892

hwc

· #7 · Apr 8, 2003

Quote:

Originally posted by rpverret
I'm sure that they do use fancy speakers for editing... but I'd be surprised if it were anything other than a plug for B&W. And I'm sure plenty of the best music ever mixed was done on standard studio speakers. It is hard for me to believe that this material was tweaked beyond what could be reproduced in the studio.

Skywalker Ranch's selection of equipment for their studios is most definitely not just a "plug" for the various manufacturers. Those guys are nuts about sound quality and it doesn't take a very long visit to their facility to get the distinct impression that cost truly is no object. They have absolutely state-of-the-art everything -- very high end mix boards, audiophile speakers, audiophile amplfiers, etc.

On the wider topic of "professional" speakers: In general, it is like asking the question, "what's better to drive, a pickup truck or a car". Well, you can't answer that question without knowing the intended use. If you want to haul gravel, the pickup truck is better. If you want to drive through the mountains on a curvy road, the car is probably better.

Most pro audio speakers place power handling and extremely high SPL and very high efficiency farther up the list of priorities than sound quality. Some sound very good. Some sound quite lousy. If you are equipping a 400 seat theater, then you really have no choice. You simply cannot get the SPL you need without very high efficiency speakers. But, the things that are required for 96 dB/1 watt/1 meter efficiency usually aren't ideal for the best sound quality in smaller environment.

The one place where there is significant overlap between the two worlds are small, near-field monitors, such as the Mackies you mention.

See less See more

thedeskE

· #8 · Apr 8, 2003

While the Mackies are certainly fine for what they are - I think you'll find that in the world of pro recording, they are more geared for entry level midi and personal setups. The price and quality of studio monitors goes much higher.

There are many who would jump at the chance to use 5 - 7 Genelecs or even a set of PMC 1B1s( www.Bryston.ca ) in a home theater.

Eric

Bigus

· #9 · Apr 8, 2003

Large speakers such as Skywalker's BMW Nautilus are typically used as mains for far-field playback referencing. Most often, professional studio's use near-field monitors specifically designed for the purpose of monitoring. In the near-field, you hear pretty much everything... including some things you don't want to.

As far as using near-field monitors for far-field listening, they could sound good, they might not. Since they weren't specifically designed for that purpose, it might be a mixed bag.

I do think that the quality of studio monitors is pretty good, and the active crossovers and bi-amplification is a good feature (generally).

Tom Brennan

· #10 · Apr 8, 2003

I use a pair of 1960s studio monitors, Altec 605s. The Altec monitors, including the famous 604s, 605s and A7s still have quite a following and are used in many homes. Big cult out there for the big JBL monitors too, I mean the BIG ones with 15" woofs and horn mids and tweets.

You ain't heard Al Green or Elvis till you've heard them over Altecs, nor the Beach Boys until you've heard them over big JBLs like L-200Bs.

And for most of the history of talking pictures movie sound was Altec sound. Movies just sound right with Altec. The "real" Altec I mean, which is gone now, not that computer speaker company that bought the name.

EricD

· #11 · Apr 8, 2003

Im pretty sure the big studios us commercial end stuff, nothing that we as endusers would ever have in our home theaters.

For example, my friend is the lead engineer at a small recording studio. The crossover for one of their main speaker cabinet is $12,000. All of their cabinets are custom made for the spacial qualities of the room.

hwc

· #12 · Apr 8, 2003

Quote:

Originally posted by Tom Brennan
I use a pair of 1960s studio monitors, Altec 605s.

My college roommate and I had FOUR 605s and two Phase Linear 400s to drive them. It was unbelieveable how loud that system would play. We did many dances with that system. It also made a very nice PA system for an acousitic guitar/singer.

It's a great example of how extended frequency response is not necessary for good sound. The 605s didn't go particularly high or low. But, they were very low distortion.

Tom Brennan

· #13 · Apr 9, 2003

HWC----Low distortion is something many modern audiophiles have never heard. I find many modern speakers very irritating; great frequency response and imaging but with a constant background of distortion and hash.

Yeah the old Altecs were great. Until recently my basement rig used a pair of Altec A5 theater speakers with the large format 288 compression drivers and 10 cell tarfilled "Hollywood" horns. These speakers would fill a 800 seat theater, needless to say in my basement distortion was nonexistant.

And they made movies like "Ben-Hur", "South Pacific", "Spartacus" and "West Side Story" sound like the Golden Age of the 70mm roadshow again. Oh yes, I remember that 70mm mag track sound.

Boy & His Ampro

· #14 · Apr 9, 2003

I miss my A7's too but they were just too damn big! How many speakers have to have the ports covered in steel mesh to keep the dogs and cats out of the cabinets! I think owning the A7's were the biggest influence in my buying the M&K 150's as they share that "live" monitor sound quality at a fraction of the size.

Brad

Tom Brennan

· #15 · Apr 9, 2003

Boy---Yes, VOTs are big. I'm selling my VOTs and JBL Pro bassbins because I'm selling my house and moving into an apartment, I'll be looking at small speakers too. M&K you say, I'll have to listen to them.

hwc

· #16 · Apr 9, 2003

Quote:

Originally posted by Tom Brennan
HWC----Low distortion is something many modern audiophiles have never heard. I find many modern speakers very irritating; great frequency response and imaging but with a constant background of distortion and hash.

That is precisely why I became so enamored of bi-amplified subwoofer systems as far back as the 1970s.

My tastes changed from the big Altecs and big JBLs that I had owned to British loudspeakers, because I prefered the musicality of the British speakers. But, even with hideously expensive large KEFs and the biggest amplifiers, the one thing those British speakers couldn't do is capture the effortless dynamic range of the highly efficient Altec, JBL, Klipsch pro products.

Bill Johnson of Audio Research opened my eyes to the benefits of bi-amping with a system consisting of large 3-panel Magneplanars, biamped with an Audio Research crossover and two large Audio Research amplifiers -- one on the bass panels and one on the tweeter/midrange panels. About the same time, M&K released their first subwoofers.

Getting the bass energy out of the main channel amplifiers and speakers is SO valuable in restoring that dynamic range and punch because you are no longer dealing with bass note clipping impacting the entire frequency spectrum.

See less See more

rpverret

Discussion Starter · #17 · Apr 9, 2003

Thanks everyone for their posts, esp. EC for understanding where I am comming from and tonygeno for the link. There are obviously many people out there with many different opinions about sound... personally, I don't pretend to hear things that I know I can't, or look for problems in a setup just based on its price. To tell you the truth, I probably don't even have great hearing... Sure digital compression sounds bad, and speaker distortion makes me cringe, but I really don't think I have a "golden ear," whatever that means. But as an anal-retentive-engineer, there are setups that just make more sense to me. And the more I understand about them and feel that they are "blameless," the more pleasure I derive. What does make sense are the features of these studio monitors... active technology, bi-amping, active crossovers... I guess I just want to see if I'm alone out there.

And if there are problems with speakers such as these in modern multichannel systems, someone please let me know before I waste my money!!! I am a little concerned about the whole nearfield / far field thing, but I doub't i'll ever be that far away from my speakers - I'll look into it. I also don't want anything that will blow my ears off... I rarely turn up the volume. In terms of SPL, all I want is something that will reproduce bass, explosions, lightning, etc. without distorting. Any help?!?

Thanks,

Ryan

See less See more

brothermaynard

· #18 · Apr 10, 2003

It might be good advice to not put 100% of your energy into speakers since sound damping treatments will have at least as much effect on the end result. In short first order reflections are the most important to deal with. I don't think any sound studio has plain old dry-wall...

rpverret

Discussion Starter · #19 · Apr 10, 2003

hehe, good point... but i'll have to save the full room treatment until i move out of an apartment and have a dedicaded theater room.

thanks,

ryan

scooter_29

· #20 · Apr 10, 2003

Quote:

Originally posted by rpverret
Thanks everyone for their posts, esp. EC for understanding where I am comming from and tonygeno for the link. There are obviously many people out there with many different opinions about sound... personally, I don't pretend to hear things that I know I can't, or look for problems in a setup just based on its price. To tell you the truth, I probably don't even have great hearing... Sure digital compression sounds bad, and speaker distortion makes me cringe, but I really don't think I have a "golden ear," whatever that means. But as an anal-retentive-engineer, there are setups that just make more sense to me. And the more I understand about them and feel that they are "blameless," the more pleasure I derive. What does make sense are the features of these studio monitors... active technology, bi-amping, active crossovers... I guess I just want to see if I'm alone out there.

And if there are problems with speakers such as these in modern multichannel systems, someone please let me know before I waste my money!!! I am a little concerned about the whole nearfield / far field thing, but I doub't i'll ever be that far away from my speakers - I'll look into it. I also don't want anything that will blow my ears off... I rarely turn up the volume. In terms of SPL, all I want is something that will reproduce bass, explosions, lightning, etc. without distorting. Any help?!?

Thanks,

Ryan

As far as studios go... many are still using the "nothing short of horrendous" NSM-10s so what is in a studio is not always a good guage.

There is some great pro audio gear out there and some real junk. As mass market pro audio gear becomes cheaper, companies have a tendency to cram more crap into a "box" so they can market it as the end all be all to the project studio recording engineer. Just because a spec sheet is a mile long doesn't make it a great piece of gear. Even in pro audio, price can often be an indication of what you get (maybe even moreso because they are often mass market companies with much smaller margins than high-end audio). The best studio gear can be just as expensive,if not moreso, than consumer high-end audio.

Getting back on topic... the Mackies are a decent speaker but are well surpassed by other studio monitors such as the Genelec. Also, as far as your point about active speakers... just remember, a poor implementation of a more advanced technology will often times be surpassed by an excellent implementation of a lesser technology. Some of the finest studio monitors out there are not run actively (Wilson and B&W to name a few).

I would also be concerned about running a nearfield monitor as anything other than nearfield. These speakers are meant to be within a few feet of the listener. Depending on the speaker, they can have terrible off axis response and the high frequencies can become flat sounding when you start to get out of the nearfield.

See less See more

1 - 20 of 28 Posts

Status: Not open for further replies.