Home audio VS. Pro Audio

[freddypete]

speaking as another recording engineer/hifi nut/pro musician, I can say a few points for sure, although I don't think they help define any particular group:

- some hifi nuts own/prefer gear that is every bit as accurate as the best studio gear (including myself)
- some hifi nuts own/prefer gear that rolls off the highs, emphasizes certain other frequency ranges, uses speaker dispersion technics you'd never be able (or choose) to use in a studio (such as dipole/omni which might be more useful in a home setting where people walk around rather than sit in the ideal listening seat as in a studio control room)
- many studios with outboard analog gear own gear that is exceptionally inaccurate but there for musical reasons (certain tape machines, compressors like my home built 1176, tube preamps that emphasize the mids (great for certain vocals, terrible for others), and so on)

Other than repeatability/mobility (such as my nemesis, the ns-10), there is also the fact that all control rooms are acoustically very different from almost all home listening rooms. So the same speakers, setup the same way, will sound very different. In homes we try to get a great sound in a crappy room, so there are so many compromises and there is so much room for experimentation so things fit into our lifestyles and choices of music that it's just a different situation.

The fact that I listen on (very listenable) studio monitors, AND on great classic but still very revealing home hifi speakers, and with very revealing studio-quality preamp/power amp combinations, is my own choice but also a design decision. I make music as a job, so I really don't want to get used to listening to something that alters the sound (sansui preamps, AR speakers, what have you). But I do like to use setups like that for listening reference later on, and I completely acknowledge that they may, in fact, make many recordings of a certain style of music sound better overall to one's ears than more accurate, flat speakers could, unless you're used to listening to accurate, flattish, revealing systems (as I am).

It's personal choice - in one's home, who really cares? do waht fits your needs. I do!

Great answer... I too use Hi-Fi gear in the studio... a classic example of hi-fi in the studio is the nakamichi mr-1 tape deck, same as the dragon except rack mouted and with XLR connectors.

My question is less about speakers and more about preamps. Like, say I have a mono tube amp and I used the tape out as a send back into the mixer. That makes it a tube preamp? the only difference is in the DB level. Caps are caps, what constitutes a hi-fi preamp vs a studio grade preamp... that being said if there is truly a big difference wouldn't most audiophiles prefer the "studio grade" pre?

 

[goldear]

Great answer... I too use Hi-Fi gear in the studio... a classic example of hi-fi in the studio is the nakamichi mr-1 tape deck, same as the dragon except rack mouted and with XLR connectors.

Sorry I have to correct a mis-statement: The MR-1 is the same as the BX-300 except with XLR connectors. Tht dragon is an entirely different beast.

But your point remains valid. :thmbsp:

 

[freddypete]

Sorry I have to correct a mis-statement: The MR-1 is the same as the BX-300 except with XLR connectors. Tht dragon is an entirely different beast.

But your point remains valid. :thmbsp:

ah yes... was mistaken. I wonder why they chose the bx-300 in the studio rather than the dragon? :scratch2:

 

[goldear]

The BX-300 is a superb, and very under-rated tape-deck. Just because a Nak isn't a Dragon, doesn't mean that it is an inferior performer. The dragon had features such as autoreverse, which would be of little use in a studio setting.

 

[Tube King]

To me, whoever is happy with their results is doing it right.

je

Agreed.

 

[niklasthedol]

It is easy to be mistaken thinking that just because gear is aimed at the promarket, it should be good.
NOT.

It is easy for hifi nerds and/or hifi jerks to consider themselves as running a studio with the ease of accessibility there is today to some digital products doing CDs from mastering to downmix and end release product.

Mostly relevant to the OP is the fact that there is far between the good pro gear. The TOTL pro gear is something people should prepare to wait maybe 15-25 year for to see on the used market, if at all, and price tags would be up there making people consider if they should buy the gear or a luxury ocean crusing yacht. (almost)

Putting brand names on the crappy pro gear would offend too many people on any hifi community.
Putting names on the best pro gear wouldn't ring any bells except a very limited minority, many of which will not attend hifi communities.

Most pro gear is irrelevant in HiFi set-ups.
Who would claim that the sound's fidelity and purity in their set-up would benefit from compressors, effects, panning devices, expanders, equalizers and who would live in a dead-room treatment invorenment.

For the pro gear in general and for those of which is at all relevant in home audio, main reason for using the "PRO" term is most commonly for the connectability, flexibility and durability.

I would find it much more interesting to see names put on the best pro gear relevant for hifi use.
But I think there would be the risk (as always) that a lot "blindfolded" would suggest what others (the before mentioned minority) consider crap.

"dolph"

 

[TejasRichard]

It is easy for hifi nerds and jerks to consider themselves as running a studio with the ease of accessibility there is today to some digital products doing CDs from mastering to downmix and end release product.

I really hope I'm misunderstanding what you've written here.....

 

[whoaru99]

It is easy to be mistaken thinking that just because gear is aimed at the promarket, it should be good.
NOT.

And conversely, of course.

 

[Suzuki]

I'm sorry for my limited vocabulary. Here is a good example suggesting what is expected in professioal-use gears. 99 out of a hundred TTs used in studios or FM stations are DENON in Japan. What do you suppose the reason is? The reason is it is so desighed that it reaches 33-and-1/3 rpm at just the first one-and-a half revolutions. Why should this capability be necessary for TTs we use? However / therefore, considerable number of audio fans prefer DENON TTs. I used to use a Kenwoood TT, which was fairly heavy.

 

[Freezer7Pro]

No such thing as objectivity when experiencing listening to music.

"dolph"

I was referring to the intent of the equipment. In the professional/studio world, you pick the speakers you need rather than the speakers you want.

 

[Jon_Logan]

Most pro gear is irrelevant in HiFi set-ups.
Who would claim that the sound's fidelity and purity in their set-up would benefit from compressors, effects, panning devices, expanders, equalizers and who would live in a dead-room treatment invorenment.

"dolph"

I would say that an amplifier is relevant in a home HiFi situation. I don't remember most amplifiers having a panning, eq, or compressors on them. It seems there's a misconception about the professional world's seriousness about quality. Pro's are very serious about quality and they have the same range of products as the HiFi folks. Crap to excellent. I don't want to get into any discussion that HiFi people are more keen to quality. I just don't buy into that. I would say that pros take more of an engineering approach to system design, but do critically listen to the result. Most pros don't buy into the green sharpie on disc, connecting a Tice clock for some magical change, or put their speaker wires on little Dixie cups. .....and that's allright for me.

 

[AngelRa]

What is the real difference?

I guess you know what I am about to say...

Pro-audio or in your case studio equipment generally is made as work tools, they are made to reveal adjustments in the tone and level. To do so the sound is calibrated at the edge of balance where it feels that is just not enough neither is absent. It is not made to sound good, it is made to be accurate. In the other hand, home audio is made to be pleasant, noise and accuracy takes a second priority.

In other words:
Pro-Studio = Accurate, quiet, and rugged
Home = Pleasant, beautiful, and delicate

I own and like both.

 

[niklasthedol]

I would say that an amplifier is relevant in a home HiFi situation. I don't remember most amplifiers having a panning, eq, or compressors on them. It seems there's a misconception about the professional world's seriousness about quality.

I have problems finding where in my post I wrote Amplifiers?
Are you aware that you can get compressors, effects, panning devices, expanders and equalizers without having to get them build into amplifiers?

"dolph"

 

[similost]

I've kinda been staying outta this.. but...

I don't think one is any better than the other, or any worse than the other. I've got stacks of each, and will wire them all together any how I can.. some combinations sound great, others sound kinda crappy... I think it's more how well certain kinds of equipment works with others, and not whether it's pro or hi-fi...

I do think more audiophiles sell pro gear short as compared to pros that poop on consumer or home gear..

 

[Jon_Logan]

I have problems finding where in my post I wrote Amplifiers?
Are you aware that you can get compressors, effects, panning devices, expanders and equalizers without having to get them build into amplifiers?

"dolph"

Um, I did work in sound reinforcement for some years. You're description of "Pro gear" was a blanket statement. There's plenty of overlap in the two applications. Compressors, eq, and the rest are used in pro applications, since the music is produced and not just reproduced. Compressors are a necessity because the dynamic range is uncontrolled and drivers can be lost without their use. Most of the time, the compressors are not active (except at metal shows) unless a mic gets dropped etc, But besides that, attention to quality is equally as fervent in the pro world (maybe more so) as it is in the HiFi world. HiFi people tend to get on their high horse (or Dolphin) and say that professionals don't get quality, etc. That's just not factual.

 

[Nikko75]

I guess you know what I am about to say...

Pro-audio or in your case studio equipment generally is made as work tools, they are made to reveal adjustments in the tone and level. To do so the sound is calibrated at the edge of balance where it feels that is just not enough neither is absent. It is not made to sound good, it is made to be accurate. In the other hand, home audio is made to be pleasant, noise and accuracy takes a second priority.

In other words:
Pro-Studio = Accurate, quiet, and rugged
Home = Pleasant, beautiful, and delicate

I own and like both.

Same here. There are some good posts here, yours really takes the objective and gets straight to the point. There are more high dollar home audio products as of late marketed as studio reference yet they are simply unusable for quality mixing and monitoring. There are also some cheap items in the past decade marketed as monitors that are unusable.

 

[Arkay]

Whew! This should rank right up there with "Do power cables make a difference?", "Is direct drive really better than belt drive?", and "Tubes or solid-state? -Which should I use?" as a ridiculously divisive thread topic.

I think keeping a few things in mind is important:

1. The AIMS in designing pro gear and consumer gear are different. If you are talking about pro gear used in recording studios, making a recording --mixing, compressing, etc... the sound from mics of various types, in a controlled studio environment, is very different from reproducing an already-produced recording in a home environment. Accuracy is paramount, as well as consistency and reliability.

2. At the level of mastering, a pro may wish to use some consumer gear, in order to hear what the music will sound like across a variety of real-world systems. An interesting example of the differences in monitors used can be seen in the Yamaha NS-1000M and NS-10M. The former is one of the most accurate speakers ever made, and used for that reason in many, many studios. The latter was widely used, too, because it was in some respects so poor that it was believed "If I can make a song sound good through these speakers, it will sound good in anyone's system!"

3. For pro gear used in live performances, which often involves touring and/or playing in less-secure environments, solidity and durability become very important. Often, power requirements are well beyond those needed at home, too.

3. People buying for consumer/home use, have many motivations and criteria that are fundamentally different from the pro looking for a tool to do a job. Different questions arise like "Will this look good in my living room?" "Do I LIKE the sound of this?" "Will it complement sonically the gear I already have ('synergy')?" "Will my wife kill me or divorce me if I bring this home?" Pros outfitting a studio or packing up tour gear rarely think about things like this.

4. In MOST cases, budgets are also different. Pro gear is a business investment that can be budgeted for, in relation to the income one expects to earn from using it over its real and depreciable lifetime. One calculates (or at least, SHOULD calculate) a return on investment, before buying it. Home-gear budgets are quite different, and usually much smaller, because the gear is ordinarily a pure expenditure, and not being used to generate any monetary income.

So it is really apples and oranges. What they BOTH have in common is that they both take inputs and electro-mechanically and electronically manipulate audio signals to create music that we hear. SOME elements, like amps and speakers, are common to both, where others --like compressors and mixers-- seldom cross the divide. There are better and lesser quality components of each type. There are some common (although not absolute) differences, such as most pro gear using balanced connections and most consumer gear using unbalanced. But mixing-and-matching is always possible.

There are emotional perspectives attached to either side looking at the other, too: snobbism of sorts on both sides, but some people (wisely, I think) get past these and use both. I use MOSTLY consumer "hi fi" gear, but do have some pro gear around and in use, too. I have a very rudimentary home studio of sorts (for making training-related and binaural hypnosis recordings), which uses pro gear, and I listen almost every day to the NS-1000Ms, which originally were monitor speakers. Over time, and as I find the right source gear to feed them with, I find I prefer their accuracy to most "colored" speakers. That said, I prefer the RS IIs to the NS-1000Ms, because of the deeper and wider sound stage they give, while preserving --I might even say enhancing, in some ways-- the realism of the sound.

There is no reason not to mix both types of gear, as long as the gear can be made to work well together and you are pleased with the results you get! In the end, it is all about the music, anyway!

 

[Suzuki]

Sorry for showing up repeatedly.........

Pro gear : Endurance and reliability are guaranteed.
Home hi-fi : designed for those who are very particular in the quality of its sound

Do you know the term "SONY TIMER"? It is famous among audio fans in Japan that cheap
home-use SONYs are designed to get trouble shortly after the warranty period has expired,
While SONYs for professional use doesn't have trouble over a long period of time under
heavy duty.


This is my idea..

 

[Jon_Logan]

Having worked on both pro and home gear for many years, I can tell you that the sonic performance criteria is the same for both. Accuracy, flatness, low distortion, low noise, low crosstalk, etc. In pro gear, there is an emphasis on low impedance load drive capability, because that is the application, the most drivers per amp channel. This not at the expense of any sonic performance.

On the test bench the PASS/FAIL criteria is the same for pro and home. Some amplifiers make pro versions by slapping rack handles and fans on it, but nobody is selecting components ( caps, resistors) for musicality. Talk about a yield loss at the factory. The same amp can be made for either environment. But why would a touring sound company want to pay for a 1/2" brushed aluminum faceplate when it just adds weight? How many HiFi enthusiast require 19" panel width with rack handles? I contend that there is no ground up design criteria difference in performance between pro and HiFi, unless you're talking about single-ended tube amp where you really want the tube type distortion and a roll-off in the low frequencies.

 

[dkelley]

ah yes... was mistaken. I wonder why they chose the bx-300 in the studio rather than the dragon? :scratch2:

because nobody would choose a fully automatic auto reverse auto everything deck for what we considering typical studio use. I mean, it's great, I love the dragon, but it's just overkill, and more to wear out (all the auto stuff), at least in theory.

Probably why they went that way, thinking studio guys are more purists.

the bx300 sounds great and is way better than most of the bx range (like my bx-2, which sound great, but otherwise I'm not blown away with build quality or features.... considering the price when new).