• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

How are studio monitors different from other speakers?

angelaudio

angelaudio

Super Member
Couldn’t find anything on the subject. This may be a stupid question but I just picked up a pair of RSL 6600h’s and do notice that they do seem to have a somewhat flatter response as far as I’ve observed. Are all studio monitors voiced this way? What makes a speaker more suited to studio duty?
 
Register to hide this ad
Studio monitors are suppose to have a flat frequency curve and not color the sound. They are suppose to not add or subtract anything from the sound. Key word here is suppose. They all seem to have their own way of coloring the output though. Nothing wrong with using studio monitors as regular speakers though. I use a pair of EarthWorks Sigma 6.2 monitors from time to time.
 
It's about revealing everything going on for the purposes of mixing. Enjoyment is not the end goal with these. That's not to say that people don't enjoy them though.
 
Studio monitors exist as a tool for getting a good mix for final production. The fact that the most famous, and most widely used monitor of all time, the Yamaha NS-10m, was originally a home hifi speaker, sure does muddy the waters though, doesn’t it?
 
And what source can you Quote that states Yamaha NS-10 is the most widely used monitor?
Used by Who?
Altec's JBL's Tannoys,
 
Last edited:
The fact that NS-10’s have been, and continue to be used in studios worldwide is not an insult to you, or your devotion to JBL, or any other particular brand speakers you are in love with, NYJBLBOB, it’s just a fact.
 
Unlike Ford that can back up the fact that the F 150 Pu is the largest selling vehicle in the US with production numbers,
Show me the production #'s, not just Yamaha Advertising Hyperbole that they are even close to the most widely used Monitors.
 
I saw that number too, Gordon, but love/hate posts about the NS10’s are legendary, and I didn’t really want this post to head in that direction. The thing about studio monitors is, they are a tool used for a specific purpose, and if they excel in that purpose, then they have met their design goal. A studio monitor’s usefulness should be judged on its ability to produce a quality mix, not on how good or bad they sound.
 
Stephen300 said:
Studio monitors are also considered nearfield speakers since they are typically located on the recording console as opposed to sitting on the floor in a room.
Click to expand...

Well, small ones are, at least. No shortage of non-nearfield monitors in soffits 10' or more away from the console.

I've got NS-10s, JBL 4401, and Auratone monitors from my days in the studio. Larger JBL pairs were in the office and garage(!) before we moved. We'll see where they end up. I still have way too many speakers.

Engineers use the small monitors to have a reference sound that is consistent/predictable from studio to studio that they may work in. The Yamaha and Auratones were the most popular of these back in the day. (Other options included the venerable Radio Shack Minimus 7's.) The key is not that they are absolutely fantastic sounding speakers, but rather that they provide a familiar basis for comparison of the many other variables in the studio, including the room acoustics themselves. (Near field use helps control that.)

During a mix, engineers will switch between all the different monitors available in the room after making almost every little tweak in EQ, compression, level, reverb, etc. Constantly switching back and forth. Comparisons. Too little, too much? Check on the various monitors. Some will reveal the change, some will not. It's necessary because nobody has control of how it sounds after it leaves the production team. Except the home/car listener, and their EQ and setup, and room, and components, and hearing, and... It really is a balancing act.

In the last studio I worked in, we used Fostex LS3 monitors, and happened to sit in their near field, due to space considerations in the room itself. Tough act to follow.
 
Lots of engineers use the NS-10s because of two things. At some point they became the inexpensive monitor of choice and seen in a huge amount of studios therefor many are comfortable mixing with them as it is a known quantity. Secondly they have many faults, are not flat at all, and it is said if you can get the mix to sound really good on these it tends to sound good on a variety of speakers. I've mastered a lot of music in the past and asked this question a few times. Those are always the answers I got. That said I'm not sure what made them the "standard" to begin with. I believe portability had something to do with it.

When I mixed I'd also go play the current mix in a few cars. Car systems are always flawed as well and show issues the consumer would hear. And. lots of people listen to music in cars. Then again, this was decades ago.
 
Last edited:
Thanks GordonW , I did not intend to flame the Yamaha's at all! I had the NS1,000's, and was very impressed with them.
While i don't believe any fact checkers at all, It depends on who is supplying the production numbers.
In this case its not political or paid for by the powerful Pharma/medical industry.
I can go with these facts.
Apology submitted.
 
ouimetnick said:
Studio monitors are suppose to have a flat frequency curve and not color the sound. They are suppose to not add or subtract anything from the sound. Key word here is suppose. They all seem to have their own way of coloring the output though. Nothing wrong with using studio monitors as regular speakers though. I use a pair of EarthWorks Sigma 6.2 monitors from time to time.
Click to expand...
Isn’t that what audiophiles strive to attain? Shouldn’t all hi-fi speaker manufacturers try to achieve the transparency and non-coloration that studio monitors do? Hmm
 
mjw21a said:
It's about revealing everything going on for the purposes of mixing. Enjoyment is not the end goal with these. That's not to say that people don't enjoy them though.
Click to expand...
So if a pair of, let’s say, top of the line B&W speakers wouldn’t be used as monitors in a studio then why would audiophiles use them in their setup? Is it a placement issue, near field vs room acoustics type of deal..
 
AFP1 said:
Studio monitors exist as a tool for getting a good mix for final production. The fact that the most famous, and most widely used monitor of all time, the Yamaha NS-10m, was originally a home hifi speaker, sure does muddy the waters though, doesn’t it?
Click to expand...
Exactly. It does muddy the waters a lot i think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom