• 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?

bowtie427ss said:
By MANY engineers who want an accurate representation of what their production will sound like on a cheap crap system. They are the industry standard transistor radio reference. ;)
Click to expand...
Interesting point. So then are most musicians then actually producing music for mass consumption that they assume will be played on crap systems?
 
angelaudio said:
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
Click to expand...

Many flat speakers sound... flat. As in not fun and engaging. My Speakerlab 7's are not flat but I love them as they are crazy dynamic, and have a fun sound I like to listen to. Flat is not always best IMHO.
 
I love monitors for home hifi, running JBL lsr308’s in the living room system right now.

Ive had numerous other JBL studio monitors as well, liked them all.
 
AFP1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is where I get a bit confused. Aren’t good drivers required to reproduce accurate sound? Isn’t accurate sound required to produce a good mix? Is it possible to have a monitor that will produce a good mix but doesn’t necessarily sound like something that audiophiles would want to listen to? So many questions :idea:
 
It all comes down to personal preference. I believe it was Zilch that coined the phrase "fake but fun" to describe the JBL L100 (a speaker which is beloved by listeners despite being objectively not that great). It's the same reason that if you give a bunch of people equalizers and tell them to go nuts, you're going to end up with a lot of "disco smiles" (boosted bass and treble). Accuracy doesn't sell speakers to most casual listeners, and those are the people that primarily drive the market, not the handful of audiophiles buying boutique speakers.
 
angelaudio said:
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..
Click to expand...

There is at least one studio that mixes music using B&W 802’s, the name escapes me at the moment
 
Chip Chester said:
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.
Click to expand...
I’ll get back to this post Chip. I need some time to fully grasp the points you brought up.
 
angelaudio said:
Interesting point. So then are most musicians then actually producing music for mass consumption that they assume will be played on crap systems?
Click to expand...

Think about it. At this point and time how many people really have nice stereos any more? WAY less than people listening on Bluetooth speakers, car stereos (probably the best system for many), in ear headphones, cell phones. That said production and production equipment these days are amazing.
 
angelaudio said:
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..
Click to expand...

If you look at some high-end recordings- you will see stuff like B&W speakers used. I think I remember several Telarc recordings that mentioned B&W...

Regards,
Gordon.
 
angelaudio said:
Why is that Biggles? What difference do you notice between monitors and home hifi speakers?
Click to expand...

I find myself listening to mostly recordings from the 50s, trailing off into the 70s. The earlier recordings from the 50s and 60s can be quite alive with room acoustics, other human beings, artifacts both juicy to unwanted. I want to hear it all. Bluegrass from that time is actually alive. You can smell the sawdust on the barn floor when Doc Watson or Johnny Cash is at the helm. You put those recordings through a monitor, through nearly any speaker system with big, complicated crossover, it immediately strips your recordings of any character. Ruined. Play them through a less complicated crossover, or a single full range driver? Every hair on your arm, back, legs, stand at attention. For instance, first cut on the second side of Cheap Thrills (at least I think it’s the first cut), you can hear glass breaking. Through my Stephen’s trusonic 80FRs, I could tell it was a Pabst blue ribbon beer bottle. I choked back a tear. This is just one instance, I get these frequently. But never on a monitor, never on some fancy high techy techy. This is why I avoid them at all costs.

Biggles
 
GordonW said:
If you look at some high-end recordings- you will see stuff like B&W speakers used. I think I remember several Telarc recordings that mentioned B&W...

Regards,
Gordon.
Click to expand...

Yes Gordon, Telarc was who I remembered using B&W 802’s

Oops my bad, it was Stockfish using Nautilus 801’s
 
Last edited:
Stockfish

This is from Chris Jones “Roadhouses and Automobiles”

I was wrong about the model, looks like 801’s were used

FF5C47E1-FFD5-430B-A282-72843827C4E8.jpeg
 
tonyk said:
Stockfish

This is from Chris Jones “Roadhouses and Automobiles”

I was wrong about the model, looks like 801’s were used

View attachment 2119464
Click to expand...

And I heard that Abbey Road told B&W that the 801's were too small, they needed more. That's when B&W came out with the 808's, 2 801's in one cabinet. The 808's I had were way way way way way too much for my 12 x 14 foot living room, I had to sell them.

Biggles
 
drbiggles said:
I find myself listening to mostly recordings from the 50s, trailing off into the 70s. The earlier recordings from the 50s and 60s can be quite alive with room acoustics, other human beings, artifacts both juicy to unwanted. I want to hear it all. Bluegrass from that time is actually alive. You can smell the sawdust on the barn floor when Doc Watson or Johnny Cash is at the helm. You put those recordings through a monitor, through nearly any speaker system with big, complicated crossover, it immediately strips your recordings of any character. Ruined. Play them through a less complicated crossover, or a single full range driver? Every hair on your arm, back, legs, stand at attention. For instance, first cut on the second side of Cheap Thrills (at least I think it’s the first cut), you can hear glass breaking. Through my Stephen’s trusonic 80FRs, I could tell it was a Pabst blue ribbon beer bottle. I choked back a tear. This is just one instance, I get these frequently. But never on a monitor, never on some fancy high techy techy. This is why I avoid them at all costs.

Biggles
Click to expand...
Biggles, you’ve got me thinking about getting my Goodmans triaxioms repaired. One of the horn tweeters is dead on one but they are as close as I can get to what you’re talking about here. They do have a crossover, albeit very simple with only two 1.5mfd caps but the driver that is fully working does put out a special kind of sound that is, now that I think back to it, more pure sounding. The 6600h’s that I have sound analytical, flat, with good transients and modest bass extension but it is more of a “processed” sound. You’ve got me wondering about the Stephens 80FR’s too. This thread might end up costing me some dough in the end :D Do you have tweeters playing alongside your 80FR’s?
 
mjw21a said:
Just listening preference. Personally I find the sound of studio monitors extremely boring.
Click to expand...
I’m starting to see why you would feel that way. My RSL’s are very flat, and after playing some of my favorite CD’s I’m finding myself wanting to hear more dynamics and more life. :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom