What makes it a studio monitor?

[barredowl]

Just because "studio monitor," and "monitor" are abused as marketing terms does not mean there isn't such a thing as a professional studio monitor which has qualities like flat frequency response, ability to handle high power levels without compressing the music, controlled dispersions, details being more important than smoothness, self powered, balanced inputs, etc. There are admittedly some crossovers like B & W and KEF speakers that are used both in the home and studio but real high end studio monitors like powered Genelacs and Mackies are mainly marketed to and used in professonal applications, with the exception of a few audio obsessives (like AKers) who find out about them and bring them to the home.

Jlovda companies like Genelac see little need to make home audio speakers that are built to a price point when they are profitable building no compromise high end monitors for the specialized pro market, not every company is attempting to dominate all market niches like JBL and I say that as a huge JBL fan. Think Bugati v.s. Chevy for a car metaphor.

High end pro monitors are sold almost like specialized scientific test instruments most companies that make them you've also never heard of either, and are sold though wholesale catalogs, warehouse pro audio stores and web sites. I have never actually heard the Genlacs but sound professionals whose ears I trust implicitly tell me they are the cream of the crop.

 

[westend]

Yes, Genelec speakers are expensive. Dynaudio speakers originate in Europe and are very expensive, as well as being superb speakers. Dynaudio drivers are used by other top echelon speaker manufacturers. However, I've never heard the term "studio monitor" being applied to Dynaudio speakers.

Home page of Dynaudio Acoustics, source for studio and professional applications. My SIL, the sound engineer, uses Dynaudio BM6's in his studio. They have a very flat response, so flat, I find them disagreeable for home listening. One of the better Studio or Control Monitors I've owned were the JBL 4313, very tight bass and dug very low. The 5" midrange was very adequate and the metal-deposited tweeter was not objectionable, at all, sizzle but no ear-bleeding.

 

[garww]

I drool over the H&K monitors;
http://www.neumann-kh-line.com/neumann-kh/home_en.nsf

The Gens and Dynas almost seeming generic. I did read a comment on-line that the BBC went with Dynas over the old Rogers-type for nearfield. I wouldn't have a clue, however : )

I think plenty of people still use their Martin Logans and B&W with Thresholds or whatever.

 

[garww]

Home page of Dynaudio Acoustics, source for studio and professional applications. My SIL, the sound engineer, uses Dynaudio BM6's in his studio. They have a very flat response, so flat, I find them disagreeable for home listening. One of the better Studio or Control Monitors I've owned were the JBL 4313, very tight bass and dug very low. The 5" midrange was very adequate and the metal-deposited tweeter was not objectionable, at all, sizzle but no ear-bleeding.

That's funny ! On one of these boards some dude asked about getting some dynaaudio for home use 'cause he uses them at work. I suggested he might get something enjoyable !! I don't know what the guy was thinking ?

 

[notben]

Right now, I know BBC has a lot of PMC monitors and speakers also. They have a lot of stuff there, I would love to tour their storage rooms :drool:
PMC has really begun to penetrate into the top echelon of pro studios over the last decade.

A lot of mid-fi and hi-fi monitors and speakers may have some of the flat response needed, but their directivity doesn't really match up well to their respective sizes; ie: I have moved to Adam A7's for monitoring and I have compared them to several bookshelf speakers and monitors, and while some may match the Adams in detail, they can't do it from a desktop to a chair sitting 2-4 feet away. Heck, my 2pi's are as detailed as any studio monitor I have tried, but their forward lobes are designed to cross each other into the room a bit if I understand Wayne Parham's posts correctly. And I have heard recording monitors that begin to loose their coherence as you back into the room.
And yet, I have tried larger speakers like JBL, with 15" and 12" drivers that do well as nearfield or mid field monitoring.

 

[garww]

Ya, I'm right now sitting about 24 & 36-inches from my studio boxes and they do pretty well - I audition every thing on these. For 1970-ish, they have a recessed flatish dome super-tweet in a mini round horn, conventional 5" with a 1" metalized dome, and a really stiff front-ported 12". I can't really do 1watt with them. Ha ! The little 4-watt amps in the old Roberts deck are about perfect for them.

 

[rifftrax]

Agree in spades! The Yamaha NS 10M is a prime example of a studio monitor that is near unlistenable in normal stereo applications.

The Yamaha NS10M was never designed as a studio monitor. It was specifically a hi-fi speaker that chanced to be picked up by the mixing/mastering community for god knows what reason. They are not a flat speaker by any means:

http://img15.imageshack.us/f/hs50vsns10.jpg/

When Yamaha realized that they had become a sensation in studios with their hi-fi speaker, the added "STUDIO" to the iteration and badged the speaker so it would look proper when placed horizontally on a mixing desk. Really, the NS10M is not anywhere close to being a "prime example" of a studio monitor. It would be closer comparing it to a pair of auratones.

 

[Sam Cogley]

So they would make great computer speakers if they aren't too large.

Or they might sound good in a small room.

Not all studio mixing/control rooms are small. Look at all of the pictures from the 60s and 70s of control rooms with huge JBL and Altec speakers...

 

[Jon_Logan]

The Yamaha NS10M It would be closer comparing it to a pair of auratones.

Ouch, that's cold.

 

[rifftrax]

Ouch, that's cold.

It's not quite what you might imagine though. I'm not comparing the two strictly on grounds of response and sound characteristics but more of the role they played in ealier studios:

"The term 'nearfield monitor' was an invention of the early '80s. It just about predates the explosive rise of the home and project studio and was originally the term applied to auxiliary monitors that sat on the meterbridge in large commercial studios, and were supposed to reflect the sound of typical home audio or TV speakers.
One speaker originally defined the breed: the Auratone 5C. The Auratone was, and is, little more than a five-inch 'full-range' driver screwed into a small cube-shaped enclosure. It had little pretence to audio accuracy or wide bandwidth, and was simply intended to provide a reference for the likely sound of recordings when reproduced on an AM radio, or via a TV. So the Auratone was not really a 'nearfield' in the sense that we understand the term now, but it did set a precedent for auxiliary monitors, and prepared the ground for the second nearfield icon — the Yamaha NS10M."

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun02/articles/monitors.asp

The NS10s had (depending on placement) wildly bad response but extremely good group delay characteristics. In some circumstances they might sound quite decent but then at the same time achieving that is a bit of a crap shoot (unless you happen to have a large mixing desk you can place them horizontally on to compensate to low mid-bass/bass output). There's very few engineers who would ever advocate doing an entire mix on a pair of NS10s. You see them nowadays used almost exclusively as a second set for comparison of sound. Some engineers have them just so they can say they have a set of NS10s to please patrons.

Not all studio mixing/control rooms are small. Look at all of the pictures from the 60s and 70s of control rooms with huge JBL and Altec speakers...

Yup, most proper control rooms (especially nowadays) are quite large.

 

[notben]

One speaker originally defined the breed: the Auratone 5C. The Auratone was, and is, little more than a five-inch 'full-range' driver screwed into a small cube-shaped enclosure. It had little pretence to audio accuracy or wide bandwidth, and was simply intended to provide a reference for the likely sound of recordings when reproduced on an AM radio, or via a TV. So the Auratone was not really a 'nearfield' in the sense that we understand the term now, but it did set a precedent for auxiliary monitors, and prepared the ground for the second nearfield icon — the Yamaha NS10M[/I]."

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun02/articles/monitors.asp

The NS10s had (depending on placement) wildly bad response but extremely good group delay characteristics. In some circumstances they might sound quite decent but then at the same time achieving that is a bit of a crap shoot (unless you happen to have a large mixing desk you can place them horizontally on to compensate to low mid-bass/bass output). There's very few engineers who would ever advocate doing an entire mix on a pair of NS10s. You see them nowadays used almost exclusively as a second set for comparison of sound. Some engineers have them just so they can say they have a set of NS10s to please patrons.

Thanks for the link; that predates my subscription. The second paragraph is basically what I was told when at Omega in MD/DC. That many engineers used them to check the mix as if it was a crappy car stereo. Although I always thought they were accurate in the mid to mid/high range: 500-6khz.
Great thread.

 

[sealy]

The Yamaha NS10M was never designed as a studio monitor. It was specifically a hi-fi speaker that chanced to be picked up by the mixing/mastering community for god knows what reason. They are not a flat speaker by any means:

http://img15.imageshack.us/f/hs50vsns10.jpg/

When Yamaha realized that they had become a sensation in studios with their hi-fi speaker, the added "STUDIO" to the iteration and badged the speaker so it would look proper when placed horizontally on a mixing desk. Really, the NS10M is not anywhere close to being a "prime example" of a studio monitor. It would be closer comparing it to a pair of auratones.

That's the myth, apparently. But the truth is that someone who owned the studio thought they actually sounded good. One can't blame Yamaha for taking advantage of the buzz. Shows you how one person's tin ear can influence generations of listeners.

 

[Rapidan]

IIRC, the NS-10M was Yamaha's "pro" version of the NS-10, as Rifftrax pointed out they were an attempt to cash in on the NS-10 "craze". I believe the original NS-10 had already been discontinued by then. Naturally, many people immediately claimed they "didn't have the same sound" as the original. We used a pair of AR's, and Auratones, as nearfields/ mix monitors at the time.

I had a chance to spend a few days tracking in front of a pair of Westlake BBSM-12's. I'd take a pair home with me in a heartbeat. Damned impressive.

 

[rifftrax]

That's the myth, apparently. But the truth is that someone who owned the studio thought they actually sounded good. One can't blame Yamaha for taking advantage of the buzz. Shows you how one person's tin ear can influence generations of listeners.

True, and I'm certain that a lot of applications (on mixing desks) made use of the boundary effect that brought up the tapered bass response (though that does leave the well-known treble issues unmitigated). There's a lot better you can do for the money nowadays though (considering you're going to pay $500 for a used set) for a speaker with a 7" woofer (and rather light cabinets, they weigh 13lbs. per speaker). Other issue is that most music of that time period really could have sounded a good deal better overall, clinical accuracy was no-where close to the concern for studio production (in the 70's and 80's) that it is now. Comparing for example a speaker like the Behringer 2031p against the NS10s is a no contest nod to the Behringers for example. That's at often less than 1/2 the price + a warranty! Manufacturing has come a long way so it's only expected of course. I'm sure in another 20 years we'll have a pair of $200 monitors that will destroy most passives costing $1k or more of this era...

 

[notben]

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun02/articles/monitors.asp

Thanks again for posting that article. Here is part 2 for anyone else interested.
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/Jul02/articles/monitors2.asp

Enjoy.

 

[Copa1934]

My understanding of a studio monitor is a speaker designed to give "accurate sound reproduction". Aren't all speakers supposed to do this? Parts Express sells Behringer studio monitors. If I buy a pair of these will I like them more because they are studio monitors or maybe like them less because I am used to the sound of regular speakers that aren't considered studio monitors?

All this yakity yak about studio monitors seems to completely ignore studio environments. I've been in a few, I've seen images of many in magazines, postings, youtube video, biographies of artists during recording sessions and guess what? Not one darn studio is identical to another. Very few use the same mixing boards or other supporting equipment. And that doesn't even touch on the physical design or layout of the room, which can also include or not include various types of damping materials to reduce or eliminate echo, etc.

What is with you people? Some one who speaks up as an expert on "all" studios has certainly put both feet in their mouth as all anyone has to do is look at the many available images and video's that contradict those "expert" claims.

The one Wiki reference is certainly the best to follow on, without any doubts in my mind. But what must be added is the practice of having many other types of speakers and even boom boxes to sample recordings to find out just how well something plays.

Nothing at all wrong with using a studio monitor at home, just as long as you understand it's defined purpose and you have a room suited for that type of speaker. Really it's just that simple. Your ears will decide if the sound is good to you, inspite of what some experts may claim.

 

[notben]

All this yakity yak about studio monitors seems to completely ignore studio environments. I've been in a few, I've seen images of many in magazines, postings, youtube video, biographies of artists during recording sessions and guess what? Not one darn studio is identical to another. Very few use the same mixing boards or other supporting equipment. And that doesn't even touch on the physical design or layout of the room, which can also include or not include various types of damping materials to reduce or eliminate echo, etc.

What is with you people? Some one who speaks up as an expert on "all" studios has certainly put both feet in their mouth as all anyone has to do is look at the many available images and video's that contradict those "expert" claims.

The one Wiki reference is certainly the best to follow on, without any doubts in my mind. But what must be added is the practice of having many other types of speakers and even boom boxes to sample recordings to find out just how well something plays.

Nothing at all wrong with using a studio monitor at home, just as long as you understand it's defined purpose and you have a room suited for that type of speaker. Really it's just that simple. Your ears will decide if the sound is good to you, inspite of what some experts may claim.

Duh.
I don't know who pissed in your cheerios, or maybe I'm really reading a different thread than you.

 

[bowtie427ss]

I had a chance to spend a few days tracking in front of a pair of Westlake BBSM-12's. I'd take a pair home with me in a heartbeat. Damned impressive.

I'm rather fond of my BBSM-10's, you will not power them with just any amplifier however. If i ever hit the lottery, i will build a listening room around a pair of SM-1's, as those would surely be my holy grail of loudspeakers.

 

[dshoaf]

I'm rather fond of my BBSM-10's.....

You are not alone, sir!

Cheers,

David

 

[rifftrax]

I'm rather fond of my BBSM-10's, you will not power them with just any amplifier however. If i ever hit the lottery, i will build a listening room around a pair of SM-1's, as those would surely be my holy grail of loudspeakers.

Wow, I wouldn't mind a pair of westlake's!! I'm jealous... :tresbon: