monitors or speakers

devilkazuya

devilkazuya

devilkazuya

Associate
Joined
24 Jul 2005
Posts
484
from what i have heard with my own ears, and what people i know who work in music/production have said, a pair of decent monitors hands down beats a pair of decent speakers. The sound from monitors is so crystal clear, it is simply joyous.

Why is there always so much talk of speakers from the so called audiophiles on here, and rarely a mention of monitors?
 
devilkazuya said:
from what i have heard with my own ears, and what people i know who work in music/production have said, a pair of decent monitors hands down beats a pair of decent speakers. The sound from monitors is so crystal clear, it is simply joyous.

Why is there always so much talk of speakers from the so called audiophiles on here, and rarely a mention of monitors?
Click to expand...

Monitors are speakers.
 
sinister_stu said:
Monitors are speakers.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

'Monitors' is just a synonym for speakers from the world of the recording studio.

This article from SOS says it all:
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/Jun02/articles/monitors.asp

If you don't want to read the whole article (during which they compare speakers from the hi-fi and project studio markets), here's the conclusion:
So have any of these two sets of measurements revealed a fundamental difference between 'pro' and 'hi-fi' speaker types? Well, the 'pro' Dynaudio, thanks probably to its voice-coil construction, is best suited to being driven hard, and it has a well-controlled and appropriately balanced frequency response. The 'pro' KRK, through its higher sensitivity and reasonable compression performance, is also more suited to operation at high levels than either the B&W or the Wharfedale. So maybe there's a glimpse of a distinction here. But then the KRK is, in my opinion, let down by the questionable frequency-response characteristics I noted last month. The Wharfedale is pretty similar to the KRK in terms of its thermal-compression performance, but loses out through being around 3dB less sensitive. Its frequency response isn't really the stuff of a nearfield monitor either. Lastly, the B&W is not so good at elevated levels, but its exceptional frequency response performance still argues pretty strongly in its favour. In truth, there are a range of abilities across the four different designs, and it'd be a brave man to say that any group of two is obviously inappropriate.
Click to expand...
In the right environment, with the right type of material, any of these four speakers could be used successfully -- countless wonderful recordings have been made using monitors worse than anything here. So, can you use hi-fi speakers as nearfield monitors? Well, as I wrote at the start of this article, it depends...
Click to expand...
 
I'm using hi-fi speakers as nearfield monitors and they work just fine -

sound.jpg
 
Monitors SHOULD give an uncoloured sound (very flat response across the audio range). They are usually a bit tougher too for "accidents" in the studio (dropping a mic, hot plugging pops, switch on sounds etc). As it happens, I'm not sure how true the first is on many of the cheaper monitors around. I was going to get a pair, but went for Hi-Fi in the end for versatility. The modern active monitors do seem to offer a compact and reasonably priced solution for PC sound (I was looking at the Tapco S5s myself, with the amplifiers built in, they won't hog a lot of desk space). They arn't often very elegant though, if your bothered by that sort of thing, and the smaller ones arn't likely to have great bass extension.
 
All I can say is that I've been through several pairs of Hi Fi speakers, they just can't seem to cope with the bass generated by my synths, but my Tannoy Reveals are still going strong :)
 
The best studios in the world use what is best for that particular application. Abbey Road use hifi speakers that cost £70,000 a pair plus amplification that would cost in excess of £30,000 with great ease. Other big-name studios use monitors from companies like PMC.

I have listened to monitors that rate up amongst the best in the world from companies like Genelec (used in acoustic laboratory experiments) and when properly investigated, they arent up to much because the figures are massaged to make them fit the target market - in this case, most monitors are aimed at "pro" studios who buy based on hype, which is basically how the whole music industry works. In general, the responses are fantastic for their physical size but they arent outright fantastic.

Hifi has a lot to answer for as well, but for home listening use, you are after a hifi setup, not a studio setup.

Before any of the studio lot get all uppity, the AVERAGE quality of a mainstream release these days is nothing short of APPALLING. True good recording quality still exists but not in the charts IMHO - look to Jazz if you want the best because you will find people there that care about the music rather than the $$$.
 
DRZ said:
Before any of the studio lot get all uppity, the AVERAGE quality of a mainstream release these days is nothing short of APPALLING. True good recording quality still exists but not in the charts IMHO - look to Jazz if you want the best because you will find people there that care about the music rather than the $$$.
Click to expand...

Have to agree there, these overly compressed, lifeless recordings are unfortunately becoming far too prevalent. I wouldn't say it's only in jazz that you can find good recordings though, there are plenty to be found in all genres of music.
 
Yes, the heavily limited recordings around now are a big shame. There really is no point to it. If the recording is quiet, it doesn't take much to just turn up the amp, and any decent amp will go plenty loud enough to present the music with it's full dynamics; which imo is far more enjoyable to listen to.

There definately are still good recordings made, and sometimes quite heavily limited recordings still sound respectable because it has been done in a way that is complementary to the recording. If you just slap a generic limiter on a track, it will generally ruin it. Also, it seems that when albums are produced, there are naturally louder songs and quieter songs, but instead of keeping the tracks at the level of the quietest, the masterers limit the quiet ones up to match the level of the louder ones, which it totally inapropriate.
 
Yup - record companies are instructing mastering engineers to make sure that their record is 'louder' than all the others on the pub jukebox :mad:

Thanks for squashing our music record company execs! :(

Luckily there is some good work still being done on the mastering front - mostly in the worlds of jazz and 'classical' music.

For my band's CD we put a note in the sleve saying 'This recording has been mastered in such a way as to preserve the dynamics of the music - play it loud!' :)

Head along to www.smokehand.co.uk or www.myspace.com/smokehand and check it out :D
 
Ever heard of the "rock 'n' roll smile" equalizer setting that so many people seem to love the sound of (basically what FM radio always tends to sound like!)?

Basically booster at the low and top-end... looks like a smile... but it sucks. :o
 
daz said:
Ever heard of the "rock 'n' roll smile" equalizer setting that so many people seem to love the sound of (basically what FM radio always tends to sound like!)?

Basically booster at the low and top-end... looks like a smile... but it sucks. :o
Click to expand...
LOL we have all been guilty of that at some stage of our early life, but from my mid twenties that all change for how i liked to hear my music & have become a lot more fussy & cant take a step back to crap.
A pair of Sennheiser HD590`s years ago started it all off.. only by chance as the shop didnt have the cheap rubbish i was looking for & thought ok treat my self & wow never looked back.
HD600 atm but stepped on them at night when the lights were off going to the loo :( now looking for an upgrade :)
 
daz said:
Ever heard of the "rock 'n' roll smile" equalizer setting that so many people seem to love the sound of (basically what FM radio always tends to sound like!)?

Basically booster at the low and top-end... looks like a smile... but it sucks. :o
Click to expand...

I allways have my EQ's setup as follows, just out of intrest in your eyes would you say thats good or bad, I like the sound to be a little bit warm (I think the 80's was to blame for that, I do love warm analogue synth sounds)

 
lowrider007 said:
I allways have my EQ's setup as follows, just out of intrest in your eyes would you say thats good or bad, I like the sound to be a little bit warm (I think the 80's was to blame for that, I do love warm analogue synth sounds)

Click to expand...
Personally, if I wanted recordings to sound warmer I would buy components that naturally sound warm, rather than placing an EQ in the chain at all.

At then end of the day if you prefer the sound, then more power to you :)
 
lowrider007 said:
I allways have my EQ's setup as follows, just out of intrest in your eyes would you say thats good or bad
Click to expand...

I personally would set the EQ to whatever makes the system sound best to me. An EQ is really only used to adjust for deficiencies in the system, the recording, or the environment... ideally you wouldn't need to use one ever, but sometimes you do... there's no shame in it.
 
I was going to buy a pair of Monitor B2 or S1 bookshelf speakers, but I came across the Samson Rubicon 6A Monitors (active with ribbon tweeters) reduced from ~ £400.00 to £240.00 inc delivery.

Hopefully, they will be arriving tomorrow.
 
Rambaud said:
I was going to buy a pair of Monitor B2 or S1 bookshelf speakers, but I came across the Samson Rubicon 6A Monitors (active with ribbon tweeters) reduced from ~ £400.00 to £240.00 inc delivery.

Hopefully, they will be arriving tomorrow.
Click to expand...
Wow - nice deal!
I still haven't heard ribbon tweeters yet :o - let us know what they're like.
 
I remember being totally gob-smacked when I heard female vocals with ribbon tweeters for the first time - Magnaplanars, IIRC. But completely out of my price range. :(

I have Sony ribbon tweeters (driven by a Genesis Class A amp) as part of my car stereo. Very sweet treble.

So I have I have high expectations for the Rubicons. :)

Also, being near-field, I thought they may be better for sitting on my desk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom