What's the point of having different kinds of speakers

[Milton_Friedman]

Why can't everyone just get the flattest speakers possible (a studio monitor in their price range) and just EQ them to their liking? All of these speakers are almost perfectly flat and extend much deeper than any bookshelf speaker I know of. I think the only reason that doesn't happen is because of all the ridiculous audiophile (or should I say myths about EQ harming audio quality.

 

[Adam]

My guess? Price, aesthetics, availability to audition them, and personal preference - to name a few reasons.

I've never heard of any of those. Doesn't mean that they aren't awesome, but it sure is a reason why I wouldn't have bought them.

 

[JohnnieB]

Most likely price. How much are the speakers you listed? Andrew Jones Pioneers measure pretty flat and their cheap. Maybe I should sell my Ascends and buy those.
Target price point is probably the biggest factor. How many times have we read about the bean counters putting the axe to a design due to cost. Show me one speaker company that's not trying to make a profit.
The speakers I have do measure a pretty flat response. Its the first pair I've owned that did. I guess some people just don't know what a flat response is or sounds like.
I don't think too many believe eq'ing in and of itself harms audio quality. I believe most people don't know how to properly use an eq.

 

[markw]

Personal preference has a lot to do with decision making here. Using your logic, why not make just one type of car, but make it perfect?

 

[zieglj01]

People tend to have their own preference and taste. Also, not all people
have perfect hearing - as all do not have perfect eye sight.

Also, some prefer not to EQ above 200 hz. Plus, some would prefer not to
go heavy with the tone controls. And some would prefer not to stress the
speakers around their crossover point with EQ pressure.

I own some nice speakers with some good bass - and I did not have to go
the studio monitor route.

To each their own - As the Audio World turns!

 

[highfigh]

Why can't everyone just get the flattest speakers possible (a studio monitor in their price range) and just EQ them to their liking? All of these speakers are almost perfectly flat and extend much deeper than any bookshelf speaker I know of. I think the only reason that doesn't happen is because of all the ridiculous audiophile (or should I say myths about EQ harming audio quality.

If studio monitors are so flat (they aren't), why would they need so many different brands and models? The Yamaha NS-10 was almost ubiquitous and it's not because they were the best, it's because they were able to reveal certain sonic problems. Not many people actually like the way they sound, but they were in a lot of studios, so it was possible to go from one place to another and not require the engineer to drag their preferred speakers with them. Many used JBL in the past and now, they use many different brands but the one thing that hasn't changed- they don't only use one speaker for their mix because the people who will be listening to the music are not likely to have anything like them. Producers/engineers used to play a mix through boom boxes when they were more common, a factory car stereo, cheap speakers, great speakers or anything that was more similar to what the listening audience might use. Many studios use Genelec, Dynaudio, KRK, M-Audio and other brands of monitors and consumers usually say "Who?" when they hear these names. Just like consumer speakers, people who mix music have their preferences and availability of all brands isn't possible. I googled "best large studio monitor' and got over 5 million links. Go into any control room in a studio and you'll see several speakers.

 

[Swerd]

Why can't everyone just get the flattest speakers possible (a studio monitor in their price range) and just EQ them to their liking? All of these speakers are almost perfectly flat and extend much deeper than any bookshelf speaker I know of. I think the only reason that doesn't happen is because of all the ridiculous audiophile (or should I say myths about EQ harming audio quality.

Those warnings against using EQ aren't all myths or ridiculous. If EQ is applied sparingly to diminish offending peaks (such as with digital notch filters) it can work well. This works best if limited to those bass peaks caused by room reflection standing waves, and not those inherent to the speaker itself. The down side is this can result in disappointingly lower speaker sensitivity.

In the past, when EQ devices were multiple sliders that adjusted multiple analog filters, there were too many ways to misuse them, including reducing or boosting wide ranges of the audio spectrum. Employing multiple analog filters at adjacent frequencies created unintended peaks and valleys with sometimes nasty sounding results. And too often, people used EQ as an alternative volume knob. The result was that EQ came to be viewed as worse than if no EQ was used.

 

[j_garcia]

EQ'ing is not too different than choosing a speaker based on a personal listening preference. I'd rather choose a speaker that sounds the way I like with NO tweaks than make a speaker that is flat sound the way I like.

 

[highfigh]

EQ'ing is not too different than choosing a speaker based on a personal listening preference. I'd rather choose a speaker that sounds the way I like with NO tweaks than make a speaker that is flat sound the way I like.

OK, but how do most people think recordings were made to sound the way they do? If they think the mics were plugged into a mixer with nothing more than volume sliders, they're sadly mistaken.

In this link, I see two pairs of monitors and the bank of cabinets at the left is pretty well filled with effects.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/Intermediapost_Recording_Studio.jpg

And in this link, you'll see an old compact all in one system on top of the rack, at the right-

http://www.imagineaudiomedia.com/images/STUDIO.jpg

 

[DD66000]

EQ'ing is not too different than choosing a speaker based on a personal listening preference. I'd rather choose a speaker that sounds the way I like with NO tweaks than make a speaker that is flat sound the way I like.

You're not addressing the main problem...the room.
No matter how perfect a speaker might be, and I have some that come damn close, each room is going to produce a different FR at the seat.
So start with a good speaker and add Dirac Room Correction...does not get any better.

As for there being 100s of different speakers...it comes to personal preferences.
My personal tastes are with Harman brand speakers...
and I would never buy a British brand, never heard one that sounded right to my ears.

 

[ski2xblack]

I dunno, dd, as well sorted speakers tend not to need much if any eq above Schrader frequency. But I have yet to meet a room that wouldn't benefit from eq in the bass.

For the general theme of the thread, I have a couple pairs of studio monitors in my quiver of speakers, some old Miller & Kreisel mps1510, and a newer pair of JBL lsr 2328. It's a good idea to have a baseline for flat playback to compare other rigs to, and that's pretty easy to accomplish with good monitors and near-field setup. And some sort of rta ability, REW is pretty incredible. But past that, each room demands it's own particular approach, one size does not fit all.

 

[j_garcia]

You're not addressing the main problem...the room.
No matter how perfect a speaker might be, and I have some that come damn close, each room is going to produce a different FR at the seat.
So start with a good speaker and add Dirac Room Correction...does not get any better.

As for there being 100s of different speakers...it comes to personal preferences.
My personal tastes are with Harman brand speakers...
and I would never buy a British brand, never heard one that sounded right to my ears.

The environment is always going to be a factor for sure, so I tend to spend the time up front to get my system to sound appropriate for the room to me BEFORE I run anything. I've heard some nice speakers in a less than optimum space with DIRAC and it did make a noticeable improvement, so I don't disagree that it is a good thing, but most people are not going to go to that level.

Does audio benefit from technology? Sure. Is it NECESSARY? IMHO, no.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

It's not just 1 factor like FR.

Some have different design or functionality.

For examples, some speakers from Focal, XTZ, RBH, GE, DT allow you to actively control the bass independent from the tweeter & midrange.

Different needs.

 

[herbu]

Why can't everyone just get the flattest speakers possible (a studio monitor)

All of these speakers are almost perfectly flat and extend much deeper than any bookshelf speaker I know of.

Really? I would question both of your hypotheses. Can you name studio monitors that are "flatter" and "extend much deeper" than my Phil3s or SoundScape8s for the same price?

 

[slipperybidness]

SMs typically don't have the output capability for a large room. They are typically more suited to near or mid-field listening.

 

[highfigh]

SMs typically don't have the output capability for a large room. They are typically more suited to near or mid-field listening.

Right- unless they're the kind with large woofers like they tended to have in the '70s and they don't sit across the room from the speakers most of the time when they mix/master. Some still use them, some have speakers that are considered "high-end", like B&W or whatever they think will be more revealing. A lot of studios use extremely small speakers but not for the main mix, but they do want the music to sound good where people listen most. In the '60s and '70s, that was in their car, with a factory system or a cheap upgrade.

 

[Schurkey]

well sorted speakers tend not to need much if any eq above Schrader frequency.

I can't find a definition of Schrader Frequency. Will you help me out with that?

 

[ski2xblack]

Schrader frequency has to do with modal response in-room, and is dependent on room dimensions. At some point as you go down the frequency band you get to a point where wavelengths are long enough relative to room dimensions to set up standing waves. This usually happens around 250 hz or so, give or take depending on room dimensions.

 

[highfigh]

Schrader frequency has to do with modal response in-room, and is dependent on room dimensions. At some point as you go down the frequency band you get to a point where wavelengths are long enough relative to room dimensions to set up standing waves. This usually happens around 250 hz or so, give or take depending on room dimensions.

Standing waves can occur at any frequency- its measurability and persistence is a matter of dimensions, energy and the surfaces available for the energy to reflect from.

Do you have links for Shrader Frequency? Google doesn't have anything and in all of the info I have read, I have never heard of this. I understand the concept, but I have never seen it referred to by that name, even in the acoustics class I attended in college.

 

[ski2xblack]

Standing waves can occur at any frequency- its measurability and persistence is a matter of dimensions, energy and the surfaces available for the energy to reflect from.

Do you have links for Shrader Frequency? Google doesn't have anything and in all of the info I have read, I have never heard of this. I understand the concept, but I have never seen it referred to by that name, even in the acoustics class I attended in college.

No references at my fingertips, but Toole's book is my primary reference. I could very well be wrong on the specific terms.
edit:
http://www.soundandvision.com/content/schroeder-frequency-show-and-tell-part-1