Recording studio monitors vs HT speakers

[iGirl]

Just wondering why (other than cost, and that these types of speakers are not sold at Best Buy) people don't seem to be using the speaker brands that are widely accepted in pro audio for HT?

Is it because studio monitors strive to be pure, without coloration and to sound transparent, while HT folks like "enhanced" sound - so coloration is encouraged, even emphasized to add extra presence and punch to the experience? Could it be that the HT speakers are just better matched to the HT receivers and surround decoding/processing? Obviously the companies limit their marketing to one or the other segment almost exclusively.

Some of the higher end makers of studio monitors like Genelec and Dynaudio even have matched 5.1 speaker systems available...I'm just surprised to see that there seems to be little if any crossover of the two markets! Just wondering as I was planning on trying out a kind of mixture of HT receiver and sub with studio class monitors....

 

[Tomorrow]

Just wondering why (other than cost, and that these types of speakers are not sold at Best Buy) people don't seem to be using the speaker brands that are widely accepted in pro audio for HT?

Is it because studio monitors strive to be pure, without coloration and to sound transparent, while HT folks like "enhanced" sound - so coloration is encouraged, even emphasized to add extra presence and punch to the experience? Could it be that the HT speakers are just better matched to the HT receivers and surround decoding/processing? Obviously the companies limit their marketing to one or the other segment almost exclusively.

Some of the higher end makers of studio monitors like Genelec and Dynaudio even have matched 5.1 speaker systems available...I'm just surprised to see that there seems to be little if any crossover of the two markets! Just wondering as I was planning on trying out a kind of mixture of HT receiver and sub with studio class monitors....

Well....what are you trying to achieve? An HT experience? A pro studio experience? Some speakers are better at some things than others. It's the goal of the "some things" that matters in speaker selection.

1. Best Buy caters to average consumers and not 'pro' audio users of speakers. (Cheaper speakers, more sales at BB.)
2. I think you'd get a lot of disagreement that HT speakers are purposefully "colorized". That tradeoffs are made in designs...yes. But that is true in pro monitors, as well. I think you'll find that recording engineers use the pro monitors but impart 'color' vis a vis equalization in their recording process.
3. By the way, you forgot one important segment of the speaker industry....there is the 'pro' side, the HT side, and the musical side...as well as people who combine some or all of the above in their speaker designs or speaker listening preferences.

In your case, I foresee no problem mixing a multi-channel HT receiver or pre/pro+amp with pro-style monitors. But I suppose it's possible to have an environment, so neutral, so lacking in the theater experience, that it would be boring. This is the argument against using acoustic treatment overkill in your listening environment. It may be overly dead sounding. Your listening room's native acoustics may also have a profound effect on a highly neutral source. But as I said, you can always add frequency boosts via equalization.

 

[j_garcia]

Studio monitors or not, all speakers are affected by your room. Studio monitors are generally intended for near field listening; aka within a few feet, which probably won't be the case in the typical living room. Studio montors also tend to have little in the way of aesthetics vs home speakers that try to have some sort of visual appeal as well. ALL speakers are a compromise, and I agree that any "colorations" in a given speaker or line are more of a "signature" sound as inerpreted by their designer(s) as being pleasing and what will sell at the end of the day. I have heard one home music setup with some very nice gear with some Mackie powered monitors and it sounded quite excellent.

There aren't many that build pro monitors that also build home speakers, Dynaudio being one that I know for sure caters to both, but in the "average" consumer speaker market there are few that will say "HT use, not music" and vice versa, while on the other hand there are many that tend to be favored by the music crowd, myself included. I listen first for musical performance and HT is a fringe benefit Sound is a personal thing, so really it just comes down to listening to a lot of speakers and finding what you don't like as much as what you do.

 

[davidtwotrees]

Are studio monitors magnetically shielded?

I tried a pair of Altec Valencias for fronts and it was really odd what it did to the tv's picture.............

 

[iGirl]

>>>Are studio monitors magnetically shielded?<<<

Some, not all - you need to specifically look for shielded monitors.

 

[iGirl]

I guess what I am not figuring out is why HT buyers don't typically even consider pro audio or "musician" brands of speakers (on the lower end) when there are a lot of very good products out there at prices and quality that may beat "made for HT" units. Odd to imagine for some that a Guitar Center or some such place might have a great speaker for HT I suppose with all that racket in their stores! LOL

They come in near field, mid-field, and whole room options too...but you won't see wood grain etc. so aesthetics is part of it.

Just wondering, in the end it's whatever the individual likes...

 

[j_garcia]

Well, you also won't readily find a matching center or surrounds, so that is a factor as well....

 

[dem beats]

I guess what I am not figuring out is why HT buyers don't typically even consider pro audio or "musician" brands of speakers (on the lower end) when there are a lot of very good products out there at prices and quality that may beat "made for HT" units. Odd to imagine for some that a Guitar Center or some such place might have a great speaker for HT I suppose with all that racket in their stores! LOL

They come in near field, mid-field, and whole room options too...but you won't see wood grain etc. so aesthetics is part of it.

Just wondering, in the end it's whatever the individual likes...

I don't work in enginearing or "pro audio", but i'm friends with a few people who deal with sound dynamics every day. I have minimal understanding of sound but I do know that a LARGE deal of what we "hear" is truely what we have tricked our ears to hear.

monitors often sound really really flat, and not as in not colored but flat. Highs dull and lows unimpressive, in a normal home enviroment. They are made usualy for treated rooms that are almost always designed similarly.

rarely are any 2 HT set ups alike in anyway save the verry basic of the TV is in the front and the speakers goi around you and are not hung from the ceailing

With studio monitors they are going for excelence in a vacume. Music and HT speakers are for... "real world" aplications I supose you could say. Different rooms inpart different dynamics and resonances... so you find a set of speaks that you like based on what your room does not offewr you. I personaly hate listening to music in a dead room. It feals so dead and lifeless.... almost uncomfortable. Screaming at a sound treated wall is odd as the echo is almost non existance, and your ears pick it up. Those rooms are made to record a sound that will be reproduced and they want no echo recorded or room or speaker coloration.. yet in most listening aplications speakers are designed to play on the room and utilize the resonance of the listening area. It's recorded to reproduce the original sound, and to be replayed. If a guitar was playing live it would have no echo put forth from the original source, yet the room and the instrument itself would resonate. well a speak just trys to reproduce that original sound ...

I don't know if this makes sence to you but it's how I see it with my ears

 

[Joe Schmoe]

I have a pair of (passive) studio monitors. They sound quite good. They don't sound as good as my primary speakers, but that comes as no surprise as they were a lot cheaper. I would say that they are as good as any comparably priced bookshelves.

 

[Tomorrow]

One thing I'd like to point out is that there is no such thing as a perfect driver. Every driver imparts some amount of distortion into its sound. The better the driver, the less distortion. "Warm" speakers, for example, generally have drivers that are muting/muddling over sounds. Some do it more than others. Cheap speakers (whatever kind) usually mean cheap drivers which (usually) mean more distortion. There is a difference between "revealing" and "neutral". Give me revealing every time.

 

[Reorx]

I use all pro speakers, and pro amps. They sound better then just about every speaker I've listened to. Their only weakness that I've been able to find is that the soundstage, and their imaging isn't all that great. Of course, it could be because of how they are setup, and were only auto calibrated and adjusted a little by ear.

Because of WAF, I've been looking to replace my pro speakers with 1 of 3 speakers. RBH MC-6C, Ascend Sierra-1, or JBL LSR4300. The JBL speaker is a pro speaker, and the sound is up there on par with the other 2. The JBL has built in room correction in each speaker. So if you dont have any room treatments, it'll help (to a point).

There are a few threads comparing pro to consumer speakers.

To overly summarize them in 2 sentences:
Pro speakers usually have a flatter frequency response, and sound more accurate, if you are sitting in the sweet spot (mixing spot).
Consumer speakers usually have a better sound stage, imaging, and a much larger sweet spot.

Hope this helps. gluck.

 

[j_garcia]

My speaker response is as flat or flatter than any studio monitor I've seen (+/- 1.2dB). Guess what? They are far from boring; I love the way they sound, but that doesn't mean I don't like other speakers that don't have as flat of a response.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

An update: I listened to my studio monitors over the weekend. I found myself enjoying them a lot. So much so, in fact, that they may end up being my favorites.
This creates a dilemma, though. I have a hard time fully appreciating the monitors when a pair of B&Ws costing 7-1/2 times as much languish in the closet. If I still find myself preferring the monitors in a couple of months, I may actually consider selling the B&Ws.

 

[silversurfer]

Because of WAF, I've been looking to replace my pro speakers with 1 of 3 speakers. RBH MC-6C, Ascend Sierra-1, or JBL LSR4300.

Have you been able to hear all three?

 

[Reorx]

yes, I have heard all three.
But it was over a 1 month period of time. And we all know how well our audio memory retention is....

They all sounded great.

I am awaiting the bookshelf speaker shootout. I know RBH and Ascend will be in it, but I doubt the JBL will be.

Which makes me sad...because this is a speaker with a built in room correction feature with EQ...wow! Saves $2500, since you might not need a Audyssey Pro MultEQ, or absorption panels. Not to mention all the other features.

 

[jaxvon]

yes, I have heard all three.
But it was over a 1 month period of time. And we all know how well our audio memory retention is....

They all sounded great.

I am awaiting the bookshelf speaker shootout. I know RBH and Ascend will be in it, but I doubt the JBL will be.

Which makes me sad...because this is a speaker with a built in room correction feature with EQ...wow! Saves $2500, since you might not need a Audyssey Pro MultEQ, or absorption panels. Not to mention all the other features.

Remember, studio monitors are not typically designed to have a wide dispersion. They are designed to create perfection at one spot. HT speakers are designed to create a 'good' listening area.

 

[Sheep]

Remember, studio monitors are not typically designed to have a wide dispersion. They are designed to create perfection at one spot. HT speakers are designed to create a 'good' listening area.

Exactly, and this is usually why there is different styles of speaker.

You COULD use Pro/Studio monitors in a HT step, with studio/pro amps and everything else in between, but you're not going to entertain many people.

I think given the different designs, HT speakers can be deadly accurate and still cover a larger area then most pro speakers. This is IMO, BTW.

One thing I'd like to point out is that there is no such thing as a perfect driver. Every driver imparts some amount of distortion into its sound. The better the driver, the less distortion. "Warm" speakers, for example, generally have drivers that are muting/muddling over sounds. Some do it more than others. Cheap speakers (whatever kind) usually mean cheap drivers which (usually) mean more distortion. There is a difference between "revealing" and "neutral". Give me revealing every time.

I disagree. After reading about WmAx's system, I personally think there is drivers out there with such little distortion for it to be inaudible. The key isn't the driver though, its the box, and how everything is designed and put together.

SheepStar

 

[Tomorrow]

Exactly, and this is usually why there is different styles of speaker.

You COULD use Pro/Studio monitors in a HT step, with studio/pro amps and everything else in between, but you're not going to entertain many people.

I think given the different designs, HT speakers can be deadly accurate and still cover a larger area then most pro speakers. This is IMO, BTW.



I disagree. After reading about WmAx's system, I personally think there is drivers out there with such little distortion for it to be inaudible. The key isn't the driver though, its the box, and how everything is designed and put together.

SheepStar

Disagree with me? What a surprise, Sheep.

Check out what designers say, such as Jim Salk's quote here....

"Speaker design is all about trade-offs. This is because there is no such thing as a perfect speaker driver. Every driver exhibits a certain level of distortion and has a certain amount of veiling. Distortion adds the illusion of warmth and veiling masks detail."

I wasn't referring to anything other than the drivers for my point, which you seemed to miss. That is namely that 'neutrality' of a speaker's sound is different from 'detail'. You are of course correct that there are other qualities of speaker design affect performance, as well.

 

[Sheep]

Disagree with me? What a surprise, Sheep.

Check out what designers say, such as Jim Salk's quote here....

"Speaker design is all about trade-offs. This is because there is no such thing as a perfect speaker driver. Every driver exhibits a certain level of distortion and has a certain amount of veiling. Distortion adds the illusion of warmth and veiling masks detail."

I wasn't referring to anything other than the drivers for my point, which you seemed to miss. That is namely that 'neutrality' of a speaker's sound is different from 'detail'. You are of course correct that there are other qualities of speaker design affect performance, as well.

Drives distort, yes. But distortion isn't ALWAYS the culprit of the "bad" sound. Flat FR, Wide Dispersion, and other characteristics are needed for decent drivers. Most all enclosures made for speakers these days just make things worse. It isn't as simple as just throwing some braces and stuffing and calling it a day, as WmAx clearly showed. But what he also showed, is that many ordinary drive units can become excellent speakers when they don't have a poorly designed boxes, and crossovers pulling them down. He had a tweeter that could be found on speakers sold at radio shack. Missed that didn't you? His sub driver was made by kicker. The suspension and decoupling assembly for his midrange driver was what made the biggest improvement in the speakers overall sound, not a $2,000 driver.

Given these facts, it's hard for me to take anything speaker manufactures make today and say "Wow, I bet thats one good speaker" because really, they aren't. And to get the performance that WmAx has shown with his DIY speakers, you would have to give up every limb you own.

SheepStar

 

[skizzerflake]

Just wondering why (other than cost, and that these types of speakers are not sold at Best Buy) people don't seem to be using the speaker brands that are widely accepted in pro audio for HT?

Is it because studio monitors strive to be pure, without coloration and to sound transparent, while HT folks like "enhanced" sound - so coloration is encouraged, even emphasized to add extra presence and punch to the experience? Could it be that the HT speakers are just better matched to the HT receivers and surround decoding/processing? Obviously the companies limit their marketing to one or the other segment almost exclusively.....

I wouldn't agree that HT people necessarily like "enhanced" sound (whatever that would be). Whether it's music or movies, and especially if you use an HT system for multi-channel music, accuracy is the goal. My experience with studio speakers is that they stress a certain kind of "punchy" sound that is forward enough to be analytical. That may not be exactly accurate, but it's useful as a tool for dissecting recorded sound. I wouldn't want that sound in my home and I don't see it as accurate. My criteria for HT speakers, therefore, is how they sound playing music that I already know and like. Movie sound can be anything and is punched up for dramatic effect so it's hard to really judge accuracy without knowing the engineer's intent.

As for being better matched to codecs, that shouldn't be a factor if the codec is working right. The ideal codec is completely neutral and shouldn't have any sound of its own. It's mission in life is to do the best possible job at restoring the original wave form and nothing else.