Personal Opinion on Studio Monitors for Pleasure?

[a67676767]

I have been looking at and researching Studio Monitors and came to the realization that I may not like a flat frequency response. These speakers were designed for work and not necessarily pleasure. I realize this is a matter of personal taste, but does anyone have a personal opinion? Are Studio Monitors Enjoyable?

 

[Nick250]

If you mean the speakers used in a recording studio, bear in mine the room they are in a heavily treated room and the speakers are heavily EQed. They are not speakers I would buy.

Nick

 

[JoeE SP9]

What Nick250 said!

 

[jaxvon]

In my experience with studio monitors, I have found them very enjoyable. I do, however, enjoy a flat frequency response. I like my Sony MDR-7506 headphones for the same reason. If you are considering monitors, there are some things that you should weigh first.

Studio monitors are often designed to have excellent response on-axis, but not so great off axis. This is why you will commonly see studio monitors with an extreme toe-in. The upside to this is that on the reference axis, you will have incredible sound that is very accurate. The downside is that such quality goes away pretty quickly as you move off axis. This means that if you're trying to satisfy multiple people watching a movie that only the person in the sweet spot will really get good sound. Now, not *all* studio monitors have poor off axis response, but it is a trait of most. In addition, studio monitors are meant to be used in a fairly heavily treated acoustical environment.

If you were to find a monitor that has good off-axis response (such as the 800-series B&W speakers from the 802N/802D and up), then it could be the speaker you're looking for. One of the best things about using a studio monitor is that it gives you a "blank slate". Unlike other speakers where one needs to compensate for uneven response, a studio monitor is naturally flat, so you have an easy starting place when it comes to customizing the sound how you like it. If you find that you don't prefer the flat response, that's easily fixed with a quality EQ (like the Behringer DEQ2496 or DCX2496).

I hope this helps you with your decision.

 

[billnchristy]

If this is what the recording engineer listened to while mixing the tracks then you are hearing what he heard...if you dont like it you must not like the music

Definitely would need a treated room though...remember studios are pretty much sound tight.

 

[WmAx]

If this is what the recording engineer listened to while mixing the tracks then you are hearing what he heard...if you dont like it you must not like the music

Definitely would need a treated room though...remember studios are pretty much sound tight.

-In most cases of commercial recordings, the mastering engineer determines the final sound, not the recording engineer.

-The mastering engineer does not necessarily target the best sound, he/she has to work within the orders given to them by the contracting party.

-Most works are equalized and/or recorded with non-flat response microphones, and/or recorded under conditions that lead to tonal coloration due to microphone placement vicinity.

-Chris

 

[a67676767]

thanks guys this is great information, and hard to find just by researching.

 

[emorphien]

I've only heard a few and they sounded boring to me. Lacking the sense of engagement and emotion that the right loudspeaker can give to you.

 

[j_garcia]

I've heard Mackie powered monitors in a typical aparment with some nice gear and I thought they sounded excellent. There's no reason why it wouldn't work, though placement will likely be critical.

 

[emorphien]

I agree, I imagine that with the proper setup, placement and calibration many of them could sound quite good. I don't generally prefer an analytical speaker, which those tend to be in my experience (isn't that their purpose, after all?)

 

[Tomorrow]

I don't generally prefer an analytical speaker, which those tend to be in my experience (isn't that their purpose, after all?)

An "analytical speaker"?

 

[j_garcia]

I didn't find the Mackies to have an "analitical" sound at all. Accurate yes, but sterile, not at all. In reality, they sounded very clean and pleasant to listen to.

 

[Tomorrow]

I didn't find the Mackies to have an "analitical" sound at all. Accurate yes, but sterile, not at all. In reality, they sounded very clean and pleasant to listen to.

Would someone want to venture a definition of "analytical speaker"? (.....maybe WmAx giving a speech? ;-))

 

[j_garcia]

Would someone want to venture a definition of "analytical speaker"? (.....maybe WmAx giving a speech? ;-))

LOL.

My expectation is a speaker that is glass flat in response and even handedness which can sometimes be so accurate that it doesn't have a "personality", in other words unforgiving in revealing deficiencies in poor recordings.

 

[emorphien]

Was that expression too complicated for you guys?

 

[Tomorrow]

Was that expression too complicated for you guys?

Not too complex... it's too meaningless. "Analytical speaker"? What and how does it analyze? ... and how does it sound when it's in analytical mode? LOL.

I'm sorry, emorphien, I'm not trying to single you out or make fun of your phrasing. It's just that subjective phrases are thrown around willy-nilly when describing audio gear...especially speakers. Speakers being THE most subjectively experienced element in sound reproduction, I advocate care with adjectives being applied to them. We just finished a wild thread on the seemingly innocent term "accuracy" in speakers. Even that term leaves us without a universally accepted convention of meaning.

(Blame it on my wife's OCD rubbing off on me. )

 

[emorphien]

Not too complex... it's too meaningless. "Analytical speaker"? What and how does it analyze? ... and how does it sound when it's in analytical mode? LOL.

I'm sorry, emorphien, I'm not trying to single you out or make fun of your phrasing. It's just that subjective phrases are thrown around willy-nilly when describing audio gear...especially speakers. Speakers being THE most subjectively experienced element in sound reproduction, I advocate care with adjectives being applied to them. We just finished a wild thread on the seemingly innocent term "accuracy" in speakers. Even that term leaves us without a universally accepted convention of meaning.

(Blame it on my wife's OCD rubbing off on me. )

I'd agree with you if it wasn't a term I consider fairly widely used and uniform in meaning. There are some terms I'll stay away from (syrupy, chocolately, and other nonsense) but I think analytical is a perfectly fine way to describe a speaker because it describes exactly how it sounds. If you don't get it, that's not my problem.

If you prefer other terms I see in this thread, I'd describe them as accurate, but most of those I've heard I'd also describe as sterile, bland, lifeless, uninvolving, unengaging. Very detailed and precise, but not the most interesting speakers I've ever listened to. Is that better for you, oh nit-picker of nit-picks? People will argue about anything on an audio forum, the benefits of overpriced cables, the details about how slow you should burn a CD, I've never seen much argument on terminology but as long as the meaning is clarified for anyone who is confused, there's no need for joking. You might think you're being funny but some might be offended if you responded to them the way you did to me. (Fortunately I'm a very sarcastic person, however I would avoid it in situations such as this since the premise and person is unknown.) I don't personally get the confusion, it seems straightforward but I'm happy to clarify if you ask.

Disclaimer: I'm not saying these are how all monitors sound, just most of those I can remember hearing.

 

[j_garcia]

I'd agree with you if it wasn't a term I consider fairly widely used and uniform in meaning. There are some terms I'll stay away from (syrupy, chocolately, and other nonsense) but I think analytical is a perfectly fine way to describe a speaker because it describes exactly how it sounds. If you don't get it, that's not my problem.

I don't think it is the term that is the issue, or at least shouldn't be based on what was said, but the fact that different people do have different interpretations of what those terms mean. Bright has many variations (in terms of the actual sound of the speaker) depending on who you ask, for example. I knew what you meant when you put that there, but it is a less commonly used term IMO, though it got the point across.

 

[emorphien]

It's ok. I was tired, grumpy and hungry when I made that last reply. Although I still stand behind what I said. I'm still tired, but not hungry and considerably less grumpy.

 

[Tomorrow]

It's ok. I was tired, grumpy and hungry when I made that last reply. Although I still stand behind what I said. I'm still tired, but not hungry and considerably less grumpy.

What JGarcia said. And I'm very familiar with the terms tired, hungry, and grumpy too, lol. No problem...I've been accused of doing a lot worse than picking tiny nits. I was trying to be a bit humorous...my bad for failing miserably. (Gosh, I hope WmAx knows I was joking. )