Why Not Studio Monitors?

R

rsachs

Enthusiast
What would be "wrong" with going with high quality pro-audio recording monitors, such as
http://jblpro.com/lsr/lsr4300home.html
http://www.jblpro.com/LSR6300/LSR6300_index.htm

Both come with built in room correction, for adjustment at the "mix" location--just make that the listening location instead. Add a decent sub (or better 2) with a BFD.

Is that they are optimized for closer than the 8-12 ft normal listening distances? If they are flat, with smooth off axis dispersion, and the properly set up, would that matter?

(BTW, I did a bunch of searching in this forum before asking...did not find a really on point discussion).

Thanks

Bob
 
Jack Hammer

Jack Hammer

Audioholic Field Marshall
rsachs said:
What would be "wrong" with going with high quality pro-audio recording monitors, such as
http://jblpro.com/lsr/lsr4300home.html
http://www.jblpro.com/LSR6300/LSR6300_index.htm

Both come with built in room correction, for adjustment at the "mix" location--just make that the listening location instead. Add a decent sub (or better 2) with a BFD.

Is that they are optimized for closer than the 8-12 ft normal listening distances? If they are flat, with smooth off axis dispersion, and the properly set up, would that matter?

(BTW, I did a bunch of searching in this forum before asking...did not find a really on point discussion).

Thanks

Bob
I'm not familiar with those speakers. Personally, i like an accurate sound. Not everybody does. Speakers preferences are completely subjective to each individual. For me, using what the pro's used makes sense to hear how it was intended to sound.

One problem, as I understand it, is some pro monitors are designed to be listened to at a very close distance, as short as just a few feet from the mixer. I believe this can affect the sound if a speaker designed to be listened to from such a short distance is used in a larger room. Think along the lines of intended use of product. (i.e., a good headphone sounds great at point zero, but not so good from half a foot away)

I'm sure some one with studio experience can explain it better than I can. That doesn't mean professional studio equipment isn't good, just that you want to make sure anything you use is used within the limitations of it's design.

Jack
 
jaxvon

jaxvon

Audioholic Ninja
Many studio monitors are not designed for good off-axis sound; they are designed for super-accurate on-axis sound. In an HT environment, off-axis sound is important for creating an even sound for all the listeners. Additionally, as was mentioned before, unless the monitors you want can be adjusted for midfield placement, a nearfield calibration will not be the best possible setup when you are not locating the listening position in a nearfield location.
 
j_garcia

j_garcia

Audioholic Jedi
I've listened to one system using Mackie powered monitors and it sounded amazing with music. If properly set up, it can be done. It may not be an ideal setup for HT.
 
Tomorrow

Tomorrow

Audioholic Ninja
Here we go again. Sorry for the left turn boys, but....I've said this many times on AH and no one has ever taken me on (I'm ready for it, lol)....there is no such thing as an accurate speaker. ALL speakers color sound and are designed with tradeoffs in mind, with priorities that include the pleasantness of the reproduced audio and cost/market factors. Speakers are nothing more than fictional representations of what something sounded like, recorded somewhere positioned near the original performance, as opined by some recording engineer with his/her hearing abilities, listening to his/her particular speakers/headphones/electronics that may or may not represent ALL voices/instruments (and their individual abilities)/sounds/silence/, in that particular sound studio/venue, and run through whatever format you're listening too (not lossy, of course) and all your front-end electronics in whatever listening environment you may have (that's unlike any other in the world).

Are you old enough to remember the commercial for Memorex tape? "Is it live? Or is it Memorex?" Let's see...It was ca. 1980, JBL speakers were big, Memorex tape on a high-end Nakamichi cassette deck, driven by a Technics integrated amp. Hell yeah, you could tell the difference. Or could you? It seems what we have today is more science, but the same old paradigms (not the speakers).

See AverageJoe's post from another thread, below. Psychoacoustics are everything!

AverageJoe said:
A long, long time ago (no, not in a galaxy far, far away - but it was Southern California, so it may seem like another galaxy), a friend of mine participated in a review of some "incredibly innovative audio equipment that sets new highs in hi-fidelity" or some such jargon. I'm not sure when all this took place, but I met him in the mid 70's when he owned a small recording studio so it had to be before that. He had already been a musician, music producer, and was involved in the recording industry for years.

In any case, the organizers of the event had access to Hollywood Bowl for an afternoon, and set up a demonstration of the equipment for 25 or 30 local studio engineers, musicians, audio enthusiasts, hi-fi reviewers, etc. The type of equipment was not revealed and was set up behind a large curtain. The participants were told the music was previously unheard live rehearsals, and were encouraged to write down all impressions and observations - both pro and con.

Unfortunately, the "incredibly innovative audio equipment" was not very well received. The cons far outweighed the pros: "lifeless and flat", "overly exaggerated high freq.", "sounds like a low-end stereo". Some of the kinder reviewers thought it might sound better inside a room instead of outdoors - "You can't expect any equipment to perform well under these conditions".

Anyway, to make a long story short, after gathering up the reviews of the equipment, the organizers dropped the curtain to reveal a live orchestra.

At least two of the reviewers had guessed what was going on because it was written on their notes, but most were quite surprised.

I'm told this type of thing has happened a few times, but this was the only one I heard specifics about.
 
Jack Hammer

Jack Hammer

Audioholic Field Marshall
rjbudz said:
Here we go again...there is no such thing as an accurate speaker. ALL speakers color sound and are designed with tradeoffs in mind, with priorities that include the pleasantness of the reproduced audio and cost/market factors. Speakers are nothing more than fictional representations of what something sounded like, ...
No arguements here.:) Maybe I should have used a different term, something more like neutral sounding...or whatever a better way of calling it is. All I really meant was some speakers are intentionally coloured to sound 'better' in some way. Some speaker designers try to limit the coloration, that is what I like. If I'm not using the correct terms or talking out my behind, just try to get the general drift of what I'm saying and not take it verbatim.;)

Jack
 
Tomorrow

Tomorrow

Audioholic Ninja
Jack Hammer said:
No arguements here.:) Maybe I should have used a different term, something more like neutral sounding...or whatever a better way of calling it is. All I really meant was some speakers are intentionally coloured to sound 'better' in some way. Some speaker designers try to limit the coloration, that is what I like. If I'm not using the correct terms or talking out my behind, just try to get the general drift of what I'm saying and not take it verbatim.;)

Jack
I gotcha, but I can only go by what you say. I'm not good at mind reading. :) But concerning the above (I've highlighted it)....ALL speakers are colored. No speaker or speaker design effort can limit coloration. Period. Some are just more or less pleasing to you.

But I'm glad you are with me on this. Would you be surprised to know that we're in the minority here? Just picking a number out of the air, I'd guess that 90% of the folks on this forum would agree with the following statement.....

"Speaker A (say a Sonus Faber or Wilson) is much more accurate than Speaker B (for example JBL or Yamaha)." Or, "Accuracy can be designed and built into a speaker."

And it just isn't so.
 
jaxvon

jaxvon

Audioholic Ninja
rjbudz said:
I gotcha, but I can only go by what you say. I'm not good at mind reading. :) But concerning the above (I've highlighted it)....ALL speakers are colored. No speaker or speaker design effort can limit coloration. Period. Some are just more or less pleasing to you.

But I'm glad you are with me on this. Would you be surprised to know that we're in the minority here? Just picking a number out of the air, I'd guess that 90% of the folks on this forum would agree with the following statement.....

"Speaker A (say a Sonus Faber or Wilson) is much more accurate than Speaker B (for example JBL or Yamaha)." Or, "Accuracy can be designed and built into a speaker."

And it just isn't so.

RJ, what's your beef with accurate? If one proclaims a speaker to be accurate, that is of course asserting that it is accurate within the limits of reality. The finest monitors available often have super-linear response, linear off axis response, and distortion below the threshold of audibility. Taken together, I would say that this is a very accurate speaker. Of course it colorizes the sound, but not nearly as much as something that was not designed to be accurate.
 
Rob Babcock

Rob Babcock

Moderator
The mere point that perfect accuracy isn't possible doesn't obviate the need for studio monitors to be as accurate at possible. There's no reason why one couldn't enjoy a studio monitor as a home speaker, but they are designed with a different purpose in mind. Dispersion and, um, accuracy can be their main disadvantages in a home rig. Unless you're sitting alone in the sweet spot you may require better horizontal dispersion than most studio monitors provide. And the very flattness that makes them useful for evaluating mixes can make them sound a bit bright or harsh in untreated living rooms.
 
J

JackT

Audioholic
There are physical limitations in both recording and reproduction of sound. Any real thing is by definition limited.

The act of recording captures only a subset of information contained in the the total sound field created by the source.

But it's silly to say there is no such thing as an accurate speaker. You can do your best with the information contained in the recording. For example, you can try to make the power spectrum of the sound coming from the speakers match as closely as possible the power spectrum of the sound entering the microphone. You can also make nonlinearities as small as possible, etc.

Saying there is no such thing as an accurate speaker is akin to saying there is no such thing as an accurate camera, or accurate film. It is true only in a non-useful, trivial sense.
 
Jack Hammer

Jack Hammer

Audioholic Field Marshall
rjbudz said:
"Speaker A (say a Sonus Faber or Wilson) is much more accurate than Speaker B (for example JBL or Yamaha)." Or, "Accuracy can be designed and built into a speaker."

And it just isn't so.
Actually, I would tend to agree somewhat with the first statement. :eek: Except I would say "more accurate," instead of "much more accurate." (feel free to substitute the words 'colored' or 'realistic' or 'lifelike' or 'natural' for accurate);) I think some speakers produce a sound that is sonically closer to the original material than others do. Though I don't think it is necessarily a huge difference between well made speakers. And yes, :rolleyes: all speakers have some amount of coloration. And that is what makes people prefer them.:) I would say its how much coloration, what kind, and where in the spectrum it dominates. And of course, how ones ears percieve them. This varies from speaker to speaker. This is why some speakers are thought of as bright, warm, neutral, accurate, harsh etc...

Jack
 
Tomorrow

Tomorrow

Audioholic Ninja
jaxvon said:
RJ, what's your beef with accurate? If one proclaims a speaker to be accurate, that is of course asserting that it is accurate within the limits of reality. The finest monitors available often have super-linear response, linear off axis response, and distortion below the threshold of audibility. Taken together, I would say that this is a very accurate speaker. Of course it colorizes the sound, but not nearly as much as something that was not designed to be accurate.
I'm not sure what you mean by "accurate within the limits of reality", Jax. Something either is or is not accurate. As I've said, all speakers are merely representations of someone's opinion of what a sound should...'sound' like. Completely disregarding the actual speaker design, there are difficulties with positioning of the original source players, the source's venue acoustics, the method of recording, the biases/tastes of the recording engineer, the engineer's equipment, playback equipment, listening room acoustics, etc. ad nauseum. Speakers can be ubi-linear and even distortion free, but that doesn't mean that they're presenting a live performance in your listening room. Ergo...no accuracy. Even if one had a microphone on every instrument in an orchestra (multiple mikes for multiple sound producing instruments like one mike for each string on a violin), and a speaker for each instrument/string (etc.), you would still have all the above highlighted issues, plus an infinity more, such as speaker placement, listener audio sensitivity, amplitude subtleties, ringing effects, ambient electrical issues, and on.

Heck, one's listening environment alone can snuff the whole concept. Take a pair of what you would consider the most accurately designed (within the limits of reality?) speaker, cue up the Boston Pops Star Spangled Banner (on your ubi-accurate-linear preproampcdplayer), and play it in your dorm room...and then put it in Hollywood bowl (or any other place for that matter) and play it. The speakers will sound much different, won't they?! What changed? Is that indeed what the Boston Pops would accurately sound like in your dorm room? In Hollywood bowl? Where is the accuracy? Where did it go? Intentional or (more probably) accidental, I believe psychoacoustically pleasurable presentation is the aim of good speaker designers. Not some impossible notion of accuracy.

But perhaps more on the issue is this thought of a designer designing a speaker to be more (or less) accurate, as you mentioned. The honest answer you'd get from all designers is that the best eventual result from their designs, their 'trade-offs', would be a pleasant representation of audio sources.

My 2 cents, anyway.
 
Z

ZoFo

Audioholic
Are you old enough to remember the commercial for Memorex tape?

Elliah Fitzgerald if I remember correctly; and she was able to shatter a glass by hitting a high note.
 
Tomorrow

Tomorrow

Audioholic Ninja
JackT said:
There are physical limitations in both recording and reproduction of sound. Any real thing is by definition limited.

The act of recording captures only a subset of information contained in the the total sound field created by the source.

But it's silly to say there is no such thing as an accurate speaker. You can do your best with the information contained in the recording. For example, you can try to make the power spectrum of the sound coming from the speakers match as closely as possible the power spectrum of the sound entering the microphone. You can also make nonlinearities as small as possible, etc.

Saying there is no such thing as an accurate speaker is akin to saying there is no such thing as an accurate camera, or accurate film. It is true only in a non-useful, trivial sense.
Gee, I've never heard anyone, ever, call a camera or film "accurate". So, using your kind of logic, why would anyone want to call a speaker "accurate"?

All speakers are colored by a variety of intrinsically designed elements...crossovers, motors, driver material, etc. (Are they colored to be more accurate? There's a thought, eh?!)

Now, I've heard that there are color variations in film...Fuji tends to green, etc. That's an analogy I'll buy.
 
Rob Babcock

Rob Babcock

Moderator
What is accurate? I'd say so long as the parameters are listed all speakers are "accurate." The only meaningful way you could define the term in relation to a speaker is by comparing the output to the input vs the stated deviation (eg 20-20khz, +/- 1.0 dB). It's not realistic to say a speaker isn't accurate because it doesn't reproduce reality flawlessly. A speaker isn't designed to mimic reality- it's designed to play back recordings. How would it even be theoretically possible for a speaker to perfectly mimic music unless the recording contained a flawlessly perfect image of that music?
 
Rob Babcock

Rob Babcock

Moderator
We're really wasting our time by being led down the garden path, here. There was a genuine question before this devolved into semantics. So as to that question, another reason studio monitors may not make ideal home speakers for everyone is that they don't include all the patterns generally found to be optimal for things like home theater. Perhaps for music, 5 identical speakers would be ideal. But for HT, many people prefer bipole or dipole speakers for surrounds, and placement/aesthetic issues often dictate a horizontally laid out center channel.

That said, there are some good speakers that were primarily designed as monitors. The SP Timepeices have garnered wide critical acclaim, and I know a few guys who swear by their Genelec monitors. I know at least one guy who really likes powered Mackies for music playback.
 
Tomorrow

Tomorrow

Audioholic Ninja
Rob Babcock said:
What is accurate? I'd say so long as the parameters are listed all speakers are "accurate." The only meaningful way you could define the term in relation to a speaker is by comparing the output to the input vs the stated deviation (eg 20-20khz, +/- 1.0 dB). It's not realistic to say a speaker isn't accurate because it doesn't reproduce reality flawlessly. A speaker isn't designed to mimic reality- it's designed to play back recordings. How would it even be theoretically possible for a speaker to perfectly mimic music unless the recording contained a flawlessly perfect image of that music?
Well said, Rob!!

And this is exactly my point. The terms "accurate" and "inaccurate" do not belong in the audio lexicon when speakers are discussed. These terms are used pretty flagrantly by professional speaker reviewers to indicate reality sounds..."Flughog Speakews pwesent the twumpet in Satchmo's album with unbewievable accuwacy!" :D

EDIT: The issue of accuracy as it relates only to a speaker faithfully rendering a recording is also wrought with difficulties...but that's for another day. :)
 
Last edited:
R

rsachs

Enthusiast
Accuracy and Appropriateness of Application

As to the Original Question: Thanks Rob for the response and clarification of the different roles. Yes, I'm familiar with the differences of HT vs Music and the preference for diffusions/dispersion on the surround channels for the former, but directivity for latter.

As to Semantics: There is indeed two different meanings of "accurate" at play here--RJ's meaning of 'accurate' in the sense of "perceptually realistic" reproduction of an original live event, and JackT's and other's in the sense of "measurably correct" reproduction of an input signal. Both are "valid" senses of accurate, but must be used appropriately. In other words, the real question is accurate *with respect to what?* As long as one is clear as to which sense of 'accurate' is being used, then a misunderstanding can be avoided.

Thus, I think its perfrectly its fine to say a speaker does (or does not) "accurately" reproduce an input signal, e.g., in regards to distortion, frequency linearity, etc.

Thanks again all

Bob
 
Rob Babcock

Rob Babcock

Moderator
rsachs said:
Thus, I think its perfrectly its fine to say a speaker does (or does not) "accurately" reproduce an input signal, e.g., in regards to distortion, frequency linearity, etc.


Bob
In my mind that's the only real measure of accuracy we can apply to a speaker.
 
R

rolyasm

Full Audioholic
rsachs,
I am not familiar with the JBL's, but I have heard the M&K S-150 THX ultra and was astounded at how revealing they were. They are intended as a studio monitor, but for a small to mid-sized room, they would be great. If you were in a larger room you would want something like the high output 250 version. I listened to them from about 10 feet away. Anyway, ever since I have heard the 150's I have been looking to find a used pair for my HT. You would probably want to use the dipole version for surrounds, but for the mains they are unbelievable.
Roly
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top