Studios use very different speakers than what we use to playback the music. Find out the difference. Check out the Octave catalog HTTP://www.octaverecor...
As a recording engineer the answer is simple: they are designed for different purposes. Studio monitors have much more “resolution” and separation in how they present both dynamics and frequencies to pin point problem areas in a mix / master, whereas hi-fi speakers “sweeten” the sound by actually only having resolving power in specific frequency areas and not the whole range. The “problem” with studio monitors for audiophiles is that they will tell you if a mix your listening to sounds bad, but hi-fi speakers mask the trouble spots in an attempt to make everything sound good.
Hi-fi is shorthand for "high fidelity," which means "great faithfulness" to the source material -- going by what you say, then the so-called "hi-fi" speakers you describe aren't really "hi-fi" at all!
@@editorjuno Hi-fi is in comparison to what's was called lo-fi when it came out, nothing more, nothing less. It's a marketing term at best. If you want accuracy you look at the frequency response curve.
@@grandsome1 -- There's no arguing that. The term "lo-fi," however, is quite new -- it never appeared in print back in the late 1940s when the term "hi-fi" was coined. Yes, from a marketing standpoint it was designed to contrast good home playback gear from the typical table radios and phonographs of that era -- but, as an ideal it means "great faithfulness," which amounts to accuracy in sound reproduction.
@@editorjuno The point is that it doesn't matter one bit that a pair of speakers is marketed as "hi fi", because it's nothing more than a sales pitch. If you want to know faithful a pair of speakers are, objectively, you need objective measurements, not subjective descriptors such as marketing terms like "hi fi".
@@santishorts -- Again, no argument. That's why I prefer objective, measurement-oriented reviews from folks like Amir (Audio Science Review) and Erin (Erin's Audio Corner) to anything from de facto marketing and/or sales types like Mr. McGowan and Steve Guttenberg.
Thanks for this interesting topic. But sadly, we didn't learned much appart they are different. Of course they are... hence the different naming 🤪 _We couldn't have guessed this one on our own_ 😋 Would have liked to hear about: Monitor → Neutral 🆚 Speaker → Sound Signature Acoustically treated studio 🆚 Not acoustically treated listening room (which speakers have to accommodate/deal with)
The biggest difference is that audiophiles will buy anything with sufficient promotion. Music producers and engineers are way more discriminating, even cynical, in their buying choices. We have the opportunity to put to test a lot of choices without buying and make our decisions based on cold, calculating metrics. I don’t know anyone who chooses a $10k pair of monitors due to its appearance or advertising.
LOL no. Talking about audiophiles as a group is like talking about drivers as a group, disregarding what they drive and why. Audiophiles are primarily split into categories along multiple axis but the most important split perhaps is analytical vs emotional listeners split. Analytical audiophiles are in many ways close to music producers I think, emotional audiophiles are in some ways the opposite. Emotional audiophiles look for gear that will make their music sound *better* than it was recorded as, to their ears, they want to *feel* the music as an emotional journey of sorts. Analytical audiophiles look for the sort of gear that will reveal every tiniest detail of a recording down to details that aren't meant to be heard, like a cable slapping a guitar body, a slight exhalation into a live mic, the grain of a guitar neck or ribbing on a base string. I'm at times one, at other times the other, but I tend more toward the analytical with my personal gear, but not too far into the extreme. But then I also make music, and spend probably 40% of my listening time with rather revealing gear set up 'withering away' at mixing knobs to find the exactly right amount of effect and volume on one instrument in the mix. Tedium that technically speaking matters only to me on that sort of level, but when I find the "right" balance, I'm satisfied and happy. And then I relax listening to someone elses music on a setup that has a much warmer and softer sound than the original mix was intended as, just because I want it to sound good, not accurate to the intention of the original studio dudes who recorded it. I know I'm "eating my own tail" here. I don't care.
I absolutely disagree with your statement. The reason that many people by in blind or only after reading reviews or in promotions is that manufacturers are afraid to demonstrate their products for direct comparison with other manufacturers. This is the reality at least in my country. For example there is no place in Bulgaria where i can test in blind audition 3 or 4 loudspeaker sets in approximately same price range with a reference source and amplifier. Or the opposite variant - reference loudspeaker with different amps. Do you have a place in your country where you can do this?
@@nickolaymiltenov As a longtime customer of a number of pro studio equipment distributors, I am frequently given the competing pieces for a reasonable period to compare on my own, in my own studio. To repay that generosity, I don’t price-shop and buy such pieces online. It gives me great pleasure to support those amazing distributors. I’ve been sent 5 different pairs of speakers worth many tens of thousands of dollars to help me make a choice. Also, consoles, recorders, outboard pieces. My fave distributor at any time will well over $1 million in inventory out on loan. His customers, including myself, know what a privilege it is and obviously, it works. The pro community rewards the manufacturers who go along, punishes those who refuse.
As a musician I typically get premaster mixes as uncompressed files. The guys in the band will play them through anything they have from home systems to car radios to stage monitors to headphones, we send our feedback and suggestions to the engineer to mix accordingly. In the end it is always a compromise and we are all listening for something different (biased by our instruments and expectations). That is, we take into account the systems most people will listen to as most music isn’t focused on one application and all recorded music was created for convenience versus a virtual experience. An aside: the studio is like an extra member of the band and can color the whole sound and influence the band just as much as any other member or manager or producer can. With that, the bottom line on monitors or amps or eq’s is, if you like the sound you get then that’s the one for you … the same goes for instruments
When I read Shakespeare, I typically don’t focus on how bad my Early Modern English is … I somehow enjoy the story or poem just as much or actually more, to listening to someone read it with period proper enunciation
I worked in the industry for a successful major label. I used to love the pre-master mixes we would get in advance of releases. To me they almost always sounded better, more impactful and more alive than the final release. Especially with high energy music. The signal and production chain is full of necessary compromises- for technical and commercial reasons. That's why audiophile content usually doesn't sound great on mid fi or lo fi systems, and commercial mainstream music often sounds horrible on high res audiophile systems.
Another interesting thing- pro musicians and major artists almost always have mid fi systems (at best) at home. They are rarely audiophiles. Some might have a high powered system, but it usually won't be hi-res. (They just want the bass punch to be physical.) You would think musicians would have 'ears' as audiophiles typically do, but musicians listen much more the music and performance, almost to the point of being indifferent to the actual sound.
The actual real difference between "Hi Fi" (or audiophile if you want to peddle in buzzwords) speakers and Monitors are difference is about the near-field. Monitors are specifically designed to be listened to about 4 feet away and Hi Fi are about the longer field, Ie sitting in a loungeroom listening to records. This is important, because different frequencies travel at different speeds and this affects phase. So a monitor is designed to focus those frequencies so they are precisely in phase between 3-8 feet (depending on the monitors there are monitors with a mid-field and even far-field but these are super expensive and designed to mount on walls in large control rooms, the big studios often have multiple monitor systems the engineer can switch between on preference) which is the distance a recording engineer is sitting at from the monitors. But outside of that range the sound goes out of phase and starts sounding muddy and 'messy'. Hi-Fi/Audiophile speakers are designed to fill a room with sound with an EQ curve intended to take what the mastering engineer has put together and render it as pleasantly as possible. Essentially;- Dont buy monitor speakers for your loungeroom, and don't buy Hi-Fi speakers for your studio. They are intended for different things.
Oh, audiophile speakers do not have to deal with phase issues? You don't have to worry about room treatment, i guess. p: And studio monitors are all near field, but also midfield _somehow_ 8ft is clearly not near field listening. In fact 8ft is a very common listening distance for many consumers at home. Interesting and competent essay, buddy.
Not all studio monitors are nearfields. If a recording engineer is only listening to nearfields, the mix will lack depth and dynamics. Nearfields are for picking out detail in the mids and adjusting accordingly. Using a subwoofer to augment the range of the nearfields isn't the answer either. Full range monitors tell the complete story of the mix even though they're meant to have a flat response. If required, they can be driven at reference to experience the recording and all of it's nuances. Most professional studios have both at least.
Maybe a good analogy would be controls on modern TVs: contrast / color / vibrancy / motion smoothing, etc. You can watch a movie that's been recorded to look a certain way, and apply tweaks to make its color saturated, contrast boosted, super smooth motion. It looks nice, if that's what you like. For me I prefer to watch the truest representation of what the producer created - hopefully it was their artistic choice to make it look that way. Similarly I like to listen to music like I watch movies, on an accurate monitor setup without boosting frequencies / added compression, so I hear exactly what the producer created. Not to say someone else's preference is invalid!
If me as a producer made a track with a drum set that does not sound like it had “life” and your system made it sound like it did, then your system is simulating something that was not supposed to be there in the first place. 🤷🏻♂️
Well, I would agree with you. That's not the idea. What we want is to make sure when the recording has life the speakers in the home reproduce it properly. I think the bigger issue is what speakers are used in the mix. If the engineer wants a live sound then the mix speakers have to give him/her high enough resolution so they can hear what's truly going on. When we build our final mix room the speakers will be our FR30 which are some of the most revealing speakers in the world.
This response is why I feel the video could have been more specific about the different speaker requirements - so people would be less inclined to 'misunderstand' the different but no less relevant objective of domestic audio system compared to a recording studio setup. In the studio it could be that the objective is to be able to easily focus on the component parts of the music, like looking at specific samples under a microscope. Whereas for a domestic playback system reproducing the whole experience including it's context is often more desirable..
If you think most producers or engineers are making recordings of instruments sound like they do in person, then you've recently awaken from a coma. Only the small audiophile labels using " audiophile " pro gear making uncompressed recordings come close. Most recordings go through the wringer before it gets to the consumer. I remember back in the early 90s when studios were using cheap $200 ADCs
Maybe a personal thing. I really like the driest, least coloured sound I can get. That said, in a live music environment, certain colourations sound good. I like a speaker that slightly emphasises the 12-16kHz range. Also, given the distance the sound has to travel, I favour horn loaded designs.
I have listened to many hi-end speakers/systems in my 60+ years and I now prefer my Adam A7X monitors over most of them. Listening nearfield I feel I can hear individual instruments and placement more accurately and most importantly I think that nearfield listening takes the "room" acoustics out of the equation somewhat...so if you can't dedicate a room to full treatments, design, etc. a nearfield monitor listening experience is midway between headphones and "normal" speaker listening, but better than even great speakers in a poor acoustic environment.
@@Bootrosgali -- My Kali monitors have excellent dispersion, which results in a pretty wide and tall "sweet spot." IOW and IMO, you've overgeneralized by category.
For me it sounds like people in studios want to hear reality and audiophiles want to hear something different - even when they claim they want it as accurate as possible. P.S. I like good reproduced music but I wouldn't call myself an audiophile.
I have experienced, that some audiophiles are choosing speakers which they experience gives the maximum musical joy even it's not natural for their money, where others choose the same goal, but that imply the most natural and un-coloured sound. I believe a competent sound engineer are aiming for the latter as well. So, if you have most joy of istening to music at your home that has the most natural sound, to hear as many details as possible, then you will probably end up with a studio monitor speaker.
the whole idea that studio monitors can't give you the sense of the speaker disappearing and give realistic soundstage is ridiculous, they absolutely can, they can bloody pinpoint 3d image at least my monitors (adam audio a7v) can, a friend of mine has ridiculously good and expensive audiophile system, but he says he really loves listening he's nearfields because of the image they produce....yes they also don't mask errors in the mix but some people prefer that, it gives me the tool to appreciate music that is mixed good as well.
I've always been a music enthusiast, but had always used monitors (because I was told it was the best sound possible). I became an audiophile the day I listened to a set of Martin Logans...thats when I heard the soul of the music for the first time and my journey began. Man I live for those "firsts".
It depends on the music you listen to. For example, I am pianist and listening mostly classical music. As a particular masterpiece was recorded in some dynamics and with acoustic instruments there is an absoulte reference in what should sound. When I listen to piano recordings in hi-fi speakers they always emphasize some region of the spectrum, distorting the original intensity that makes part of the pianist emotional intention. Conversely, when I listen to the same recording in Genelec, Neumann, etc. music come to live and sound as my piano sounds. More or less, they are also some characteristic profile in each monitor, absolute flat sound doesn’t exist. Of course, other parameters as distorsion, harmonics, speed, transients go into the equation but in general one can find better monitors than others. Hi-Fi speakers mask the original sound, better or worse but they impose their own personality to the music that cannot match with some style or another. The gold reference to me are always neutral and flat monitor: perhaps are less spectacular but one can listen to them for hours without fatiguing and learn to recreate emotions from the recording, not absorbing those expressed by the speakers
Great video sir. There is much truth in what you stated. I have been a studio musician and performer for many years and have been in many different studio environments. I prefer studio monitors for music production, mixing, mastering and just listening for the love of music. It really comes down to getting use to what you have in your environment and how your speakers translate the songs you really know and love. I recently purchased a pair of Focal Alpha 80s for near and mid field monitoring. For me they work for all my needs. They are studio monitors that are very musical, but also revealing. Like any speaker, they must be set up in your room properly to get the best sound. 👌
I love studio monitors for hi-fi listening, although it's not for everyone but I really like the anylitical sound. Adam Audio A8H and my own DIY bookshelf speakers are all I'll ever need.
As a video editor who also deals with sounds, a studio monitor is the tool for me to take care of the problems in sounds, but audiophiles, don't care about sound engineering, they just want to enjoy the immersive environment, which makes those hifi speakers have to dim out some frequencies to keep the sound attractive.
The bottom end is, it's just a question of taste. I got 2 pairs of Martin Logan and 3 pairs of JBL 4412, 4430 and 4435 and I'm 90% listening the 4435...
For my desktop speakers I bought Tannoy Reveal 802 studio monitors. They're great. Made me rethink my main set up. Want the same sound , but 'bigger' :) Home use speakers are made to make it sound better, because recording and playbacl technique, as radio wasn't that good quality. Now you can listen to FLAC ! So yes, studio monitors actually sound grerat, when the recording is great. So listening to you tube sometimes sounds awful. Radio over internet , you can hear what the station does with the sound, even sounds better then the recording sometimes. Imho it's something every audiophile should at least try in their lives. And they're cheap , I bought mine when in sale for 240€ for the pair ! And the good thing is they are active ! So the amp inside is made for the speaker ! And the material ! It's stiffer then...... stiff ;P .Solid , I'm sure they'll be in one piece if I throw them down the stairs. The box, not the drivers ..So, don't believe me try them ! Every audiophile friend is astonished by the sound !
The most expensive Tannoy speakers blew my socks off. Crazy expensive but you literally feel like you are with an orchestra. Use a recliner in the center of the room and you literally feel like you are floating in heaven. Unforgettable experience.
But why my MA STUDIO 20SE (passive) sounds much much better, with more Details, better Mids, better STage,...just everything is better...than with my expensive KS Digital A100 and ATC SCM11, PMC DB1...? So, its not true...., I also had Dynaudio BM12 Studio Monitors, pretty expensive..., and they also have no Chance against my Monitor Audi Studio 20SE HiFi Speakers. Most Studio Monitors under 1000€ are real Crap....
They're not analitical, they represent what was recorded which means they sound awesome... All of these terms used by clueless audiophiles is snake oil
@@lukabosnjak3829 You are never going to hear what the recording technician was hearing... you don't have his ears. That's not the point to begin with. The recording technician and the musicians need to correct detailed problems with the recording that can lead to a poor listening experience, e.g. if an instrument covers up the singing voice. This often requires sub-dB volume adjustments on individual channels. These can only be made with a studio monitor setup or with earphones that reduce the influence of the room's acoustics significantly compared to a typical hifi speaker setup... where most of what you are hearing are reflections and room resonances.
I use a software equalizer in windows for my monitors. Improves the sound a lot. I have a cheaper pair of monitors of the same brand where I don't have to do that. M-audio Bx5a deluxe and AV40
Everyone should ALWAYS use EQ ALL the time. Audiophools who don't use EQ (quality DSP based EQ - no downsides) are just dumb and are convincing themselves that settling for what it sounds like "out of the box" so to speak is correct and ideal. No. Even the best speakers can and should be EQ'd to taste - and that includes even at times changing EQ settings based on the source material! I mean why wouldn't it? The mixing varies greatly... sometimes you need to tone town a different area of the highs, or add something. And you always need to add some low bass. A speaker isn't defined by what it sounds like with a flat source signal through a flat power amp. It's defined by what it is CAPABLE of, and often EQ is needed to show what it is capable of. Who cares if it's down 6db at 35 or 40hz, if it's CAPABLE of playing flat to 30hz with some EQ without any issues? It just so happens to require some extra power to push it in that region due to the design, big deal. If your excursion is in check and there's no significant or discernable distortion, then your speaker is capable of playing flat (or even boosted) down to 30hz... not the 40 it says on the label.
For me, Studio monitors+studio sub any day for listening to any material. The fidelity they provide is unparalleled. Maybe it's my critical brain at work.
Why would you want anything less.... if its mixed and mastered on studio monitors THEN IT SOUNDS THE WAY ITS SUPPOSED TO SOUND ON STUDIO MONITORS..... I never understood this stupid bullshit argument. Audiophile speakers ARE DESIGNED to color audio...... I dont get it. Its kind of what pushed me away from audio gear to begin with. I bought a pair of Genelecs and a matching Genelec sub and once I got it I realized there is nothing else I would ever really want. So I kinda fell out of the hobby realizing how stupid a lot of reasons and shit people use for excuses is usually always just bullshit. If Genelecs are good enough to mix and master 500 Million dollar movies and videogames or albums that sit on top of the billboard 100... then they are good enough FOR EVERYBODY. If they are not good enough for you....... then you prolly like the smell of your own farts too. Thats basically what I realized in my experience in high end audio. I have the speakers an RME ADI 2 and a Pair of DT1990 pros. DONE.... everything else is just a waste of money. That's not really an opinion its fact. Audiophiles LOSE THEIR SHIT when I say that though...... another reason why I left the audio scene. Too much fart smelling.......
@@ashflame6888 lol. That's quite a comprehensive argument and well articulated too 😂😂😂. Audiophile scene is too much snake oil without understanding the basics of sound and audio electronics. To me, studio electronics represent a high standard of audio research without the usual bullshit. Of course, you get what you paid for, but then, even an entry level studio monitor + sub combo gives us what we really required to achieve high fidelity sound reproduction without driving the costs through the roof. Genelecs are some of the most precise sound reproduction tool out there and pair it with some A grade audio interface like RME, you are sorted for life.
@@djross2423 LOL yeah I feel a certain way about it I guess.... I haven't really voiced my opinion on it in a long time. "To me, studio electronics represent a high standard of audio research without the usual bullshit" That was the number one thing that kept going though my head when I was deciding to buy the Genelecs. I knew I was gonna pay a premium for the Gens but I also felt like if I'm gonna do this I'm only gonna do it once. Ultimately that's what sold me on them.... I couldn't be happier with them. I knew I hit my ceiling within 20 mins of setting them up.
@@ashflame6888 I could not agree more. I am on the same drug! Genelec monitors with a Genelec Sub! I color this marvelous combo thru a miniDSP SHD Studio. I sold my "audiophile" gear some tima ago! Not missed!
IRS-V's cannot be compared to a small 2 way studio monitor. A more relevant comparison would be a similarly sized 2 way audiophile bookshelf speaker vs a high end studio monitor known to sound great like the Mackie HR824mk2. Now these are powered speakers, which may or may not throw a wrench in some people's desired setups... but there is nothing inferior whatsoever about these speakers, or a number of other excellent examples. They can soundstage and disappear as well as any other speaker that is similar in size and design. Now if you like big speakers (I do) or exotic/non-traditional designs, then by all means, your preference is valid and they can have certain subjectively superior aspects to them. But LIKE for LIKE, a small to medium sized bookshelf speaker vs. a good studio monitor... they are the same thing, the latter often being powered, but generally designed more scientifically vs aesthetically or subjectively with intentional "flavor"... the studio monitors are thus often technically superior... which is the best kind of superior. Any "taste" you like can be added via DSP EQ, but you have the benefit of having a starting point that is without inherent flaws in the frequency plot due to driver selection or crossover design... that stuff has been done correctly, as opposed to just hitting a price point (even a moderately high one) and looking good with a particular aesthetic or sound character (read: deviation from correct). Give me some big crazy speakers over a monitor any day don't get me wrong... but if I'm choosing a 2 way bookshelf, I'll happily take the quality monitors and objectively have better speakers than you.
"They can soundstage and disappear as well as any other speaker that is similar in size and design." That statement can't be true. Not only would you have to listen to all other speakers of similar size and design, you would have to compare them to the Mackie. You haven't done even 1% of that. " but if I'm choosing a 2 way bookshelf, I'll happily take the quality monitors and objectively have better speakers than you." In a blind test, you couldn't tell correct from not correct.
disagree here, I loved to listen to music on my adam a7x studio monitors, and feel that with studio monitors, you'd get alot more for the same money. Problem is the audiophile scene is so full of snake oil and people that have no idea what they are talking about, I don't really see this with studio monitors, just alot of helpful tips, putting importance on the things that actually matter, like room acoustics.
Sorry, I think it’s also a bit of comparing apples and oranges. The IRS5 are huge, even way bigger than most main monitors in studios. If you compare a decent 5inch bookshelf speaker to a decent 5inch Monitor (with decent I mean both speakers trying to have a more flat response), there shouldn’t be worlds between them, they will sound different but surely not chawdropping different. P.s. and yes, studio monitors have another purpose and there are monitors which are great for mixing, but sound terrible for enjoying music, but there are also lots of monitors that are fun.
I lost time and money buying HiFi speakers and gear which never satisfied my sound taste. My fault, because after so many years I first bought Monitor Speakers and was in schock that this is the sound that I have been looking for decades. It is said that HiFi speakers should give you the best sound resemblance to original record - IT IS the other way round ! Hi Fi speakers have manipulated crossovers and roll off frequencies which almost always destroy the original recording sound. I doubt I will ever come back to HiFi speakers....but it is a matter of taste of course.
When I first heard some old Grace Jones and Heart records on a pair of 4311 monitors I bought (and on which the records in question had been mixed), I heard them in a way I'd never heard before, with details that no other speaker good or bad had revealed in quite the same way. If the idea is to "bring the performance into the room", one could as easily argue that listening with the same ears as the mix engineer (i.e., through the same monitors) is the better approach to hearing the recording as it was intended to be heard.
I would never call myself "audiophile". Nearly everyone I know that describes themselves as such has bad hearing but they are convinced they're experts on sounds. It's like Trump saying he's the world's most honest man.
Forget about the purpose, think about the engineering. Studio Monitors are active, their amp+cab+speaker are engineered together. In HI-fI systems, speakers and amps are designed separately. Active monitors use active filters and individual amplifiers for each band (2-way or 3-way) designed to compensate for the inherent resonances of speaker+cab and deliver the most linear freq and phase response, which means the amp response is not linear but inverted relative to the speark+cab response. Hi-fi amps are designed to produce a linear output and the hi-fi speakers are expected to produce a linear response to that flat signal, but it is physically impossible (which is the key point here)!!! The speakers, cabs and passive filters all have their own non-linear (bell-shaped) response curves and engineers try to match their resonances the best they can to flatten the response, but it can never be achieved perfectly in a passive system due to the physics of it. So instead, the engineers go for pleasant sound (relying on taste and preference) rather than linear/accurate response, allowing for the peaks to be in favorable ranges (emphasizing e.g.60 Hz and 2kHz) and the dips to be in unfavorable ranges (e.g. a dip around 500 Hz can reduce muddiness and a nasal quality to sound). Either way, to cut all the marketing bullshit, studio monitors are technically more advanced and accurate, while home speakers may sound subjectively more pleasing to different listeners, which feeds into the hi-fi marketing agenda that pushes people to go through dozens of amp+speaker combinations over the years, never actually becoming satisfied, which is exactly where audiophile equipment producers want them to be - on an endless purchasing journey. Regards, happy owner of Yamaha HS-8 studio monitors of 10 years, who ditched all his hi-fi equipment (like Monitor Audio and KEF speakers and Onkyo amp, etc.) and never looked back. I like flat response, that's all.
I had two headphones. One was a set of professional studio monitors from Yamaha based on the NS10’s and the other was their high end consumer headphones at the time. I enjoyed both. The sterility of the professional headphones was great for critical listening as a musician and I even enjoyed how clean and tidy the bass notes were. Everything was very even sounding with the professional set but those consumer grade headphones did something magical to the low-mids that I absolutely love. I think if you’re a musician it’s a no brainer to have studio monitors or studio headphones but only as a baseline to compare with the consumer speakers. I actually bought two sets of those Yamaha MT220’s because I loved the clarity of them so much. I gave my friend the consumer headphones because the material on the ear cups irritated my skin. I really miss those headphones and they’ve been discontinued for awhile now. If I could, I’d go get another pair put up with the irritation.
I read a review where the writer said, "If I want to hear everything about the recording: where it was recorded, the microphones, the size of the studio and skill of the engineer, then I'd choose these speakers. If I just want to enjoy music, then I listen to my own usual speakers." Saved me $200,000!
So in a way he said: "If I want to enjoy music, I use a speaker that changes the sound so much that I cannot hear the original properly". It's an insult to the studio engineer and artist, because they were unable to make beautiful music. It needs to be changed! And btw: studio monitors are way cheaper than "true" audiophile speakers! For a few thousand dollars you'lll get near perfect Genelecs, for example. Where did the 200.000 come from?
@@CheetahNL Wilson Audio, from a review in Stereophile from a few years back. BTW, I'll take "forgiving" speakers that allow me to enjoy the music but are "only" 99 percent the "true" sound, rather than your monitor sound, which includes trucks passing by the studio and mice farting.
@@cristi724 Not at all. I was talking about the idiocy of creating "monitor" speakers that are so revealing, that they're only fit for judging the microphone placement, recording studio limitations, etc. I once had an expensive (about 3K in today's dollars) set of speakers, but on anything but the highest quality recordings sounded like crap. Sold them and got a pair that offered 99 percent of the resolution, quality and soundstage for less than half the price. What's the point of high fi if you can't enjoy your music collection? Yes, some idiots will say, "Only listen to perfect recordings." Such people love electronics, not music.
@scottbernard8824 Those $200.000 you mentioned doesn't cost you $200.000, but maybe $10.000, same amount as all these snake-oil hifi products. Your comment failed!
Today’s topic makes me think about Nearfield, midfield and Farfield set ups . I remember people asking about floor monitors at large shows with massive PA and asking why the artist needed a small speaker pointed at their face so they can hear themselves. Maybe you could talk The goals of a system and how it’s designed to meet those goals.
One of the issues with nearfield vs. farfield has to do with two things: imaging and bass. Nearfield monitoring has bass response that does not mirror what happens in-room. If you're mixing for the car or for headphones that's fine. However, if you're mixing for music playback in the home, then that's probably a mistake. The results will then sound thin and lacking in the bottom end. And, of course, speakers don't image in the nearfield.
@@Paulmcgowanpsaudio i’m a big proponent of the always test your mix on multiple systems, the car,the listening room, Nice speakers , speaker so cheap I don’t think they should’ve been made in the first place and so on. Wishing a great holiday to all PS Audio family 🎄🎉
Quite simple. An artist is standing behind the pa not hearing the pa properly so won’t get a true sound which means they can be out of time or key. Wedges or now iems negate that problem
@@nikkic36 oh the joys and fears of a silent stage. 🤘🏽 Ok wait my backline is a pair of XLRs? I guess left is dry right is wet. In my monitors I’ll want vocals,kick , snare, a bit of the hats and just enough of me to know if I’m going out of (it’s metal nobody knows) tune🤣.
Well... so a director of photografy should be glad to know that audience looks to his film with colours and hue unpredictably different from what he saw on camera... After having spent hours to create the images he wanted. No, I'm sorry, I that is called my-fi.
Love your videos Paul, but I strongly disagree with your conclusion here. There are two types of speakers...accurate ones and not. Full stop. Studio monitors don't have any magic juju that allows the listener to gain any insight into a mix over a well-designed hifi speaker. Now, if the hifi speaker in question is designed with a "house curve/house sound" that's different, but loudspeakers that are designed to be accurate, low distortion representations of a wide frequency range are no different depending on their target audience aside from the hifi upcharge for dealer networks and pretty finishes. The design principals are exactly the same. The ONLY real difference here lies in the designs being active or not (and to a lesser extent frequency directivity as it pertains to listening distance and cohesion), and even then, there are good implementations of onboard amplification with active crossovers controlled by DSP, and not so good ones. Same thing is true for "consumer" loudspeakers as it pertains to equipment pairing...the active stuff just takes the guesswork out of it.
Thanks, Loud and clear. I appreciate your comments and clear insight. Fun to disagree! Here's where I think you're missing the (small boat). While I can't argue with anything you've written, the bit you're missing is in the voicing of the speaker. As an engineer involved for decades with speaker designers from Infinity, Genesis and now PS Audio, I can tell you that once we finish designing the drivers, the box, and then the crossover, next comes the voicing. How will this speaker sound and how will it present music? Will the music be up front and forward, or laid back and mellow? Aggressive, soft? Here's another way to look at this and I will use an analogy from my former partner, the late Arnie Nudell (founder of Infinity). Because no speaker is flat to within more than about +/- 3dB (and even that's rare), the designer should consider the voicing/crossover design as a painter and his palette. Instead of +2dB at this part of the frequency response, one could radically change the voicing by making that 0dB or even -1dB. The overall response remains "flat" but the sound is now very, very different.
PS Audio Fun to disagree indeed! Your reply was very thoughtful, and I agree that the timbral differences between loudspeakers which otherwise measure very similarly to each other can yield wildly different presentations. Where I don’t agree though is that these differences can be universally more beneficial for one type of end user. Rather I would argue that familiarity with whichever loudspeaker is a more useful tool to engineers than whatever it’s intended market is. This may not always be a “pro” speaker. The lines become quite blurry. NS10’s are a great example of this. Here’s a speaker that was never intended to be a studio monitor that somehow found its way into every studio on the planet. Why is that?…well, it’s not because it’s accurate or good. Indeed, it’s a truly crap speaker that everyone is now familiar with, and that familiarity makes it useful. MixCubes are quickly becoming the new NS10. Don’t know where I’m going with or how to land this thought (it happens), but I appreciate your time engaging with the community. Have a great 2022! Cheers 🥂
@@loudandclearmedia Thanks, Loud and Clear. I think we're in agreement. I would put the difference between analytical and resolving. Analytical doesn't engage and beckon the listener deeper into the music while resolving does. Perhaps more semantics than anything but then we only have words to try and express ourselves
This is a great conversation! Thanks to you both. I have a good example. I love the sennheiser HD 800 S for my audio work. Huge soundstage and instrument separation. Very resolving. I can see into the material very precisely. They are incredible for assessing placement and whatever I do on them translate very well to other systems. On the other hand I do not enjoy listening to most music on them because they can sound a little diffuse and lose impact. For enjoyment, I reach for my hifiman he-500 or mrspeakers ether C’s. They are not less accurate than the HD 800S but the way they present music feels somehow more cohesive more impactful more liquid. similar with speakers. I use focal be-6 for mixing and monitoring but I have these Nola Boxer 2’s that just sing. They rival the focal’s in accuracy but somehow truly disappear. Music sounds great on both but my attention is drawn towards details in the focal while I can get lost in the deliciousness of the Nola’s. Again, they are not less accurate. Everything is there on both. I couldn’t get away with just having one.
Nearly every pro studio uses Yamaha NS-10s for near-field monitors. Some of the best pop and rock records ever made have been mixed using these speakers. However, these speakers will not sound good to an audiophile, in fact, NS-10s can sound awful. But they have excellent impulse response, good midrange clarity and have the unique ability to highlight flaws in the mix in such a in-the-face manner that the engineer can quickly find the problem and fix it.
well, no pro uses NS10s as their primary near field monitors. They are used as a final or back and forth check to make sure a mix holds together and will translate.
I bought Genelec 8341 because the sound qaulity is lifelike because they're accurate. Accuracy does not equal sterile, accuracy does not equal flat or boring. Hifi speakers cannot know if a track needs colouring or not, they are tuned to a specific character which will not suit all artists or even an artists different songs. I don't want my music coloured and if I do I'll do it myself with EQ.
Hi Paul, very interesting video thank you. I have listened to PMC studio monitors in my room and haven’t liked them ( too flat sounding), but love the audiophile or domestic speakers Fact 12s. You are absolutely right very different entities all together 👍🏼 Best Peter (UK)
i owned and used a pair of clayton shaw's emerald physics open-baffle cs1.3's. clayton used off-the-shelf pro-audio drivers. his design, which was tri-amped and driven through a prism orpheus preamp/dac (also pro gear) produced some of the best and most *musical* sound i've ever had in my hifi setup. that showed me that there's nothing intrinsically "unmusical" about pro-audio hardware; how it is used in the design of the speaker is what matters. [thanks to walter liederman for helping me understand this.]
The new JBL 4349 Studio Monitor enables music lovers at home to enjoy the same exceptional dynamics and accuracy that producers and engineers employ in leading studios. Now, by virtue of a transformative driver, mathematically brilliant horn and woofer design, and classic good looks - great sound has never been more at home. Every detail of the JBL 4349 Studio Monitor has been examined and every assumption has been challenged. The result is a monitor loudspeaker that defies comparison and provides anyone, anywhere with a love of music to re-discover every track, re-visit with every artist and re-trace every musical journey. I promise that new nuance, new energy, and new dynamics will be revealed! - Jim Garrett, Senior Director, Product Strategy and Planning, HARMAN Luxury Audio
The Yamaha NS-10 started as a home speaker that wasn’t very popular, because it’s harsh. It became the most popular and important studio monitor, because it’s extremely revealing in the midrange. Some years ago, I got a pair of Tannoy DMT-12 midfield studio monitors, but found them hard to mix on, because they were too polite - they did that audiophile thing. Now I use them for my hi-fi, and they’re great.
Picture studio monitors as the analytical architects, meticulously measuring every sonic detail like an artisan crafting a masterpiece with precise tools. Conversely, hi-fi speakers step into the role of sonic painters, adding a touch of vibrancy to the auditory canvas, splashing colors of warmth and richness for a more emotionally resonant experience. Together, they form a duet, each bringing its unique notes to the symphony of sound.
Is the most stupid discurse I ever red 🤦♂️ Just not a real difference, they are comercial speakers quite flat and monitors quite colored. The rest is just marketing: speakers are speakers. Call them monitors don’t change anything, is a matter of taste or professional needs (specially in the case of mixing). Genelec sold the G series for listening and after a while they “confessed” that they were the same as 8020, 8030s… just with different connections.
All I heard repeatedly here was that studio monitors sound different from Audiophile speakers, with no explanation or examples of what those differences are, i.e, what kinds of things would studio engineers be listening for in a recording?
They can sound "flat" in comparison, because there's no boost to the bass or trebles, there's no "warmness" added. It's the most neutral representation of the sound you get. But if you amp up the volume or use and EQ you can make them sound anyway you want unlike the hi-fis.
I am happy with my Focal Shape Twin near field active monitors XLR (inakustik cables) output from my Luxman DAC. The positions is just 1.5cm to the left and right of my 27" PC monitor. The listening distance is between 2.5 feet - 5 feet. The sound is very detailed, smooth, analogy, engaging and have very deep bass. Besides, it's not sound either clinical or warm at all those I can adjust through switching cables or fuses.
Guess what? Studio monitors are not the same, some are flat and striale, some are more lively..just like any speaker they sound different and will appeal to different tastes. They do however more suitable for close listening, so if you have a small room, and you are less than 2 meters from the speakers, a near field studio monitor is a better choice. Again, one which sounds good to you
As i understand, consumer speakers are made to enhance sound, with many custom profiles (ex. profiles for certain genres of music, which boost certain frequencies) . while studio monitors trying to reproduce faithfully without enhancements
Audiophile speaker systems are designed to cater our psychological preference of hearing by emphasizing and attenuating specific freq bands and, in some cases, intentionally allowing a certain extent of distortion (saturation) to happen. They strengthen the strengths and alleviate the weaknesses in the original music file. Studio monitors are designed to reproduce sound as loyal as possible to its original state without purposefully applying any artificial optimization or coloration. They not only objectively show all the delightful nuances in the original music file but also ruthlessly reveal all the flaws and downsides in it.
I havent been able to find a hifi system that comes close to representing live music as a 4.1/5.1 near fields in a small room, where you are still close to the speakers. Of course having the room setup reasonably as well. Any hifi setup to sound this good is so much more money. Just my experience. I like to use the Keith Dont Go live recording from Nils Lofgren Acoustic Live. I close my eyes and if everything is setup correctly, it sounds like I am in a small theater with a live acoustic band.
What I learned from the video: - music lovers need something completely different than sound engineers (let's dismiss the sound engineers, they don't let music lovers live) - audiophile speakers - disappear from the room (stealth technology from the army?) - monitors - they are sterile (this is important in times of a pandemic) - famous sound producers live in their own world and are detached from reality - Paul's business knows better what is better than the aforementioned B&W, Yamaha and others My congratulations.
My studio monitors sound fantastic in my audio system. I have an EQ and can color them any way I wish. Most "audiophile" stuff is mostly nonsense to sell stuff to cork sniffers
But isn't that all just marketing speech, Paul? I'm disappointed you discussed the matter this way. Of course there are differences between these speaker categories but they may very well be perceived the other way round (for instance, directionality of sound in studio monitors can be a very handy thing, active power is very handy, etc.). Sure, there are markets for both and they are quite separate from each other - I just do not see why you felt it necessary to foster the gap between them.
As Dean Turner has mentioned, PMC are in use in a few UK studios, as are, as Paul mentioned, B&W, The great BBC used the original LS3/5A (I think). My current speakers, Amphion, are used all over the world, and my good friend Mr Jake Purches of Base 2 Music, specializes in DSD/SACD (only) pipe organ recordings, and mixes/masters on Vivid Giya Spirits, (and the smaller models) as he works for them
Studio Monitors have one big difference to consumer products: They are measured on their accuracy of reproducing what the sound engineer wants to hear. The big question though is, what did the sound engineer really want? In times of mass production, they probably want, that the music will sound good on any typical low to medium cost consumer product. So in this case, he will put more of those frequencies in the mix, where he would expect these consumer products won´t reproduce them in the right amount and less of those where it is the other way round. They also often check the mix with those products also. Why: Because they always want to meet the mass, for selling the mass. So if you have one of those expensive HiFi things, you should look out for special recordings made for that, or you have a good equalizer, that is anyway an good idea, as the room, where you are listening, will also change the "mix". One thing you also should consider, that is the range your own ears are still having. Nowadays, there are many people with hearing loss in young years already. Would be interesting to compare mixes 50 years ago with todays, to see what has changed.
Coming out of both production and listening, I went with Genelec for my living room, and it works great for me. This is after making sure the room has sufficient absorbers and diffusers, which generally is even more important than speakers! Some people don't like it, because it's very transparent -- you may very well want a particular "sound." It's a bit like: Are all your walls painted white, or do you use color? Add you say: Using your eyes and ears is the most important!
I use a paid of Genelec at my home studio.... they are aaaamaaziiinngggg. This who concept of lifeless and sterile is nonsense. Balance frequency distribution does not mean lifeless as some audiophiles say.
"Some people don't like it, because it's very transparent" How would prove your speakers are more transparent than someone else's? You can't do it with measurements, and if you think you can, you can't provide a single example to back it up.
That is true. I myself have master series genelects in my living room and small 8340 speakers in my bedroom with TV and Apple TV. There is really no sterile sound to be heard in these. Hifi enthusiasts, most of them 85% are sheep AND DON'T USE THEIR OWN BRAINS to strain comparisons, but constantly ALWAYS take new hifi/High end teachers (Paul) and follow them without questioning their sales pitches and the idea of being led astray. And if the Hifi enthusiast is able to filter out a small sales pitch even for a moment, then later on both will adapt to the stories of their sales teachers one hundred percent. Certain hi-fi speakers of many brands sound very nice after a huge amount of work done in relation to various devices and rooms, but they are at best mediocre for the abilities of top studio speakers to express the value of creating stereo quality. So much blur has been smoothed here and there even in expensive passive hifi/high end loudspeakers that unnatural sugar has been artificially embedded in many covers when it comes to hifi in general.
Studio monitors are not designed for critical listening. So, generally they sound clear and relatively harsh. The last one depends on the quality of the record of the instrument. Audiophile speakers are designed for joyful listening. So, they sound warm and smooth.
The main difference is that studio monitors are meant for near-field listening, which is not the case in a usual home listening environment. They are, as a rule, very detailed and sometimes pretty sterile but should not be overly so as an engineer spends hours a day working in a studio. There are some exceptions though, ProAc Studio 100 being an example. Originally designed as a studio monitor (used by many renowned studios and artists, like Neil Diamond, John Scofield, Bill Frisell, Metallica, and Red Hot Chili Peppers, to name a few) but became a huge success as a home speaker. So much so, that ProAc tried to stop the production of it 3 or 4 times but a huge demand from customers forced them to carry on making them.
Nowadays there are more than a few speakers that are equally good in both pro and home stereo application, comprising enough "exceptions" that the rule has been largely disproved. Many -- perhaps even most -- home stereo applications are not "far field," but rather more like "mid field." This is especially true in places where residences are relatively small with listening spaces to match -- and there are quite a few "studio monitors" that perform exquisitely in that sort of "mid field" environment. In the final analysis, it's the individual product that matters, not whether it's being marketed as a "studio monitor" rather than an "audiophile" speaker.
The line between studio monitors and home stereo speakers has been blurry for 50+ years, starting when JBL dressed up their popular 4310 monitor and called it the L-100 Century, which became their all-time best selling home stereo speaker. Nowadays, studio monitors from makers like Kii Audio, Genelec, Neumann, and even very affordable stuff like Kali Audio's "2nd Wave" models are making home stereo listeners very happy because they are simply excellent loudspeakers that measure and sound great -- and not just in near field applications. Of course there are some monitors that are far short of excellent in that respect, e.g. some Yamaha models are notorious for their "if it sounds good on these crappy things, it'll sound OK on any system" performance -- but if you select carefully, studio monitors offer far better performance for the money than a combination of passive speakers and separate external amplification.
@@octaverecordsanddsdstudios1285 You know Radoslaw was being sarcastic, right? As an audio professional I've always wondered about this and hoped you might actually enlighten us!
The most important thing is that the monitor is black, plastic and fundamentally with uncovered speakers. And then it is also a little different in that it is supposed to provide an accurate sound image to someone who is sitting about a meter away from it. I have the old monitors from the TV studio in the attic at home, they are wooden and each has a volume of about 280 liters. Times are changing ;-)
I like your videos. Mostly recomended and liked. But on this one I not agree 100%. Studio monitors are flat and ussualy boring but they are made to be as much transparent as it can be. When audiophiles talk about transparency and after that they say: "I like this speakers because of sound color..." Beep. Sound color is oposite to transparency. I also like audiophile speakers better than studio monitors but I am sensitive when we putting wrong names on something. You and other companies build speakers and gather customers that like sound and character of your speakers. I will say again. Yes monitors are sterile and boring. Yes your speaker sounds much better, but the monitors are closer to original and by that there is more quality. For the future, wish you much of luck and health and keep doing good job. I am very experienced in this but anyway, I learned much from you.
Now I really have to disagree with the presenter. I see absolutely no reason why studio speakers should be different from audiophile speakers, especially as many speaker companies such as PMC, and Kii Three make pretty much exactly the same speaker for both audiophile and studio, with the only significant difference being the casing material or colour - exact same product on the inside. I think the presenter comes from an age when things were different. The difficult thing is making a speaker that is flat. So that should be the target for all kinds of speakers, cos in todays world, you can use a preamp or digital EQ, somewhere in the chain, to colour the presentation to your personal preference. I like to hear all my audio, as flat as possible. With the option to tweak the EQ myself, if I need it to sound any different. Speaker manufacturers such as those owned by the same group as Octave Records, should not be the ones to dictate to audio lovers, how things should sound, based on their own rather limited perceptions of what good audio should sound like, Smirks of an imperialist mindset. Just make every speaker as flat as possible, and leave the end user to add whatever colour they want, to their own individual taste.
...and that, my friends, is wisdom, wisdom that comports with the research of Doctors Toole and Olive at Harman: start with wide and flat frequency response and use other means -- e.g. EQ via DSP, additional processing and speakers to add hall ambience and/or enhance overall "imaging," etc. -- to adjust that baseline response as per room acoustics and personal preference(s).
In essence, a sound engineer has to be able to dissect out the individual (instrumental) components of the recording he is sound engineering reflecting the conditions under which it was recorded. His task is then to mix and rebalance these individual audio components against each other to produce a final product that results in the overall best audio reproduction of the ensemble performance, and not necessarily reflecting the acoustic idiosyncracies particular to the conditions under which it was originally recorded.
I just came to say that watched this with Stanley Cowells "Lady blue" playing in brackground and somehow the tone and tempo you speak synchronized beautifully with that track lol
And yet Gordon Holt bought a set of ATC 50 powered monitors because they made recordings he made sound more like the live performance he recorded than any other speaker he had heard.
I don't buy the poetry , and physics is the reason why . The latest bunch of constant directivity speakers by Dutch & Dutch , Kii Audio and Genelec have been met with a warm welcome both in living rooms and recording studio's
Bullseye -- the line between the two categories started to get blurry 50+ years ago and has been getting blurrier ever since. Nowadays, when comparing the best products in both categories, that line is virtually non-existent -- even at the sub-$1k price level, there are select "studio monitors" that deliver much better performance for the money than their purportedly "audiophile" counterparts.
@@MFKitten -- Right. Many "audiophile" speakers sound fine in the near field, and many of the the better modern monitors sound fine in the mid or even far field. IOW, it comes down to the individual product and the listening space rather than the marketing category.
This is without a doubt the best explanation for the differences in monitors\audiophile speakers on the whole web. Thank you. Ps. I would love the get a good answer and explanation regarding the differences between DAC/AMP combos vs audio interfaces. I'm mostly interested how their sound differ from one another.
Another insightful talk Paul, thank you! I’m on my 3rd set of PMC speakers (currently 20/26s) I guess I aught to start listening to different brand alternatives, and stop believing marketing hype about studio heritage..?
To me, the main difference is clear: studio monitors should always expose deficiencies in the reproduced sound in a reliably neutral way. Well recorded and mixed music should always sound good. In contrast, high-end speakers (N.B. speakers, _not_ 'monitors') should inherently flatter audio coming through them, making even badly recorded stuff sound nice. There's artistic licence involved with the design of both studio monitors and high end speakers, with every brand sporting a "house sound". Ultimately the choice is one of cost and trust - do you trust your speakers to be accurate, and do you trust that the cost is justified? Many monitors and high end speakers share much of the same attributes. Practically, nowadays the majority of monitors benefit from things like matched integral amps, a wide range of input support and a lot more integral control over the sound. They're typically designed to be form-follows-function. With speakers, the onus is on the user to source and pair amps and input stages. The cabinet shape and materials used will be often be chosen to give a more premium aesthetic, with effects on the sonics sometimes being a secondary concern. I particularly like the imaging of my coaxial Tannoys for my setup, they're lovely allrounder monitors which I trust and have used for analysis and mixing alongside listening for fun. They translate well to other systems. I've used plenty of excellent monitors from dozens of brands, ATCs would be my lottery win go-to for the living room. You can also get apparent contradictions in the definitions of monitor vs. speaker. For example, I would never use PMC for critical listening or mixing. In my own controlled conditions testing, I've seen how non-linear they can be, and how they behave more like hifi speakers than reference studio monitors. They have a place in some people's setups, and can produce a hyped, lively sound, but I'd never seek to use them professionally.
That's what EQ's are for. I run a double system and mix studio monitors with some old band speakers. For listening both together sound best. When i'm working i just run the monitors.
There is no difference. Every speaker ever created naturally has a different frequency response simply because it's a different speaker from the rest. A home audio speaker will sound different from a monitor simply because it's a different speaker just like a home audio speaker will sound different than any other home audio speaker because it's a different speaker. You can use a home audio speaker for monitoring and a studio monitor for home audio. Frequency response can be tailored to anyone's liking regardless of speaker. Studio monitors dont use anything different for drivers than home audio speakers. It's all the same thing sound wise. The main difference is that many studio monitors are powered and many home audio speakers use fancy boxes and some are severely over priced because of name brand.
That is just wrong. For starters, typically when people talk about studio monitors they are referring to near field speakers, i.e., speakers with the imaging designed to be correct for one person sitting at the apex of an equilateral triangle perhaps four or five feet from the speaker drivers. Consumer hi-fi speakers are designed for far field listening and are designed and implemented completely differently. Second, as Paul implied by his comments about studio monitors sounding "sterile", studio monitors are designed to be as accurate in reproducing the input signal as possible, not to "sound good" to a consumer. Thirdly, studio monitors do use different drivers than consumer hi-fi speakers, they are almost always specifically designed for the intended studio use. You are correct about the difference in cosmetic appearance. Studio monitors rarely have strange enclosure shapes or expensive cabinet materials since those attributes have little to do with the actual sound reproduction.
@@avsystem3142 Yeah it is a bunch of mumbo jumbo with zero substance. I wasnt gonna reply with a post because you obviously have no idea what youre talking about but Ill do it anywhere. Please tell me how any studio monitor especially without a horn or wave guide is more directional than a martin logan electrostat or a plannar speaker? You ever heard of mid field or far field studio monitors? Obviously you havent. There are so many hi fi speakers with far more direct imaging than many standard studio monitors like any klipsch or horned speaker. So please explain to me your generalizing of studio monitors and hifi speakers of how theyre designed and implemented completely different because obviously you dont know what youre talking about. What does sterile even mean? How does that show up on a measurement? Again it sounds like youre just parroting someone and didnt actually come up with this on your own through any research and testing. If by sterile you mean flat then thats a bad description of a flat measurement. You generalize all studio monitors like theyre all designed exactly the same and sound the same and measure exactly the same. Have you actually listened to any and have you actually looked at any measurements? Every single studio monitor sounds different from each other and most are not flat, just like guess what, hifi speakers. On top of that many studio monitors come with built in dsp and even a mic so you can measure them and calibrate and eq the sound to your liking. Even cheap 200 dollar monitors have bass and treble settings on the back. Why would manufacturers do that if they all want them to sound exactly "sterile"? And the dumbest thing you wrote is studio monitors using different driver materials than hifi speakers and specifically designed for the intended studio use. Like what? What are you talking about? Literal mumbo jumbo with zero information or examples. What materials? Specifically designed for their intended use? What does that even mean? How? Please give me some examples of studio monitors using different cone or tweeter materials from hifi speakers. Most cheap studio monitors use polycarbonate(plastic) woofers and soft dome(silk) or aluminum tweeters. Half the damn hifi speakers use those materials. What about kevlar like b&w use? KRK has been using kevlar for years they even have it on their tweeters now. AMT tweeters like martin logans? Adam one of the biggest studio monitor brand uses it on all their speakers. How about beryllium tweeters used in many high end hi fi speakers like focal? Well funny thing is focal themselves sell studio monitors with the same exact beryllium tweeters as in their hi fi speakers. What about horn loaded titanium compression drivers like the ones found in modern day klipsch and many home theater and pro audio models? You can find those in studio monitors like Equator Q series and tannoy golds. And then there are other various materials like paper and paper impregnated woofers thats used in both studio and hi fi. Hi fi is filled with so much snake oil and bullshit that people like you have this idea about studio audio like its some black and white terrible sounding equipment all made a specific way. Truth is its all the same except studio equipment doesnt rape people of their money using gimmicks and fancy words to sell overpriced cables and dacs and amps and speakers that are no better than what studios use. PS Audio is a prime example of this. Scamming people with their perfectwave 7k dac that has a terrible design with a pathetic 75db sinad measuring worse than an apple dongle. A 400 dollar dac has 120db sinad. The perfect wave has audible distortion, noise and only 15 bits of dynamic range not even high enough for standard redbook cd quality of 16 bits. And pauly here tries to sell you on his DSD bullshit which again is more snake oil, proven to be no better than cd. So why even use dsd if his own freakin dac cant even surpass cd quality? This is the kind of shit hifi is filled with. Bunch of liars and scammers. You should really go audition some studio monitors maybe even buy some. Go get a cheap dayton calibrated mic and learn to use REW and take some of your own measurements. Try comparing some cheap audio interfaces to hifi stand alone dacs. Its all the same shit except youre gonna pay out the ass for some of the hifi stuff like the crap ps audio sells. Hopefully then you will stop writing stupid things.
@@sergeysmelnik Holy crap! That is the worst case of verbal diarrhea I've ever seen on TH-cam. I certain didn't waste my time by reading it in detail but did skim. The description of the Avantone speaker that you found unenlightening was verbatim from the manufacturer's description. As far as not knowing anything about speakers. I have had a home studio for over thirty years. I recently upgraded my monitors from Event 20/20's, along with a 15" subwoofer which were powered by a Hafler P1500 amp. I replaced that setup with an Adam Audio Sub10 and a pair of Adam AX7's, which are bi-amped powered speakers. The DAW audio interface consists of an RME Fireface 802 and the primary A/D/A converter is a tc electronic Finalizer Express. You seem to know a lot of buzz words but clearly don't understand the technology behind them.
You say 'flat', for me, it's 'clean'. I've just retired my pair of 1981 B&Ws which I bought 24yrs ago 2nd hand. 22yrs of listening, still going strong, gifted them to a mate. Seriously gorgeous they are. Strangely, I'd describe them as warm and crisp. When I'm ready for MartinLogans I'm sure I'll appreciate them. As a DJ tho I prefer monitors for playback as well as practice. I enjoy the unforgiving detail. I'm now on a set of huge KRKs and subwoofer, to me the sound is scrumptious. Unless we're talking top-of-the-line speakers, I'm a monitors girl through and through.
a lot of classic records were mixed on auratones and i doubt anyone is going to start building $100,000 rooms around them any time soon. good dry sterile mix environment can let a larger quantity of good mixes come out without a lot of fatigue
So, Paul never clearly explained HOW the two are different? How do they handle the different parts of the audio spectrum? Do studios use subwoofers? FYI, Abbey Road studio used Tannoy Lancaster speakers in the 60s/70s (for the Abbey Road album) and later switched to B&W. Tannoy Cheviots are my speaker of choice. Tannoy Gold series of powered desktop monitors revolutionized my desktop listening. The Tannoy Gold 5 are incredible for the price and sound better than my Sennheiser HD600 headphones.
I own a small home studio with 2 sets of studio monitors. I also have a very good stereo in my living room. The monitors are for finding the trouble spots in the mix. The home stereo even though it is decent, makes everything sound good. It's hard to make a proper judgement call on stereo speakers. where as with the monitors, I can make that call accurately.
I love hearing Paul share his wealth of wisdom on all things audio! But this topic has always snagged me- especially as someone who enjoys "flat" audio reproduction and studio gear. Like, would it not be fair to define the "specific set of parameters" that recording & mastering engineers are interested in as an accurate, even representation of the recorded material across the frequency spectrum and stereo field? And if so, how specifically would an audiophile's interests deviate? Does it come down to the aspect that an engineer needs to make compromises in order to create one mix which sounds the best across all devices, therefore not arriving at the pinnacle of what could be represented on the very best systems? And so alternatively, is an audiophile's setup not calibrated to manipulate that same final mix, in order to make it sound the way it hypothetically would on reference speakers in a world where every listener had the highest quality system (making compromises unnecessary)? And if that's the case, would it not be possible to take a high quality set of studio monitors, with excellent specs, in a good room, and apply a sort of an "audiophile algorithm" to process the sound in a way which brings the listening experience up to audiophile standards? And if that isn't the case, what is it about the signal path or other technical variables which cause it to fall short? I'm sure Paul is already articulating all of this masterfully and I'm just not quite understanding, but if there's ANY chance that Gus Skinas would be willing to chime in and describe it from his perspective... it might just be the tipping point needed to convert MANY audio enthusiasts into super avid audiophiles. 🙏👍
It would not be fair to define the "specific set of parameters" (it's an awful phrase, because it's not really parameters) for audio engineers in this fashion. What I want out of a monitor is that it shows me what the biggest problem with the mix is. Then i fix that. at which point I want to monitor to show me what the next biggest problem with the mix is. Does it need to be accurate? Nope. In an ideal dream scenario the monitor would make the current biggest issue worse than it actually is. Maybe someday with AI assistence we could even get there. I don't care if the frequency response is flat, only that it is flat enough, so that if the biggest issue with the mix is that there is too much going on in the low mids, I can identify this problem and don't think I should focus on phase issues between the bass guitar and the distorted rhythm guitar next. Even the best monitors have areas of weakness in this regard and engineers switch between various monitoring set ups to check different potential issues. If you wanted to take a picture of a loved one, you wouldn't go with an MRI or CT machine, even though these are things that MDs use to get very accurate representations of people.
@@simongunkel7457 Wow, that MRI / photograph analogy *floored* me! Nicely said!! Ok, so my basic take is that flatness and accuracy are great attributes for diagnostic purposes & calibrating a mix, but an audiophile setup is more about sweetening and maximizing that audio in an attempt to provide the ultimate customized immersive listening experience. ...And even if I'm not expressing right, your explanation & analogy helped considerably! Thanks for taking the time to share it 🙏👍
@@Rompler_Rocco Yea, I would go so far as to say flatness isn't something I'll look for. There are monitors that are technically more flat than monitors that cost more and are sitting in more good studios. When buying monitors I bring a number of reference mixes, including some that are WIP and knowing that on mix X the reverb on the snare had to be dialed back, I'll see which monitor tells me that the reverb on the snare needs to be dialed back in the clearest way. And then there are 10 other tracks with other issues to go through. Remember that human hearing isn't perfectly flat and the frequency response changes with the listening level. So if a monitor is perfectly flat, the most flat response would take a listening level that is quite loud and if I worked at that level permanently I'd fatigue quicker and would even run the risk of damaging my ears eventually. Not a good thing when you work with audio. Whether a monitor does its job can't really be gleaned from the technical specifications. And I would argue the same is true for a listening system. You go in with a number of your favorite recordings and see which playback system makes them sound the best to you. This notion that there is some ideal way to listen back so it sounds like it did in the studio is flawed, because you change things like which monitors you use and at which level you listen back during the process. Another analogy would be a live show. You've got the FOH mix, which is what the audience gets to hear and you have monitor mixes for each member of the band (this used to be kind of luxury, but by now the equipment is cheap enough that even smaller bands tend to have individual monitor mixes). You could have this idea of wanting to hear what the band hears, but the first problem is that this isn't going to be the same for each member of the band. And nobody on stage actually gets to hear the full song - a bass player might really need the drums up because the timing cues matter to their performance, but the guitar solo would at best be unneccessary and at worst a distraction. If they are doing backing vocals, they need their voice up to hear themselves singing, probably on par with the lead vocals. The FOH sound is a better representation of tha band than the monitor mixes. In the same way a playback system that sounds good is a better representation of an album than the various monitor set ups that went into making the production choices that went into the finished album.
"Like, would it not be fair to define the "specific set of parameters" that recording & mastering engineers are interested in as an accurate, even representation of the recorded material across the frequency spectrum and stereo field? And if so, how specifically would an audiophile's interests deviate?" For me, personally, there is no deviation. If my speakers don't have flat frequency response, low distortion, and even dispersion across the audio passband, then I'm not listening to my music, I'm listening to my speakers.
@@lukabosnjak3829 just because you only care about a certain aspect of sound doesn’t mean other people are the same way. I and many other people care about more than just frequency response. You sound like the type of person that only cares about the resolution of a TV instead of realizing that motion blur, viewing angle, contrast range, color accuracy, and so on all matter as well (sometimes more).
@@lukabosnjak3829 warmth is pretty easy because everyone knows it when they hear it. It’s normally caused by 2nd order harmonic distortion. When someone claims that a speaker sounds harsh it’s because it has too much 3rd order harmonic distortion. A studio monitor might have low 2nd and 3rd order harmonic distortion, but it could sound anemic even though it sounds clean. Analogue tubes cause 2nd order harmonic distortion. Many people prefer the warm sound of tubes even though there is more overall distortion. Besides tone, another thing many people care about is soundstage. I like a huge soundstage. I hate speakers that just have a tiny soundstage. To get a full soundstage, you want 2nd order harmonic distortion in the woofers below 1000 Hz. You want the crossover to not be out of phase off axis. You want the correct amount of off axis dispersion in general, which is dictated by the size of the front baffle, the size and type of the drivers, the crossover design, and more. Another thing that matters is dynamics. A speaker might have a flat frequency response but not be able to play very loud without distortion or getting damaged. Another thing that matters is ringing. A speaker might have a flat frequency response but be messy in the time domain. Drivers with ringing sound muddy, slow, harsh, and so on depending on the frequencies they are ringing at.
Always thought my LS35A was made as a studio monitor. With the right front end they were magic, even with no deep bass. Really nice with my Dynaco Stereo 70 on the 16 ohm taps. I’d like to find an album mastered with them.
I use a pair of KRK 10" Rokits as listening speakers for the past few years, and they are amazing. But you want to know the funny thing? I cannot for the life of me listen to electronic music on them! Even though that's my favorite genre. The speakers just highlight the "fakeness" of it so much that it become almost un-enjoyable to listen to! A related factor I think is that I feel like it's a waste to use those speakers to listen to something that sounds the same or even better on cheaper speakers. Jazz, rock, classical and even hip hop is what I enjoy on those nice studio monitors. And actually these speakers are what got me into listening to other genres, because I found how enjoyable it is to hear all the natural nuances of the performers and the recording equipment. That being said, KRKs color the sound a lot, so they're a perfect compromise for someone that wants a high level Hifi system without spending level Hifi money. You can get a pair new for $1k and they are tri-amped so it's a great entry point. They'll shake the house too for a party. Now on the other-hand when I am at my computer desk and on some basic Bose computer speakers, I listen to electronic music (deep house etc.) all day long at a low volume! Classic "electronic music" that was produced in a more analog fashion such as vintage Depeche Mode I am ok with though on the studio monitors as it still sounds "real." Oh and another thing, one of my favorite bands, Coldplay and U2, I can't really listen to on the studio monitors. Just sounds flat and muddled. Perhaps someone can answer why the heck they mix like that.. Just like with Adele. Skyfall on Tidal sucks on the studio monitors, her voice sounds so processed it's gross. I would imagine it sounds great on some high-Dollar Hifi tower speakers though! I hope that helps as another angle to describe this phenomenon.
Studio monitors are designed 1) with built-in amps for self-contained reproduction, and 2) near field audio (i.e., engineer sitting at mixing panel in small room, rather than in living room). They are also typically designed or praised for being neutral (transparent).
As a recording engineer working in a small studio, I personally use near fields, but most commercial recording studios actually use midfield monitors for most critical listening.
@@Bootrosgali That depends. How accurate is the frequency response of your postulated 8inch monitor speaker, how directional is it, which will affect how it sounds given where it's positioned relative to your ears, and how low distortion is it at your desired listening level?
As a long time recording engineer, I agree with most of Paul's points in this video in that I need a high level of clarity as opposed to a big blended sound that most music listeners would prefer. I would only add that we are needing to mix more and more on headphones since that's how so many listeners now consume music. So many of my musician clients are listening through headphones and laptop speakers now that I need to make sure that my mixes work well in those environments. Am I happy about it? No but, as a service provider, I owe my clients the ability to deliver the mixes that work well for them. Earbuds and headphones are all the rage now and that fact does affect how we mix music at this time.
Sadly this is why I dislike most modern "remasters" of otherwise iconic older music. I guess I don't feel as strongly about new recordings because I never heard how they might have sounded if set up the "old" way? And I've recently found something interesting. I set up a vintage system in my secondary room and have a moderately current system in my main room. Era appropriate music definitely seems to sound better on the matching era appropriate system. Could be a total figment of my imagination of course but I'm starting to notice it more and more.
This is a terrible way to go about mastering music. A good set of headphones or earbuds will work wonderfully with a properly mastered mix. You shouldnt try to fix the mix to work within the limitations of the cheapest headphones...on the contrary the headphone companies need to step up and create better products. This is like having a terrible city road, and demanding the car companies adjust their vehicle suspensions to match the crappy road.
I like my Adam Audio t5Vs. Good computer speakers. Great for music in my experience, but haven't heard many other speakers. Been good for the few videos I have mixed on them. I think they would make good TV speakers downstairs, but maybe not. We have some big probably 3' tall speakers from Pioneer I think. They are nice, but not as good as the ribbon tweaters on my T5Vs. Well, haven't compared side by side. Will do that some day.
No matter how ya slice it. .., consumers are one step below the reality the the creators use, even if that is 100$ speakers. It shows the sillyness of the question.
Fatiguing depends on which kind of studio monitor you are using, how loud you listen and for how long. There are plenty of high end studio monitors that are not fatiguing. I say high end studio monitors, because the likes of KRK and Yamaha HS8 (as many seems to own in this thread) are NOT proper studio monitors.
Giorgio Moroder Musicland studios in munich where genius engineer Reinhold Mack recorded led zeppelin, electric light orchestra, queen and many great bands
In other words, home speakers have/add character whereas studio monitors do not. I use studio monitors as may main music/movie speakers but I also have them hooked up via pro audio gear and am able to mix in my guitar, etc. They sound great to me and are are expensive/quality, but if you don't have pro audio gear in your chain, a good set of "normal" home speakers may sound better ... you just have to make a decision as to which ones sound best to your ears/budget.
What about the idea of having a pair of speakers which reproduce any genre of music which when recorded in room at realistic volume levels from speakers set 11 feet apart with the microphone 8 feet distance from each speaker resulting in the same track recorded from line out to line in into the same recorder exhibiting the same subtleties throughout all of the original recording when compared on full range headphones.
As a professional engineer I slightly/politely disagree.. i feel the majority of lower end monitors are actually below par with audiophile speakers. They simply market themselves as “pro Audio” and jack up the price. I’d rather mix on S400s than Genelecs. I’ve been finding more and more that when an audiophile speaks of linear sound, they actually know what they are talking about and it’s time we listen. There’s no reason an 8inch “monitor” is $500 and then a 10inch “monitor” is $20,000.. it’s just marketing fooling us. From looking into Audiophile systems I’ve noticed many more amazing options to solve the same problems for “pro audio”. Sony is taboo in “pro audio” but the CSS5 were about to give me far more insight into a mix than I ever imagined.. just my opinion
Totally agree! A sound engineer friend of mine (Prof. Fabio Brugnoli expert in holophony) when I asked him about the difference between studio monitors and audiophile speakers he almost laughed. He only stated that he counts on the project that guarantees omnidirectionality of the sound and the inert construction of the cabinet in order to avoid stationary waves ... Only 2-way with 28mm tweeter. soft dome.
@@rabarebra …. ahahahaha ;) Unfortunately, due to the parallel sides these enclosure shapes suffer from internal standing waves. Some part of the standing waves may propagate through the speaker diaphragm, while some may cause excessive panel vibration. For high-fidelity sound reproduction the loudspeaker should not alter the sound and standing waves have to be eliminated. The amplitude of the standing waves can be reduced by choosing right box dimensions, by the proper position of the speaker, and by sound absorbing materials.
It doesn't make sense to me why coloured speakers would give more of a live music sound. If you play an instrument in a room, you get the pure sound. If you record it and play it back, you'd want an accurate transparent reproduction of that sound to get as close to the real thing. How does a coloured speaker make it sound more real?
I have had my KEF LS50W’s for 5 years. Bought a DJ Controller 6 months ago and mix on those. Looking at what I want to get for an upstairs setup…studio or hi fi.
![If you can't hear this then you're not an audiophile [See description for link to followup video]](/img/n.gif)
As a recording engineer the answer is simple: they are designed for different purposes. Studio monitors have much more “resolution” and separation in how they present both dynamics and frequencies to pin point problem areas in a mix / master, whereas hi-fi speakers “sweeten” the sound by actually only having resolving power in specific frequency areas and not the whole range. The “problem” with studio monitors for audiophiles is that they will tell you if a mix your listening to sounds bad, but hi-fi speakers mask the trouble spots in an attempt to make everything sound good.
Hi-fi is shorthand for "high fidelity," which means "great faithfulness" to the source material -- going by what you say, then the so-called "hi-fi" speakers you describe aren't really "hi-fi" at all!
@@editorjuno Hi-fi is in comparison to what's was called lo-fi when it came out, nothing more, nothing less. It's a marketing term at best. If you want accuracy you look at the frequency response curve.
@@grandsome1 -- There's no arguing that. The term "lo-fi," however, is quite new -- it never appeared in print back in the late 1940s when the term "hi-fi" was coined. Yes, from a marketing standpoint it was designed to contrast good home playback gear from the typical table radios and phonographs of that era -- but, as an ideal it means "great faithfulness," which amounts to accuracy in sound reproduction.
@@editorjuno The point is that it doesn't matter one bit that a pair of speakers is marketed as "hi fi", because it's nothing more than a sales pitch. If you want to know faithful a pair of speakers are, objectively, you need objective measurements, not subjective descriptors such as marketing terms like "hi fi".
@@santishorts -- Again, no argument. That's why I prefer objective, measurement-oriented reviews from folks like Amir (Audio Science Review) and Erin (Erin's Audio Corner) to anything from de facto marketing and/or sales types like Mr. McGowan and Steve Guttenberg.
Thanks for this interesting topic. But sadly, we didn't learned much appart they are different. Of course they are... hence the different naming 🤪 _We couldn't have guessed this one on our own_ 😋
Would have liked to hear about:
Monitor → Neutral 🆚 Speaker → Sound Signature
Acoustically treated studio 🆚 Not acoustically treated listening room (which speakers have to accommodate/deal with)
An answerless, answer. A Sweet n' Low packet.
The biggest difference is that audiophiles will buy anything with sufficient promotion. Music producers and engineers are way more discriminating, even cynical, in their buying choices. We have the opportunity to put to test a lot of choices without buying and make our decisions based on cold, calculating metrics. I don’t know anyone who chooses a $10k pair of monitors due to its appearance or advertising.
LOL no. Talking about audiophiles as a group is like talking about drivers as a group, disregarding what they drive and why. Audiophiles are primarily split into categories along multiple axis but the most important split perhaps is analytical vs emotional listeners split. Analytical audiophiles are in many ways close to music producers I think, emotional audiophiles are in some ways the opposite. Emotional audiophiles look for gear that will make their music sound *better* than it was recorded as, to their ears, they want to *feel* the music as an emotional journey of sorts. Analytical audiophiles look for the sort of gear that will reveal every tiniest detail of a recording down to details that aren't meant to be heard, like a cable slapping a guitar body, a slight exhalation into a live mic, the grain of a guitar neck or ribbing on a base string.
I'm at times one, at other times the other, but I tend more toward the analytical with my personal gear, but not too far into the extreme. But then I also make music, and spend probably 40% of my listening time with rather revealing gear set up 'withering away' at mixing knobs to find the exactly right amount of effect and volume on one instrument in the mix. Tedium that technically speaking matters only to me on that sort of level, but when I find the "right" balance, I'm satisfied and happy. And then I relax listening to someone elses music on a setup that has a much warmer and softer sound than the original mix was intended as, just because I want it to sound good, not accurate to the intention of the original studio dudes who recorded it.
I know I'm "eating my own tail" here. I don't care.
I absolutely disagree with your statement. The reason that many people by in blind or only after reading reviews or in promotions is that manufacturers are afraid to demonstrate their products for direct comparison with other manufacturers. This is the reality at least in my country. For example there is no place in Bulgaria where i can test in blind audition 3 or 4 loudspeaker sets in approximately same price range with a reference source and amplifier. Or the opposite variant - reference loudspeaker with different amps. Do you have a place in your country where you can do this?
@@nickolaymiltenov As a longtime customer of a number of pro studio equipment distributors, I am frequently given the competing pieces for a reasonable period to compare on my own, in my own studio. To repay that generosity, I don’t price-shop and buy such pieces online. It gives me great pleasure to support those amazing distributors.
I’ve been sent 5 different pairs of speakers worth many tens of thousands of dollars to help me make a choice. Also, consoles, recorders, outboard pieces. My fave distributor at any time will well over $1 million in inventory out on loan. His customers, including myself, know what a privilege it is and obviously, it works. The pro community rewards the manufacturers who go along, punishes those who refuse.
Have you tried KALI AUDIO IN-8 Second Wave?
Any thoughts?
@@tibsyy895 No I haven’t.
As a musician I typically get premaster mixes as uncompressed files. The guys in the band will play them through anything they have from home systems to car radios to stage monitors to headphones, we send our feedback and suggestions to the engineer to mix accordingly. In the end it is always a compromise and we are all listening for something different (biased by our instruments and expectations). That is, we take into account the systems most people will listen to as most music isn’t focused on one application and all recorded music was created for convenience versus a virtual experience. An aside: the studio is like an extra member of the band and can color the whole sound and influence the band just as much as any other member or manager or producer can. With that, the bottom line on monitors or amps or eq’s is, if you like the sound you get then that’s the one for you … the same goes for instruments
When I read Shakespeare, I typically don’t focus on how bad my Early Modern English is … I somehow enjoy the story or poem just as much or actually more, to listening to someone read it with period proper enunciation
As a lifelong musician and audiophile, I agree. My bands have always gone through similar processes when recording.
I worked in the industry for a successful major label. I used to love the pre-master mixes we would get in advance of releases. To me they almost always sounded better, more impactful and more alive than the final release. Especially with high energy music. The signal and production chain is full of necessary compromises- for technical and commercial reasons. That's why audiophile content usually doesn't sound great on mid fi or lo fi systems, and commercial mainstream music often sounds horrible on high res audiophile systems.
Another interesting thing- pro musicians and major artists almost always have mid fi systems (at best) at home. They are rarely audiophiles. Some might have a high powered system, but it usually won't be hi-res. (They just want the bass punch to be physical.) You would think musicians would have 'ears' as audiophiles typically do, but musicians listen much more the music and performance, almost to the point of being indifferent to the actual sound.
Whatcha talking about Willis?@@BCRobot
The actual real difference between "Hi Fi" (or audiophile if you want to peddle in buzzwords) speakers and Monitors are difference is about the near-field. Monitors are specifically designed to be listened to about 4 feet away and Hi Fi are about the longer field, Ie sitting in a loungeroom listening to records. This is important, because different frequencies travel at different speeds and this affects phase. So a monitor is designed to focus those frequencies so they are precisely in phase between 3-8 feet (depending on the monitors there are monitors with a mid-field and even far-field but these are super expensive and designed to mount on walls in large control rooms, the big studios often have multiple monitor systems the engineer can switch between on preference) which is the distance a recording engineer is sitting at from the monitors. But outside of that range the sound goes out of phase and starts sounding muddy and 'messy'. Hi-Fi/Audiophile speakers are designed to fill a room with sound with an EQ curve intended to take what the mastering engineer has put together and render it as pleasantly as possible.
Essentially;- Dont buy monitor speakers for your loungeroom, and don't buy Hi-Fi speakers for your studio. They are intended for different things.
What would I buy for a 5.1 computer setup where the speakers are fairly close in my bedroom? Used mainly for computer games.
Ty bro
Oh, audiophile speakers do not have to deal with phase issues? You don't have to worry about room treatment, i guess. p:
And studio monitors are all near field, but also midfield _somehow_
8ft is clearly not near field listening. In fact 8ft is a very common listening distance for many consumers at home.
Interesting and competent essay, buddy.
Not all studio monitors are nearfields. If a recording engineer is only listening to nearfields, the mix will lack depth and dynamics. Nearfields are for picking out detail in the mids and adjusting accordingly. Using a subwoofer to augment the range of the nearfields isn't the answer either. Full range monitors tell the complete story of the mix even though they're meant to have a flat response. If required, they can be driven at reference to experience the recording and all of it's nuances. Most professional studios have both at least.
Maybe a good analogy would be controls on modern TVs: contrast / color / vibrancy / motion smoothing, etc. You can watch a movie that's been recorded to look a certain way, and apply tweaks to make its color saturated, contrast boosted, super smooth motion. It looks nice, if that's what you like. For me I prefer to watch the truest representation of what the producer created - hopefully it was their artistic choice to make it look that way.
Similarly I like to listen to music like I watch movies, on an accurate monitor setup without boosting frequencies / added compression, so I hear exactly what the producer created. Not to say someone else's preference is invalid!
Excellent analogy 😃
If me as a producer made a track with a drum set that does not sound like it had “life” and your system made it sound like it did, then your system is simulating something that was not supposed to be there in the first place. 🤷🏻♂️
Well, I would agree with you. That's not the idea. What we want is to make sure when the recording has life the speakers in the home reproduce it properly. I think the bigger issue is what speakers are used in the mix. If the engineer wants a live sound then the mix speakers have to give him/her high enough resolution so they can hear what's truly going on. When we build our final mix room the speakers will be our FR30 which are some of the most revealing speakers in the world.
@@Paulmcgowanpsaudio
Thanks for the reply.
Merry Christmas.
Ok I hawe Elac Concentro M and it sounds beutiful.. like Orchestra......
This response is why I feel the video could have been more specific about the different speaker requirements - so people would be less inclined to 'misunderstand' the different but no less relevant objective of domestic audio system compared to a recording studio setup. In the studio it could be that the objective is to be able to easily focus on the component parts of the music, like looking at specific samples under a microscope. Whereas for a domestic playback system reproducing the whole experience including it's context is often more desirable..
If you think most producers or engineers are making recordings of instruments sound like they do in person, then you've recently awaken from a coma. Only the small audiophile labels using " audiophile " pro gear making uncompressed recordings come close. Most recordings go through the wringer before it gets to the consumer. I remember back in the early 90s when studios were using cheap $200 ADCs
Maybe a personal thing. I really like the driest, least coloured sound I can get.
That said, in a live music environment, certain colourations sound good. I like a speaker that slightly emphasises the 12-16kHz range. Also, given the distance the sound has to travel, I favour horn loaded designs.
I have listened to many hi-end speakers/systems in my 60+ years and I now prefer my Adam A7X monitors over most of them. Listening nearfield I feel I can hear individual instruments and placement more accurately and most importantly I think that nearfield listening takes the "room" acoustics out of the equation somewhat...so if you can't dedicate a room to full treatments, design, etc. a nearfield monitor listening experience is midway between headphones and "normal" speaker listening, but better than even great speakers in a poor acoustic environment.
So you sit in one place at a certain distance to listen to encounter the narrow sweetspot of near field. Sounds kinda limiting man
I agree. Still, the best sound comes from far field monitors in a well treated room.
@@Bootrosgali Sweetspot varies speaker to speaker. My makies have bigger sweetspot
@@Bootrosgali -- My Kali monitors have excellent dispersion, which results in a pretty wide and tall "sweet spot." IOW and IMO, you've overgeneralized by category.
For me it sounds like people in studios want to hear reality and audiophiles want to hear something different - even when they claim they want it as accurate as possible. P.S. I like good reproduced music but I wouldn't call myself an audiophile.
I have experienced, that some audiophiles are choosing speakers which they experience gives the maximum musical joy even it's not natural for their money, where others choose the same goal, but that imply the most natural and un-coloured sound. I believe a competent sound engineer are aiming for the latter as well. So, if you have most joy of istening to music at your home that has the most natural sound, to hear as many details as possible, then you will probably end up with a studio monitor speaker.
the whole idea that studio monitors can't give you the sense of the speaker disappearing and give realistic soundstage is ridiculous, they absolutely can, they can bloody pinpoint 3d image at least my monitors (adam audio a7v) can, a friend of mine has ridiculously good and expensive audiophile system, but he says he really loves listening he's nearfields because of the image they produce....yes they also don't mask errors in the mix but some people prefer that, it gives me the tool to appreciate music that is mixed good as well.
THANK YOU FOR EXPLAINING AND THANK YOU FOR THE COMMENTS FOR CONTEXTUALIZING EVERYTHING
I've always been a music enthusiast, but had always used monitors (because I was told it was the best sound possible). I became an audiophile the day I listened to a set of Martin Logans...thats when I heard the soul of the music for the first time and my journey began.
Man I live for those "firsts".
It depends on the music you listen to.
For example, I am pianist and listening mostly classical music. As a particular masterpiece was recorded in some dynamics and with acoustic instruments there is an absoulte reference in what should sound.
When I listen to piano recordings in hi-fi speakers they always emphasize some region of the spectrum, distorting the original intensity that makes part of the pianist emotional intention.
Conversely, when I listen to the same recording in Genelec, Neumann, etc. music come to live and sound as my piano sounds.
More or less, they are also some characteristic profile in each monitor, absolute flat sound doesn’t exist.
Of course, other parameters as distorsion, harmonics, speed, transients go into the equation but in general one can find better monitors than others.
Hi-Fi speakers mask the original sound, better or worse but they impose their own personality to the music that cannot match with some style or another.
The gold reference to me are always neutral and flat monitor: perhaps are less spectacular but one can listen to them for hours without fatiguing and learn to recreate emotions from the recording, not absorbing those expressed by the speakers
Great video sir. There is much truth in what you stated. I have been a studio musician and performer for many years and have been in many different studio environments. I prefer studio monitors for music production, mixing, mastering and just listening for the love of music. It really comes down to getting use to what you have in your environment and how your speakers translate the songs you really know and love. I recently purchased a pair of Focal Alpha 80s for near and mid field monitoring. For me they work for all my needs. They are studio monitors that are very musical, but also revealing. Like any speaker, they must be set up in your room properly to get the best sound. 👌
Budget powered studio monitors are amazing if money is tight. The detail is incredible even on some sub $100/pair sets.
I love studio monitors for hi-fi listening, although it's not for everyone but I really like the anylitical sound. Adam Audio A8H and my own DIY bookshelf speakers are all I'll ever need.
What's your setup? I have the budget version (T7V) with XLR inputs, but don't know how to route
As a video editor who also deals with sounds, a studio monitor is the tool for me to take care of the problems in sounds, but audiophiles, don't care about sound engineering, they just want to enjoy the immersive environment, which makes those hifi speakers have to dim out some frequencies to keep the sound attractive.
The bottom end is, it's just a question of taste. I got 2 pairs of Martin Logan and 3 pairs of JBL 4412, 4430 and 4435 and I'm 90% listening the 4435...
ML🤘🏽 lectostat 4 life… or until I can afford an MBL system 🤣
Still using JBL 4311
For my desktop speakers I bought Tannoy Reveal 802 studio monitors. They're great. Made me rethink my main set up. Want the same sound , but 'bigger' :) Home use speakers are made to make it sound better, because recording and playbacl technique, as radio wasn't that good quality. Now you can listen to FLAC ! So yes, studio monitors actually sound grerat, when the recording is great. So listening to you tube sometimes sounds awful. Radio over internet , you can hear what the station does with the sound, even sounds better then the recording sometimes. Imho it's something every audiophile should at least try in their lives. And they're cheap , I bought mine when in sale for 240€ for the pair ! And the good thing is they are active ! So the amp inside is made for the speaker ! And the material ! It's stiffer then...... stiff ;P .Solid , I'm sure they'll be in one piece if I throw them down the stairs. The box, not the drivers ..So, don't believe me try them ! Every audiophile friend is astonished by the sound !
The most expensive Tannoy speakers blew my socks off. Crazy expensive but you literally feel like you are with an orchestra. Use a recliner in the center of the room and you literally feel like you are floating in heaven. Unforgettable experience.
Studio monitors are designed so the mixing and mastering engineers can hear how to properly balance a recording so it sounds great on ALL systems.
Well said. Monitors are made to be analytic and HIFIs are made to sound nice 👍🙂
@@Johan-fw8re yeah but i like studio monitors sound more than hifi... is that normal?
@@davpro1792 i think so 😉
But why my MA STUDIO 20SE (passive) sounds much much better, with more Details, better Mids, better STage,...just everything is better...than with my expensive KS Digital A100 and ATC SCM11, PMC DB1...? So, its not true...., I also had Dynaudio BM12 Studio Monitors, pretty expensive..., and they also have no Chance against my Monitor Audi Studio 20SE HiFi Speakers. Most Studio Monitors under 1000€ are real Crap....
@@Johan-fw8re Studio monitors sounds analytical and revealing but HiFi sounds warm and smooth
Studio monitors tend to have a very analytical sound to them. They can be an excellent option if you are really into analytical listening.
They're not analitical, they represent what was recorded which means they sound awesome... All of these terms used by clueless audiophiles is snake oil
@@lukabosnjak3829 You are never going to hear what the recording technician was hearing... you don't have his ears. That's not the point to begin with. The recording technician and the musicians need to correct detailed problems with the recording that can lead to a poor listening experience, e.g. if an instrument covers up the singing voice. This often requires sub-dB volume adjustments on individual channels. These can only be made with a studio monitor setup or with earphones that reduce the influence of the room's acoustics significantly compared to a typical hifi speaker setup... where most of what you are hearing are reflections and room resonances.
I use a software equalizer in windows for my monitors. Improves the sound a lot. I have a cheaper pair of monitors of the same brand where I don't have to do that. M-audio Bx5a deluxe and AV40
Everyone should ALWAYS use EQ ALL the time. Audiophools who don't use EQ (quality DSP based EQ - no downsides) are just dumb and are convincing themselves that settling for what it sounds like "out of the box" so to speak is correct and ideal. No. Even the best speakers can and should be EQ'd to taste - and that includes even at times changing EQ settings based on the source material! I mean why wouldn't it? The mixing varies greatly... sometimes you need to tone town a different area of the highs, or add something. And you always need to add some low bass. A speaker isn't defined by what it sounds like with a flat source signal through a flat power amp. It's defined by what it is CAPABLE of, and often EQ is needed to show what it is capable of. Who cares if it's down 6db at 35 or 40hz, if it's CAPABLE of playing flat to 30hz with some EQ without any issues? It just so happens to require some extra power to push it in that region due to the design, big deal. If your excursion is in check and there's no significant or discernable distortion, then your speaker is capable of playing flat (or even boosted) down to 30hz... not the 40 it says on the label.
In the past many hi-fi speakers were studio monitors in furniture cabinets, particularly from Altec and JBL, EV too.
For me, Studio monitors+studio sub any day for listening to any material. The fidelity they provide is unparalleled. Maybe it's my critical brain at work.
Why would you want anything less.... if its mixed and mastered on studio monitors THEN IT SOUNDS THE WAY ITS SUPPOSED TO SOUND ON STUDIO MONITORS..... I never understood this stupid bullshit argument. Audiophile speakers ARE DESIGNED to color audio...... I dont get it. Its kind of what pushed me away from audio gear to begin with. I bought a pair of Genelecs and a matching Genelec sub and once I got it I realized there is nothing else I would ever really want. So I kinda fell out of the hobby realizing how stupid a lot of reasons and shit people use for excuses is usually always just bullshit. If Genelecs are good enough to mix and master 500 Million dollar movies and videogames or albums that sit on top of the billboard 100... then they are good enough FOR EVERYBODY. If they are not good enough for you....... then you prolly like the smell of your own farts too. Thats basically what I realized in my experience in high end audio. I have the speakers an RME ADI 2 and a Pair of DT1990 pros. DONE.... everything else is just a waste of money. That's not really an opinion its fact. Audiophiles LOSE THEIR SHIT when I say that though...... another reason why I left the audio scene. Too much fart smelling.......
@@ashflame6888 lol. That's quite a comprehensive argument and well articulated too 😂😂😂. Audiophile scene is too much snake oil without understanding the basics of sound and audio electronics. To me, studio electronics represent a high standard of audio research without the usual bullshit. Of course, you get what you paid for, but then, even an entry level studio monitor + sub combo gives us what we really required to achieve high fidelity sound reproduction without driving the costs through the roof. Genelecs are some of the most precise sound reproduction tool out there and pair it with some A grade audio interface like RME, you are sorted for life.
@@djross2423 LOL yeah I feel a certain way about it I guess.... I haven't really voiced my opinion on it in a long time.
"To me, studio electronics represent a high standard of audio research without the usual bullshit"
That was the number one thing that kept going though my head when I was deciding to buy the Genelecs. I knew I was gonna pay a premium for the Gens but I also felt like if I'm gonna do this I'm only gonna do it once. Ultimately that's what sold me on them.... I couldn't be happier with them. I knew I hit my ceiling within 20 mins of setting them up.
I am using Dynaudio BM5 MKIII for olayback and I am more than happy with them. Full and 3D sounding speakers and for the price tough to beat cheers
@@ashflame6888 I could not agree more. I am on the same drug! Genelec monitors with a Genelec Sub! I color this marvelous combo thru a miniDSP SHD Studio. I sold my "audiophile" gear some tima ago! Not missed!
IRS-V's cannot be compared to a small 2 way studio monitor. A more relevant comparison would be a similarly sized 2 way audiophile bookshelf speaker vs a high end studio monitor known to sound great like the Mackie HR824mk2. Now these are powered speakers, which may or may not throw a wrench in some people's desired setups... but there is nothing inferior whatsoever about these speakers, or a number of other excellent examples. They can soundstage and disappear as well as any other speaker that is similar in size and design. Now if you like big speakers (I do) or exotic/non-traditional designs, then by all means, your preference is valid and they can have certain subjectively superior aspects to them. But LIKE for LIKE, a small to medium sized bookshelf speaker vs. a good studio monitor... they are the same thing, the latter often being powered, but generally designed more scientifically vs aesthetically or subjectively with intentional "flavor"... the studio monitors are thus often technically superior... which is the best kind of superior. Any "taste" you like can be added via DSP EQ, but you have the benefit of having a starting point that is without inherent flaws in the frequency plot due to driver selection or crossover design... that stuff has been done correctly, as opposed to just hitting a price point (even a moderately high one) and looking good with a particular aesthetic or sound character (read: deviation from correct). Give me some big crazy speakers over a monitor any day don't get me wrong... but if I'm choosing a 2 way bookshelf, I'll happily take the quality monitors and objectively have better speakers than you.
"They can soundstage and disappear as well as any other speaker that is similar in size and design."
That statement can't be true. Not only would you have to listen to all other speakers of similar size and design, you would have to compare them to the Mackie. You haven't done even 1% of that.
" but if I'm choosing a 2 way bookshelf, I'll happily take the quality monitors and objectively have better speakers than you."
In a blind test, you couldn't tell correct from not correct.
disagree here, I loved to listen to music on my adam a7x studio monitors, and feel that with studio monitors, you'd get alot more for the same money. Problem is the audiophile scene is so full of snake oil and people that have no idea what they are talking about, I don't really see this with studio monitors, just alot of helpful tips, putting importance on the things that actually matter, like room acoustics.
Exactly
Sorry, I think it’s also a bit of comparing apples and oranges. The IRS5 are huge, even way bigger than most main monitors in studios. If you compare a decent 5inch bookshelf speaker to a decent 5inch Monitor (with decent I mean both speakers trying to have a more flat response), there shouldn’t be worlds between them, they will sound different but surely not chawdropping different. P.s. and yes, studio monitors have another purpose and there are monitors which are great for mixing, but sound terrible for enjoying music, but there are also lots of monitors that are fun.
I lost time and money buying HiFi speakers and gear which never satisfied my sound taste. My fault, because after so many years I first bought Monitor Speakers and was in schock that this is the sound that I have been looking for decades. It is said that HiFi speakers should give you the best sound resemblance to original record - IT IS the other way round ! Hi Fi speakers have manipulated crossovers and roll off frequencies which almost always destroy the original recording sound. I doubt I will ever come back to HiFi speakers....but it is a matter of taste of course.
When I first heard some old Grace Jones and Heart records on a pair of 4311 monitors I bought (and on which the records in question had been mixed), I heard them in a way I'd never heard before, with details that no other speaker good or bad had revealed in quite the same way. If the idea is to "bring the performance into the room", one could as easily argue that listening with the same ears as the mix engineer (i.e., through the same monitors) is the better approach to hearing the recording as it was intended to be heard.
Now try a pair of Stax electrostatic earphones. You will lose all interest in speakers instantly. :-)
I would never call myself "audiophile". Nearly everyone I know that describes themselves as such has bad hearing but they are convinced they're experts on sounds. It's like Trump saying he's the world's most honest man.
Forget about the purpose, think about the engineering. Studio Monitors are active, their amp+cab+speaker are engineered together. In HI-fI systems, speakers and amps are designed separately. Active monitors use active filters and individual amplifiers for each band (2-way or 3-way) designed to compensate for the inherent resonances of speaker+cab and deliver the most linear freq and phase response, which means the amp response is not linear but inverted relative to the speark+cab response. Hi-fi amps are designed to produce a linear output and the hi-fi speakers are expected to produce a linear response to that flat signal, but it is physically impossible (which is the key point here)!!! The speakers, cabs and passive filters all have their own non-linear (bell-shaped) response curves and engineers try to match their resonances the best they can to flatten the response, but it can never be achieved perfectly in a passive system due to the physics of it. So instead, the engineers go for pleasant sound (relying on taste and preference) rather than linear/accurate response, allowing for the peaks to be in favorable ranges (emphasizing e.g.60 Hz and 2kHz) and the dips to be in unfavorable ranges (e.g. a dip around 500 Hz can reduce muddiness and a nasal quality to sound). Either way, to cut all the marketing bullshit, studio monitors are technically more advanced and accurate, while home speakers may sound subjectively more pleasing to different listeners, which feeds into the hi-fi marketing agenda that pushes people to go through dozens of amp+speaker combinations over the years, never actually becoming satisfied, which is exactly where audiophile equipment producers want them to be - on an endless purchasing journey. Regards, happy owner of Yamaha HS-8 studio monitors of 10 years, who ditched all his hi-fi equipment (like Monitor Audio and KEF speakers and Onkyo amp, etc.) and never looked back. I like flat response, that's all.
I had two headphones. One was a set of professional studio monitors from Yamaha based on the NS10’s and the other was their high end consumer headphones at the time. I enjoyed both. The sterility of the professional headphones was great for critical listening as a musician and I even enjoyed how clean and tidy the bass notes were. Everything was very even sounding with the professional set but those consumer grade headphones did something magical to the low-mids that I absolutely love. I think if you’re a musician it’s a no brainer to have studio monitors or studio headphones but only as a baseline to compare with the consumer speakers. I actually bought two sets of those Yamaha MT220’s because I loved the clarity of them so much. I gave my friend the consumer headphones because the material on the ear cups irritated my skin. I really miss those headphones and they’ve been discontinued for awhile now. If I could, I’d go get another pair put up with the irritation.
I read a review where the writer said, "If I want to hear everything about the recording: where it was recorded, the microphones, the size of the studio and skill of the engineer, then I'd choose these speakers. If I just want to enjoy music, then I listen to my own usual speakers." Saved me $200,000!
So in a way he said: "If I want to enjoy music, I use a speaker that changes the sound so much that I cannot hear the original properly". It's an insult to the studio engineer and artist, because they were unable to make beautiful music. It needs to be changed!
And btw: studio monitors are way cheaper than "true" audiophile speakers! For a few thousand dollars you'lll get near perfect Genelecs, for example. Where did the 200.000 come from?
@@CheetahNL Wilson Audio, from a review in Stereophile from a few years back. BTW, I'll take "forgiving" speakers that allow me to enjoy the music but are "only" 99 percent the "true" sound, rather than your monitor sound, which includes trucks passing by the studio and mice farting.
You make 200k decisions based on reviews? I'm pretty sure at 200k you can get those speakers in your home for a demo and decide for yourself.
@@cristi724 Not at all. I was talking about the idiocy of creating "monitor" speakers that are so revealing, that they're only fit for judging the microphone placement, recording studio limitations, etc. I once had an expensive (about 3K in today's dollars) set of speakers, but on anything but the highest quality recordings sounded like crap. Sold them and got a pair that offered 99 percent of the resolution, quality and soundstage for less than half the price. What's the point of high fi if you can't enjoy your music collection? Yes, some idiots will say, "Only listen to perfect recordings." Such people love electronics, not music.
@scottbernard8824 Those $200.000 you mentioned doesn't cost you $200.000, but maybe $10.000, same amount as all these snake-oil hifi products. Your comment failed!
This dude doesn't know physics, that's for sure.
Today’s topic makes me think about Nearfield, midfield and Farfield set ups . I remember people asking about floor monitors at large shows with massive PA and asking why the artist needed a small speaker pointed at their face so they can hear themselves. Maybe you could talk The goals of a system and how it’s designed to meet those goals.
One of the issues with nearfield vs. farfield has to do with two things: imaging and bass. Nearfield monitoring has bass response that does not mirror what happens in-room. If you're mixing for the car or for headphones that's fine. However, if you're mixing for music playback in the home, then that's probably a mistake. The results will then sound thin and lacking in the bottom end. And, of course, speakers don't image in the nearfield.
@@Paulmcgowanpsaudio i’m a big proponent of the always test your mix on multiple systems, the car,the listening room, Nice speakers , speaker so cheap I don’t think they should’ve been made in the first place and so on.
Wishing a great holiday to all PS Audio family 🎄🎉
@@PooNinja And to you and yours as well, my friend.
Quite simple. An artist is standing behind the pa not hearing the pa properly so won’t get a true sound which means they can be out of time or key. Wedges or now iems negate that problem
@@nikkic36 oh the joys and fears of a silent stage. 🤘🏽
Ok wait my backline is a pair of XLRs? I guess left is dry right is wet. In my monitors I’ll want vocals,kick , snare, a bit of the hats and just enough of me to know if I’m going out of (it’s metal nobody knows) tune🤣.
Well... so a director of photografy should be glad to know that audience looks to his film with colours and hue unpredictably different from what he saw on camera... After having spent hours to create the images he wanted. No, I'm sorry, I
that is called my-fi.
"The difference is : they are different." Ok.
Love your videos Paul, but I strongly disagree with your conclusion here. There are two types of speakers...accurate ones and not. Full stop. Studio monitors don't have any magic juju that allows the listener to gain any insight into a mix over a well-designed hifi speaker. Now, if the hifi speaker in question is designed with a "house curve/house sound" that's different, but loudspeakers that are designed to be accurate, low distortion representations of a wide frequency range are no different depending on their target audience aside from the hifi upcharge for dealer networks and pretty finishes. The design principals are exactly the same. The ONLY real difference here lies in the designs being active or not (and to a lesser extent frequency directivity as it pertains to listening distance and cohesion), and even then, there are good implementations of onboard amplification with active crossovers controlled by DSP, and not so good ones. Same thing is true for "consumer" loudspeakers as it pertains to equipment pairing...the active stuff just takes the guesswork out of it.
Thanks, Loud and clear. I appreciate your comments and clear insight. Fun to disagree! Here's where I think you're missing the (small boat). While I can't argue with anything you've written, the bit you're missing is in the voicing of the speaker. As an engineer involved for decades with speaker designers from Infinity, Genesis and now PS Audio, I can tell you that once we finish designing the drivers, the box, and then the crossover, next comes the voicing. How will this speaker sound and how will it present music? Will the music be up front and forward, or laid back and mellow? Aggressive, soft?
Here's another way to look at this and I will use an analogy from my former partner, the late Arnie Nudell (founder of Infinity). Because no speaker is flat to within more than about +/- 3dB (and even that's rare), the designer should consider the voicing/crossover design as a painter and his palette. Instead of +2dB at this part of the frequency response, one could radically change the voicing by making that 0dB or even -1dB. The overall response remains "flat" but the sound is now very, very different.
PS Audio Fun to disagree indeed! Your reply was very thoughtful, and I agree that the timbral differences between loudspeakers which otherwise measure very similarly to each other can yield wildly different presentations. Where I don’t agree though is that these differences can be universally more beneficial for one type of end user. Rather I would argue that familiarity with whichever loudspeaker is a more useful tool to engineers than whatever it’s intended market is. This may not always be a “pro” speaker. The lines become quite blurry.
NS10’s are a great example of this. Here’s a speaker that was never intended to be a studio monitor that somehow found its way into every studio on the planet. Why is that?…well, it’s not because it’s accurate or good. Indeed, it’s a truly crap speaker that everyone is now familiar with, and that familiarity makes it useful. MixCubes are quickly becoming the new NS10.
Don’t know where I’m going with or how to land this thought (it happens), but I appreciate your time engaging with the community. Have a great 2022! Cheers 🥂
@@loudandclearmedia Thanks, Loud and Clear. I think we're in agreement. I would put the difference between analytical and resolving. Analytical doesn't engage and beckon the listener deeper into the music while resolving does. Perhaps more semantics than anything but then we only have words to try and express ourselves
This is a great conversation! Thanks to you both. I have a good example. I love the sennheiser HD 800 S for my audio work. Huge soundstage and instrument separation. Very resolving. I can see into the material very precisely. They are incredible for assessing placement and whatever I do on them translate very well to other systems. On the other hand I do not enjoy listening to most music on them because they can sound a little diffuse and lose impact. For enjoyment, I reach for my hifiman he-500 or mrspeakers ether C’s. They are not less accurate than the HD 800S but the way they present music feels somehow more cohesive more impactful more liquid. similar with speakers. I use focal be-6 for mixing and monitoring but I have these Nola Boxer 2’s that just sing. They rival the focal’s in accuracy but somehow truly disappear. Music sounds great on both but my attention is drawn towards details in the focal while I can get lost in the deliciousness of the Nola’s. Again, they are not less accurate. Everything is there on both. I couldn’t get away with just having one.
Nearly every pro studio uses Yamaha NS-10s for near-field monitors. Some of the best pop and rock records ever made have been mixed using these speakers. However, these speakers will not sound good to an audiophile, in fact, NS-10s can sound awful. But they have excellent impulse response, good midrange clarity and have the unique ability to highlight flaws in the mix in such a in-the-face manner that the engineer can quickly find the problem and fix it.
well, no pro uses NS10s as their primary near field monitors. They are used as a final or back and forth check to make sure a mix holds together and will translate.
I bought Genelec 8341 because the sound qaulity is lifelike because they're accurate. Accuracy does not equal sterile, accuracy does not equal flat or boring. Hifi speakers cannot know if a track needs colouring or not, they are tuned to a specific character which will not suit all artists or even an artists different songs. I don't want my music coloured and if I do I'll do it myself with EQ.
Great explanation!
Thank you for this
Hi Paul, very interesting video thank you. I have listened to PMC studio monitors in my room and haven’t liked them ( too flat sounding), but love the audiophile or domestic speakers Fact 12s. You are absolutely right very different entities all together 👍🏼 Best Peter (UK)
i owned and used a pair of clayton shaw's emerald physics open-baffle cs1.3's. clayton used off-the-shelf pro-audio drivers. his design, which was tri-amped and driven through a prism orpheus preamp/dac (also pro gear) produced some of the best and most *musical* sound i've ever had in my hifi setup. that showed me that there's nothing intrinsically "unmusical" about pro-audio hardware; how it is used in the design of the speaker is what matters. [thanks to walter liederman for helping me understand this.]
The new JBL 4349 Studio Monitor enables music lovers at home to enjoy the same exceptional dynamics and accuracy that producers and engineers employ in leading studios. Now, by virtue of a transformative driver, mathematically brilliant horn and woofer design, and classic good looks - great sound has never been more at home. Every detail of the JBL 4349 Studio Monitor has been examined and every assumption has been challenged. The result is a monitor loudspeaker that defies comparison and provides anyone, anywhere with a love of music to re-discover every track, re-visit with every artist and re-trace every musical journey. I promise that new nuance, new energy, and new dynamics will be revealed!
- Jim Garrett, Senior Director, Product Strategy and Planning, HARMAN Luxury Audio
The Yamaha NS-10 started as a home speaker that wasn’t very popular, because it’s harsh. It became the most popular and important studio monitor, because it’s extremely revealing in the midrange. Some years ago, I got a pair of Tannoy DMT-12 midfield studio monitors, but found them hard to mix on, because they were too polite - they did that audiophile thing. Now I use them for my hi-fi, and they’re great.
Picture studio monitors as the analytical architects, meticulously measuring every sonic detail like an artisan crafting a masterpiece with precise tools. Conversely, hi-fi speakers step into the role of sonic painters, adding a touch of vibrancy to the auditory canvas, splashing colors of warmth and richness for a more emotionally resonant experience. Together, they form a duet, each bringing its unique notes to the symphony of sound.
Is the most stupid discurse I ever red 🤦♂️
Just not a real difference, they are comercial speakers quite flat and monitors quite colored.
The rest is just marketing: speakers are speakers. Call them monitors don’t change anything, is a matter of taste or professional needs (specially in the case of mixing).
Genelec sold the G series for listening and after a while they “confessed” that they were the same as 8020, 8030s… just with different connections.
All I heard repeatedly here was that studio monitors sound different from Audiophile speakers, with no explanation or examples of what those differences are, i.e, what kinds of things would studio engineers be listening for in a recording?
They can sound "flat" in comparison, because there's no boost to the bass or trebles, there's no "warmness" added. It's the most neutral representation of the sound you get. But if you amp up the volume or use and EQ you can make them sound anyway you want unlike the hi-fis.
I am happy with my Focal Shape Twin near field active monitors XLR (inakustik cables) output from my Luxman DAC. The positions is just 1.5cm to the left and right of my 27" PC monitor. The listening distance is between 2.5 feet - 5 feet. The sound is very detailed, smooth, analogy, engaging and have very deep bass. Besides, it's not sound either clinical or warm at all those I can adjust through switching cables or fuses.
Guess what? Studio monitors are not the same, some are flat and striale, some are more lively..just like any speaker they sound different and will appeal to different tastes.
They do however more suitable for close listening, so if you have a small room, and you are less than 2 meters from the speakers, a near field studio monitor is a better choice.
Again, one which sounds good to you
As i understand, consumer speakers are made to enhance sound, with many custom profiles (ex. profiles for certain genres of music, which boost certain frequencies) . while studio monitors trying to reproduce faithfully without enhancements
Audiophile speaker systems are designed to cater our psychological preference of hearing by emphasizing and attenuating specific freq bands and, in some cases, intentionally allowing a certain extent of distortion (saturation) to happen. They strengthen the strengths and alleviate the weaknesses in the original music file.
Studio monitors are designed to reproduce sound as loyal as possible to its original state without purposefully applying any artificial optimization or coloration. They not only objectively show all the delightful nuances in the original music file but also ruthlessly reveal all the flaws and downsides in it.
Well said.
I havent been able to find a hifi system that comes close to representing live music as a 4.1/5.1 near fields in a small room, where you are still close to the speakers. Of course having the room setup reasonably as well. Any hifi setup to sound this good is so much more money. Just my experience.
I like to use the Keith Dont Go live recording from Nils Lofgren Acoustic Live. I close my eyes and if everything is setup correctly, it sounds like I am in a small theater with a live acoustic band.
What I learned from the video:
- music lovers need something completely different than sound engineers (let's dismiss the sound engineers, they don't let music lovers live)
- audiophile speakers - disappear from the room (stealth technology from the army?)
- monitors - they are sterile (this is important in times of a pandemic)
- famous sound producers live in their own world and are detached from reality
- Paul's business knows better what is better than the aforementioned B&W, Yamaha and others
My congratulations.
haha for a moment there i missed the satire, good one
My studio monitors sound fantastic in my audio system. I have an EQ and can color them any way I wish. Most "audiophile" stuff is mostly nonsense to sell stuff to cork sniffers
Same.
But isn't that all just marketing speech, Paul? I'm disappointed you discussed the matter this way. Of course there are differences between these speaker categories but they may very well be perceived the other way round (for instance, directionality of sound in studio monitors can be a very handy thing, active power is very handy, etc.). Sure, there are markets for both and they are quite separate from each other - I just do not see why you felt it necessary to foster the gap between them.
Because he needs to sell his speakers without competition from the much more affordable and fairly priced pro-audio.
As Dean Turner has mentioned, PMC are in use in a few UK studios, as are, as Paul mentioned, B&W, The great BBC used the original LS3/5A (I think). My current speakers, Amphion, are used all over the world, and my good friend Mr Jake Purches of Base 2 Music, specializes in DSD/SACD (only) pipe organ recordings, and mixes/masters on Vivid Giya Spirits, (and the smaller models) as he works for them
Studio Monitors have one big difference to consumer products: They are measured on their accuracy of reproducing what the sound engineer wants to hear. The big question though is, what did the sound engineer really want? In times of mass production, they probably want, that the music will sound good on any typical low to medium cost consumer product. So in this case, he will put more of those frequencies in the mix, where he would expect these consumer products won´t reproduce them in the right amount and less of those where it is the other way round. They also often check the mix with those products also. Why: Because they always want to meet the mass, for selling the mass. So if you have one of those expensive HiFi things, you should look out for special recordings made for that, or you have a good equalizer, that is anyway an good idea, as the room, where you are listening, will also change the "mix". One thing you also should consider, that is the range your own ears are still having. Nowadays, there are many people with hearing loss in young years already. Would be interesting to compare mixes 50 years ago with todays, to see what has changed.
Coming out of both production and listening, I went with Genelec for my living room, and it works great for me. This is after making sure the room has sufficient absorbers and diffusers, which generally is even more important than speakers!
Some people don't like it, because it's very transparent -- you may very well want a particular "sound." It's a bit like: Are all your walls painted white, or do you use color?
Add you say: Using your eyes and ears is the most important!
I use a paid of Genelec at my home studio.... they are aaaamaaziiinngggg. This who concept of lifeless and sterile is nonsense. Balance frequency distribution does not mean lifeless as some audiophiles say.
"Some people don't like it, because it's very transparent"
How would prove your speakers are more transparent than someone else's? You can't do it with measurements, and if you think you can, you can't provide a single example to back it up.
@@AT-wl9yq if you don't believe in measurement, we don't have common words and can't effectively communicate.
That is true. I myself have master series genelects in my living room and small 8340 speakers in my bedroom with TV and Apple TV. There is really no sterile sound to be heard in these. Hifi enthusiasts, most of them 85% are sheep AND DON'T USE THEIR OWN BRAINS to strain comparisons, but constantly ALWAYS take new hifi/High end teachers (Paul) and follow them without questioning their sales pitches and the idea of being led astray. And if the Hifi enthusiast is able to filter out a small sales pitch even for a moment, then later on both will adapt to the stories of their sales teachers one hundred percent.
Certain hi-fi speakers of many brands sound very nice after a huge amount of work done in relation to various devices and rooms, but they are at best mediocre for the abilities of top studio speakers to express the value of creating stereo quality. So much blur has been smoothed here and there even in expensive passive hifi/high end loudspeakers that unnatural sugar has been artificially embedded in many covers when it comes to hifi in general.
Studio monitors are not designed for critical listening. So, generally they sound clear and relatively harsh. The last one depends on the quality of the record of the instrument. Audiophile speakers are designed for joyful listening. So, they sound warm and smooth.
The main difference is that studio monitors are meant for near-field listening, which is not the case in a usual home listening environment. They are, as a rule, very detailed and sometimes pretty sterile but should not be overly so as an engineer spends hours a day working in a studio. There are some exceptions though, ProAc Studio 100 being an example. Originally designed as a studio monitor (used by many renowned studios and artists, like Neil Diamond, John Scofield, Bill Frisell, Metallica, and Red Hot Chili Peppers, to name a few) but became a huge success as a home speaker. So much so, that ProAc tried to stop the production of it 3 or 4 times but a huge demand from customers forced them to carry on making them.
Nowadays there are more than a few speakers that are equally good in both pro and home stereo application, comprising enough "exceptions" that the rule has been largely disproved. Many -- perhaps even most -- home stereo applications are not "far field," but rather more like "mid field." This is especially true in places where residences are relatively small with listening spaces to match -- and there are quite a few "studio monitors" that perform exquisitely in that sort of "mid field" environment. In the final analysis, it's the individual product that matters, not whether it's being marketed as a "studio monitor" rather than an "audiophile" speaker.
The line between studio monitors and home stereo speakers has been blurry for 50+ years, starting when JBL dressed up their popular 4310 monitor and called it the L-100 Century, which became their all-time best selling home stereo speaker. Nowadays, studio monitors from makers like Kii Audio, Genelec, Neumann, and even very affordable stuff like Kali Audio's "2nd Wave" models are making home stereo listeners very happy because they are simply excellent loudspeakers that measure and sound great -- and not just in near field applications. Of course there are some monitors that are far short of excellent in that respect, e.g. some Yamaha models are notorious for their "if it sounds good on these crappy things, it'll sound OK on any system" performance -- but if you select carefully, studio monitors offer far better performance for the money than a combination of passive speakers and separate external amplification.
" studio monitors are meant for near-field listening" what a load of bollocks. Ever heard of mid or far field? Look at Kinoshita. Nearfield my ass.
Probably your best video yet. I would have appreciated a few more minutes on what makes the distinction regarding frequency response etc.
Thanks. Perhaps that's what we'll do next so you can see what the real differences are.
@@octaverecordsanddsdstudios1285 You know Radoslaw was being sarcastic, right? As an audio professional I've always wondered about this and hoped you might actually enlighten us!
@@soundman127 I would be happy to do my best to enlighten but can you be more specific about the question you'd like answered.
The most important thing is that the monitor is black, plastic and fundamentally with uncovered speakers.
And then it is also a little different in that it is supposed to provide an accurate sound image to someone who is sitting about a meter away from it.
I have the old monitors from the TV studio in the attic at home, they are wooden and each has a volume of about 280 liters. Times are changing ;-)
I like your videos. Mostly recomended and liked. But on this one I not agree 100%. Studio monitors are flat and ussualy boring but they are made to be as much transparent as it can be. When audiophiles talk about transparency and after that they say: "I like this speakers because of sound color..." Beep. Sound color is oposite to transparency. I also like audiophile speakers better than studio monitors but I am sensitive when we putting wrong names on something. You and other companies build speakers and gather customers that like sound and character of your speakers. I will say again. Yes monitors are sterile and boring. Yes your speaker sounds much better, but the monitors are closer to original and by that there is more quality. For the future, wish you much of luck and health and keep doing good job. I am very experienced in this but anyway, I learned much from you.
Now I really have to disagree with the presenter. I see absolutely no reason why studio speakers should be different from audiophile speakers, especially as many speaker companies such as PMC, and Kii Three make pretty much exactly the same speaker for both audiophile and studio, with the only significant difference being the casing material or colour - exact same product on the inside.
I think the presenter comes from an age when things were different. The difficult thing is making a speaker that is flat. So that should be the target for all kinds of speakers, cos in todays world, you can use a preamp or digital EQ, somewhere in the chain, to colour the presentation to your personal preference. I like to hear all my audio, as flat as possible. With the option to tweak the EQ myself, if I need it to sound any different. Speaker manufacturers such as those owned by the same group as Octave Records, should not be the ones to dictate to audio lovers, how things should sound, based on their own rather limited perceptions of what good audio should sound like, Smirks of an imperialist mindset.
Just make every speaker as flat as possible, and leave the end user to add whatever colour they want, to their own individual taste.
...and that, my friends, is wisdom, wisdom that comports with the research of Doctors Toole and Olive at Harman: start with wide and flat frequency response and use other means -- e.g. EQ via DSP, additional processing and speakers to add hall ambience and/or enhance overall "imaging," etc. -- to adjust that baseline response as per room acoustics and personal preference(s).
In essence, a sound engineer has to be able to dissect out the individual (instrumental) components of
the recording he is sound engineering reflecting the conditions under which it was recorded. His task is then to mix and rebalance these individual audio components against each other to produce a final product that results in the overall best audio reproduction of the ensemble performance, and not necessarily reflecting the acoustic idiosyncracies particular to the conditions under which it was originally recorded.
I just came to say that watched this with Stanley Cowells "Lady blue" playing in brackground and somehow the tone and tempo you speak synchronized beautifully with that track lol
And yet Gordon Holt bought a set of ATC 50 powered monitors because they made recordings he made sound more like the live performance he recorded than any other speaker he had heard.
I don't buy the poetry , and physics is the reason why . The latest bunch of constant directivity speakers by Dutch & Dutch , Kii Audio and Genelec have been met with a warm welcome both in living rooms and recording studio's
Bullseye -- the line between the two categories started to get blurry 50+ years ago and has been getting blurrier ever since. Nowadays, when comparing the best products in both categories, that line is virtually non-existent -- even at the sub-$1k price level, there are select "studio monitors" that deliver much better performance for the money than their purportedly "audiophile" counterparts.
Really the thing that differs is the distance they are intended to be used at, assuming "audiophile" means "technically accurate".
@@MFKitten -- Right. Many "audiophile" speakers sound fine in the near field, and many of the the better modern monitors sound fine in the mid or even far field. IOW, it comes down to the individual product and the listening space rather than the marketing category.
I have noticed over the decades that a lot of high end home speakers have also been used as studio monitors.
This is without a doubt the best explanation for the differences in monitors\audiophile speakers on the whole web. Thank you.
Ps.
I would love the get a good answer and explanation regarding the differences between DAC/AMP combos vs audio interfaces. I'm mostly interested how their sound differ from one another.
Another insightful talk Paul, thank you! I’m on my 3rd set of PMC speakers (currently 20/26s) I guess I aught to start listening to different brand alternatives, and stop believing marketing hype about studio heritage..?
To me, the main difference is clear: studio monitors should always expose deficiencies in the reproduced sound in a reliably neutral way. Well recorded and mixed music should always sound good. In contrast, high-end speakers (N.B. speakers, _not_ 'monitors') should inherently flatter audio coming through them, making even badly recorded stuff sound nice.
There's artistic licence involved with the design of both studio monitors and high end speakers, with every brand sporting a "house sound".
Ultimately the choice is one of cost and trust - do you trust your speakers to be accurate, and do you trust that the cost is justified? Many monitors and high end speakers share much of the same attributes.
Practically, nowadays the majority of monitors benefit from things like matched integral amps, a wide range of input support and a lot more integral control over the sound. They're typically designed to be form-follows-function. With speakers, the onus is on the user to source and pair amps and input stages. The cabinet shape and materials used will be often be chosen to give a more premium aesthetic, with effects on the sonics sometimes being a secondary concern.
I particularly like the imaging of my coaxial Tannoys for my setup, they're lovely allrounder monitors which I trust and have used for analysis and mixing alongside listening for fun. They translate well to other systems. I've used plenty of excellent monitors from dozens of brands, ATCs would be my lottery win go-to for the living room.
You can also get apparent contradictions in the definitions of monitor vs. speaker. For example, I would never use PMC for critical listening or mixing. In my own controlled conditions testing, I've seen how non-linear they can be, and how they behave more like hifi speakers than reference studio monitors. They have a place in some people's setups, and can produce a hyped, lively sound, but I'd never seek to use them professionally.
the trick to mixing is reference mixes it doesnt matter what speakers you use as long as they can handle the basics well
i think its just fun to hear stuff from different speakers. new, old, big small. i own more then one pair or sunglasses or shoes for that very reason.
That's what EQ's are for. I run a double system and mix studio monitors with some old band speakers. For listening both together sound best. When i'm working i just run the monitors.
There is no difference. Every speaker ever created naturally has a different frequency response simply because it's a different speaker from the rest. A home audio speaker will sound different from a monitor simply because it's a different speaker just like a home audio speaker will sound different than any other home audio speaker because it's a different speaker. You can use a home audio speaker for monitoring and a studio monitor for home audio. Frequency response can be tailored to anyone's liking regardless of speaker. Studio monitors dont use anything different for drivers than home audio speakers. It's all the same thing sound wise. The main difference is that many studio monitors are powered and many home audio speakers use fancy boxes and some are severely over priced because of name brand.
That is just wrong. For starters, typically when people talk about studio monitors they are referring to near field speakers, i.e., speakers with the imaging designed to be correct for one person sitting at the apex of an equilateral triangle perhaps four or five feet from the speaker drivers. Consumer hi-fi speakers are designed for far field listening and are designed and implemented completely differently. Second, as Paul implied by his comments about studio monitors sounding "sterile", studio monitors are designed to be as accurate in reproducing the input signal as possible, not to "sound good" to a consumer. Thirdly, studio monitors do use different drivers than consumer hi-fi speakers, they are almost always specifically designed for the intended studio use. You are correct about the difference in cosmetic appearance. Studio monitors rarely have strange enclosure shapes or expensive cabinet materials since those attributes have little to do with the actual sound reproduction.
@@avsystem3142 sorry everything you said is a bunch of hifi mumbo jumbo
@@sergeysmelnik I guess it does sound like mumbo jumbo if you don't understand the technical aspects, which you clearly don't.
@@avsystem3142 Yeah it is a bunch of mumbo jumbo with zero substance. I wasnt gonna reply with a post because you obviously have no idea what youre talking about but Ill do it anywhere. Please tell me how any studio monitor especially without a horn or wave guide is more directional than a martin logan electrostat or a plannar speaker? You ever heard of mid field or far field studio monitors? Obviously you havent. There are so many hi fi speakers with far more direct imaging than many standard studio monitors like any klipsch or horned speaker. So please explain to me your generalizing of studio monitors and hifi speakers of how theyre designed and implemented completely different because obviously you dont know what youre talking about.
What does sterile even mean? How does that show up on a measurement? Again it sounds like youre just parroting someone and didnt actually come up with this on your own through any research and testing. If by sterile you mean flat then thats a bad description of a flat measurement. You generalize all studio monitors like theyre all designed exactly the same and sound the same and measure exactly the same. Have you actually listened to any and have you actually looked at any measurements? Every single studio monitor sounds different from each other and most are not flat, just like guess what, hifi speakers. On top of that many studio monitors come with built in dsp and even a mic so you can measure them and calibrate and eq the sound to your liking. Even cheap 200 dollar monitors have bass and treble settings on the back. Why would manufacturers do that if they all want them to sound exactly "sterile"?
And the dumbest thing you wrote is studio monitors using different driver materials than hifi speakers and specifically designed for the intended studio use. Like what? What are you talking about? Literal mumbo jumbo with zero information or examples. What materials? Specifically designed for their intended use? What does that even mean? How? Please give me some examples of studio monitors using different cone or tweeter materials from hifi speakers. Most cheap studio monitors use polycarbonate(plastic) woofers and soft dome(silk) or aluminum tweeters. Half the damn hifi speakers use those materials. What about kevlar like b&w use? KRK has been using kevlar for years they even have it on their tweeters now. AMT tweeters like martin logans? Adam one of the biggest studio monitor brand uses it on all their speakers. How about beryllium tweeters used in many high end hi fi speakers like focal? Well funny thing is focal themselves sell studio monitors with the same exact beryllium tweeters as in their hi fi speakers. What about horn loaded titanium compression drivers like the ones found in modern day klipsch and many home theater and pro audio models? You can find those in studio monitors like Equator Q series and tannoy golds. And then there are other various materials like paper and paper impregnated woofers thats used in both studio and hi fi.
Hi fi is filled with so much snake oil and bullshit that people like you have this idea about studio audio like its some black and white terrible sounding equipment all made a specific way. Truth is its all the same except studio equipment doesnt rape people of their money using gimmicks and fancy words to sell overpriced cables and dacs and amps and speakers that are no better than what studios use. PS Audio is a prime example of this. Scamming people with their perfectwave 7k dac that has a terrible design with a pathetic 75db sinad measuring worse than an apple dongle. A 400 dollar dac has 120db sinad. The perfect wave has audible distortion, noise and only 15 bits of dynamic range not even high enough for standard redbook cd quality of 16 bits. And pauly here tries to sell you on his DSD bullshit which again is more snake oil, proven to be no better than cd. So why even use dsd if his own freakin dac cant even surpass cd quality? This is the kind of shit hifi is filled with. Bunch of liars and scammers. You should really go audition some studio monitors maybe even buy some. Go get a cheap dayton calibrated mic and learn to use REW and take some of your own measurements. Try comparing some cheap audio interfaces to hifi stand alone dacs. Its all the same shit except youre gonna pay out the ass for some of the hifi stuff like the crap ps audio sells. Hopefully then you will stop writing stupid things.
@@sergeysmelnik Holy crap! That is the worst case of verbal diarrhea I've ever seen on TH-cam. I certain didn't waste my time by reading it in detail but did skim. The description of the Avantone speaker that you found unenlightening was verbatim from the manufacturer's description. As far as not knowing anything about speakers. I have had a home studio for over thirty years. I recently upgraded my monitors from Event 20/20's, along with a 15" subwoofer which were powered by a Hafler P1500 amp. I replaced that setup with an Adam Audio Sub10 and a pair of Adam AX7's, which are bi-amped powered speakers. The DAW audio interface consists of an RME Fireface 802 and the primary A/D/A converter is a tc electronic Finalizer Express. You seem to know a lot of buzz words but clearly don't understand the technology behind them.
You say 'flat', for me, it's 'clean'. I've just retired my pair of 1981 B&Ws which I bought 24yrs ago 2nd hand. 22yrs of listening, still going strong, gifted them to a mate. Seriously gorgeous they are. Strangely, I'd describe them as warm and crisp. When I'm ready for MartinLogans I'm sure I'll appreciate them. As a DJ tho I prefer monitors for playback as well as practice. I enjoy the unforgiving detail. I'm now on a set of huge KRKs and subwoofer, to me the sound is scrumptious. Unless we're talking top-of-the-line speakers, I'm a monitors girl through and through.
a lot of classic records were mixed on auratones and i doubt anyone is going to start building $100,000 rooms around them any time soon. good dry sterile mix environment can let a larger quantity of good mixes come out without a lot of fatigue
So, Paul never clearly explained HOW the two are different? How do they handle the different parts of the audio spectrum? Do studios use subwoofers?
FYI, Abbey Road studio used Tannoy Lancaster speakers in the 60s/70s (for the Abbey Road album) and later switched to B&W. Tannoy Cheviots are my speaker of choice.
Tannoy Gold series of powered desktop monitors revolutionized my desktop listening. The Tannoy Gold 5 are incredible for the price and sound better than my Sennheiser HD600 headphones.
I prefer monitors because then I can taint the colour of the sound myself instead of having done for me and stuck with it.
I own a small home studio with 2 sets of studio monitors. I also have a very good stereo in my living room. The monitors are for finding the trouble spots in the mix. The home stereo even though it is decent, makes everything sound good. It's hard to make a proper judgement call on stereo speakers. where as with the monitors, I can make that call accurately.
Thank you so much. You answered the question that was always on my mind.
I love hearing Paul share his wealth of wisdom on all things audio! But this topic has always snagged me- especially as someone who enjoys "flat" audio reproduction and studio gear. Like, would it not be fair to define the "specific set of parameters" that recording & mastering engineers are interested in as an accurate, even representation of the recorded material across the frequency spectrum and stereo field? And if so, how specifically would an audiophile's interests deviate? Does it come down to the aspect that an engineer needs to make compromises in order to create one mix which sounds the best across all devices, therefore not arriving at the pinnacle of what could be represented on the very best systems? And so alternatively, is an audiophile's setup not calibrated to manipulate that same final mix, in order to make it sound the way it hypothetically would on reference speakers in a world where every listener had the highest quality system (making compromises unnecessary)? And if that's the case, would it not be possible to take a high quality set of studio monitors, with excellent specs, in a good room, and apply a sort of an "audiophile algorithm" to process the sound in a way which brings the listening experience up to audiophile standards? And if that isn't the case, what is it about the signal path or other technical variables which cause it to fall short? I'm sure Paul is already articulating all of this masterfully and I'm just not quite understanding, but if there's ANY chance that Gus Skinas would be willing to chime in and describe it from his perspective... it might just be the tipping point needed to convert MANY audio enthusiasts into super avid audiophiles. 🙏👍
It would not be fair to define the "specific set of parameters" (it's an awful phrase, because it's not really parameters) for audio engineers in this fashion. What I want out of a monitor is that it shows me what the biggest problem with the mix is. Then i fix that. at which point I want to monitor to show me what the next biggest problem with the mix is. Does it need to be accurate? Nope. In an ideal dream scenario the monitor would make the current biggest issue worse than it actually is. Maybe someday with AI assistence we could even get there. I don't care if the frequency response is flat, only that it is flat enough, so that if the biggest issue with the mix is that there is too much going on in the low mids, I can identify this problem and don't think I should focus on phase issues between the bass guitar and the distorted rhythm guitar next. Even the best monitors have areas of weakness in this regard and engineers switch between various monitoring set ups to check different potential issues. If you wanted to take a picture of a loved one, you wouldn't go with an MRI or CT machine, even though these are things that MDs use to get very accurate representations of people.
@@simongunkel7457 Wow, that MRI / photograph analogy *floored* me! Nicely said!!
Ok, so my basic take is that flatness and accuracy are great attributes for diagnostic purposes & calibrating a mix, but an audiophile setup is more about sweetening and maximizing that audio in an attempt to provide the ultimate customized immersive listening experience.
...And even if I'm not expressing right, your explanation & analogy helped considerably! Thanks for taking the time to share it 🙏👍
@@Rompler_Rocco Yea, I would go so far as to say flatness isn't something I'll look for. There are monitors that are technically more flat than monitors that cost more and are sitting in more good studios. When buying monitors I bring a number of reference mixes, including some that are WIP and knowing that on mix X the reverb on the snare had to be dialed back, I'll see which monitor tells me that the reverb on the snare needs to be dialed back in the clearest way. And then there are 10 other tracks with other issues to go through. Remember that human hearing isn't perfectly flat and the frequency response changes with the listening level. So if a monitor is perfectly flat, the most flat response would take a listening level that is quite loud and if I worked at that level permanently I'd fatigue quicker and would even run the risk of damaging my ears eventually. Not a good thing when you work with audio. Whether a monitor does its job can't really be gleaned from the technical specifications. And I would argue the same is true for a listening system. You go in with a number of your favorite recordings and see which playback system makes them sound the best to you. This notion that there is some ideal way to listen back so it sounds like it did in the studio is flawed, because you change things like which monitors you use and at which level you listen back during the process. Another analogy would be a live show. You've got the FOH mix, which is what the audience gets to hear and you have monitor mixes for each member of the band (this used to be kind of luxury, but by now the equipment is cheap enough that even smaller bands tend to have individual monitor mixes). You could have this idea of wanting to hear what the band hears, but the first problem is that this isn't going to be the same for each member of the band. And nobody on stage actually gets to hear the full song - a bass player might really need the drums up because the timing cues matter to their performance, but the guitar solo would at best be unneccessary and at worst a distraction. If they are doing backing vocals, they need their voice up to hear themselves singing, probably on par with the lead vocals. The FOH sound is a better representation of tha band than the monitor mixes. In the same way a playback system that sounds good is a better representation of an album than the various monitor set ups that went into making the production choices that went into the finished album.
"Like, would it not be fair to define the "specific set of parameters" that recording & mastering engineers are interested in as an accurate, even representation of the recorded material across the frequency spectrum and stereo field? And if so, how specifically would an audiophile's interests deviate?"
For me, personally, there is no deviation. If my speakers don't have flat frequency response, low distortion, and even dispersion across the audio passband, then I'm not listening to my music, I'm listening to my speakers.
I could not disagree more. Good studio monitors are meant to be neutral and resolving. What more could/should you ask for ?!
Huge sound stage, dynamics, warmth, musicality
@@3DaysTillGrace That doesn't mean anything... Literally all that matters is the frequency response which is perfect on studio monitors
@@lukabosnjak3829 just because you only care about a certain aspect of sound doesn’t mean other people are the same way. I and many other people care about more than just frequency response. You sound like the type of person that only cares about the resolution of a TV instead of realizing that motion blur, viewing angle, contrast range, color accuracy, and so on all matter as well (sometimes more).
@@3DaysTillGrace Define dynamics, warmth, musicality...
@@lukabosnjak3829 warmth is pretty easy because everyone knows it when they hear it. It’s normally caused by 2nd order harmonic distortion. When someone claims that a speaker sounds harsh it’s because it has too much 3rd order harmonic distortion. A studio monitor might have low 2nd and 3rd order harmonic distortion, but it could sound anemic even though it sounds clean. Analogue tubes cause 2nd order harmonic distortion. Many people prefer the warm sound of tubes even though there is more overall distortion. Besides tone, another thing many people care about is soundstage. I like a huge soundstage. I hate speakers that just have a tiny soundstage. To get a full soundstage, you want 2nd order harmonic distortion in the woofers below 1000 Hz. You want the crossover to not be out of phase off axis. You want the correct amount of off axis dispersion in general, which is dictated by the size of the front baffle, the size and type of the drivers, the crossover design, and more. Another thing that matters is dynamics. A speaker might have a flat frequency response but not be able to play very loud without distortion or getting damaged. Another thing that matters is ringing. A speaker might have a flat frequency response but be messy in the time domain. Drivers with ringing sound muddy, slow, harsh, and so on depending on the frequencies they are ringing at.
Always thought my LS35A was made as a studio monitor. With the right front end they were magic, even with no deep bass. Really nice with my Dynaco Stereo 70 on the 16 ohm taps. I’d like to find an album mastered with them.
I use a pair of KRK 10" Rokits as listening speakers for the past few years, and they are amazing. But you want to know the funny thing? I cannot for the life of me listen to electronic music on them! Even though that's my favorite genre. The speakers just highlight the "fakeness" of it so much that it become almost un-enjoyable to listen to! A related factor I think is that I feel like it's a waste to use those speakers to listen to something that sounds the same or even better on cheaper speakers. Jazz, rock, classical and even hip hop is what I enjoy on those nice studio monitors. And actually these speakers are what got me into listening to other genres, because I found how enjoyable it is to hear all the natural nuances of the performers and the recording equipment. That being said, KRKs color the sound a lot, so they're a perfect compromise for someone that wants a high level Hifi system without spending level Hifi money. You can get a pair new for $1k and they are tri-amped so it's a great entry point. They'll shake the house too for a party.
Now on the other-hand when I am at my computer desk and on some basic Bose computer speakers, I listen to electronic music (deep house etc.) all day long at a low volume! Classic "electronic music" that was produced in a more analog fashion such as vintage Depeche Mode I am ok with though on the studio monitors as it still sounds "real." Oh and another thing, one of my favorite bands, Coldplay and U2, I can't really listen to on the studio monitors. Just sounds flat and muddled. Perhaps someone can answer why the heck they mix like that.. Just like with Adele. Skyfall on Tidal sucks on the studio monitors, her voice sounds so processed it's gross. I would imagine it sounds great on some high-Dollar Hifi tower speakers though!
I hope that helps as another angle to describe this phenomenon.
Dude never actually explained how the manufacturer’s logic is flawed. He went straight to anecdotal evidence and then to some fairly vague concepts.
Studio monitors are designed 1) with built-in amps for self-contained reproduction, and 2) near field audio (i.e., engineer sitting at mixing panel in small room, rather than in living room). They are also typically designed or praised for being neutral (transparent).
As a recording engineer working in a small studio, I personally use near fields, but most commercial recording studios actually use midfield monitors for most critical listening.
Try Genelec 8361A.
Not all studio monitors are self powered, but they do seem to be getting to be the most popular these days.
So even 8inch monitors and listening from 10 feet away is going to be a totally flawed music listening experience??
@@Bootrosgali That depends. How accurate is the frequency response of your postulated 8inch monitor speaker, how directional is it, which will affect how it sounds given where it's positioned relative to your ears, and how low distortion is it at your desired listening level?
Couldn't a company come out with unpluggable modular crossovers that allow multiple "types" of speakers from one set of drivers and cabinets? Why not?
As a long time recording engineer, I agree with most of Paul's points in this video in that I need a high level of clarity as opposed to a big blended sound that most music listeners would prefer. I would only add that we are needing to mix more and more on headphones since that's how so many listeners now consume music. So many of my musician clients are listening through headphones and laptop speakers now that I need to make sure that my mixes work well in those environments. Am I happy about it? No but, as a service provider, I owe my clients the ability to deliver the mixes that work well for them. Earbuds and headphones are all the rage now and that fact does affect how we mix music at this time.
Sadly this is why I dislike most modern "remasters" of otherwise iconic older music. I guess I don't feel as strongly about new recordings because I never heard how they might have sounded if set up the "old" way? And I've recently found something interesting. I set up a vintage system in my secondary room and have a moderately current system in my main room. Era appropriate music definitely seems to sound better on the matching era appropriate system. Could be a total figment of my imagination of course but I'm starting to notice it more and more.
This is a terrible way to go about mastering music. A good set of headphones or earbuds will work wonderfully with a properly mastered mix. You shouldnt try to fix the mix to work within the limitations of the cheapest headphones...on the contrary the headphone companies need to step up and create better products. This is like having a terrible city road, and demanding the car companies adjust their vehicle suspensions to match the crappy road.
I like my Adam Audio t5Vs. Good computer speakers. Great for music in my experience, but haven't heard many other speakers. Been good for the few videos I have mixed on them. I think they would make good TV speakers downstairs, but maybe not. We have some big probably 3' tall speakers from Pioneer I think. They are nice, but not as good as the ribbon tweaters on my T5Vs. Well, haven't compared side by side. Will do that some day.
No matter how ya slice it. .., consumers are one step below the reality the the creators use, even if that is 100$ speakers. It shows the sillyness of the question.
I have grown to like the sound of studio monitors. They get fatiguing very quickly though so I have another setup for general listening.
Fatiguing depends on which kind of studio monitor you are using, how loud you listen and for how long. There are plenty of high end studio monitors that are not fatiguing. I say high end studio monitors, because the likes of KRK and Yamaha HS8 (as many seems to own in this thread) are NOT proper studio monitors.
@@rabarebra People can just apply a high-shelf filter if they find the treble fatiguing.
Giorgio Moroder Musicland studios in munich where genius engineer Reinhold Mack recorded led zeppelin, electric light orchestra, queen and many great bands
In other words, home speakers have/add character whereas studio monitors do not. I use studio monitors as may main music/movie speakers but I also have them hooked up via pro audio gear and am able to mix in my guitar, etc. They sound great to me and are are expensive/quality, but if you don't have pro audio gear in your chain, a good set of "normal" home speakers may sound better ... you just have to make a decision as to which ones sound best to your ears/budget.
What about the idea of having a pair of speakers which reproduce any genre of music which when recorded in room at realistic volume levels from speakers set 11 feet apart with the microphone 8 feet distance from each speaker resulting in the same track recorded from line out to line in into the same recorder exhibiting the same subtleties throughout all of the original recording when compared on full range headphones.
As a professional engineer I slightly/politely disagree.. i feel the majority of lower end monitors are actually below par with audiophile speakers. They simply market themselves as “pro Audio” and jack up the price. I’d rather mix on S400s than Genelecs. I’ve been finding more and more that when an audiophile speaks of linear sound, they actually know what they are talking about and it’s time we listen. There’s no reason an 8inch “monitor” is $500 and then a 10inch “monitor” is $20,000.. it’s just marketing fooling us. From looking into Audiophile systems I’ve noticed many more amazing options to solve the same problems for “pro audio”. Sony is taboo in “pro audio” but the CSS5 were about to give me far more insight into a mix than I ever imagined.. just my opinion
Totally agree! A sound engineer friend of mine (Prof. Fabio Brugnoli expert in holophony) when I asked him about the difference between studio monitors and audiophile speakers he almost laughed. He only stated that he counts on the project that guarantees omnidirectionality of the sound and the inert construction of the cabinet in order to avoid stationary waves ... Only 2-way with 28mm tweeter. soft dome.
@@bikermanfast13 Stationary waves depends on the room, not the speakers. Hahaha!
@@rabarebra …. ahahahaha ;) Unfortunately, due to the parallel sides these enclosure shapes suffer from internal standing waves. Some part of the standing waves may propagate through the speaker diaphragm, while some may cause excessive panel vibration. For high-fidelity sound reproduction the loudspeaker should not alter the sound and standing waves have to be eliminated. The amplitude of the standing waves can be reduced by choosing right box dimensions, by the proper position of the speaker, and by sound absorbing materials.
It doesn't make sense to me why coloured speakers would give more of a live music sound. If you play an instrument in a room, you get the pure sound. If you record it and play it back, you'd want an accurate transparent reproduction of that sound to get as close to the real thing. How does a coloured speaker make it sound more real?
I have had my KEF LS50W’s for 5 years. Bought a DJ Controller 6 months ago and mix on those. Looking at what I want to get for an upstairs setup…studio or hi fi.