Studio monitors Vs Audiophile speakers

[@IntoTheForest]

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.

[@editorjuno]

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!

[@grandsome1]

@@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.

[@editorjuno]

@@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.

[@santishorts]

@@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".

[@editorjuno]

@@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.

[@willswitchcraft]

As a studio engineer with decades of experience: Studio Monitors are Near field monitors, designed for listening at a close range - Also, the speakers for studios are quite well standardized, so that we can go from one studio to another, regardless of country or state, so that we have a common reference. The Yamaha NS-10s are specifically used for balancing the human voice in amongst other instruments, because of their focus on the Midrange. They are NOT designed to make the content sound as good as possible, they are for giving us detailed insights into different parts of the frequency spectrum. If you can hear everything clearly (every note of the bass, etc.) it will usually sound amazing on any audiofile HiFi system............Also, near field monitoring is generally done at a relatively low volume level, so that there is less ear fatigue, as engineers often work very long shifts.......In all studios, there are always larger, Voice of God speakers (Urie, JBL...), but they are only used for short reference/'alternate ear' because of this ear fatigue

[@meinhartesrohr9330]

"Studio Monitors are Near field monitors, designed for listening at a close range " wrong, there are enough midfield monitors like the ATC100 or KH420

[@willswitchcraft]

Point taken.............

[@edgar9651]

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.

[@artysanmobile]

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.

[@noth606]

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.

[@nickolaymiltenov]

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?

[@artysanmobile]

@@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.

[@tibsyy895]

Have you tried KALI AUDIO IN-8 Second Wave? Any thoughts?

[@artysanmobile]

@@tibsyy895 No I haven’t.

[@Bassotronics]

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. 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@Paulmcgowanpsaudio]

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.

[@Bassotronics]

@@Paulmcgowanpsaudio Thanks for the reply. Merry Christmas.

[@batomatovic6286]

Ok I hawe Elac Concentro M and it sounds beutiful.. like Orchestra......

[@mgsee]

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..

[@carlosoliveira-rc2xt]

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

[@mellowjammer]

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]

So you sit in one place at a certain distance to listen to encounter the narrow sweetspot of near field. Sounds kinda limiting man

[@jitterfree250]

I agree. Still, the best sound comes from far field monitors in a well treated room.

[@clickbaitpro]

@@Bootrosgali Sweetspot varies speaker to speaker. My makies have bigger sweetspot

[@editorjuno]

@@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.

[@Krunch2020]

At 60++ years old I had my hearing checked. Good to know the McIntosh is fine.

[@jacquelamontharenberg]

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. 👌

[@shayneoneill1506]

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.

[@Fighter4Street]

What would I buy for a 5.1 computer setup where the speakers are fairly close in my bedroom? Used mainly for computer games.

[@YNfinityX]

Ty bro

[@legalize.brokkoli]

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.

[@gunsort3242]

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.

[@NathanMaharaj]

Saved me a 6 minutes watch. Thanks.

[@natesilvers2166]

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.

[@timburton7307]

Another happy 8341 owner here

[@natesilvers2166]

@timburton7307 ​ Nice how you getting on with them? I downgraded to the 8330 as I only work 16 hours so it felt strange to own something that expensive but I miss em. The 8330 still sounds good though.

[@metallusmelandril7380]

This is the way Bro! That’s why I have Nubert Active speakers/monitors. nuzeo 4. verry neutral but has built in eq

[@ytmember4569]

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.

[@ranbenshabat6142]

What monitors are you using?

[@ytmember4569]

@@ranbenshabat6142 I use Presonus Monitor Active speakers Eris and Behringer PK Active PA series. Even PA give very good projected monitor-like sound quality. It is simply a matter of taste. I do not have anything against HIFI, it just an overpriced purposely sound-aberrated piece of amplifications. They have nothing to do with studio sound or even installation speakers like PA (restaurant, churches etc.) which give you this sound presence which is missing in HiFi. But still, it is a matter of taste, and many people will not like studio truthful sound while the others will love it.

[@marcussvensor]

Studio monitors are used by engineers to reveal information important during the mastering process. They sound harsh and sterile. An engineer will use various types of speaker, to simulate different situations, like car stereo, club etc.. These speakers are typically placed close to the engineer, or near field. Typically, all dynamics of the room, are nullified in order to hear precisely what is coming from the monitor speaker and prevent reflections or delays. This should not be confused with a listening room, where a soundstage is projected according to the listeners requirements, be it cinema, easy listening, Hi-fidelity. And of course the type of music typically played will also define which equipment is chosen. In this case the speakers are typically placed at a distance and embrace the dynamics of the room to heighten the listener's experience. The room may in some cases be tuned for the best effects, but certainly not nullified.

[@zefrog7482]

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.

[@DoctorMarshall7]

What's your setup? I have the budget version (T7V) with XLR inputs, but don't know how to route

[@BCRobot]

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

[@BCRobot]

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

[@rigorhead01]

As a lifelong musician and audiophile, I agree. My bands have always gone through similar processes when recording.

[@timothysullysullivan2571]

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.

[@timothysullysullivan2571]

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.

[@JCKCPA]

Whatcha talking about Willis?@@BCRobot

[@Raziel_SSJ]

Thanks for this interesting topic. But sadly, we didn't learned much apart they are different. _Of course they are... hence the different naming_ 🤪 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)

[@riccardocarbo2479]

An answerless, answer. A Sweet n' Low packet.

[@blaness13]

The problem with that is, what is even neutral, or what is flat, frequency response wise, what grading are you using to measure that, at what loudness, where are you listening, where are the speakers etc, his answer was pretty good for a hifi speaker salesman, speakers that are meant for mixing are kinda bland and reveal problems more than hifi ones, Hell the industry standard NS-10 sound like hot garbage, but used correctly and the mix checked on those speakers will sound great from ipods to hifi speakers,

[@alkenstein]

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!

[@Leantesta]

Excellent analogy 😃

[@PoloABD]

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.

[@TheRealWindlePoons]

I love my Lowther horns. My listening room is also the family TV room though, so I often listen to music on my PC in my home office. I recently replaced my "desktop" speakers. Although I was tempted by the BBC LS3/5A (any manufacturer's offering to the standard should sound the same) on audition I went for a different offering: the ATC SCM7, another "foot high" speaker. Their neutral dynamics sound very similar to the Lowthers (to my ears - which is all that counts).

[@tombrennan6312]

In the past many hi-fi speakers were studio monitors in furniture cabinets, particularly from Altec and JBL, EV too.

[@grandsome1]

I prefer monitors because then I can taint the colour of the sound myself instead of having done for me and stuck with it.

[@paulalexander2740]

Bingo ! From complex parametric EQ to some tone knobs, almost all systems have some form of tone control in the chain.

[@lawlaw9176]

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.

[@djross2423]

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.

[@ashflame6888]

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.......

[@djross2423]

@@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.

[@ashflame6888]

@@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.

[@filipkrstevski5449]

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

[@slasketorsk]

@@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!

[@steenstube]

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.

[@boogiexx]

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.

[@miguelalonsoperez5609]

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

[@trei2unu]

Also, what many seem to forget and only think about how a speaker sounds is the microphone(s) and all the electronics in the chain until the music is actually recorded. I feel that microphones and the environment that those instruments are recorded also have at least as much impact on the sound as the speakers that are used to play it back.

[@miguelalonsoperez5609]

@ totally agree, and should be a fascinating world. I don’t know so much about recordings and editing techniques. In classical music (my main branch of listening) there are some terrible recordings that totally ruin an excellent interpretation, now things are changing but from many decades the live performances were considered the summit of the art whereas a recording was somehow underrated and neglected. I have a 1955 opera disc that one can feel inside the scene, and paradoxically a 1995 same opera and similar music school conductor but the mics and acoustic was so bad that all is a messy of singers and instruments, no coherence in dynamics (and I know from other recordings of same interpreters that are quite good)…

[@ElMarko2000]

A big difference of course is that an audiophile's room isn't likely to be acoustically treated for sound in the way that a studio is, and probably the different nature of audiophile vs studio speakers compensates for that.

[@paulalexander2740]

That's becuz the audiophile speakers come with a hobbit which measures and EQs the system in each customer's particular room and seating position.🤣

[@paulalexander2740]

That's to "volce" 'em.

[@Blacksheep1042]

My humble answer is starting with: What kind of "Studio Monitors" are we talking about ???? 70's/80's era NS10/ Auratons? Both examples of Anti Fun to listen Mid range "in your face" that some Oldschool Engineers used to call SHIT BOXES. Mono+ low fi TV/Radio speaker was the universal first listening tool at the consumer side. so all mixes and masters should sounded = translated good in to nasty mid range dominant Format. The number of Musical+High Audio Fi Masterpieces That was recorded/mixed/mastered using that "Anti Hi Fi sense" approach is mind boggling :) I have almost sold my proack response 1 back In the 90's when i learned that "Brothers of arms" Was mixed on a pair of Auratons... Than came the 90's...Bug 2K... and the world Have progressed in more than technical ways. Hip Hop + R&B have replaced rock & roll and brought To the mixing boards=end listener low frequencies Like never before, the field of electro acoustics matured and adopted changes, home consuming product become More and more Hi Fi capable rather than the low fi mono/stereo of 60,70,80,90... sound signature. Now 2023 - Pro Audio: some old school Producers, Engineers still use or work by the moto" most of music is in the mids", so if sound good in the mids, on a low fi speaker It will sound goooooood on 100,000$ playback set up. Most of the New gen producers/engineers work With way more open and hi fi monitors than was common In the past. some learn about High End / High performance monitors and started use them in the Pro Audio habitat. So you must be careful with Studio Monitors -- What era? Design and specifications. Intention of designer. Old school vs Modern cutting edge wide band, low distortion, flat response / programmable response (dsp). You can google and find hundreds of pro Audio opinions on that matter, take notice that indeed Audio Engineers does Listen different than the End Consumer BUT they do it FOR THE END CONSUMER, it's a "Kobayashi Maru" complex mistery for me still after all those years. hope you will enjoy the googling about that. Be blessed, healthy, free, creative and prosper. It's still a mix market - jungle if i may - of Studio Monitors Out there so check every model/ type by it's DNA before listening - save your precious time!

[@lepidoptera9337]

Or just buy a pair of electrostatic earphones and be done with your bullshit. ;-)

[@davidperry4013]

Studio monitors tend to have a very analytical sound to them. They can be an excellent option if you are really into analytical listening.

[@lukabosnjak3829]

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

[@lepidoptera9337]

@@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.

[@TheRealWindlePoons]

I often hear audiophiles say they aim to reproduce a live performance. Having operated the mixing desk for many live performances, that's not my aim at all. I want to hear what the producer heard when the final mix was played in the control room.

[@marxman00]

they tend to just be unbad speakers...

[@tested211]

@@marxman00 lol... I think that's probably the best summation. People that evangelise about how "neutral" studio monitors are might be surprised if they compared a few at one seating. Last time I replaced my monitors I went to a pro audio store that has a huge wall setup where you can toggle between different models and compare. You would be amazed how different they all sound and it's very obvious when switching between them. If they all sound different, then they can't all be neutral...maybe one of them is...ha ha! :D I do think some people might like them, though. The main difference if you're coming from the world of hifi is 1) They are active (you don't need an amp - the amp is in the speaker) and 2) you buy them individually - no, they don't come in pairs!

[@rabarebra]

This dude doesn't know physics, that's for sure.

[@drumhed]

Anybody who wears a polo tucked into jeans clearly has issues.

[@jamescarter8311]

Dude ain't traveling to Kenya either.

[@leoriskind4623]

This dude is salesman and lies all the time

[@barryroot]

OK, they’re different. How are they different?

[@НинадаТарапицца]

@@barryroot Very simple - they use monitors because the music has to sound good for the average Joe. That is to say music has to sound "good" on a mediocre speakers because most people listen mediocre equipment - in the car, on TV, on boomboxes, you name it. It's all mediocre sound. Audiophile speakers give live and flair to those mediocre recordings.

[@patrickdeboer1377]

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 !

[@babyblu5590]

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.

[@parlimage5050]

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...

[@PooNinja]

ML🤘🏽 lectostat 4 life… or until I can afford an MBL system 🤣

[@improvsax]

Still using JBL 4311

[@Artcore103]

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.

[@AT-wl9yq]

"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.

[@pepeltoro444]

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".

[@TheNeinkerjer]

I just bought a pair of ME Geithain RL901 studio monitors, a pair of speakers I have dreamed of for many years and I love the sound of them because they don’t have a sound. I am currently listening to music I have known for 40+ years as if I had never heard it before and it does sound so good!

[@JasonMcFly]

Budget powered studio monitors are amazing if money is tight. The detail is incredible even on some sub $100/pair sets.

[@paulhopkins1905]

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

[@user-bc6ok1yh4s]

Same.

[@andibrema]

A comparison of the operational room response would be essential to understanding this but there are barely any resources on the studios

[@rhill109]

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.

[@Johan-fw8re]

Well said. Monitors are made to be analytic and HIFIs are made to sound nice 👍🙂

[@davpro1792]

@@Johan-fw8re yeah but i like studio monitors sound more than hifi... is that normal?

[@Johan-fw8re]

@@davpro1792 i think so 😉

[@faithhopelove6945]

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....

[@clickbaitpro]

@@Johan-fw8re Studio monitors sounds analytical and revealing but HiFi sounds warm and smooth

[@vixapphire]

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.

[@lepidoptera9337]

Now try a pair of Stax electrostatic earphones. You will lose all interest in speakers instantly. :-)

[@ChadHargis]

I am a musician and I use studio monitors in my home studio. They are near field monitors, so they wouldn't be suitable for listening at the distances most audiophiles listen at. They are also powered, as most studio monitors are, and take a feed directly from my mixing console via balanced XLR cables.

[@D1N02]

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

[@Artcore103]

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.

[@happylifeman4306]

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.

[@miguelalonsoperez5609]

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.

[@loudandclearmedia]

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.

[@Paulmcgowanpsaudio]

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.

[@loudandclearmedia]

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 🥂

[@Paulmcgowanpsaudio]

@@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

[@excessivity]

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.

[@batmandeltaforce]

Give me Flat Response reference monitors any day. Train your ears to hear it right, to hear what the artists, producers and engineers intended.

[@IlSinistero]

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.

[@mgsee]

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?

[@grandsome1]

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.

[@calhounj1]

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

[@TheKravmonster]

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.]

[@PooNinja]

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.

[@Paulmcgowanpsaudio]

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.

[@PooNinja]

@@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 🎄🎉

[@Paulmcgowanpsaudio]

@@PooNinja And to you and yours as well, my friend.

[@nikkic36]

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

[@PooNinja]

@@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🤣.

[@Individual_two]

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.

[@timothysullysullivan2571]

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.

[@alecmvp]

Decided to get a pair of 8 inch monitors for my 25sq m living room (tv, music and movies) and they are simply amazing. Way better than anything labelled as hi-fi i listened to lately.

[@jessicaembers924]

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.

[@scottbernard8824]

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!

[@CheetahNL]

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?

[@scottbernard8824]

@@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]

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.

[@scottbernard8824]

@@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.

[@rabarebra]

@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!

[@RayRayRainman]

THANK YOU FOR EXPLAINING AND THANK YOU FOR THE COMMENTS FOR CONTEXTUALIZING EVERYTHING

[@polviggen]

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.

[@dougleydorite]

Exactly

[@borderm3]

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.

[@AshishGautam-v5y]

I think they are like Sport cars and Luxury Cars, sport cars are always technically better and capable but wouldn't be as enjoyable as a Rolls Royce

[@Laissez_Faire]

Studio monitors are used for mixing not for mastering just fyi. I’ve worked in recording studios and a mastering studio at soundworks in Toronto. Totally different uses.

[@kristhompson8112]

Been working in Pro Audio for 30 yrs plus, from years in the Post Production Studio editing room, to location Sound Recording capturing Audio out in the field with fancy super expensive mics. 20 years also doing Onsite Boardcasting Audio. In my Home Music Studio I'm a DynAudio Fanboy, an industry standard (granted mainly 4 TV land) . They are a little scooped, but mostly flat, and that's Important in the studio, so you can listen to them all day without major ear fatigue. If I was listening all day on say my CV's the horns alone would tear my ears apart. However I have an array of different studio monitoring systems for near-field and Far, My treated room is a little live at one end, but mostly accurate for my needs. When I started out in the business it was compulsory for a pro studio to have a reference pair of Yam NS-10's and access to say an Auratone mixcube when you deliberately want to collapse the stereo field down to a straight mono field and check for any phase issues etc. NS-10's were used as a way of gauging reproduction on an average to medium high home stereo and its colorization in that home environment, not because they were awesome monitors. EVERYTHING is a COMPROMISE and how it is mixed and translates out in the real world is what we want to understand in the studio. From surviving commercial radio , played-out on a tiny 1 inch mono speaker transistor radio sitting out in the garage while you work or your car, having been crushed to death with a broadcasting leveling compressor / limiter, to auditioning for a new pair of super high end Audiophile speakers in a highly treated room, driven by some gorgeous Valve / (Tube for our American folks) mono block amp with it adding all those lush even order harmonics on top . Some speakers will absolutely pop when listening to say 60's jazz recordings, but die on their arse with heavy rock music etc, Unfortunately as someone at the mixing desk you can NOT hope to be all things, to all people and you must compromise your mix. You are forced to average out , compress and frequency stake to make it commercial and sell records in most cases. So the answer is like a monitoring music on a muddy mp3 boombox, it is always going to be so subjective.

[@kwokcheungchow6736]

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.

[@lucasmirovski1003]

You can’t judge the sound of a speaker in a room that is not acoustically treated. Studio monitors are made for a balanced sound in a controlled environment, so people with proper training that spend 20+ years working on music, people that can hear the difference between 300-350-380hz in an instrument, people that can identify the fundamental frequencies of an instrument in a first listen, can make tiny decisions that can make or break a song. Hifi is so someone can pay a lot of money to hear a hyped sound in their boomy living rooms :)

[@gadget348]

By the definition you've just given almost nobody listening is going to perceive the tiny difference you've just tweaked to allegedly make or break the song, and given the wild difference acoustic treatment, placement of the speakers and even where you've sat made to what you hear, just stand up and sit down to get two different versions of the same room and speaker elevation, the only person hearing your creation as you intended is you sat in your special spot. Given a blind test of your best mix vs your second best in your own car could you identify which was which? If not I'd highly recommend concentrating on the musical performance itself instead, as everybody else is going to perceive a tonal performance utterly beyond your control.

[@lucasmirovski1003]

@@gadget348 you’re right, performance is always no1, but if your job is mixing or mastering (or anything in between like the extensive hours of editing required to achieve a professional result) you HAVE to care about all of these things. I have a great time listening to music on my earbuds too though, its fun. I wouldn’t however buy a very expensive (and pretentious) hifi sound system that simply cannot deliver the quality it has promised. If you want to burn money though, buy a pair of ATCs which is what the best mixing and mastering engineers use. It sounds amazing in the right room and surely kick any hifi’s ass.

[@tyczekp]

Are you saying there is no point spending money on high quality audio systems? The only advice I get from your comment is that I should be either listening to music on audio monitors you recommend (what should I drive them with?), Or I should listen on the cheapest gear I can get, because anything focused on quality is just overpriced, pretentious crap. Could you also explain what overpriced means please? Who decides how much should one spend on equipment?

[@lucasmirovski1003]

@@tyczekp Well you can buy whatever you want tbh, speakers are also a matter of taste, but without a good room is like buying a ferrari to go drive on a dirt road. Not everyone is gonna have the privilege of having all of that of course, but some people in the hifi world like to advertise speakers that cost waaaaay too much without giving the whole information to people (such as about acoustics and etc). So by all means, put whatever 30k pair of speakers in a reverby room, but i think is the role of people that know a bit about that to pass on the knowledge

[@tyczekp]

@@lucasmirovski1003 unfortunately the role of people who sell speakers is to sell speakers, just like the role of people who sell Ferraris is to sell cars, not roads. Some would argue that Supra, or even Miata is all you need to enjoy driving, others would laugh at Ferrari from behind the wheel of their Koenigsegg. While others will get an Opel, or Chrysler estate and will get from one place to the other with lots of stuff in the back. If anything is pretentious here, it is your comment.

[@fabriziodidomenico3149]

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.

[@davestagner]

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.

[@Andrey.Balandin]

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.

[@slytown]

A lot has changed in just the last 10 years or so. So many small audiophile bookshelf speakers are available now. The argument studio monitors are just the near field speaker doesn't apply anymore. In general, studio monitors are more accurate/transparent and have less soundstage because they are designed for listening to the speaker. When you buy small audiophile speakers for a small room, you are getting dangerously close to a studio listening experience. If you wanted a full live music experience, you wouldn't go to a person's bedroom. You would go to a music hall or theater. The other consideration is studio monitors are self powered, which also contributes to the small room usage. Studios have a lot of stuff in them. Very cumbersome to have giant towers plus preamps, amps, etc. in there. Also, these days you can use a DSP to EQ and change the speaker characteristics of a studio monitor to make it more for listening.

[@xonx209]

Is there a measurement to indicate how much better a particular hi-fi speaker sounds better than a studio montior?

[@ChristopherWoods]

Whether artists have them in their own homes ;)

[@eranliber5993]

No. You cant mix oranges with apples: both constallations have differerent purposes - the studio monitor tries (its never 100%) flat in sound, while what many people refer as "musicality" is simply a non flat response from a speaker that fits their own listening curve. Cant really judge wether a speaker is better than a monitor at all - the speaker has its own parameters that you look into as an audiophile - but never a one parameter that says "this is a good speaker". Its like defining how fast a car really goes by only judgimg by BHP - its not enough. While a monitor has a much closer single parameter that givea you an indication if ita any good - the frequency response graph - it has to be as close to flat reaponse as possible. Now, does that mean that you automatically adore a "really good" monitor or speaker by reading its parameters? Ofcourse not - our ears are different as well and we choose whats best for us with our ears and not math. Enclosing - speakers are not better than monitors and vice versa. Monitors are monitors - they monitor the work done in a studio and do not need to be sweet sounding the engineer, but correct to its needs. A hifi speaker has a different purpose - make the music sound just the way you want it.

[@sircharles7323]

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.

[@Laurentinio1]

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

[@keplers_dog]

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.

[@bochiebochie]

Because he needs to sell his speakers without competition from the much more affordable and fairly priced pro-audio.

[@josegallardos4265]

I heard that monitor speakers are mostly for short short distance listening positions, opposite to loudspeakers.

[@pbasswil]

Every studio monitor company I'm aware of emphasize the 'flatness' of their frequency response - i.e, what goes in as signal comes out very similarly as audio (at least, down to and up to its rolloff points in the sub bass and extreme highs). Does such flat response equate to _sterility,_ to an audiophile? If so, then which specific deviations from 'flat' are favored by audiophiles?? Is it the famous smiley curve/mid scoop that so many consumers like? Or is it something different?

[@fredbissnette3104]

the trick to mixing is reference mixes it doesnt matter what speakers you use as long as they can handle the basics well

[@Aakerman_Media]

Here are my thoughts on this whole argumentation of what speaker goes where and why. Maybe it is useful thoughts for someone looking to set up a 'not bedroom studio' ;-) : Many smaller studios (and hobbyists) gravitate to low-cost “studio monitors” because of budget constraints or marketing hype rather than true fidelity. And thats all fine and dandy as long as you are aware that you are sacrificing certain aspects like that: • A critical but sometimes overlooked factor is room treatment: without proper acoustic design, even expensive “studio monitors” or high-end audiophile speakers can underperform. • The design goals of near-field monitors and high-end audiophile speakers frequently overlap: accurate response, minimal distortion, and precise imaging. The differences often come down to marketing and user expectations. There is absolutely an argument for a reduction in room reflection with near-field speakers (monitors) and that SOME audiophile speakers (cheaper models) MIGHT try and colour the sound..., but that it is USUALLY not the case in the really high end 'real'? audiophile speakers...since those speakers (and the audiophiles that invest in those) are rather focused on being accurate/true to the recording...such as the musicians, producer, mix engineer and mastering process intended it to be. • Some professional engineers rely on a different playback systems (cheap monitors, headphones, reference-grade monitors, hi-fi speakers) to ensure that their mix translates well in various listening environments. • So in principle, nothing is stopping a well-treated studio from using the best high-end speakers for mixing and mastering. Budget and tradition is however often what dictate why many studios keep simpler/cheaper near-field monitors on hand. Or issues with room reflections/sound treatment. So... If you’re serious about high fidelity, invest in quality speakers (studio or audiophile) and treat your room properly. Otherwise just understand that your budget is what restrains you and probably will leave you constantly 'wanting' something else/more... yes 'GAS' is very real in all aspects of music ha ha. And always, always test the your mix on several systems (car stereo, earbuds, budget monitors) to make sure it sounds good everywhere... even for that audophile dude...it might be you? :-D . To recap above and the point I believe the video would benefit from in argumentation ; the near-field monitors would NOT necassarily be more detailed than other true audiophile speakers, in fact THAT IS the very point why audiophile speakers exist; so that the listening experience CAN benefit from all the glorious detail that has been so meticulously expressed by the mucisian, then recorded, mixed and mastered. So yes, near-field monitors have the benefit of reduction of room reflections and the existing time constraint for the airwaves to hit the studio persons ear, before any possible refelctions (still that is just a testament to the hard task of properly sound treat ANY room...) . (Remember sound treating is NOT same thing as sound proofing - they are two distinct separate tasks.) So I still see no strong argument for the hyped up discussion "that 'studio monitors' being any different from audiophile speakers". They should not be. What I would like to see though is the real discussion here, which is: Why is your studio not sound treated properly, or why you would choose a cheap pair of "studio monitors" when you can expect at least some of the listeners out there using equipment that surpasses your technical ability to mix your music properly for any situation? My take? I use audiophile speakers in the studio in 'near-mid-field-to-mid-field' position with enough space between them and to the back in the studio, combined with a pair dedicated near-field monitors for those types of music that my sound treated room might have issues with regarding reflections in certain frequencies. And I always listen to a very wide variety of music and sounds from jazz, opera, classics to heavy metal, trance, EDM or electronica) ...in studio as well as in my Hi-fi setup (and car or portable devices)... just to train my ear and always understand the differences and give the best effort in staying true to the mucisian from the moment of expression to how it is being consumed by the listener. I love high fidelity...but I also respect...most of my friends are not interested in that... ha ha. ;-) Go create!

[@joerama]

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).

[@IntoTheForest]

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.

[@AbsoluteFidelity]

Try Genelec 8361A.

[@Wizardofgosz]

Not all studio monitors are self powered, but they do seem to be getting to be the most popular these days.

[@Bootrosgali]

So even 8inch monitors and listening from 10 feet away is going to be a totally flawed music listening experience??

[@mrz80]

@@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?

[@wladers39]

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.

[@editorjuno]

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.

[@editorjuno]

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.

[@AudriusN]

" 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.

[@Rompler_Rocco]

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. 🙏👍

[@simongunkel7457]

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.

[@Rompler_Rocco]

@@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 🙏👍

[@simongunkel7457]

@@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.

[@mrz80]

"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.

[@moustachio334]

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.

[@robvanschoonderwalt9781]

I’m a recording/mix engineer… we use studio monitors to be able to analyze the sound we’re recording and mixing. If I were to use them for pleasure, so to speak, they would drive me mad because they “reveal” all inadequacies and flavors sound has. The good studio monitors make you work to make audio sound good, if that makes sense… you don’t want that at home… you want a somewhat polished sound to experience the music… You could also maybe argue that in the studio we listen to sound and at home we listen to music, if again that makes sense…

[@timburton7307]

20+ years working with Genelec monitors leaves me feeling that hifi systems are like someone's slipped an unwanted spoon of sugar in my coffee. Sure it's how many people like their coffee and that's cool, and it is certainly sweeter but just didn't taste right to me. That said I know my home setup plenty find 'dry'

[@HAL9007]

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.

[@veroman007]

Probably your best video yet. I would have appreciated a few more minutes on what makes the distinction regarding frequency response etc.

[@octaverecordsanddsdstudios1285]

Thanks. Perhaps that's what we'll do next so you can see what the real differences are.

[@soundman127]

@@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!

[@Paulmcgowanpsaudio]

@@soundman127 I would be happy to do my best to enlighten but can you be more specific about the question you'd like answered.

[@FullOnSessions]

I became an audio enthusiast as a teenager. I read all of the hi fi magazines and have owned many great audiophile speakers. I recently purchased a couple of inexpensive studio monitors and I have enjoyed them more than anything. The treble is laid back and the midrange is so neutral and defined. I look forward to turning them on everyday just to listen to anything. Everyone who claims to be an audiophile should get a set of monitors and have their eyes open to a new world of sound.

[@sk22ng]

My wife & I love our non-monitor high end speakers. Monitors are designed so that artists can hear themselves while they are performing.

[@techeteri]

B.S. Just get a pair of good monitors, even the cheap ones Eris 3.5 for 100 bucks or so and they sond better than most overpriced audiophile crap. And, the amplifiers are in the speakers and they connect bluetooth so you don't need other overpriced components.

[@TheBinaryWolf]

When I mix down or master a session in my studio, I use studio monitors, without which achieving balance is impossible. Through my Senheisser headphones, I hear sounds that not noticeable through speakers. Then I play a compressed copy (mp3) on my Bose SS system as well as on my phone. The Bose system boosts the low frequences. On my phone, the base line is hardly audible. So when producing music, I am completely in the dark about how others will hear my work through their equipment.

[@FugaziSB]

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

[@mvh2275]

KRK Rokit 5, JBL 4312C and Cerwin Vega LS10. These are the speakers I have in my room. They all sound great. The KRK’s and JBL’s are studio monitors. My favorite is the JBL’s however, when I really want to feel the bottom end I switch on the Cerwin Vega’s. My thoughts are some studio monitors are designed for a near field listening - like the KRK’s. Choose the right speaker for your listening environment. IMO studio monitors can be a great choice. My thoughts - Cheers

[@slam854]

My system uses JBL 4425 Studio Monitors and they are positioned so they Disappear leaving only the "sound stage". I am always shocked how good the system sounds.

[@elistowe8638]

Hi Paul, could you eloborate on why listening to music on studio monitors is flawed idea? You mentioned here that audiophile systems can bring music to life and provide a believable sound stage. Are you infering audiophile listeners typically prefer a different tonal balance to mixing/mastering engineers? Do you believe that audiophile systems can provide better localisation than mastering grade monitors? Many thanks for your time.

[@octaverecordsanddsdstudios1285]

Hi Eli. I think I would put it another way. A proper audiophile system offers the ultimate in soundstage and realism of the recorded music. It's what we as music lovers would like to hear in our homes. That sound/performance is not something that can be achieved using most studio monitors because they are designed for a different purpose. So, it has to be very difficult for a mix engineer to use a speaker that does not give the results desired if we're interested in a recording that has all the magic we as audiophiles look for. It makes much more sense to mix on the same speakers we want to eventually play it back on. And yes, the speakers are very different in the way they are voiced by the speaker designer.

[@elistowe8638]

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree here Paul. The idea that any system in a non purpose built acoustic environment such as a typical home could deliver the ultimate in soundstaging is inaccurate. Listeners may find your speakers aesthetically pleasing, however, a system with a non flat response delivering the ultimate in realism is a non sequitur.

[@rabarebra]

@@elistowe8638 Exactly!

[@namename1515]

@@elistowe8638 Agreed

[@peterallison5021]

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

[@deltasquared7777]

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.

[@sergeysmelnik]

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.

[@avsystem3142]

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.

[@sergeysmelnik]

@@avsystem3142 sorry everything you said is a bunch of hifi mumbo jumbo

[@avsystem3142]

@@sergeysmelnik I guess it does sound like mumbo jumbo if you don't understand the technical aspects, which you clearly don't.

[@sergeysmelnik]

@@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.

[@avsystem3142]

@@sergeysmelnik Holy crap! That is the worst case of verbal diarrhea I've ever seen on KZbin. 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.

[@awaken77]

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

[@gt4viking789]

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)

[@timfarney4770]

Yes, studio monitors are designed around specific parameters - detail and accuracy. High fidelity to the recording. The question is why would audiophile speakers be designed around anything else? If they soften the edges off mediocre recordings, they do the same with great ones. And the “re create the original event” argument is nonsense. The recording is the original event, the only event, the only thing there is to reproduce.

[@keithrichards4296]

'Translation' is the word. The most wanted studio monitors are the ones who have the best capabilities of translating the sound outside the studio, in the huge variety of speakers, sizes, conceptions, rooms/ambients (and their modes issues). They have to deliver a sound that an engineer can be exposed to hours and hours in front of, all day and night long, with minimum fatigue. They have to put in the engineer's face, all the nuances, changes, corrections, sculpting, transients, depth/image construction, to name only a few of the proprieties worked in a mix room. These speakers CAN NOT emphasize in any ways only a determined part of the spectrum over another. Well, they have to be clinical. Precise. That being said, it worths nothing to achieve a 'great mix' if it sounds 'great' only in your speakers. That's why 'Translation' is so important.

[@italianbirdvideos6190]

1:07: Paul, that's just not true. Studio monitor manufacturers would tell you they are absolutely different and are voiced for a flat response when mixing and mastering.

[@Rolegh]

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.

[@TheRealWindlePoons]

I subscribe to the ethos of "buy right, buy once". Always audition speakers before purchase: if you don't then be prepared to sell them on after a year or two. There is more difference between any two loudspeaker manufacturers' gear than any other HiFi component. It doesn't matter whether its a "HiFi" speaker or a "monitor" (controversial in this discussion but speakers are a very personal thing). The biggest difference in sound is likely to be how you install them - speaker position and room treatment are often overlooked. If you want to buy on recommendation then talk to a few musicians. Go to a live gig. Open mic nights are great because the musicians tend to sit in the audience and are consequently more approachable. Many musicians are not rich and own modest but great sounding HiFi.

[@petrstowasser7613]

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 ;-)

[@reverendcarter]

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

[@-IE_it_yourself]

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.

[@LelandPratt-nw9ix]

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.

[@williamcampbell3868]

I have noticed over the decades that a lot of high end home speakers have also been used as studio monitors.