Studio monitors Vs. Audiophile speakers

There's an often quoted misconception that studio monitors are better than high-end speakers or vice versa. And check out our newest KZbin channel / @octaverecordsanddsdst... Octave Records.

[@amdenis]

I know what you are trying to say, and I don’t mean to sound disparaging, but you are obviously not very familiar with mixing or mastering. We (professional mix/master eng) often employ a range of monitors at the console; often from low-fi (“crappier”- sounding) like Auratone/Avantone, to very analytical that we are familiar with and know how to master against like Dynaudio for example, and often some very revealing full range high quality monitors like Focal or Barefoot- to name just a few. Even with that range of transducers, we will often do additional checks like flipping channels, phase-checking/monoing-and even checking on some of the most popular listening devices (e.g. mobile phones, headphones and hifi grade speakers). Related to soundtracks to be used in movies and the like, we will often go from the mixing/control room to the screening room, where we employ speakers such as Martin Logans or the like). While I can say that we often look for accuracy and the ability to reveal phasing, dynamics, imaging and response/curve and related issues, we do that via: 1) monitoring near and/or mid-field, which IS an actual difference in how the studio monitors are designed to be used, verses mid to far for “audiophile grade” monitors. 2) we control room acoustics with absorptive, diffusive and related treatments, such as QRD diffusers and the like; 3) we use a consistent set of output devices and settings, rather than looking to flatter the output through typical home listening optimization methods 4) using self-powered studio monitors, with built-in amps that decrease potential variables (amps, wiring, etc), while simplifying low noise runs and placement flexibility. However, to say studio monitors do not produce audiophile grade output is simply quite wrong. However, like some of the most analytical and revealing audiophile transducers, they will show up issues and errors in the music’s recording process, which some home speakers may gloss over with sweetening in the form of eq. bumps, ambient resonance (kind of a bit like the speaker version of singing in a shower, but generally to a lesser extent. I have owned similarly critical and revealing “audiophile” monitors (e.g. KEF 105.4, B&W 802’s, etc) However, whether you listen to my Focal Trio monitors , Focal Clear headphones, Martin Logan ESL series magnetic planars or Sennheiser 650 headphones, you will likely find them full audiophile grade in their performance. Many also show up in top recording studios and are used regularly there. The most important two factors for studio transducers are: 1) they do not artificially “sweeten” the music; 2) that we, the recording, mixing/mastering engineer, are very familiar with the monitors (regardless of level of price or type- from small cheaper monitors to headphones of whatever type), in comparison to our mix targets (cars, homes, mobile devices), so we can mix appropriately. So, other than the typical near-field/mid-field requirement, the results can be equivalently audiophile grade- and I would argue that from an audio quality standpoint, the can and often are some of the most acoustically perfect sources that produce some the least fatiguing, most rewarding output, which I would, and typically do, put along side my audiophile monitors for reference. I hope this helps clarify a common perspective from the mixing side of things.

[@Lasse3]

At the end of the day, It's simply transducers in a box.. eg; a Tweeter and a Woofer, There are *No* differences here. The speakers featuring the flattest frequency response, and the widest dispersion is Inevitably the most suited speaker for listening, both during mixing, and during listening in your living room. In a perfect world, all loudspeakers featured a ruler-flat frequency response and equally flat off-axis response, in this perfect world what were being mixed in the studio would be exactly what the consumers heard in their living room. There is nothing else, this is not a matter of taste, and it's still a mystery to me why loudspeaker manufactures are not obliged to present SPL vs Freq and imp / phase measurements. Of cource then it would all come down to taste in Amps / DAC's / room treatment / room size / loudspeaker positioning etc etc. The irony is that people would in fact not be hearing the same thing as were heard in the studio' far from it, unless they had identical rooms, and identical speaker placement, and identical distance from sweetspot to the loudspeakers.. ! Even differences in loudspeaker cables 12AWG vs 15AWG / silver vs cobber, these things makes vast differences in timbre and weight/color of the sound.

[@billhuey8866]

Andrew Denis agreed. Genelec and Focal Trio are the best speakers I’ve ever heard. Audiophile systems are colored and aren’t suitable for the kinds of music I listen to or a broad range imo

[@ilovecops6255]

Wring. I have bneen arounfd hifi cvince 1970. I know a lot more than I am saying!

[@stevenewtons7873]

Would you recommend the Focal Alpha 65 in a hifi set up at 7 feet listening distance? Currently, I have the Kef Q300 near the wall which are nice, but the soundstage is behind the wall and not very deep. I cannot move the speakers closer to me or further from the wall.

[@amdenis]

@@stevenewtons7873 - what size room and what kind of music do you typically listen to?

[@ninethirtyone4264]

"Studio monitors are not good for high-end listening because they don't breathe life into the music" Is the answer from a salesman, not a speaker engineer.

[@willelliott5052]

You got that right.

[@Cxs1a3]

You took that personally

[@davidlane1169]

I agree with your statement there. We've used our Behringer Truth B2031As in all our systems for over 12 years now, one pair we've used & abused for 18. We also use a pair of Truth B3031As as well, we felt lucky to find & purchase a pair with those ultra high resolution 2" velocity ribbon transducers deluxe & the kevlar woofers. They also sound brittle, the titanium drivers on the Truth B2031As sound a great deal more solid, thus why the lower model did not shift to the supposed superior tweeter. My son, neighbors, friends & family jumped with us to Behringer Truths & not one has failed/been replaced, that's over 40 units between us all. They sound infinitely more audiophile than just about any brand we've ever tried & that's a whole bunch.

[@baronvonlichtenstein]

No even recording engineers agree. Studio monitors are not for home listening enjoyment.

[@davidlane1169]

@@baronvonlichtenstein depends on the gear. I use KRK Rokit 10-3 G-4s w/ an electronic crossover, a woofer, a subwoofer & three amps. Bullshit they don't sound full...

[@VoxInGoa]

And that is why I came up with the following thought some ten years ago after dealing with a couple of audiophiles - Audiophiles do not actually want HiFi - High Fidelity, they want HiFe - High Feeling. A completely different thing.

[@Frank55]

As a recording and mastering engineer for most of my life, I can't listen to 'consumer speakers', because everything sounds crappy. I am used to listening to speakers that let you hear _everything_ , if it's good it sounds good, if it is less than perfect, it sounds like nothing... I don't want a speaker to 'colour' the sound and make all sound material sound more or less the same. And yes, I have studio monitors in my living room!

[@NicB-Creations]

Frank55 I'm used to studio monitors as well and it's true, 90% of commercial speakers will instantly sound like crap to me. Either too dull, too harsh, hollow in the mids, boomy... you know what I mean. But since I'm also interested in speaker building I made a pair of small fullrange bipoles. One driver firing back to the wall and one forward on each speaker. While it's not something I would use for mixing they have a very pleasing 'live' sound..Probably in part to the reverb from the back firing drivers. And the mids have a certain clarity you don't get from a typical 2-way crossover speaker, as the crossover usually sits right in the vocal range causing a phase shift and an inconsistant response between tweeter and woofer. It's all very suble but very enjoyable for certain kinds of music.

[@yfung-zj6uj]

How can you live without imaging and soundstage? Tonality is not the only component to enjoying music.

[@gen-X-trader]

It depends on the source music. When you have a lot of ripped MP3s. Questionable CDs. Especially if you're into modern beats or trance. Having a speaker that has a certain tone to it is actually kind of nice. Dynaudio comes to mind. It's not a speaker I would personally call colored but there is a little bit of a sound to them that's different than a studio monitor. Personal preference I guess. Some of you guys that listen to master recordings and only classical or Jazz probably have completely different tastes

[@Canadian_Eh_I]

@Kyle V -- Absolutely agree on Dynaudio. And as a hobby musician who has fooled around with mastering myself, I would choose a speaker that was analytical and incredibly neutral to master on for obvious reasons, whereas I prefer a sound like the laidback atmospheric feeling that Dynaudio speakers give.

[@animalmuppetmonster664]

I have studio monitors in my living room too!!! , Alesis mkII, love it!!

[@TheTuubster]

Fun fact: Music is not only mastered for speakers, it is also mastered for ear/head phones and post processed replay by radio stations. A released music track is mastered to sound good in all these environments.

[@iterminator309]

In other words, a compromise?

[@Tibbon]

Another thing about studio monitors - most people are listening at a specific volume 8-10 hours a day (or more). Having a balance between accurate, revealing in problem spots, and non-fatiguing is pretty important. Few people are listening to their audiophile system 40-60 hours a week.

[@arodic]

It's important to note that studio speakers are usually listened in a special acoustic environment with minimal reverb and sound reflections. That's why they sound sterile in the studio.

[@lucretius3]

Wow, so much audiophile bunk!

[@laustinspeiss]

I’d never admit t being an audiophile, but I’m happy to admit that I’ve designed, engineered and used pro studios.

[@JodiCurtis]

Very disingenuous, hes disguising the truth, which is that monitors offer a flat response, and hifi speakers deliberately colour the audio for pleasurable listening, I don't know why he can't just say this, rather than wrap it in sales patter

[@2wrdr]

Well said.

[@saedabumokh9577]

flat response alone isn't enough to sound right, you need good damping, correct phase, dynamic range, linear movement, and possibly other factors.

[@42ssh]

You can't have a flat response loudspeaker in your room or studio. There is no such "flat response" in the real world, and this offers loudspeaker designers many options to design a loudspeaker. Loudspeakers are the worst component in the audio chain fidelity-wise, no matter it's a monitor or not. The no. 1 priority of a monitor loudspeaker is to reveal mistakes in the recording process. As long as you can hear it easily it can function well as a monitor. And no audiophile listens to recording to find out mistakes or what's wrong in it. Therefore it is not at all surprising that the consumer loudspeakers are designed with different priorities than monitors.

[@SweejitOfficial]

You could tune a $50 Logitech speakers to be "flat", they'd still sound shit and dull compared to proper speakers. Frequency response is far from the most important thing in audio reproduction.

[@Cujobob]

That isn’t accurate at all. The best ‘audiophile’ speakers have a flat response. Most well designed speakers have a flat response. What separates good speakers from bad ones are things like polar response, compression, level of detail retrieval, etc. Studio monitors are built for a different customer. They need a certain frequency response, have to be a certain size, and typically need more customization options to better make them work in weird spaces. Studios are typically well treated rooms whereas most homes are not.

[@dreamrealitysyndrome]

So when you say 'bring life' do you basically mean audiophile systems color the sound? Essentially they are not flat like studio monitors should be?

[@matthiasbaumbach9801]

He is taking his advertising job to seriously and states his taste as facts. I use studio monitors by KSD (A200 Mk2) and couldn't be happier with the sonic transparency, high resolution, deep bass and a musicality that deliver emotions.

[@matthiasbaumbach9801]

@@leafystreet9247 Everybody is free to believe what he or she believes in 🌠 I believe my ears and my dedicated sonic experiences.

[@ferrellms]

Having owned many audiophile speakers (BW, Acoustat, Advent, Rogers LS35A) as well as pro audio monitors - I loved my BW 805s to death. I got some 300 a pair powered Mackies for a bedroom studio. For yucks, I tried the Mackies in the living room. They blew the BWs away. I wonder how many high-end audiophiles have even heard a decent home studio setup with modern powered monitors. I now have Genelecs and Sonarworks room correction that sound much better to me than any stuff at any hi-end show that I have heard.

[@regdwight616]

Man I have Genelec's too. The 8040B's, I've been loving them for a year. Is it really true that Sonarworks room correction does make a huge difference? Would they work using a typical audiophile DAC like the Denafrip Ares I have or do they do their own DAC conversion? Thanks.

[@nabildanial00]

Which Mackies if I may ask?

[@lok777]

I want to get some rockit 10-3 G4's to try in my living room. JBL 305s perfect for my computer- want to try an svs sb2000 with the rockit 10s in my living room. Was thinking about getting an amp and passives etc but the studio shit is easier to put together and sounds better.

[@funkaholic1972]

@@regdwight616 I use 8030's with a subwoofer and added Sonarworks to the setup. For me it works really well, both for mixing and listening. It gives me a more balanced sound compared to how it sounds without the Sonarworks room correction. I had to get used to the sound though in the beginning, it took a while before I understood what it did with the sound of my system and started to really appreciate it.

[@keithrichards4296]

I don't blame you, 805S is a sh!t of a speaker. I strongly doubt you would prefer the Mackie over a Dynaudio Contour 20. Or even a Focus 160. I currently own a Dynaudio Contour 1.4 pair that makes any KRK, Yamaha or Genelec 8040 and Focal Solo6 speaker to sound like a toy.

[@lachopakapura]

Don't forget that The acoustics in the room affect the overall sound of the music....you can have a million dollar speaker set but if it's in a bad treated room it will sound but not sound great.

[@masterblaster2555]

Better use some DSP based room correction system, like from Dirac, Trinnov and more.

[@patrickalphenaar]

With affordable studio speakers like the Genelec 80’s series in a proper treated room you will be amazed with its sound. I heard 100k systems in untreated rooms and makes me even more proud having a 5k system/room including acoustics, sounding way way better. So totally agree with you. If a piano recording in phase, at is own doesnt give you GooseBumps something serious wrong!! Piano and Orchestra Music from Hollywood are my to go points setting up a room and system. If you have those sounding like very very realistic you are Really close. Cheers.

[@DC-js4gk]

@@masterblaster2555 Uh oh here we go. A buddy manufactures his own systems and gave a demo of his DSP-based systems to a hifi club. These audience was hardcore, most build themselves. Stony blank faces all around, around 200 guys average age 65. None of them were convinced of DSP for one second. But in his target market (under 45's) it's a thing. Apparently. He calls it real-world practicality. I call it a glorified graphic equalizer.

[@MonoLucas123]

Also this, acoustics is mostly ignored in audiophile fairy land. They place extremely expensive speakers in corners.... goddamn idiots.

[@guily6669]

Well as much as room acoustics change the end quality by A LOT, I actually like a non treated big empty room with a lot of glass all around and thin metal shelf with glass, even my old cheap creative 2.1 sounded like a concert with the small unpowered subwoofer everything was shaking like nuts amplifying the bass huge time LOL. And I was playing America's Army the true and only good one made on Unreal Engine from early 2000's which had nice sound effects and the cops went there thinking it was real :) Now in my house at my room sadly the same 2.1 speakers loose all the power because it gets absorbed by the bed, curtains, etc... While on the other house in the conditions mention above it's like adding an effect and sounds amazing, in games with nice effects explosions sound like BOOOOOOooooom instead of Boom :D

[@SpeakerBuilder]

I actually moved in the other direction, taking my home studio mixes up to my ultra clean home hifi system to listen to what might be missing in the mix. But the clarity of the recordings has much more to do with the quality of instruments, performance, microphones, preamps, and other recording hardware and software, and no so much to do with the quality of the studio monitors. Final thought: studio monitors are designed to help the engineer create a good balanced mix that will sound good in any system, and that's actually very, very hard to achieve.

[@probusexcogitatoris736]

"But the clarity of the recordings has much more to do with the quality of instruments, performance, microphones, preamps, and other recording hardware and software, and no so much to do with the quality of the studio monitors." The studio monitors are the most important tools to any sound engineer. It does not matter how good microphones, pre-amps and other equipment you have if you don't have studio monitors that suit you. A good mixer can actually save (or at least drastically improve) a surprising number of technically bad recordings. But, if you can't hear it, then you can't fix it or adjust it. It's true that some people manage to make good records with quite mediocre studio monitors, but these people really know their speakers and find ways to compensate for their flaws. You obviously don't need $10K monitors to make good mixes and having the most expensive monitors in the world is of little help if you don't know your speakers. Cross-referencing is of course also useful. Especially if you don't know your speakers all that well. But, there is a limit. If you have really bad studio monitors you are basically flying blind. There's just no way of getting food mixes with really bad studio monitors. Having good equipment in your studio is of course important, but I would say that the first thing to invest in when building your own home studio is a pair of decent studio monitors and really get to know them in and out. You don't need the really expensive high-end stuff, but you need some decent speakers.

[@SpeakerBuilder]

I am referring to professional recordings, and very likely they had good quality monitors to use, but more important as you say, they had a great set of ears to get the tracks and then the mix sounding great on most systems even many decades later. So the variability I hear in professional recordings will have much more to do with the quality of all the other links in the chain prior to the mix.

[@davidjenkins8449]

The room is the 1st priority because sound has to travel through it first to get to your ears. Next is the speakers then all the other stuff. Although I do like to think they all affect each other so I can justify paying for high end audio interfaces and speakers

[@probusexcogitatoris736]

+David Jenkins Well you can buy a good pair of headphones and completely eliminate the room problem. But that aside, the room is not necessarily the 1st priority. If the speakers are not good, then any treatment of the room will be completely in vain. A good room is usually a room that does not distort the sound. In reality though, it varies what your priorities are. If your room is absolutely terrible, then you will need to prioritize acoustic treatment. If the loudspeakers are bad then no amount of acoustic treatment will fix the problem and thus better speakers is your number one priority. Also, equalization can fix minor flaws of the room but it's way harder (and often impossible) to compensate the speakers by treating the room.

[@davidjenkins8449]

lol...cant argue about bad speakers.

[@peteanddrake4242]

I've never had studio monitors. But these explanations...this one included make ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE. That is not to say they are not true. But to say that a mastering engineer creates one thing that he never intends to hear...but wants you to hear differently on unknown systems of infinite combinations is insanity. The studio monitors are also what the artist listens to. This is sales doublespeak bullshit. I should know as I've been in sales 20 years and know BS when I hear it.

[@AFlyingCookieLOL]

You got it!

[@armelind]

Half way through I realized he wasnt going to really say anything but how great his speakers are.

[@bequickx]

I really wanted to be informed on the difference but he didn't say so.... Can any one really explain?

[@digitalxsca]

He is correct. I record classical instruments and studio monitor is not for enjoyment actually. I use to detect flaws on the recordings, and theres is no equalizer. Rather flat. Good to editing stage too.

[@digitalxsca]

Simon Matthews studio monitors are very flat sound. No bassy or treble enchanced. And they are pointed in a triangle, close range to the technnician, for music editing, recording and mixing. They are very crisp to detect flaws and such.

[@giottodiotto1]

The whole problem with speakers is that they sound different in every room... Back in the 70's a "good" hifi system would have included a Equalizer of some sort to adjust the tonality of the system to the music/room acoustics, somewhere during the 80's the Hifi maffia concluded that it was Bad for business since a lot of people would not upgrade their amps and speakers to better one (more expensive ones) but instead bought a equalizer to make a more pleased sound from their aging systems.... So the new mantra was to sell a amplifier without Any tone controls that would give a "direct path" and less distortion, the result was that at home the consumer wS no longer happy wit wat they heard, easy solution? Rush to the Hifi shop and buy a new set of preferable expensive speakers and gold plated "monstrous" cables, dealer happy, customer not so much....

[@nigelcarren]

Great point re equalisers mon ami! (I am old enough to remember), back then my $50 car system even had one on the fascia. 🏆

[@montauktimelord]

Equalisers may be able to flatten the in room (or car) response of a system, but they also add noise, harmonic and phase distortion.

[@Relayer6a]

And guess who came up with the "straight wire with gain" description for amplifier design? Mark Levinson. He was not only a hifi guru but, wait for it, a recording engineer. I spent some time with Mark at his home when he lived in Connecticut. I'll be the 1st to agree that Mark became a snake oil salesman. But he did and could design exceptional audio gear too. You just had to catch him when he wasn't simply out to make a buck.

[@daikuone]

montauktimelord Cheap equalizers yes, well made ones not so much. Most mixes are eq’ed with filters to make space in a mix for various instrument frequencies. So mix engineers apply EQ right from the start in tracking!

[@MrRajibbasak]

SOMEDAY THE AMPLIFIERS ( WITH BASS AND TREBLE CONTROLS) OF THE PAST WILL COME BACK, MUCH THE SAME WAY TUBE PREAMPS AND POWERAMPS HAVE ARRIVED AGAIN. NOT FORGETTING VIYNL RECORDS, WHOSE OBITUARY WAS WRITTEN AFTER THE ADVENT OF THE COMPACT DISK. THE AUDIO INDUSTRY IS CONSTANTLY TRYING TO FIGURE OUT SOMETHING NEW SO THEY CAN MINT MONEY BY SELLING THEM TO THE CUSTOMERS.

[@ElLocoBedoya]

Out if the three types of studio monitors, the far field (mains) are the ones that assimilate more to the HiFi mantra, even though there's no such thing as a true flat-sounding speaker; drivers, crossovers and room modes are the sand in your KY. Midfields are more akin to high end home theater bookshelves (genelec, focal, etc) and nearfields sole purpose is to be extremely clear in the mid-range, mostly dumping out of the picture all highs and lows (auratone, ns10, msp5). The real common problem on active studio monitors is their protection circuits in the amp stages. They act as multiband limiters and they will get in the way of your mixing environment if you try to get to a decent volume. Very common in genelec, focal, Dynaudio, and modern Yamahas and KRKs. Absent on msp5, E8 and older Tannoy models, and even though they are prone to blow drivers you get true Dynamics of of them.

[@Statist0815]

Audiophile loudspeakers are made to sound nice. The trooth is something different. If you know what instruments sound like, you will like studio monitors. I use Neumann KH310.

[@vinterbaereren]

love my kh310a

[@gotham61]

Wait a second. You worked for Giorgio Moroder at Musicland Studios in Munich? That a story I want to hear!

[@7071t6]

Giorgio Moroder is one of the best out there and i still have the first CD i brought,which was Midnight Express soundtrack and if you check the back of all the CD's you own you will see that most of them have a AAA recording and real good music is done via DDD which is digital to Digital to Digital full stop and to this day it still sounds the best, compared to basic CD's and even blue rays which are still only AAD or ADD recorded source material for the DVD and 5.1 sound?

[@dalefriesen7812]

Something to look forward to.

[@sonntagskind84]

Thats really amazing! :-) There is a track from DaftPunk which is with Giorgio where he tells something about his biography. Really amazing, that you were a part of it. kzbin.info/www/bejne/sJnPXnapZpKmfZY By the Way: The DaftPunk-Album "Random Access Memories" is a great recording (available in HiRes). Maybe its not your taste (musically), but for a loudspeaker-test its really really fine. Detailed heights, lots of created space, base that goes so damn deep. There are violins, whole orchestras, all mixed with electronic sounds. Give it a try, especially "Touch" ( kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZnjOmaKiZ7Zkpck ). If i would have the possibility to hear your system in musicroom one, "Touch" in HighRes would be a track i really want to listen to. Maybe you give it a try. :-)

[@gotham61]

Huh? Midnight Express came out in 1978 when pretty much all recording was analog. There is no such thing as an "AAA" CD. Some of the best recordings of all time were made before the digital era.

[@Lowerhaightstreet]

I dont read books, but I would read that one :)

[@supes323]

Music should sound like how the mastering engineer intended. Nothing more nothing less. B&W speakers that you refer to in your example is not widely used in studios as they do not sound natural. Studios tend to use ATC or PMC speakers which produce a natural balanced sound, not too dry or harsh. They only replicate what the studio mic’s had recorded. The speakers in your studio 1 probably do sound amazing however I bet they add a dimension and qualities which were not on the mastered recording. Its a bit like turning up the contrast to max on your tv at home. Looks great initially however after a while its tiresome. Try out a set of ATC speakers. However not every one likes them as they make bad recording sound....well..Bad.

[@antigen4]

a surprisingly small percentage of mid range studios use something so good

[@FeeLtheHertZ]

​@@antigen4 Because you don't "need' anything better, the rest is all fluff and superfluous marketing bullshit - with 90% of the sound quality being room controlled w/ treatment to get the proper controlled acoustics. And if you really learn good producing and your shit you'll learn anything can be produced on anything, you just gotta know the speaker. Yamaha NS10 for mastering, nuff said. Or some people who've made tracks on blown out speakers, or worse... much can even be done in your head if you know what DAW Plugin to use for a certain sound effect, but that's the extreme end of the example. You don't need Wilson Audio golden bricks to make anything exceptional, lol.

[@malakisands4669]

I just recently worked in a studio in NYC. The owner had a set of B&W 801, Genelec 1234a, Yamaha NS-10, Focal mid field, and Tannoy Reveal. The reason was to get the mix balanced. The console was a SSL, microphones was a vast variety for different artists and same with the Headphones. AKG, Sennhieser, Berydynamic, and Sony.

[@bilguana11]

The JBL 305MKIIs, with a Gallo sub, work great as my computer monitors. Also, Paul has a definite conflict of interest with this question.

[@MichelLinschoten]

Bill Crane as with most of his videos

[@ivane1168]

I've tested that active monitors yet. If my memory serves well, there is STA350BW class D IC and CS5341 ADC IC. The audio performances are really awful S/N -85db, THD = .5% kinda hello 1975 again )) 100% shameful product in my opinion.

[@rtlamb]

I'm sitting in front of a pair of JBL 305's with the matching JBL subwoofer to the side and I LOVE them! Buy what works for you!

[@SuperSlimsheedy]

I have those same speakers with a polk audio 12. They have insanely good sound stage and offer great sound. I watched this video kinda cringing at the fact that he think studio grade speakers are duller sounding

[@SuperSlimsheedy]

Ivan e1 a lot of audiophiles would definitely disagree with you. Those speakers blend into their surroundings quite well. Very great sound stage with nice highs and a well balanced midrange. You have to pair with a sub tho because a 5 inch driver on the front is obviously not good enough for a spacious room.

[@jeffcampanale3540]

Back in the 80's I worked at a studio in Hollywood, the #1 engineer had a cassette deck in the rack of effects. After he finished a recording, he would mix it down to 2 tracks onto the cassette and take it out to his car. I asked him why he did this, he said "if it sounds good on a car cassette stereo, it will sound good in your home" his point was, the studio monitors were to revealing for him.

[@ironcourt]

Just have to point a couple of things: Mastering speakers are different from monitors used for mixing, in fact many mastering engineers use hi-fi products (B&W 800 are quite common here) NS-10s from yamaha were not originally intended as studio monitors, they were just a crappy sounding hi-fi product. All that said, there are some monitors that sound better than other ones, i mean more pleaseant, more musical. A monitor is a good one when translates well.

[@AFlyingCookieLOL]

B&W are not great mastering speakers. End of story. Just because a studio uses them does NOT make them a great speaker. There are many other great studios that also do good mastering. Accuracy, dynamics and low distortion is what engineers are going for. B&Ws, for the price paid, much better can be had for a significantly lower price in studio or not.

[@ironcourt]

i'm not questioning if they're great or not, i'm just saying they're quite common in mastering studios. And the same could be for NS10 for mixing.

[@MarkIrwin02]

My problem with b&w is the sound feels like its pushing you not surounding and engulfing you. Not a place where can close your eyes and relax as if everything was live and in person. They sound very good but the style is not of my liking at all and the higher up you go the worse it gets. Have listened to their cheapest all the way up to their top of the line and after just a short time with the top of the line i told them to turn it off as it was like the speakers were trying beat the audio into me. A very unpleasant listening expierence for myself.

[@meshplates]

Thank you for the comment on translation.

[@timburton1080]

So you know when you stand in line at your favourite coffee shop and someone orders a vanilla almond milk latte with sugar? That's their taste, it "breathes life" into their coffee, and if that's what they like then great. Studio monitors for many are black coffee, and what you'd use to critically assess a roast or blend. Accurate, if not to taste for a generations brought up on an artificially sweetened diet.

[@juliansedor7101]

I love studio monitors for listening to music. They sound incredible. I've never listened to a loudspeaker system like Paul has, but I bet they're great too. I'm not interested in a 3.1, 5.1, 7.1, or whatever system I like stereo speakers with clarity and bass extension.

[@julianwest4030]

From what I understand, there are two types of monitors. One set that is super detailed, revealing and exciting. These would be things like Genelecs or Tannoys. The other set replicates cheaper, low end hi fi gear, like the Avitol cubes or Yamaha NS-10M's. Both have a very chowny and harsh mid-range. Especially the cubes. Those things are hard to listen over and don't sound pleasant at all.

[@jani0077]

nearfield and midfiled are two different categories for different purposes. Usually midfield are high-end speakers used for reference sound, nearfield are for exposing flaws in the recording.

[@pibroch]

Nearfields are also used to hear how things sound on crappy consumer speakers.

[@VDJ4500]

I absolutely love well produced music on my Dynaudio Core47.. and I absolutely despise listening bad recordings on these for It reveals it all (narrow sound-fields , distortions, pops, random noises, weird reverb tails.. it shows it all like under a microscope)... but maybe it all sounds just great on the "audiofile systems" hahaha.

[@jordanlewis3790]

I miss my old little yamaha studio monitors. They where nothing fancy but they knocked the socks off of everything else of that size. Plus they where active so suuper clean and simple set up with just dac that has volume control into them

[@Turboy65]

My own experiences with studio monitors and high end audio, as an owner of Aerial 10Ts which 20 years later are still incredible speakers, is that I've bought two sets of Alesis Monitor Ones and given them to friends and family as gifts. They are highly appreciated for their imaging, clarity, and flat, balanced frequency response down to their lower frequency limit. Studio monitors are a very good option for an audiophile on a budget. But they're going to be more analytical. That works for some people.

[@The.Home.Cinema.Engineer]

I know of a few Recording and Mastering studios that use Bowers and Wilkins, Wilson Audio, and PMC speakers. those companies are considered Hi End Audiophile speaker companies.

[@XxMETALJAREDxX]

C815richard Exactly. Abbey Road has B&W 800 Diamond series speakers for monitors.

[@lrrrruleroftheplanetomicro6881]

Well, it works both ways. PCM started and works in the studio space. Some Studio Midfield/Mains are great to listen to.

[@TheJPhutchins]

Mastering Studios use "audiophile" speakers for sure. ATC if they can afford it.

[@lrrrruleroftheplanetomicro6881]

Well, ATC is a pro company that also sells other color options than black to consumers.

[@Taffy84]

@@lrrrruleroftheplanetomicro6881 The one thing I don't like about my ATC speakers is that I chose cherry finish over black. In hindsight I prefer black. :)

[@draganantonijevic2441]

Studio monitors are tools and are often active. They are rarely for home use, but it sometimes happens (Harbeth, PMC, B&W 801 matrix in a days... etc.). (Sorry on English) Peace

[@CheetahNL]

So... studio monitors produce (close to) the same air pressure waves as entered electrically, but home speakers should add some extra distortion which is good? Because we are used to this distortion? When working in a B&O dealerships, very good speakers and CD-player were delivered to some old guy. He hated it, because he was used to muffled sound. We placed the speakers forward on his carpet. The sound was muffeld. He loved it. A friend of mine had dirty glasses. Once he cleaned it. He could see very clearly, but didn't like it and made it dirty again.

[@ewcho8995]

So should i buy studio monitors like the KRK Rokit 10/Kali IN-8 or hifi speakers like the Evo 4.2/SVS Ultra? So confusing

[@dat_chip]

I think audiophiles have different tastes. Most sound studios I've been in have had really good speakers that were actually very pleasant and musical to listen to. They were neutral, so they didn't favor one genre over another, but I just happen to like that a lot. Some audiophiles may go for speakers that emphasize certain things that fit the genres they usually listen to, and that makes sense. But I've met several audiophile people who's requirements pretty much matched what a sound engineer would ask for: Clarity, transparency and the ability to recreate the soundscape in a very three-dimensional way (which usually means the phase response has to be good, just like studio monitors should be).

[@Residentombraider1000]

Extreme audiophiles/fools and extreme vinyl enthusiasts are like Flat-earthers seriouslly :

[@djentlover]

Studio monitors are tools, hifi-systems are for entertainment

[@Gamez4eveR]

Interesting, as I use my HS7s + HS8S purely for music listening and I haven't heard many high end setups that I'd agree sound better. Only almost as good.

[@editorjuno]

I find listening to well-recorded music on my active studio monitors vastly entertaining. Their price-performance blows the whole "high-end" industry to smithereens -- e.g. PS Audio asks $600+ for their "entry-level" amp, that and the cost of a pair of modest two-way Elacs amount to much more than I paid for my three-way monitors, which perform much, much better.

[@nickbenke3306]

When I trained as a Studio Engineer, I was always told that studio monitors must be flat sounding. Maybe that's what Mr. Mcgowan means when he says Sterile? The confirmation was when I looked at a Yamaha NS-10 ( The once UK Standard Near field Monitor) it's frequency response was an inverted Fletcher Munsen curve, so the result would be a Flat response in relation the hearing parameters. But they would not sound so good as part of a home hi-fi.

[@dziis6s]

Thats correct. Studio monitors aim to flat freq. response and 0 distortion of any kind. The reason is to put out a track that has an universally working balance. Hi-fi system aims for "good" .. "big".. "lifelike" etc.. sound. The freq. response and distortion has to fit in certain tolerable range. This kind of freedom can easily damage a mix if used in studio but kicks monitor's ass when you want to just enjoy the music.

[@beeftheheat]

still have never heard an actual description of physical construction differences-many times heard philosophical/conceptual takes on different purposes. but how is that acheived? do they just tune up certain frequencies for home appreciation or...?

[@grmusic]

I emailed you this question a while ago. Thanks for the answer, now I know your opinion.

[@David-dj5kb]

Studio Monitors are designed to expose the flaws in a sound track. Also most monitors have a very narrow “sweet spot” and are meant to be listened at short distances. Where as most audiophile or HIFI speakers are designed to reveal details in a sound track in a pleasant way, they also usually have a large sweet spot and can be listened to from far away distances and have a large sound stage with 3D imaging. HIFI is meant for pleasant but detailed sound and monitors are meant for finding flaws in sound.

[@BruceRichardsonMusic]

Jeremy...Polk doesn't actually make a true studio monitor, though, so that label is misleading.

[@AFlyingCookieLOL]

A very vague and flawed statement

[@matesmolic-rocak757]

What a load of crap lol

[@synct]

Effectively what you are saying is that 'audiophile' speakers do the job of a mix engineer,even when that engineer hasn't done their job right... This is total shit I am afraid. When this dude starts throwing shade at B&W and starts coughing, I think he realised what he was doing... Tbh even just looking at the boxes these 'high end speakers' are made with, it's easy to tell not much R&D has gone in. First and last time I give psss audio my time. Let alone my cash LMFAO.

[@ttorden]

This. My studio monitors are not kind to music. It's much harder to make something sound nice on them compared to the living room stereo which I listen to for pleasure and sometimes use for reference. Studio monitors are made to give true representation and expose flaws. It's a completely different need / use compared to stereos that are basically made to give a good listening experience.

[@wyup]

The only problem with studio monitors is that many, as the genelecs, are near field. They can only be heard close and in center position. They don't open the sound or create soundstage. In a living room you can't use them. I don't know which sound I like, if true or customized. I've been in a studio and I would like to have that sound at home sometimes, but I like the way some rooms and speakers 'sound'. However, when I go see an orchestra, I have to squeeze my ear to separate the strands of instruments, I don't need to boost the bass or the treble, or forward vocals, I'm hearing the music as it is, amplified naturally by the venue. And this sound I think is more close to the studio, except the venue reverb. It may sound sterile, but it has all the info there.

[@TheSoundsnake]

My point of view: there’s not one type of studio monitor. Before I’m going to explain that, I’d like to make another point. I can be carried away by music when listening in a noisy car, to a vary basic car stereo with cassette tapes and a couple of broadband speakers in the doors. When listening to the same music on a high end system, I’ve experienced that the system makes an impression instead of the music, not so positive. Or, think of remastered very old recordings (e.g. Rachmaninov playing his 3rd piano concerto). Nothing high end, tons of noise and scratches, low dynamics. Beautiful. Back to the studio monitor. As a recording engineer you listen to multiple speakers, from very flat ones to esoteric high end. You train your ears as you need to know how the sound in your studio environment translates to the typical home system, high end stuff and unfortunately ear-plugs these days… A system at the very end of the spectrum (bone dry flat or high end), just makes it harder to hit the sweet spot, although it is not impossible. Another job in the studio is editing. You’re not so much interested in being carried away by the music, you just have to make inaudible edits, which requires a detailed sound, but not necessarily with tons of space and bass. It’s a plus when artifacts stand out. Studio’s do have multiple sets, usually. I generally use a pair of high quality near field monitors, but also have various other systems at hand. Personally I think high end speakers of the sort referenced here are kind of a substitute for an equalizer, which is of course forbidden in a high end environment. Nothing beats live music.

[@cp070476]

'I would not recommend buying a studio monitor if music and bringing life to music is your goal'.. I own a pair of ATC SCM 100's and when i close my eyes and listen the singer is stood in front of me... So i'd say that's bringing life to music..

[@ilpatongi]

That's not actually, that's soundstage and imaging. What Paul actually intended was that Studio Monitors are flat (or at least try to be) and that they don't emphatize anything in such a way that they could result in sounding boring, fatiguing or even bad, HiFi speakers aren't that concerned about absolute flatness, most of the companies actually tune the sound to be different from anything else, even if it compromises the true flat response

[@lextr3110]

Jeremy Clarkson it's the music producer, mixer,mastering engineer who decide what you should ear NOT the speaker or dac or amp... you are clueless

[@ilpatongi]

Maybe you should learn to read english because you clearly don't know anything about what I've just said nor your comment fits in any way shape or form

[@davidjenkins8449]

Lol quit flexing dude

[@davidjenkins8449]

So essentially audiophile speakers color the sound and have wider stereo field so it sounds more pleasing. That drives studio people crazy because they created the music or audio using studio monitors. The monitors being flat only means that you know a frequency isn't over hyped so you can make a good mixing decision. Using monitors to listen to music doesn't mean the music will be flat it just means all frequencies are represented. The flat terminology comes from the frequency response curve of the speaker after it was tested in an anechoic chamber. What audiophiles are right about is the stereo field. Hifi speakers have a wider stereo field in most cases. JBL has monitors that are suppose to have a wide stereo field (JBL 305).

[@ixfxi]

studio monitors are speakers. they can be used to listen to music.

[@Gamez4eveR]

HERESY!!!

[@mal2ksc]

Sure, but they're often optimized to work at a rather specific distance range and also a particular angle relative to the axis. My Tannoy SRM-12Bs do sound great for music, but they don't sound _warm._ My entertainment speakers are Sony SS-B3000 and those are warm and thumpy but not very precise. (Not bad for under $100 a pair though!) They're horrid for mixing, and I've tried just to see how bad it would be. But they _are_ less fatiguing for long stretches of non-critical listening, because they don't wave every piece of dirty linen in my face.

[@pete3198]

@@mal2ksc So are all speakers...in fact that's kinda how speakers work lol

[@FeeLtheHertZ]

@@Gamez4eveR BY KLIPSCH!!???

[@1WorldAroundYou]

I recently have been on an audiophile journey on KZbin. I'm afraid that if I buy a dac, preamps, amplifier, receiver, and speakers... That it will not sound that much better than my Krk Rokits studio monitors. Any advice?

[@willelliott5052]

I prefer studio monitors. I have only owned one pair of speakers that were not such. I want what the camera saw, not what photoshop did to it. In my dumb youth I bought all the audiophile marketing BS. Then I earned a BSEE, became an engr, and became an amateur musician, and saw how I had been misguided from my interests in the reproduction of music.

[@MrRoberacer]

Hey Paul. You do know that some of the top mastering studios use high end "audiophile" speakers ya? I can't remember where but one place has a set of Focal Grande Utopias, another uses Revell and I hear that Focal Sopra 2 is a very popular choice as well. That actually makes more sense to me in that in a studio I need to hear every little detail as an engineer. I need to hear distortion that you never will. At least that is the hope because if I miss it and you hear it that is gonna suck. The point of our job is to fix it before it goes to you because once you have it, it's forever there. What I have noticed is that typically speakers that have an ability to resolve more detail sound a little harsher and my guess is that is mostly because they are not hiding the deficiencies in the electronics. I read many comments from folks about how they didn't like a certain speaker because it was not smooth sounding. One of the things I noticed that happens with "hifi' speakers is some of them are rather dull sounding and although I have never measured them I am very certain if I took a shot of the frequency response they would definitely measure off in the top end. If it is a big section of the hearing range like 10-20K it wouldn't take much of a change for it to be obvious either. I feel like many manufacturers do that to "make their speakers better". That is how they made them sound "smoother". Psst, you could have done that yourself with the treble control and didn't need a fancy name badge on a pretty wood box to make it happen either. I feel it is kinda snakey though. Customer: "Oh my engine is knocking", mechanic:"turn the stereo up". To most "audiophiles" that seems acceptable to an audio engineer well, we would just call it what it is. I hear it all of the time "paper cones (or soft silk domes) are better for sound". This is only true if you don't need to hear all of the little nuances. Horses for courses? Of is it more about whether you take the blue or red pill?

[@MrRoberacer]

That sounded a little abrasive. Not that I am known for holding back but I feel like I might have coloured it off a bit. The IRS 5's have what we know in microphone tech as something like a bi-directional or figure of 8 polar patterns. With that their design intentionally uses the room to influence what the listener hears. For me, that is equivalent to running the signal through a reverb. The only difference is that the ones we typically use are digital representations and we can alter what they sound like as part of what they do. The space the speakers are in is what it is. As a purist, my issue with that is that literally what I am hearing might be room mode or it might be recording but I am not hearing what is on tape. I am hearing something affected and majorly altered. Maybe that is great some of the time but is it all of the time? One of my favourite tricks is the "dry" vocal thing. It puts the voice right in your face. Super intimate if it is done right. Your room thing would work against that. Of course, Oboes are rarely heard in that kind of context and would seem very out of place if they were. That said maybe I have a new mission. How do I creatively make that cool? You are seeing where I am going with this though. Hifi is almost like a word devised to mean literally anything can be touted as sounding better no matter what it sounds like. Whereas in studio there is not so much of a departure. Although if you listen to a Focal SM9 and then hear a PMC Two Two 8 they are nowhere near telling the same storey and both are considered to be in the upper echelon of studio monitors.

[@MrRoberacer]

I am not so sure I would so quickly fly the phase linearity flag on studio monitors. While I think that is more the case just like frequency response as I pointed before there is a lot of variant going on there still. I think the point is theoretically studio monitors aspire to be flat frequency response and phase linear where Hi-fi or non-commercial user marketed speakers aspire more to be pleasing. I think there are examples of both taking their aspirations way too far to the extreme. What I am really wondering is if I took an SM-9 and put a Sopra 2 beside it I wonder just how much of a departure there actually is. My guess is the Sopra is going to have lower frequency reproduction capability but the SM-9 would sound more tight and controlled. Appart from that I will bet they are actually really close. Of course, I chose a same manufacturer example here but if I chose the Revell for the hi-fi example I don't think it would be all that different of a comparison really as it would seem Revell still chase the same dream if you will. That said if we chose a speaker that used the room to generate reverb the studio monitors would be a complete departure. I guess for me the discussion is about how we feel about introducing processing to "enhance" the pre-recorded material. Whether it is done using an actual space or a digital representation of that does not change the fact that it is actually artificial to the source and then begs the question of where to draw the line in the sand as to what is a purposeful departure. Case in point is that the IRS 5's are touted as being "highly accurate"which illudes one to the notion that what you hear from them is very close to true to the source or "transparent". The thing is as a device that has a dispersion patter of a figure of 8 that is totally not possible unless one were to absorb all of the rear firing energy that those speakers ouput.

[@paulphilippart7395]

Yep agree there,flat response is more of an ideal as I should have put phase linear in the same space,the latter is often neglected,both have great importance in real reproduction.I have noticed that in a lot of studios often the acoustic damping has gone a bit too far (not talking about low end, that, most of them miss the mark),to the point the ambiance is oppressive,for me and a few other engineers ,we found if we have that balanced bit of liveliness to the room,its so much easier ,less tiring and so much easier to get the reverb,delay,ambiance balance to translate to the average system, the offshoot of that both types of monitors work well,of course that can all get shot if the artist wants a floating cascade of ambiance as part of their sound ,my gosh the wriggly things engineers have to put up with .

[@TheJPhutchins]

IMO distortion is the difference that can be heard and measured.

[@MrRoberacer]

Sorry do you mean the difference that we can generally hear between studio monitors and hifi speakers? I would agree but with the caveat that this is often true only because hifi speakers go out of their way to disguise that distortion and almost always at the cost of resolving detail. I would also like to point out that many people point their blame for the edgy sound of things at the speakers and never considered that their other equipment could be at that root. For instance I look at many people's hifi systems and see that they are running everything through a string of AD/DA converters before it gets to their speakers. Every time you convert between digital and analogue you loose bit depth and generate distortion. Every added time compounds the same issues exponentially. You can use paper and soft silk to hide that but as you are physically causing the drivers to smear the audio image you aren't gaining anything and actually only loosing. The solution in this case is to use the digital output of your CD player and go through the digital connections of your pre amp, then go from your pre-amp in digital to your DSP and then to your DA converter just before you hit your amp. One conversion. It isn't the speakers fault that you were generating distortion.

[@ProjectOverseer]

Once again, Paul you're confusing control room near fields with studio high end active mid fields used for reference monitoring. Saying that, high end near fields in a good control room can be a very accurate windows into a recording/mix, but they don't compare with their bigger brothers.

[@lrrrruleroftheplanetomicro6881]

I argree like totally.

[@lrrrruleroftheplanetomicro6881]

Stay civil. accounting for uncertainties is part of the scientific process. politicians selling fiction as fact seems the more urgent problem to me right now..

[@vietcong4u]

so generally said high sensitive speakers for far field and low sensitive speakers for near fields because it not so in the face of the listener ? haha.....

[@TheJPhutchins]

A lot of those "near fields" can do above 110 dB making them quite suitable for a range of applications.

[@ProjectOverseer]

Thomas Headley Not true. On high end near fields in a good control room rely on accuracy, imaging, depth, resolution ... Basically an accurate window into the recording being created. Mid fields (some are found in large control rooms that specialise in large ensembles, but modern thinking is to now use high end mid fields in treated listening rooms. These can cost £60k plus. I have nothing against well designed high end Hi-Fi speakers. Tecnically they are mid fields. My second system is passive with separate power/pre ... It sounds wonderful. My main setup is an active 3 way system. I enjoy its dynamics, resolution, 3D imaging and real bass extension. I love using high quality balanced XLR connections. Down sides: they're not kind to bad recordings. Can be costly, but do include excellent amps (one for bass, mid, and treble) with finely tuned electronic crossovers. So you can't really add separate power amps, though you can use a quality preamp. I'm thinking of upgrading my passive system after hearing some of the Focal range. Apparently some of the range will include Active monitors. There's a lot of cool stuff being developed at the moment. I might be biased because I worked as a sound engineer for a number of years in the past, and even today I own my own project studio, which I love. Some very well known musicians pay me visits from time to time, but I enjoy recording some of the very talented unknowns ... Useually acoustic instrumentation. I don't talk about "what" kit as many years have taught me the very subjective nature of such. We hear things differently. I like to think my ears/brain knows how to listen into a mix. I've heard some rubbish systems that many claim to love. Like I said, it can be very subjective.

[@DeadVidsUSA]

When I need to know exactly what's on my recordings, I'll listen to my studio monitors. I have them in different sizes and yes also they perform different functions. Broadcast for radio control rooms, video editing monitors for video sound, and larger mid fields for mixing and mastering. Often I'll use crummy blue tooth speakers just to check, if I'm mixing for that market. Point is that the monitors are far more revealing than audiophile speakers, only so that I can catch anything I don't want you to hear. Like noise and distortion so you can enjoy the recreation of the event instead.

[@laustinspeiss]

An important term to add here is - near field monitors, that mimic what a large part of the audience will probably hear.

[@johnlow544]

Thank you, Paul, for your very intelligent answers. Can I throw this one at you - do you need to own a foundry to make good speakers ? - I am thinking of K E F. Cheers, John M Low

[@antigen4]

not to throw a wrench in the works but MANY studios use 'audiophile' speakers for monitoring

[@michaelarthurmusic307]

I work as a recording studio engineer, have worked in mastering facilities, and own a very nice Meridian audio system at home. The job of a speaker is to turn voltage into sound waves, and all attempt to do so with as little distortion as possible. I listen to music on many types of speakers including computer speakers, bluetooth speakers, small bookshelf speakers etc. and all can work as "studio monitors" and "high-end speakers" perfectly well, if placed properly and used within the parameters they are designed to work within.

[@Sool101]

Mike Ohman good one. Some years ago, Sound on Sound did an article about what kind of speaker a particular, and apparently popular, mastering engineer used. It was a tiny little Sony ghetto blaster. Mind blown! He used extremely low volumes as well so that all the exaggerated frequencies would be the first ones to reveal themselves. It was not about that ghetto blaster at all, which was situated right behind him of all places. It was about him learning the flaws of that specific source and over the years adjusted his whole wotkflow around that. It's THAT simple.. (ish). Can't imagine how devastating it must be to have your 20 dollar ghetto blaster destroyed by an over active cleaning agency or something like that but that aside.

[@VERYVANITA]

We have a little 4inch transistor speaker in a 6 inch square plywood box run in mono , that we run final mixes through ,when it sounds good on that the mix is done , if you can hear all the instruments in balance .works wonders. cost$10.00

[@lauskanaal4260]

Reminds me of the story about John Fogerty of Creedence Clearwater Revival. When he was done mixing, he recorded the mix onto a cassette tape, ran to his car and listened to the cassette tape through his car audio. If that sounded all right the mixing was done.

[@_BangDroid_]

I'm only a hobbyist amateur artist/producer and I have found this to be the most help with _mastering._ Listening to a project on as wide a variety of sound sources as possible, laptop speakers, phones, in the car, friends car, variety of headphones, boom boxes and high end gear.

[@probusexcogitatoris736]

It's not just about the sound. When you are tracking or mixing in a studio environment you have to deal with uncompressed and unlimited signals often with fast transients that can blow out a delicate hi-fi speaker on a whim. Just like PA speakers, studio monitors are built for a specific purpose. Can you mix with speakers that are not purpose built studio monitors? Yes, of course. But, there is a reason why most professional sound engineers use purpose built studio monitors. You can hammer a nail with a random rock, but there is a reason people use actual hammers.

[@proteus1]

Abey Road Studios has B&W 800 Series hi-fi loudspeakers. They are Hi-fi speakers and are used as monitoring loudspeakers.

[@timcollins5985]

Hi Paul, what do believe are the best powered speakers under $500 in a turntable system with a decent preamp such as the shiit mani. I know your not a Klipsch fan, I’ve looked at the Audioengine A5+, Swans, Edifier s2000 and more. I will be using the Fluance RT84 turntable. My music choice is Jazz, Classical and soft rock. Thanks in advance.

[@noyb154]

Your entire argument is that studio monitors sound "sterile". You never really expanded technically on that purely subjective notion. I'm not convinced.

[@guily6669]

He also forgot to say almost every studio monitor will sound different, just because it's a studio monitor they aren't all a perfect line, but at least most likely will be better calibrated as close as possible...

[@AndyBHome]

Speakers are also built to be used in particular settings. Home HiFi speakers are made generally to be used in living room type settings, optimally large rooms with a mix of sound reflection, absorption and refraction. Studio monitors and monitors used in control and mixing booths are designed to be used closer and without much room interaction. So putting a studio monitor in your living room really wouldn't be much like listening in a studio. Near field monitors at a mixing console would be even less at home in a large living room, although at a desk in an office they probably wouldn't be bad, and of course some people use them exactly like that.

[@richw3215]

I personally use a pair of LSR 305's on my desk. I auditioned several sets of powered speakers before settling on near field monitors, they're far less fussy about room treatment and positioning. Place them at ear level, match the angles, and you're done.

[@TonyChamberlist]

Fascinating discussion. I'm just shy of 60 years old, and audio has been my career path since my late teens/early 20's. That career has morphed from the retail and wholesale of high end consumer products to live audio to the longest component...that of producer, and recording/mastering engineer. (I only say all of that to illustrate a somewhat rare perspective across a number of related disciplines). Discussions around studio monitors reveal many of the same superstitions that are around consumer speakers, especially with the explosion of home grown recording facilities and the vast array of very affordable peripherals to complement that burgeoning market. In that respect, I've found most (not all) competitively priced "studio monitors" actually sound more like their consumer brethren...they are voiced to deliver impact on the sales floor of a big box musical equipment retailer and as a result share the marketing philosophy of mass market audio. The prospective customer becomes more concerned with the transducer sounding "better" as opposed to more "right". "right" of course becomes the source of a quarrel... At the end of the day however, the issue boils down to a mix or mastering engineer coming up with a result that translates well across a wide range of playback hardware, which is no easy task these days, given the impossible array of hardware on the market. A good studio monitoring setup mimics a baseline...a place where we can agree that the sound of the recording is "all purpose good". For this to work, the monitoring equipment must be able to do a number of things well...deliver even frequency response on axis, high enough resolution so the mix/master engineer can identify the most nuanced components of a recording, and be rugged enough to endure and deliver the most dramatic dynamic swings without compressing or distorting. And...we haven't begun the discussion of the actual environment...the room which if poorly conceived will lay the most sophisticated equipment low. Consumer audio manufacturers have to contend with a number of different issues, even as they consider the performance of the product, they also consider aesthetics, and have the internal wrestling matches between a marketing department and an engineering department, which are always an exercise in competing priorities. The fact is, many consumer loudspeaker designs have been regularly pressed into professional service (the Energy 22 Pro Monitor), or professional designs have been domesticated (the Rogers LS3/5a) with excellent results going either way. Very early in my recording career, a colleague of mine based his excellent mixes on information delivered to his ears by a pair of Large Advents. They were problematic in terms of power handling, so he always kept spare tweeters handy, but as a recording tool, they worked out very well for him. In short, the designation "studio monitor" is more marketing exercise. The Yamaha NS10m is an example of a thoroughly disagreeable domestic product becoming a similarly disagreeable professional product...with one huge caveat. If you could sweat your mix to become listenable on these, you could almost guarantee that the mix translated very well across all ranges of listening hardware. When Paul talks about "bringing music to life" in a domestic environment, he is straying into the market-speak of an Amar Bose. From my perspective good audio is good audio because it adheres to a set of parameters that are scientifically established... Floyd Toole's work at Ottawa's NRC established a very successful Canadian loudspeaker industry, resulting in products (the aforementioned Energy 22 and the Camber 3.5 projects spring to mind) that checked off a number of boxes that to greater or lesser extent, satisfied both consumer and professional users. Anyways, I didn't want to draw any hard conclusions except to say that a number of consumer products can supply performance that can be better than acceptable in many professional applications, and so called "sterile" loudspeakers (I am uncomfortable with that value judgement...commitment to neutrality is not sterile) can be very satisfying in domestic applications. There's my 2 cents...for now.

[@MelissaTimea99]

I have my M-Audio studio speakers and I love them. Since I moved into an apartment alone, they get used for everything.

[@verdict1163]

Yes but why do monitors sound different from audiophile speakers?

[@Gregorovitch144]

Becasue people like Paul design speakers that, in his words, bring the music to life which is another way of saying make the music sound as good, enjoyable, and compelling as he can. This is NOT the same as accuracy. All domestic speakers, high end or low, good or bad, sound very different because every speaker designer has their own take on what makes a good, enjoyable and compelling sound. A mixing engineer needs to create the sound stage for a recording to work as well as possible on ALL speakers, or as close to all speakers as possible. To do that they have to work on shaping the frequency ranges occupied by each instrument and voice (EQ) to simulate clarity and definition , reverb and delays to simulate depth of field (front to back), stereo panning to position instruments and voices across the sound stage again for clarity and definition (side to side), and volume adjustements to each instrument and voice over the course of the recording so that all parts "cut through" but remain in balance. In short to make all the instruements "cut throug the mix", eliminate "mud" and simulate a believable sound stage such that most audio equipment will play it back sounding great (even if a bit different). To do that they need sonic accuracy and detail, not necessairly "good" sound per se, it's not the same thing. What makes great recording and mixing engineers great is their ability to craft a mix in what might be a pretty sterile, flat sonic environment that is going to sound fantastic played back not only on a pair of Paul's speakers, but a pair of anybody's speakers (given they are even half decent of course). They don't want to craft a mix specifically on or for Paul's speakers (for example) becasue they would be compensating and adjusting for what Paul does with his speakers to make them sound the way they do, compensations that might sound less than stellar on another guy's speakers. To avoid this flat and sterile is just the ticket. The favourite place to test out a mix is in the car. That's the acid test.

[@TheJPhutchins]

Truthfully, every speaker sounds different. In extreme example s a studio monitor may emphasize ugly ranges like 1-3kHz to provide the engineer with a sort of worst case scenario. More commonly the studio monitor is preoccupied with flat frequency response. Better, IMO, monitors are concerned with distortion and dispersion characteristics. Hi Fi may be more concerned with subjective considerations: distortion in the low s that adds some warmth o r a notch in response that gives an airy sound.

[@TheJPhutchins]

To others point: at the high end they are one and the same. Duntech BW PMC ATC etc

[@radiospank]

you said it, flat response is something most people do not comprehend. If you ever produced music and learn about frequencies and mixdowns etc., then you will understand why you don't want to have a colored speaker. I do not like the sound of any speaker 100% i always have to eq to get the desired sound. This is all too complicated for the avg consumer and this is why we need sales lol

[@island_dancer]

Frequency response is a bunch of bullshit really. How did they get flat +/- 3dB from 20hz to 20khz? By recording the sound of a pulse generator with a calibrated omni mic in an anechoic chamber in Switzerland? Yeah. The bass from your BM5s is still going to disappear when you move your head 2 inches to the left thanks to the funky room modes of your 4 x 4m untreated cardboard box bedroom in a dingy flat in deepest, darkest Harrow.

[@aabb5283]

Paul, you have some strange way of thinking. You can emulate non-perfect speakers with digital processing, but you can't emulate perfect speakers with digital processing without adding a lot of noise. Given that you can calibrate the room and use multiple channels for your speakers plus digital processing, the monitors (perfect reproduction) are better.

[@keithmoriyama5421]

Let's be serious here. Do you really think that the sound of a home system is superior to a $20. million professional installation? A studio monitor is a tool and as such multiple monitors are used along the process-- Large format for off the floor bed tracks, mid sized for mixing, near field for perspective comparison, mastering monitors, and finally high end consumer speakers for final product review. Also you are forgetting the one huge advantage that NO audiophile can compete with. Over one million dollars goes into architecturally designing and building a room AROUND the parameters of a specific monitor.

[@daveb40361]

Most, if not all, Yamaha-branded speakers, including Yamaha's studio monitors, are actually made by Eminence Speaker LLC, which is based in Eminence, KY and has factories in Eminence and in Dongguan, China. Long a boutique maker of speakers, Eminence is also the maker of many JBL-branded speakers as well as many other name brand speakers. Eminence was started in 1966 by Bob Gault and was originally intended to make speakers for Ampeg bass amps, which they still do. If you're ever in the Eminence area, a tour of the Eminence factory is very interesting and informative. As far as I have been able to determine, Eminence has been the sole manufacturer of speakers for the legendary Ampeg SVT, as well as the speakers for most other Ampeg amps.

[@funkolog]

studio monitors are focused on clear detailed sound. mostly designed to play on short distance, to an engineers chair. Audiophile speakers are rather about design and paint. their sound is more spacey and colored.

[@MichelLinschoten]

Abbey Road has B&W 800 Diamond series speakers for monitors, those are considered "audiophile" speakers. It completely destroys your narrow minded point really

[@rendypradita4902]

funkolog agreed , coloured vs uncoloured . nearfield vs listening room

[@williampeterman5048]

funkolog I love my jbl bookshelf speakers.

[@AFlyingCookieLOL]

Funkolog, do not generalize and group them all in the same bunch. Some are actually very good and are priced t a very reasonable level. As for the B&Ws they are poorly designed speakers that really don't sound great. Speakers in a "x" studio does not mean much because there are many other great studios around the world.

[@Gamez4eveR]

rendy pradita all speakers are "coloured"

[@Vfulncchl]

JBL LSR305’s disagree

*308

[@5698max]

Why?

[@puresesh7985]

@@5698max get some lsrs and listen.

[@bosh6604]

You mean they are great for mixing and listening? If so, pls tell me how youve set them up (i wanted to grow a pair :'D )

[@synct]

'Typically, studio monitors are chosen for their ability to give the recording and mastering engineer a specific set of parameters that they are interested in, that may not and probably don't line up with what we, as music lovers and listeners, are interested in'. Nice sales pitch, but you are basically relying on your client base not hearing full range PMC's or ATC's etc. Proper monitors in a matched room with matched amplification will utterly destroy any freestanding hi-fi speaker, easily and completely, 100% of the time.

[@vigd6298]

So what the purpose engineer need equalize and balancing sound in studio if at the end your listener just using colored audio system?

[@mattiasberge8460]

Wow, how enlightening! 6 minutes full of anecdotes. Studio monitors are used to produce the sound as closely to the recorded signal as possible. Not "bringing life" to music, in the forms of imaginary aspects which can't be measured. If you wan't imagination, go high end audio!

[@johnkristian]

You aren't actuallt answering the question. This is why I unsubscribed from your channel. You are an experienced man. But there is a lot you actually don't know a lot about, i.e studio monitors .... BUT YOU ANSWER ANYWAY. People here in the comments have better explanations for this than you do.

[@ilpatongi]

He gave his opinion, you don't need to be an asshole about it

[@clansman89]

He didn't answer anything. It's like I didn't have to watch the video at all and wasted 6 minutes expecting for a possible explanation that didn't come.

[@ilpatongi]

Honestly you're quite dumb if you can't figure it out on your own

[@SeattleScotty]

He absolutely answered the question. His explanation is that studio monitors and hi-fi audio equipment are *not* designed for the same purpose. The monitors are designed to provide a flat and balanced response, which is not the ideal for listening to music. Whether or not this matters much to you is subjective, but he's not wrong about that.

[@SeattleScotty]

Also it's a joke that a bunch of amateurs on KZbin think they know better than the man who has been doing it for 45 years. SMH expertise is worth nothing anymore apparently.

[@imantisocial3179]

im with you on this. ignore the nitpickers... whats your opinion about using monitors, and some eq to "bring out the life" when youre listening to music, and running them flat when recording, for those of us that only can afford one set of speakers to do both jobs?

[@LostBeetle]

So let me get this straight. The monitor's are flatter and more accurate. The audiophile speakers are then supposedly better because they add "color"? Well that's a fancy way of saying you are deviating away from a flat frequency response. So why do so many audiophiles hate using an EQ? There's no logic to this. I agree that for enjoyment you should just listen to what you enjoy most. But if you're going for accuracy you need to go flat. And flat means what it's supposed to sound like with no color added. You can use an EQ to make a flat speakers colored, or to make colored speakers flat.

[@Paulmcgowanpsaudio]

That's one way to look at it but unfortunately not correct. First, no speaker is flat. They all vary in FR by at least a few dB and for most, more. Where these frequency deviations occur is really the key to how a speaker sounds. By controlling the "colorations" (still staying within that 2dB window) we can make the speaker sound more natural and accurate to the real world. So, a pro monitor is +/-2B and an audiophile speaker is the same at +/-2dB. Same measurement in the big picture but both sound very different. Hope that helps.

[@wienerwoods]

Hahaha....ridiculous. I'm a musician. I make recordings, and for a time, was into the whole audiophile thing. It's essentially a religion - I bought some good speakers and headphones, and compared them to mediocre stuff, and basically, it all sounds like garbage compared to being a room with AN ACTUAL MUSICAL INSTRUMENT. Nothing comes close, no mater how good your microphone and recording equipment is, the media and bitrate (or god-forbid, analog) don't really matter until you go with very low quality. Hell, Kieth Richards recorded the iconic "Satisfaction" Rhythm guitar on a POS Panasonic cassette recorder, purposely overloading the mic by playing an acoustic guitar within inches of it as loud as he could. Some guitarists cut their speaker cones get a nasty raspy sound out of their amps. Everyone overdrives them, and tubes are loved because of they overlaod and break-up....distrotion is where it's at with pretty much all rock - and don't get me started with pop music. Jazz and classical demand a whole different approach, with flat, uncolored reproduction being king. But here's the thing with ALL of it: Your listening room acoustics will have a MUCH larger impact on the sound you hear than your speakers. MUCH bigger, assuming you have reasonably accurate speakers driven by reasonably accurate and well matched amplifiers and DACs. Entire chunks of frequency will simply disappear due to constructive and destructive wave interference and, resonance, reflectance. and absobtion. Some lower wavelengths simply wont fit in the average living room - they are too long and get clipped. So unless your wife is gonna let you create an acoustically isolated anechonic chamber out of your living room, you are screwed if you are after "accuracy". The most accurate reproduction you'll get, and the cheapest, is from a set of good headphones by Grado. Perfoming muscians use Shure in ear monitors with custom molded earpieces to protect their hearing while monitoring the mix. Don't like shit in r on your ears? Well, the only other way to easily eliminate room effects is near-field listening with speakers designed specifically for that purpose - like uh, studio monitors. A good audiophile system can be sonically impressive - but if you really love music, learn to play an instrument, and you'll develop a much better ear for tone and pitch than any audiophile geek, and you'll also learn music theory while developing a much deeper, broader appreciation for composition. If you stick with it long enough, you might even develop enough skill to PLAY your favorite music yourself - the ultimate analog reproduction technique of all. Otherwise, you don't need to spend more that $1k to get an audio system that is as good as anything out there when it comes to "fidelity"

[@erikpoephoofd]

this comment says it all, u the man

[@vladimirsemenyuk792]

> The most accurate reproduction you'll get, and the cheapest, is from a set of good headphones by Grado. After all these positive reviews of Grado, I bought the top of the line of Grado ones and was shocked by how wrong they reproduced the sound of piano. Actually, piano did not sound like a piano at all. I have a very trained ear (play by ear and used to tune/repair pianos). Continue using Sennheiser HD-580 and pretty happy with them.

[@arunashamal]

That is a very racist comment, What about music like Hip Hop? which is predominantly made by black artists, You are just telling them to learn an instrument when genres like hip hop use digital instrument and sampling...Are you saying they don't deserve to hear good quality music?

[@PanAmStyle]

Wiener Woods I’m spending a bit over $1K to get a really musical system and at the heart is a 2 watt tube amp. I’ll get back to you on the “god forbid analog” thing.

[@saintzsaintz]

@@arunashamal Racist.... Come on bro... get a f life seriously...

[@KosmicHRTRacingTeam]

B&W considered “sterile”? 🤔. I have heard them considered to be “revealing” or “dynamic” or even “bright” (with the wrong electronics) but never “sterile”. Interesting. If anything I’d consider many planar, silk dome tweeters or ribbons as sort of “sterile” but not in a “dark” sort of way.

[@Gamez4eveR]

Maybe I heard the wrong B&Ws, but I can only describe them as "warm" and "somewhat bland" Listened to 803s with Classe amps

[@xburgos1]

like we can all afford that lol

[@42ssh]

Their previous models with Kevlar cones are indeed bad. I dunno their latest models yet.

[@friedmule5403]

Hi Paul it is not always the easy questions! :-) It is really hard to explain the difference. I often say that the studio monitors are the tool to build and sculptor with. Where the home speakers are the one that displays the resulting art piece. Or like seeing the beauty in a construction site vs seeing it when it is finished.

[@zorancalic65]

you did not say what is the difference in sound? and what does mean sterile sound? and what is oposite to "sterile"?

[@blagdonboy11]

Studio Monitors for me

[@bluematrix5001]

Studio Monitors are REAL, and show flaws as well as the best stuff in the recording...... Audiophile speakers color and hype the sound giving you a fake illusion of music...

[@baronvonlimbourgh1716]

And that is exactly the way i like it. I like my food to be prepared the way i like it, not the way the cook wants it to be. And no i am not an audiofile, just a regular person with a couple of 20 euro no brand thrift store speakers and a big ass subwoofer. And that is exactly the way i like it ;)

[@hoof2k]

Not all. Sometimes you can get best of both worlds. And that's usually the norm with the super high-end.

[@CheetahNL]

With a studio monitor the sound is produced as it was created. Since they're flat, no distortion is added. If you do not use flat speakers, you're just adding distortion. Why is that a good thing? Let's say there is a great painting. You would like to have a copy in your home. Would you like an exact copy or do you want the copier to add 'warmth' and 'depth' and whatnot?

[@Paulmcgowanpsaudio]

Your logic sounds good but unfortunately, it's not realistic. No speaker is "flat" and no speaker is without distortion. Some are more flat than others, and some have less distortion than others, but without exception, speakers always have a sound and a character to them. Best I have ever seen is + or - 2dB which is a lot for electronics, but really good for speakers.

[@CheetahNL]

@@Paulmcgowanpsaudio But you agree that the perfect speaker should be flat? Because this would mean that monitor speakers, trying to be as flat as possible, are the closest to being perfect...

[@ColinEFisher]

A big difference between proper studio monitors and pretty much anything designed for consumer-use (from the very low-end to approaching and even including some audiophile end of the spectrum) is to do with how they handle un-mastered, highly dynamic and transient material. Specifically I'm referring to music that is not yet released, mixed or mastered. If you were to perform playback of highly dynamic (un-mastered) material on speakers where they've not been designed with adequate driver excursion (distance the driver moves in free-space) while being demanded to reproduce audio at high SPL's, it can potentially overheat amps (or prematurely blow fuses) and damage drivers and just 'stress' the system. You can also experience phenomena where you quickly exceed the speakers capabilities, causing all sorts of issues like band-limiting and pumping. Studio monitors are designed with this in mind so that they always have enough headroom, dynamic response and power to deliver a full response at playback levels.

[@ChristelloNervio]

He said: “Genelecs and Yamha NS10”. I’m like: that’s my set up in the bedroom!!! 😂 I’m an audio engineer and yes studio monitors for me! Cheers!!

[@JCW-jx6ld]

Bowers and Wilkins speakers and headphones ( particularly P9) are brilliant , ask a Bentley owner 🤗

[@SDsailor7]

I have a pair of JBL 4310 control monitors that where used in the recording studios back in the seventies.

[@andykim7890]

I’ve been pondering over this idea for a very long time. I’ve loved music all my life, I also listen to almost all different genre of music. I have a very decent 5.1 system in my 20x16 living room, including my DJ system which includes a mixer, two 12” PA speakers, and two 15” subs. When I play music on vinyl, trying out different genre, I am more satisfied with my DJ system than my audiophile set up. Not only because of the amount of sound, but being able to adjust sound using the mixer to my liking depending on the music I’m listening to. I’ve been thinking about upgrading my somewhat aged 5.1 system (for better sound and aesthetics), but its really hard to justify spending money to upgrade, if playing music was the main focus here. How do audiophiles deal with having only one signature sound from owning only one expensive system (I’m just a normal person who can’t afford to have 10 different brand and make speakers in my living room)?

[@bigpurple100]

bowers and wilkins anytime.

[@AFlyingCookieLOL]

NO

[@Gamez4eveR]

fucking soft/warm sounding garbage If you want English speakers, go for something actually good like MA or Spendor "oh but they use the 40 year old B&W speakers in stu--" nobody should ever give a fuck

[@vlrdngr4911]

To look at, but not to listen to.

[@MichelLinschoten]

You people are so hilarious, a woofer is a woofer a tweeter is a tweeter, no matter if it's in a "studio" packaged box or a audiophile bow tied box. Anything can be (within reasonable acceptable standards) use in a studio or in a home type of setting. Some of you pretend they had to reinvent the wheel, for studio use. The real reason why they use monitors in a studio is simply because they do not need more and it takes lot less space in a studio. That's it, nothing more or less....but keep pretending there is a huge magical unicorn difference between the two ..

[@kevinpetit9886]

This is a good video. I use genelec 1031a in the studio because I can hear detail that I cannot hear on home theater speakers. I use any system I can to check my mix on to see how it sounds on that system. It’s a balancing act. 😀

[@laustinspeiss]

A really big difference is that studio control rooms are tuned to be passive / dead. The speakers, amps and processors default to being as ‘flat’ as possible, then ‘the sound ‘ is added in to the engineers’s preferences. Everything... doors, windows, furnishings, consoles, panelling, bass traps etc are all designed ‘into’ the space. Even the various operating positions will have slightly different acoustics.

[@johnkibuuka7563]

Hello Paul, I'm Rex based in Uganda. I'm an upcoming Audio Producer but I have one question to ask. Can I eliminate a mixer in my home studio and still produce quality out put. How good is a USB Mic compared to the XLR Mic. I will highly appreciate your assistance because it will greatly help me improve my Output.

[@armelind]

I was hoping you would support my idea on how Studio monitors and Audiophile speakers are different but you didnt do it in the way I expected or hoped. But in a round about way you still did. You obviously are a salesman and are selling up your products. Something I have told people asking me the same question is that Audiophile and home stereo speakers are "tuned" to sound pleasing. They have qualities that (like you said) bring some music to life. Studio monitors tell the truth. Its actually what is heard in a near field setting. I use studio monitors for everything. I showed my dad one of his favorite albums in my studio monitor setup in my room. He was amazed at the sound. He doesnt use "audiophile grade" equipment but he loves good clear loud music. My monitors gave him a level of clarity he never heard before and he had heard that album for more than a decade on his own equipment.

[@aarvin1]

I beg to disagree. Being a mixing/engineer myself I find it incredibly pleasurable to listen to my main monitors because the speakers disappear, the micro details and realism is incredible plus the depth and sense of space is delicious to dive in 👌👌

[@caolanmaher5907]

what do you think of adam audio speakers?

[@aarvin1]

@@caolanmaher5907 I never tried Adam, but I own Focal and Neumann and they are great tools in the studio and I love listening to them too.

[@amdenis]

I know what he is trying to say, but the fact that he is using IRS Infinities (or trying to) in that far too small room for those units indicates that he knowledge of speakers is not the same as his understanding of signal path and related electronics design. Just as is the case with audiophile grade speakers, studio monitors vary widely. Some studio monitors and audiophile speakers are excellent for near field listening (typically within a few feet in an equilateral triangle arrangement), near-field/mid-field (near field config, plus several feet beyond) or mains (general room listening with a broader sweet spot, so a higher number of people can listen more readily in the control / tracking / monitoring / production / general listening room). Some monitors, such as the Focal Trio's or the Adam A77X for example (medium size 3-way designs with porting) are extremely musical and accurate, without being overly flattering. They are amazing to listen to for any use in a medium size room. Others, like the Yamaha HS8 are midrange predominate and are excellent for tracking and possibly only fair/okay for general listening, depending on the source content type and expectations of the listener. A few typical general assertions that tend to be true: 1) Most studio monitors today are amplified, to enable more consistent deployment results and interface more readily with typical monitoring/controllers and such. 2) Room acoustics typically have a much greater affect at moderate and higher listening levels than does the typical equalization bump of many audiophile/general listening speakers. In other words, the resultant frequency response at your ear generally varies much more because of room size, acoustical treatments and listening levels than it does because of speaker equalization and related design characteristics. 3) High-end speaker design often varies more, as do the audible results, than the typical difference between a good/average studio monitor verses an "audiophile" design. 4) Just as is the case with audiophile speakers, you should generally pay a lot more attention to speaker size (total air volume transversely affected at a given level) and frequency response (specifically matching to room size in terms of lower bass frequencies produced, so you are not producing too much at the low end), than you need to pay attention to whether it is designed for studio verses audiophile-- with the one exception being that you need to make sure that it can interface/connect with your amp/preamp/output control system(s).

[@spyware1100]

One iteresting question: Vintage bookshelf speakers are generally much bigger in box-size than modern speakers. Can these 150W RMS speakers sound as full and rich as those 40W twice the size old bookshelfs?

[@silvergitsurfer]

There is not necessarily a difference between studio and high end speakers. An example is PMC (Professional Monitor company) who do not distinguish between their home and studio speaker design philosophy, aside from the cabinet finishes.

[@chrissweetleaf7882]

Proper Audiofile speakers are ALSO Studio Monitors. I have a pair of Tannoy System 10's Passive, Tannoy System 8's (modified with internal amps), a Pair of Mackie HR 824's and JBL LSR 308's. The Tannoy's are by far the flatest sound of them all. Being duel concentric helps and the JBL's have a waveguide for a wide sweet spot. A good pair of active monitors are as good as separate amp'd passive system. Also in a studio we use a lot of acoustic treatment so that the listener (in this case the engineer) is getting nothing but the direct sound from the monitors with little to no reflections. In comparison however, the Bose 901's have 8 cones on the REAR of the speaker and only one on the front. The effect of this is to give more reflected sound than direct so that you can 'immerse yourself' when playing a 'live recording' as the speakers are mimicking the sound you hear at a live concert. So it really depends what you're listening to and what you want to hear...

[@TruthAndMoreTruth]

It seems like you're combining studio monitors with 'near field' studio monitors. Unlike home speakers, 'near field' monitors are placed exactly equal distance from the side walls (where possible), and the distance from monitor to listener's ears is the same as the distance between them. They are placed at ear level, and are designed to be listened to at a much closer range to block out reflections. Their purpose is to allow the engineer and producer to hear as much detail as possible, with a flat response. Many studios also feature full sized monitors to approximate high fidelity speakers, and small monitors to approximate portable listening devices (the famous Yamaha NS-10 monitors were originally used to approximate boom boxes, but their clarity made them widely used to check mixes). Consumer speakers are designed to fill the entire room with sound, and to sound pleasing.

[@wyliebrabson7946]

Loved the video! I always learn something new when I visit your channel! This video is definitely worthy of a part 2 to go even deeper into the subject. I've always wondered this question myself at times. I currently own a set of Yamaha HS8 monitors. I'd consider myself an artist as well as an audiophile. It gives me the ability to use these monitors full time for enjoyment (great for referencing) as well as for creation. I'm more interested to know exactly WHAT it is that makes these monitors I have, for instance, different than a audiophile type of speakers as far as the science/tech side of it. One thing I can say for these is the stereo image is spectacular (almost too good for movies/games) and they are very directive which would be a con for someone that wouldn't benefit from these how myself would in a creative environment.

[@victormedrano2316]

Hi Wylie, I have the HS7s but always used exclusive as home studio monitors, I wonder how'll they sound just for entertainment, your HS8, where do you drive them as "stand alone" speakers, what setup do you use? Cheers

[@Albee213]

I use a pair of beyerdynaimc studio headphones and they are by far the best sounding speakers/headphones I have ever heard and they are meant for mixing and master music. Really, there amazing.

[@jimgrill]

I think there are two important distinctions between studio monitors and other speakers that you overlooked. First, studio monitors are near field, they focus sound directly forward at short distances, and second, “translation”. We use studio monitors that force us to work harder to get great sound so that our mixes will “translate” better to all kinds of listening devices from lo-fi mobile devices and car stereos to high end audiophile systems. If we only mixed on “audiophile”, standard-range speakers we’d be missing a large part of our target audience. We have to be certain our mix sounds good to the average consumer as well.

[@jorgbornefeld1689]

I don't understand your logic. Studio monitors should be completely flat so that they reproduce the sound exactly in the most neutral way. They should repoduce the mastertape as it is meant to be reproduced, as it is meant to be recorded. It is the reference. The music should sound the way it sounds on the monitors because the recording master wanted, that it sounds exactly that way. And you audiophile people now argue that this is not the right way, music should sound? That is not logical, not at all! It only sounds well on audiophile speakers which are sounding completely different from studio monitors?? Where is the logic here? What are the parameters that makes a speaker to an audiophile speaker? Is it the frequency response? Does the curve has to have a special, audiophile shape? Is it the distorsion factor? Does it have to be bigger than that of a studio monitor to sound audiophile? Or is it something not measurable maybe? A kind of magic? A spirit? I wish you would explain a little bit more detailled why music that sounds like it's ment to sound, doesn't sound audiophile, because that is what you said in other words.

[@stevekelsey4829]

Lots of heat in these replies. A few years back my daughter got into LIPA in England. As she was going into the music profession she was advised and wanted to get a set of studio monitors for playing back her music. So we had a very interesting day in London listening to a whole range of studio monitors from Genelec , Yamaha etc. In the end she went for the Genelecs because they sounded sweeter. This was not a subtle difference. The Yamaha's were very clear but had a hardness to their presentation that made them fatiguing to listen to. The Genelecs had the clarity but without the 'edge' or 'cut' that had initially made the Yamaha's sound impressive. But hang on a minute, aren't all studio monitors are designed , built and calibrated to be 'flat' ? Yes they are, and despite that they all sound different. They sound as different as 'audiophile' speaker brands do from one another. Studio monitors are a tool to do a job, and they vary just as much as speakers for the home.

[@anotherintrospekt6596]

did you ever visit kenya? Thansks for the video.

[@i.george2321]

ok, but what about old audiophile systems vs new ones? besides decoding chips and digitally transmitted sound. has the likes of lets say denon or tannoy got any better? has technology improved analog sound since lets say the 80s ?

[@pdr5926]

I have compared some specs of high end vs studio monitors of the same brand and noticed less frequency response, specially on the bass end, and less sensitivity in the studio monitors.