What Speakers Do Audio Insiders Own?

Well I may qualify as one of those "audio insiders"... As a producer and engineer, I have recorded a number of Billboard top twenty songs, mostly in the pop and dance genres. (Reina, Jocelyn Enriquez, Kim Sozzi, Dee Robert, Mynt ...) I also produce a lot of alternative/underground rock.

The truth about the recording industry, from my perspective, is ... well, it's not as audiophile as it should be.

I would say that that most of my friends and peers with similar credentials go for speakers that sound really, really, good, but not "great" by audiophile standards. I myself use a pair of ATC SCM20SL's as my mainstay in the studio, along with Rogers Studio 1a's and Quad 12L's. But most audio engineers/producers that I know, and even the really famous ones whose setups I am familiar with, use speakers that are less than what we are used to debating about here on the 'Gon.

I believe that the main reason for this is that studio monitors, even more than sounding great, need to be TOUGH. They need to be able to handle a fader that you accidentally leaned on and turned up way too loud. A kick drum that you EQ'd way too much bass into, or a percussion instrument that you somehow accidentally added 12db of 10K to, without having the drivers go whizzing by your head on a weekly basis. So the majority of engineers and producers that I am aware of use speakers like Adams, Genelec, Dynaudio, Event, Mackie, and Tannoy. Speakers that are specifically made for the rigors of the recording studio. Many, many, MANY, still use the awful sounding Yamaha NS10M's - for over twenty years the industry standard reference. But I'll be damned - even though they lack imaging, depth, detail, and harmonic accuracy in a ridiculous way - if you can get it sounding good on those speakers it'll sound good (great!) on almost any other speaker! A friend of mine who is a successful producer, records and mixes exclusively over cheapo computer speakers. But when I play his mixes over my audiophile speakers they SING! If a producer "knows" his speakers, even if he is not hearing everything contained in the recording, he can artistically balance out the instruments, voices, timbres, and effects together over mediocre speakers so that the final product REALLY reproduces well over an audiophile system.

It is my opinion that most in my industry are still very ignorant of the detail, depth, imaging and accuracy of the audiophile speakers available to them. However it is also clear to me that those in my industry are far, far further along the path of audiophile awareness than the average lay person. Any fellow producer who comes to my studio comments on the superior sound of my system - not so with most friends and clients.

Although there are those producers that extoll the virtues of certain speakers in the $10K range and up - Westlake and ATC immediately come to mind ... they are the exception rather than the rule.

So to sum up, I would say that the phenomenal sound that you hear coming out of your Green Mountains, Wilson Watt Puppys, Von Schweikerts, Magnepans, Sonus Fabers, Audio Physics, etc., etc., etc., was recorded and mixed most of the time from speakers providing far, far, less resolution - but by people with an ear for painting an aural landscape and knowing how to make timbres, frequencies, and textures, work together really, really well - and in the end resulting in an even better acoustic product than the "audio insider" envisioned.

Of course there are those producers and engineers who DO know the high-end well and record and mix over those products, but I assure you that they are the exception in the industry.

And that's my 2 cents IMHO.

Steinway57, I completely understand your very logical point, but fortunately, I think that it is NOT the case - Phew!

To me it is like a photographer using an expensive large format camera with a fantastic lens and dirty viewfinder. He still can make all the lighting, contrast, relationship, and composition decisions - even if he is not seeing it at the best resolution. And in the end the resulting photograph - although it contains details not seen in the viewfinder - looks even better than what the photagrapher saw.

What often happens with these mixes is - if the engineer was competent - that when they are played on an audiophile system, there is more air around things and more three-dimensionality and details than the engineer was hearing. But I would say that the other things, like the amount of lo, mid, and hi frequency information, as well as the relative volumes and positions within the stereo spectrum are accurate, as studio monitors often reproduce these things well. What they largely don't seem to produce well is depth and the "palpability" of instruments - where a cello is just so harmonically rich, a saxaphone sounds like it's in the room with you, the surrounding reverb makes you feel like you are in the concert hall.

Of course it would be best if the engineer heard all these things the best that he could during mixdown so that he could further manipulate them to the best effect of the musical piece, but in most cases with popular music (I can't speak for classical), it is the photographer with the dirty viewfinder who "lucks out" that the end product is even better than imagined. A good example is the above post by Philnyc re: Tony Levin hearing things that he didn't know weren in his own mix.

Now there are exceptions with certain engineers, producers, and artists using the high-end stuff - but it is by far, far the exception rather than the rule.

Also let me point out though most engineers are fanatical about the recording process itself. Just like audiophiles give obsessive attention to speakers, amps, and the like, engineers OBSESS over microphones, cables, preamps, digital converters, sampling rates, signal path, etcetera. And that is why the good recordings sound that way.