Quested Studio Monitors would put a lot of high end speakers to shame,
They are just wooden boxes with drivers in them. You cant expect groundbreaking performance by using the same old technology.
Who says studio monitors are "cold and analytical"?
Who says studio monitors are "cold and analytical"? Does that mean audiophile speakers are warm/colored and distorted? If Studio Monitors main goal is low distortion, does that mean low distortion is not something audiophiles want? They want what, high distortion? "Pretty" sounding distortion? Or find pretty sounding speakers that make bad recordings sound really good? What is the point of searching out good recordings then? They won't sound as intended on a highly colored distorted speaker!
Showing 20 responses by kenjit
There is no such thing as a studio monitor. All speakers are just wooden boxes. The question is how the damn thing has been tuned. Studio monitors are tuned FLAT. Audiophile speakers have a downward tilt. End of story. As a result of this, so called studio monitors sound harsh. Audiophile speakers are much more accurate and true, as they are tuned more correctly. Studio monitors were designed by people that dont understand how sound works. It goes back to an age old debate that began in the 70s regarding the shape of the curve. There have been many ideas about the perfect shape. There is ruler flat, BBC dip, or other custom curves. Studio engineers and audiophiles are two different things. Audiophiles care about achieving the most realistic sound whereas audio engineers just want a flat speaker. Speakers marketed as studio monitors dont have lower distortion that is a myth. They do sound cold and analytical that is correct. |
Every speaker in existence has been tuned by the designer. Just like a piano needs to be tuned a speaker needs to be tuned also. What this involves is trying out different crossover topologies. You might do a fourth order or a 2nd order. You might aim for a flat response or a U shaped curve. The possibilities are endless. Diferent values of capacitors and inductors are then tried to fine tune the sound even more. This is not something that can be measured or calculated. It has to be done by ear until the correct values are found. The trouble is of course, the sound you get from a speaker depends on the room its placed in and the listeners hearing response. The yamaha ns10s are tuned with a peak in the mids and ZERO bass so sound horrific. Despite this they are regarded as reference speakers by studio professionals. This means the studio Pros dont understand what good sound is. Why would anybody bother using such cheap monitors as a reference? It is bizarre. Audiophile speakers are designed to sound good by people that care about good sound. Studio monitors are designed to sound bad so that mix engineers are forced to mix their recordings to sound as good as it can through these bad speakers. The theory is that these recordings will then sound good on everything. It is a bunch of hogwash and BS. Most studio monitors are rubbish for enjoyment. Both audiophiles and studio Pros agree on that at least. There are some speakers such as B&W nautilus that are marketed as both audiophile and studio speakers hence they are used by both sides of the market. |
According to discussions Ive read, Pro audio users do not want their speakers to sound good. If they sound good they are regarded as colored. They want their speakers to be accurate. As a result of this market need, the studio monitor industry was created in order to satisfy these needs. So these studio monitors are not designed by audiophiles or music lovers. They are done by engineers who have no understanding of music. They rely on measurements to guide their design along with user feedback, But since the studio pros themselves are not audiophiles, it is a case of the blind leading the blind. If you are a music lover, stay well away of these horrid and stupid studio monitors. Just get yourself a good speaker. Have it tuned and start enjoying your music. |
Its just WRONG. Dont be afraid to say it. There is no such thing as analytical. A speaker needs to reproduce the input signal. Either its right or wrong. Dont give me this hogwash about it being analytical or accurate or pleasing. I like to think in terms of is it RIGHT? or is it WRONG? |
Im not having it both ways. Youre just misinterpreting me. The term studio monitor is just marketing speak. As I stated earlier there is no such thing as a studio monitor. All speakers are made in the same way using the same parts. The only difference is the way they are tuned. That is one big reason some speakers sound the way they do. Now what I am saying is most of these speakers that are labelled as studio monitors, are in fact tuned excessively flat. As we all know this is WRONG. Some speaker companies like ATC or PMC dont fit the mould because they have a foot in both camps. One in the audiophile market and the other in the Pro audio market. So THEY are the ones having it both ways not me.
That is because 1) they have a foot in both camps and 2) No company would criticize their own products would they? If you want a less biased opinion you would need to see posts like this from audiosciencereview. Here is one post about those horrendous ATC speakers: I’ve seen measurements for four ATC models, ranging from cheap to expensive. All measured poorly. Taken from here: So in conclusion he found that the ATC not only measured poorly despite being so called studio monitors but also sounded horrific. I can also attest to that too. I have heard ATC and not been impressed. They are WRONG. Just trust me. The Master has spoken. |
Which only proves how ignorant and clueless most audiophiles and mix engineers are. Its all marketing and these studio pros buy right into it. Studio monitors are not designed for pleasure. Why is that so hard to understand? The studio monitor market was born out of the needs of studio engineers for speakers that were different to hifi monitors. The market responded by producing these studio monitors. They were not made by audiophiles for audiophiles. They were done by engineers who had no understanding of music or desire to create musical pleasure. When you buy a studio monitor the focus will always be on specs rather than sound quality. As I have just stated it is the blind leading the blind. If you ever point out to a studio engineer how bad their monitors sound they will shrug their shoulders and tell you they are not supposed to sound good but they are supposed to be truthful. It is this ignorant and wrong attitude which has driven the marketplace for these hideous studio monitors.
You were the one that invoked the testimonial of an ATC engineer to try to support your contention about how great ATC are. Isnt that biased and lame too?
The market is wrong and so are you. Studio engineers endorse every single studio monitor on the market and they usually own and use several pairs of different speakers. They are so ignorant that they cant even figure out which monitor is correct or not. We cannot rely on the endorsements of these so called studio pros to decide how successful a speaker company is.
No they cant. Why dont High end audiophile stores sell Yamaha Ns10s? or genelec alongside their Magicos or sonus faber? Maybe because they just dont sound good? Why dont studio engineers use Magico or Wilson or Yg or B&W nautilus? Because they think they are colored and are ignorant thats why. If all speakers were equally suited to hifi or pro use, then there would be no division of the marketplace into hifi and pro audio sectors. You are wrong.
Most of ’em do. Any data regarding sound quality will be anecdotal. I consider myself a great audiophile. That alone is a compelling reason to believe my assertions. Just trust me I know what I’m talking about.
It was intended to be a broad statement and there will be exceptions. I never denied that. But the statement still holds true. |
Its important to remember that most musicians and mix engineers are NOT audiophiles. They neither belong in our world or understand it. Most singers, musicians and artists do not own audiophile equipment they know nothing about what we do. This is the reason studio monitors can be so different than audiophile type speakers. Studio monitors are designed to fulfill different criteria. Often these studio monitors are placed in huge rooms. If so you need big 18 inch woofers and 10 inch mids with massive horn tweeters. Polar response is less of a concern for studio monitors since the room is assumed to be treated. Musicians like their speakers to go loud. Its quantity over quality. They often spend years performing on stage where their ears have been punished by excessive sound levels to the point where they wouldnt know audiophile sound if it hit them in the face. Consequently studio type monitors are not suited to the delicate and refined tastes of most audiophiles. Mastering studios are where you are more likely than not to find these audiophile type speakers such as TAD, B&W etc ATC is another speaker that was born out of the need for speakers to go loud in a studio environment. Furthermore, they know nothing about speaker design since they started off as a driver manufacturer. Unsurprisingly, ATC speakers are mostly wooden boxes although they have been known to occasionally use metal. They also rely on testimonials from people like Brad, than measured performance to sell their wares. ATC is a marketing company. Neumann monitors do publish fairly detailed technical specifications and measurments. However their speakers are tuned ruler flat which is not suitable for home use. The Neumann use multi drivers in wooden boxes so will suffer from all their inherent problems such as lobing diffraction cabinet resonances and back end distortion. There is no substitute for testing a speaker than using a human being with refined hearing such as myself. If I was in charge, 99% of these speakers probably would not pass my intense standards. No speaker company will employ someone like me because none of their speakers would ever be good enough. |
There are obviously many kinds of speakers out there that could be called studio monitors. There are nearfield midfield and main monitors. The far field monitors do use massive horns and 18 inch drivers. Look at any picture of a studio and you will see them soffit mounted. The smaller nearfield ones are used by musicians for producing or composing music. They are also used for mixing. Often they are active and thesedays its class D. Sound quality is not the priority. Nearfields also need to be tuned differently than for hifi since the listening distance and environment are different. All of this is generally true but there will be exceptions. The main priority of a speaker designer that is designing a studio monitor is to achieve a flat response. Whether this is achieved in practice or not that is the priority. On the other hand, a hifi speaker is designed purely for listening pleasure. That is why you are unlikely to enjoy using a studio monitor for pleasure. I have already listed a number of studio monitors which advertize how flat their response is. All the innovations in improving sound quality come from the hifi sector. The studio market has nothing to offer. Look at the cabinet work of hifi versus studio monitors. Studio monitors are just plain old wooden boxes. In the hifi world we have companies like Magico that push the envelope of the state of the art. You have been warned. |
That is a big RED FLAG when you have a speaker which makes 75% of your music sound bad, I dont regard that as a good design. In my experience, I have found that tracks which I thought were wrong or badly done, were always due to the speaker. Once the speakers had been retuned, I could appreciate the recording quality. Most speakers can only play a few tracks and sound good. A good speaker will play every track and 99% should sound good. There is no such thing as a bad recording. |
ATC are known for their dome mid driver. This is what they are most famous for and supposedly this dome has magical properties. The idea of splitting the signal into parts has the advantage of being able to deisgn drivers which are optimized to reproduce the frequencies they cover. However as with all speakers that use multiple drivers, splitting the signal into parts requires the parts to be summed up again using a crossover. The result will never be as good as if the signal had remained undivided to begin with. It takes GOLDEN EARS to really hear these deficiencies. I’ve not heard or read anybody speak about this so it can only be assumed that 99% of audiophiles aren’t good enough to really identify these flaws. I have been to speaker demonstrations where the speeakers were wired up out of phase to each other. Apparently I noticed it immediately whereas the guys doing the demo couldnt hear it. It was both laughable and shocking at the same time and goes to show how even flagrant mistakes can go unnoticed. I did once hear the ATC SCM25. I heard no magic going on in the mids. In fact I was not impressed with what I heard overall. heres a post from a ATC SCM25 user https://gearspace.com/board/high-end/976060-atc-scm25a-revealing-just-wrong.html
|
Because some speakers are horrible and it doesnt matter how good the mixing and mastering is on the recording, if the speakers are not good.
was wrong with the mids and highs? |
Most commercial pop records have levels that are clipping and the artists dont care. All they want is the loudest mix so that it stands out. Quantity over quality. These pop recordings are enjoyed by millions of people on their ear buds or phones or laptops. Sound quality does not enter the equation. As long as it sells its considered a success. Most artists and musicians are not audiophiles. Ive said this before. They do not belong in our world nor do they understand it. Studio monitors are tuned in a certain way to focus in on certain areas of the mix. The NS10 is tuned to the mids. ATC are also similar in that respect. That is why every monitor sounds different. An audiophile speaker is designed for pleasure only. If mix engineers wanted to use audiophile speakers they would. But they dont want a good sounding speaker they want a bad sounding one. Hence the emergence of the studio monitor market. If ATC were that good they would be the only choice. But there are dozens of monitors on the market and every engineer uses multiple monitors because each monitor is tuned to different parts of the spectrum. Theres plenty of complaints about ATC online you just need to do your research. |
It would be a marvel if it was a 1 inch dome and could go down to 400hz. Unfortunately it cant so its wrong. And because its wrong, you need to add another damn tweeter to it to extend its response. Its just an inferior solution passed off as a marvel. |
Flat speakers dont sound good to most folks with normal hearing. If your ears already have a dip in response in the mids then flat might sound better to you. The NS10s arent flat. Nowhere near it. I've seen many other studio monitors that are not flat either. Studio monitors are for people that enjoy reading specs and measurements. For most audiophiles we care more about how it sounds so buying a studio monitor would be a mistake. I'd say make flat speakers illegal and make custom tuning the law! |
If studio speakers were references they would all sound the same but they dont. They are all tuned differently just like with regular speakers. It is just a marketing term. Genelec is a heavily measurement oriented company. The problem is measurements alone dont tell you everything. Thats why you need golden eared masters to come along and listen to the damn thing and tune it by ear. You have admitted yourself that the genelecs dont sound right. Neither your paradigm or genelec are correct. So stop deceiving yourself and continue searching for PERFECT sound. It is a lifelong journey dont be so naive. |
Just throw your speakers away and use headphones if you think that
|