Who says studio monitors are "cold and analytical"?

kenjit

Its important to remember that most musicians and mix engineers are NOT audiophiles. They neither belong in our world or understand it.

I'm grateful that you're not the one who decides who belongs our little audio world.

I imagine he's about half way through that bottle by now.

All this stuff you write above is completely wrong- I work in the industry and none of it is true. 18 inch woofers and 10 inch midranges with massive horn tweeters-what a dumb thing to say. NO ONE uses anything like that to track or mix anymore and hasn’t for 20+ years= probably since the last Poison record.

Monitors are NOT in huge rooms, they are small control rooms about the size of a living room or listening room at home. The only big rooms left are used for tracking a film score. This kind of dumb stuff you write lets everyone know you are using a magazine article from 1975 as if it were true today.

NO, he's finished the bottle and is on to the hard stuff.

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. 

Coming up on two decades of designing, managing the development of, and marketing professional speakers for a variety or end markets including studio. Thank you @lonemountain ​​​​@fair for bringing some sense of reality to this dumpster fire.

• Present market is "studio" speakers are flat on axis and controlled dispersion and low distortion. Two reasons for that. One is we can do a pretty good job on those metrics at almost any cost now. Two is it allows a reference. Less guessing about the source of a sound when you are working.
• Home speakers can have intentional non flat response. Call it a house sound. Some are poor off axis by today's standards.
• "Studio" speakers can sound amazing in a home. Like all speakers the room is the variable.
• Many pro sound people don't talk about distortion, frequency response, etc. because for whatever training they may have they are still pretty illiterate about audio. 
• Audio is more illiterate and wild west than movies and TV where the concept of a reference is ingrained. That ingrained reference forces education.
• Software to simulate cheaper speakers, different environments, etc. is starting to be used. For that to work you need to start with a low distortion reference.

SERENITY NOW!  SERENITY NOW!  I'll sidestep the toxic vortex of the Castanza clan.  But thank you for the glimpse into a dysphoric existence.  I already feel better about myself, flawed as my life may be.

We all appreciate the positive constructive insights most contribute to this open forum.  I've gleaned knowledge about several subjects.  For that, thank you.

One last time kenjit

These far field monitors you see in photos are used to impress the talent, not to mix or track.  They were usually built in with the studio, which was often built 30-40 years ago.  In the rare case when the farfields are good enough, such as ATC or sometimes PMC, you will find some studios using them for mixing- but it's rare.  Blackbird, UMG, Spotify are a few that come to mind that have such far fields you can mix on.  

The near field is the way mixing is done 99% of the time now and has been since engineers had to travel to work in many different studios, not park themselves in just one.  The near field idea was simple, don't create so much energy that reflections dominate the sound, sit close to them and you can get a pretty consistent sound in many different rooms that way.   The purpose of a nearfield monitor is NOT to be flat, it's to achieve translation and to identify errors in balance and/or details.  It so happens that being flat, low distortion and consistent off axis is the best way to get that translation and identify errors.  

Nearfield are very similar to what people use at home and near field principles can can be quite useful to the home user.  The principle is to sit close, increase the ratio  of direct vs reflected sound.  It's easy to test this in any room- get yourself in a 3 foot triangle and see.   Most people complain about speaker sound are really complaining about what the room does to the speaker.   Its a room demo, not a speaker demo. 

Certain types of studio monitors (NS10s, Auratones) or older ones with big smiley curves in them (JBL 4311's, etc) are not suitable for home and aren't really a good example of what the modern studio "monitors" look like/sound like anymore, this is the past.  Most top level mixers have moved on long ago to ATC 25s or 45s or maybe barefoot or PMC - something that can accomplish dynamics and identify errors better.  These speakers sound very good to most of us and are suitable for home (ATC's home version of the 25 is the SCM40; PMC has their equivalents also).  In reverse, most hi fi speakers have too limited dynamics as drivers are not built for high heat.  Some of them sound okay but just cannot endure the studio world of long term all day and night loud use.  Reliability is a big deal when you are on the clock.   

Most German pro audio is driven by high end broadcast (by US standards) as defined by the government specification; so Neumann is primarily a speaker designed for the enormous European broadcast world, which often has digital inputs on speakers as a requirement.  Don't see them a lot in the US commercial studio market, but I know they sell well to the home studio market where SPL is not a big issue.  Yes they are good.  But we need dynamics here of over 100dB, maybe up to 106dB, and many broadcast oriented speakers cannot achieve that.  They don't need to in meeting their design goal (a guy mixing World Cup isn't about "rocking it out" for his client).  A speaker at average 92dB-95dB SPL for 12-15 hours can fry most OEM drivers, or at least send them into severe power compression rendering them useless.  This is why ATC builds their own drivers, so they can achieve this.  The is also what originally built JBL, they built their own voice coils that could endure very high heat. 

In Europe, ATC 's market is equally split between home and studio. In Asia and China, ATC is 95% home audio market.  A lot of folks like the idea of a hand made English hi fi system since almost all the old hand made companies are gone.  Here, its 95% studio because ATC had bad luck with US hi fi distributors so it was never built up.   The idea that ATC is a studio speaker is really more reflective of sales, not reality. 

Brad

I have ATC SCM7’s second generation, new ATC SCM40’s, and still have ATC SCM35’s. The latter replace biamped Dahlquist DQ10’s with double subwoofers. I have listened to numerous other ATC models, both in the professional and consumer lines, some amplified versions.

I have never heard them sound as Kenjit describes with good source material. Never. I have heard lots of speakers sound cold and hard, though I won’t name any to avoid flame wars.

I do understand what Kenjit is trying to get across as an idea, although it is based on misconception. 
I will also counter that the acoustic suspension of the consumer Entry series allows for easy room placement and avoids issues of room interaction with a ported design.

And thanks to Lone Mountain bringing ATC Entry Series over here! 

“Mastering studios are where you are more likely than not to find these audiophile type speakers such as TAD, B&W etc”

Fair comment Kenjit ……..

 I use a pair of Geithain RL901K actives, in my 3rd year with these, replaced Tannoy Legacy Ardens.

 I certainly get all the audiophile attributes with these Cardiod speakers, used by at least one professional mastering engineer I’m aware of who definitely appreciates the sound for work and pleasure.

******Cardioid*****

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

I can barely listen to some older songs I used to like purely because they sound so bad on these monitors...

Another quote

I can't listen to 75% of my record collection without thinking 'this production sounds wrong'

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.

Another quote about the ATC monitors:

 When I first heard a pair of ATCs- my old favorites sounded bad and I was disappointed!

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…ATC is a marketing company…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.

Classic Kenjit — a legend in his own mind. ATC knows nothing about speaker design? Please. Notice, BTW, he never divulges what speakers he uses himself IF he has any speakers at all. What a complete and utter farce.  I do agree though that no speaker company would employ someone like you. 

Folks, the sign clearly says "Do not feed the Trolls."  Keep feeding them, they'll keep coming back.

Thanks to those who have done their best to steer the thread back on topic.

Count me among those who don’t find (at least some) monitors "cold and analytical."

I was an audiophile for 10 years before I got into recording and mixing music. At first, I used what I had.... audiophile speakers, for my mixing.  As my skills grew, I started having the common problem of "translation".  Why did my mixes sound great on some systems, and terrible on others??

I'm 56 now, and I've been through many audiophile speakers in my living room, and many "studio monitors" in my studio.  I've shopped extensively for monitors and I'll be darned if ALL these monitors that are supposed to be ruler-flat all sound very different from each other. Ha!  Anyway, I've finally found a pair of speakers that are  fun & pleasurable to listen to, AND my mixes sound good and translate well to other systems.  Studio Monitors are a TOOL designed to get a job done, but that job is a creative endeavor, and thus they are still a very subjective thing.

As for ATC's..... I home-demoed a pair of the $13k SCM50's for a week.  I did not like them.  I loved the low end, but not the mids or highs.  But that's just me in my studio.  Other engineers swear by them, and good for them.  I listened to many monitors in the 5-10k range, and purchased ADAM S3H's.  They tickled all my boxes just right, and 4 yeas later, I still enjoy them tremendously.  

Just 2 weeks ago I got a new Cadenza Blue cart for my Sota turntable, and my vinyl has never sounded so amazing. My ADAMS sit atop stereo 15" subs, so it's a true full range system.  This, "to me" sounds better than most systems I hear at audio shows.  These studio monitors bring me great pleasure, and sound more like live music than many sub-$20k audiophile systems.  

As my skills grew, I started having the common problem of "translation".  Why did my mixes sound great on some systems, and terrible on others??

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. 

I home-demoed a pair of the $13k SCM50's for a week.  I loved the low end, but not the mids or highs. 

was wrong with the mids and highs?

Studio monitors have low distortion to bring out that analytical feel....but they also typically use Class D amps & DSP, which can create a cold and sterile presentation with an unnatural timbre...too much leading edge and sharpness. 

Not always though. Genelec does a pretty good job of avoiding the harshness and sterility that leads to listener fatigue and lack of involvement & toe tapping. 

@mirolab VERY interesting post.  I immediately looked up your speakers and found this review where the reviewer chose your speakers over some ATC SCM20s.  Go figure.  Thanks for the great info!

https://gearspace.com/board/reviews/1163637-adam-audio-s3h.html

@kenjit You miss my point about mix translation. It has nothing to do with the quality of various systems.  That's irrelevant.  It's my job as a mixer to make a mix that sounds like a well balanced professional mix on ALL systems... not just mine.  It's not easy.

As for the ATC SCM50's... I found the mids dry & boring, and the tweeter a bit wispy and sibilant for me.  The ADAM's AMT tweeter is clear, effortless, and non-fatiguing over long periods.

@soix I read that S3H review, and very much agree with the writer.  As in his conclusion, the ADAMs often do "leave my jaw on the floor" with their clarity and heart-stopping dynamics.  

For those that poo-poo DSP, I A/B'd the ADAMs with Focal Trio's for well over an hour at Vintage King using my own music collection.  They left me alone and I could switch and tweak all I wanted.  The Focals are all analog (and very good), but I liked the ADAMs better in every respect (except looks... the Focals are gorgeous).  Plus, the ADAMs have 8 band fully parametric EQ that I use for some room correction.  

kenjit said: "A good speaker will play every track and 99% should sound good. There is no such thing as a bad recording".

This has got to be one of the silliest bits of nonsense I’ve ever read on an audio forum, trolling or not. 

@ddd1 

not only that all recordings are perfect and all songs are a masterpiece. There is no such thing as crappy music.

Silly would be responding in any serious manner to anything @kenjit writes, but many of you do. Personally, I don't find what seanheis1 said to be any less ridiculous. People feel a need to write a comment, even lacking experience with the topic.

I find this thread funny, people say "class D" as though anything Class D sounds like everthing else Class D. Years back we tried building a CLass D amp at my shop, I wanted a low cost decent studio (no fan) amp. We started with off the shelf hypex modules and jsut used it as described and it was awful So then we realized the power supply was the problem, you needed the upgrade power supply-yes-much better! Still not as good as the Class A/B amps I had around, so we built an even larger power supply- better yet again! Then we realized the front end was not adequate (analog portion before the amp itself) so we modified that to be close to something one would see with a decent audiophile or pro amp (the ATC P1 and P2 are my benchmarks). Another step better. By the time we were done, I spent as much on the Class D as one could expect to spend on a good Class AB amp. It finally sounded good, competitive, but didnt save anyone money. It was suprising to me at how much sonic difference each step made. It gave me deep respect for the designers who can build a class D inexpensively and make it sound good. Class D was not the miracle I was hoping for.  I ended up wondering, why bother?

Brad

@lonemountain wrote:

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!

Good post. In a nutshell audiophilia has turned all the typical limitations of in particular loudspeakers into a reference and something to desire; what’s more realistic in size of scale of the sonic image is overblown or unfit for a domestic environment, what approaches real dynamics is deemed exaggerated, what’s full-range at full tilt to emulate a reference isn’t necessary and even ridiculed, etc. People have to feel good about their usually self-imposed (i.e.: not monetary) limitations, also by pointing their fingers at that which eschews their schooled understanding, while reveling at the paradigms or even dogmas established in the hi-fi milieu. High Fidelity, compared to what? In the now inverted universe of sound reproduction the live acoustic (or amplified) reference falls short of what’s dictated by its all-is-equally-good interpretation in many a home from a speaker package mostly way too small. Oh, vanity..

As for monitors, they come in many shapes and "expressions" reflecting (at best) their intended usage, while also being at the behest of the designer and his/her skills. Some monitors to my ears simply become too much of a pill to swallow with extended listening (usually less so), and it mayn’t be due to them being bad speakers per se but rather that what they were designed to do doesn’t sit well with the intention of enjoying music. I’ve often found that many a monitor’s sound isn’t due to what’s left untarnished, but instead what’s specifically bred or honed in on as a sonic signature that complements their function as an (magnifying) instrument or sorts to the mixer. In other words: what may be perceived as cleaner to some may simply be a sonic design choice that makes it appear as such.

Obviously sound reproduction can become too much of a euphemism, so to speak, also per above paragraph. It’s a balancing act I find hitting that "middle ground" of insight vs. the less technical approach to music as opposed to scrutiny even. Some lean more in one direction, others differently. ATC speakers to me strike a fairly good balance while still being ruthlessly honest - not always to the liking of some audiophiles. I find they "get way with it" musically because of their tonality, coherency, fine dynamics and rather unflappable nature, even at extended SPL’s. And that 3" super midrange dome driver is just an engineering marvel, if you ask me.

Studio monitors have a different purpose than “audiophile” speakers. Audio monitors present sound with the venue up fron (and are highly directional as pointed out above)… so very critical mixing choices can be made. The criteria is very different. Audiophiles are into the best possible playback focusing on musicality, natural sound etc. These are very different requirements.

I have a couple friends in the industry and installs Boulder and Mark Levenson in folks that want high end recording studios and stuff like Audio Research into audiophile’s homes as they want musical and natural sound.

And that 3" super midrange dome driver is just an engineering marvel, if you ask me.

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.

Ghdprentice

i don’t think you have the purpose of studio monitors right at all, no matter your friends have inferred by sales to their clients.

A studio record is a sonic painting, from the mind of the artist working side by side with a skilled set of engineers (tracking and mix engineers may be the same or may be different)  who can make the artist’s sonic painting happen.  What artist wants playback to be anything other than sonically extraordinary?  
 

Brad
 

Directionality?  

phusis, waiting as my wife dresses for our night out I wish you a happy times ahead. I really enjoy your ability. 

m

What artist wants playback to be anything other than sonically extraordinary?  

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’s a shame people cannot see music in the different realms they are created and envisioned in. Pop music is completely different from something like Lenny Kravitz or Tom Petty or John Williams or James Newton Howard. If audiophiles throw everyone into the same basket that’s sad and not at all what the artists have in mind. Imagine looking at modern art and saying a Picasso is the same as Dali -they are “paintings”.

brad

@m-db --

Much appreciated, and the same to the both of you.

The contention that since studio monitors are used in a studio, they must be super accurate is not correct.

Engineers use them as tools, and each individual engineer has specific things they want to hear. In fact, they will often switch between monitors, since some say, have a forward sounding midrange, and that is what they are trying to get ’right’ on the recording.

The other thing about studio monitors, is that they tend to be designed so they sum frequencies fairly close to the speaker, since they are usually hung on a wall or on the back of the mixing console, which are not the ideal listening position. While home speakers are usually designed to sum their frequencies at a normal listening position.

Imaging and soundstage is hardly ever taken into consideration on studio monitors.

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.

I can’t even begin to address this insanity, so I won’t.  Peace out. 

@simonmoon , in this thread, "studio monitor" is being used as a catch all for speakers used in studio monitoring rooms, mixing rooms, mastering rooms, review rooms, etc.  Recording studio monitors tend to be smaller out of necessity. Mixing, mastering depends on who is doing it. Some work in small spaces, some work in large spaces. Review rooms, may be mastering rooms, or may be separate and more in line with a home setup.

The distance to the listener is a non starter as home listening positions vary from 6 - 15 feet, so 2.5:1, probably wider than most "studio monitors" on average, but if anything, "studio monitors", at least today, have good integration at most distances.

Rarely see anyone switching between monitors except in final mastering and review where they are testing out the mix to determine how it may sound to a variety of end users. More of that in the past when studio speakers were all over the map.

It is today, 2023 now, so we need to talk about 2023. In 2023, most "studio monitors" are active, with crossovers designed to fix as many issues as practical at the price point, with somewhat flat or very flat response, excellent dispersion characteristics, and low distortion. As this an audiophile site, we would be discussing the mid to upper end of the "studio monitor" space, which will typically mean very flat response on axis, well controlled off axis ie good dispersion and low distortion when the speaker is used within its limits. These are characteristics of all good speakers "studio" or home. They may not have the bass extension, they may not place as loud, and they won't come in your particular shade of sound, but they do what they do very well.

very flat response on axis, well controlled off axis ie good dispersion and low distortion when the speaker is used within its limits. These are characteristics of all good speakers "studio" or home.

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! 

They could call it … “KENJIT’s Law”. . . . . 

 

@mofojo  some things are best starved of oxygen especially those that behave like they already are.

@celtic66 - Wonderful story!

Know the feeling.

"That was a good afternoon".

Yes!!!

Quested Studio Monitors would put allot of high end speakers to shame, Fatique free smooth and musical. Those who have setup the H108 Quested Monitors with Excellent Tube or Solid State pre-amp can attest.

One of the best kept secrets in the industry to be honest.

Can someone answer this lease? Who is this Kenjit person? I have read many incredibly stupid posts of his/hers here on Audiogon. Is he/her the resident troll?

I wonder what a 803D2 (with all their colors and distortions.) is doing in a symphony suite.

That is not a symphony concert, it's scoring session.  You can tell from the Decca Tree mic arrangement up high behind the conductor.  

There were several major scoring engineers who used to use B+W for monitoring in the past.  They two best known are now on ATC.  I suspect this is an older picture of an Alan Meyerson (Hans Zimmer's guy) scoring session LA. 

Brad

@phantom_av 

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.