Who says studio monitors are "cold and analytical"?

@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

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. 

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?

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.  

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."

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. 

Another quote about the ATC monitors:

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

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

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

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...

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

“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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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

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.

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.

All these voices of sanity. Where have you been? 👍

+2 @fair 

Never heard that one. “Near field” yes, but not “cold and analytical”. For instance, JBL l 100’s aka 4311 studio monitors (used to mix probably 99% of every 1970s rock album) could never be considered cold and analytical, or near field for that matter. Dry perhaps, lacking good soundstage perhaps, but in no way cold and analytical. I know the 1970s reference shows my age but just my two cents. 

Savior Complex:  

• Trying to change people: With the desire to be a savior, you might believe it’s within your power to fix or change people. You think you can improve their lives by changing their behavior. This strong tendency to want to change people can be toxic in and of itself because you’re not getting to know other people.

Thank you for the thought, but I do not wish to be saved by you.

Celtic66 your post is great! I agree it is supposed to be fun. I just got a pair of Snell type E speakers for fun. I always wanted to hear them (cant find or afford the model A flagship). I am having a blast! They image, are smooth and sound SO different than my current  system setup in the living room. My next speaker ? Who knows, I really want to hear a Vandersteen C . Merry Christmas everybody and happy new year!

@fair Nicely written.    Gonna have to read more of your stuff!

@kenjit    If you don't like speakers that measure flat and reproduce music signals accurately but prefer flawed designs with peaks and troughs and distortion because the programme then sounds (to you) more exciting than what studio engineers require for their professional work, then that is your choice.

But don't come here promulgating it to sensible people like the rest who have posted.

Where is Millercarbon when you need him?  All you need to do is buy the speakers that you like the most.

Well, not ALL studio monitors were "boxes."  It was kind of well known in the 1970's that SOME bands that were meticulous about every note did their final mix-downs on Magneplaner speakers.

I guess, like in the 1960's where music was mixed down to sound good on a car stereo, some bands were interested in the pure sound the public would hear.

AND, since car stereos were mostly mono AM units in the day, it is pretty easy to listen to an old 45 and figure out what was going on with the mix-down.  

Cheers!

I am wondering to myself after reading this is how many hear know a sound engineer?  My buddy did all the sounding engineering at Sony for many years until he retired.

I hate it when seasonings "distort" my food.

Statements like this one make me chuckle. 
 

“Studio monitors were designed by people that dont understand how sound works”.

This after proclaiming there is no such thing as a studio monitor. And never a word of consideration that an audio engineer might be listening for things that an audiophile is not…which is clearly the case. As such, the tools used may differ appropriately. 

Interestingly pro audio folks don't really reference ASR and don't generally quote specs when discussing monitors (eg on forums like Gearspace). It's much more about their subjective experience listening. Remember these are folks who are literally paid to listen to music critically and make minute adjustments to it all day long, including being able to pick out very precise frequencies and level adjustments. They have very well-trained ears. 

Do not care if they have a studio sound but i would like my next speakers to be PMC' s either Fenestria or IB2 se (trying to understand where the cold comes in).

Studio monitors are tools of trade. Specialized ones.

NS-10, for instance, has ludicrously good transient response, allowing mixing engineer to hear minute nuances in critical midrange, where vocals and instruments tend to crowd out each other in initial versions of a mix. Relative lack of bass and treble is a feature too, as it allows the engineer to focus on the midrange.

Auratone/Avanton cubes are single-driver tiny studio monitors, intended to consistently emulate cheap consumer electronics such as lower-end boomboxes and lower-end car audio. Checking a mix on them has obvious benefits for certain genres of music, such as pop songs.

Then there are studio monitors that are flat, yet relatively highly distorting. Popular KRK models come to mind. Those are good for checking distortion levels. If a certain area in a mix is too distorted, it will jump out at mixing engineer. If a mix sounds good on KRKs, it will likely sound well enough on highly-distorting consumer gear too.

And then we come to studio monitors that are both flat and low distorting. Larger ATC and Neumann models are of that variety. Those are good for mixing and mastering music supposed to play very well on highly resolving consumer systems. Also on professionally designed and calibrated systems at concert venues and movie theaters.

ATC is obsessive about ultra-low distortion levels, yet doesn’t care much about radiation pattern, and thus ATCs are better suited for heavily dampened studio rooms. Neumanns radiation patterns tend to be close to perfectly desirable, and thus Neumanns work well in reflective rooms too.

Other studio monitors of that variety excel in other parameters while paying less attention to some others, and studio engineers understand very well these tradeoffs. For instance, Barefoot sacrifices directivity in upper bass, yet gains compactness with vibration-free operation, and is thus very convenient for smaller project studios.

So, this is one factor in the studio monitors confusion. They are professional tools, wildly varied in their area of focus and corresponding engineering tradeoffs. For audiophile duties, I’d only consider the ruler-flat low-distorting variety. Yet some audiophiles keep taking for comparison highly specialized varieties.

Second factor is confusion regarding artists intent. Almost invariably, a given composition sounds sparser, simpler, smoother on a high-spec mastering studio monitor than on a consumer-grade speaker. Yet sometimes with surprising details that are getting blurred out or drowned out on consumer-grade speakers.

I recall listening to large ATC speakers - essentially veneered versions of their large studio monitors - at one of audiophile shows. I asked ATC rep to play a Pink Floyd song that I knew was mastered on that very ATC studio monitor model, which changed very little since those older times.

A gentleman sitting next to me didn’t like it. He cringed, said something about it not sounding right, and left before the song was over. To me though, it sounded majestic. Sparse and definitive. Inducing very dark, very lonely feeling, precisely in tune with the lyrics. Not at all enjoyable at certain verses, yet making me strongly feel what the artists were conveying.

Another example was hearing copy of studio master of Fields of Gold by Sting, on large Focals in an impeccably treated professional mastering studio. For long, I considered this composition a rather unremarkable pop song with catchy melody. Yet when the distortions were removed, a deeper layer became more prominent. That layer of music felt granulated, moving around like wheat stalks on a wind. I was floored.

I guess some audiophiles may not quite expect, or quite like, the familiar compositions when they are rendered like the mastering engineers heard them. Music tends to become less "entertaining" and more "feeling inducing", not necessarily a joyous one at that. Perhaps this is what some listeners call "too analytical"?

Flat as pancake studio monitors. 

Another flat as pancake studio monitors

pancake monitors for studio 

Kenjit clearly has never actually been in a studio, but I have. As far back as the late 60s and as recently as this year, and I can say without hesitation that studio monitors have never been "flat." Large horns, the JBL stuff in the 70s, those terrible Yamaha NS10s...seriously...some are better sounding than others but man...I'm amazed that anybody makes a great recording, but talented engineers often do, thankfully.

For a period of time my son studied audio engineering and interned at a smaller (500ish capacity) concert venue in Cleveland, Ohio.  The class was required to purchase and use the same headphones (sorry, don’t remember make/model) that measured extremely flat for their mastering projects.  They didn’t sound particularly bad, but they sounded more dull than any other explanation I can come up with.

The biggest takeaway from this is that once recordings were mastered, they sounded better through the same flat headphones, but they sounded great through my both open and closed back “audiophile” headphones.  Two different types of headphones because their uses were different, flat for engineering/mastering, and the “audiophile” ones for musical enjoyment.  Pretty simple.

“ 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.”

hahaha. What’s the definition of a GREAT AUDIOPHILE!? Lol. Kenjorino. It’s pretty compelling I must say. 

Here kenjit, pour yourself another glass

All the best,
Nonoise

If you look at a comparable model in ATC’s home or pro market, the only difference is the cabinet. They don’t “tune” their speakers for either market any differently and have achieved success on both sides.

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.

When you have to invoke ASR to make your lame point and infer that somehow overrides the exceptional commercial success ATC has had on both sides, you’ve lost dude.

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 has spoken and you’re wrong.

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.

Speakers can be tuned for both professional and home use and be equally successful.

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.

Fact is, you have no data to back up your contention that studio speakers sound like crap

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.

then you throw out a buncha BS to try to rescue your initially flawed and way too broad statement.

It was intended to be a broad statement and there will be exceptions. I never denied that. But the statement still holds true.

I own the Harbeth 30.2 and they are certainly not cold, I find them to be very neutral, clean and clear. I listen for hours on end with no fatigue. I play guitar and piano (poorly I admit) and find the 30.2’s to be very accurate. Vocals sound like a human singing in front of me. 
I will be the first to admit that they do not sound great with heavy or death metal. They make AC/DC sound polite, although Ghost sounds quite good. Just my experience with BBC type monitors.

Pro engineers care about translation. They want their mix to sound good on other systems.

That’s why the NS-10s became a standard - if a mix sounded good on them, it was going to sound good everywhere. 

Generally speaking, pro engineers want highly revealing speakers. They don’t want "bad sounding" speakers. But their goal is clarity above all else. NS-10s aren't really a standard anymore - what is more common is to have a pair of great speakers like PMCs or ATCs and then check your mix occasionally on a crappy speaker called an Auratone. 

Mastering engineers have crossed over with audiophiles for years as both B&W speakers and Dunlavy have been standards. ProAc 100s used to be standards in mix rooms. Dynaudio makes models for both markets. So does Amphion.

I am a newbie here but the notion that professional audio engineers and professional equipment designers don’t understand music is ludicrous.

One other point about nearfield studio monitors is that they are designed to sound good at only one point: the mix position. I would think that home audio designers would target a wider sound field.

Note that "distortion" is in fact highly prized in professional audio when it’s the pleasing type of distortion known as saturation. No one mixes a track without it these days. Formerly it was provided by tape and transformers; today it’s added back by plugins; it’s a big topic and a key part of modern sound.

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.

The first key statement in this, and is endemic of all of @kenjit posts is the part of “According to discussions I’ve read…”.  That’s pretty much all ya need to know.  Why?  Because according to kenjit all speakers are trash and are fatally flawed.  Note, he NEVER lists components in his own system.  Why?  Because that would pin him down and hold him accountable for his own ridiculous statements.  As for the rest of this absurd statement I’m not even gonna waste my time.  He’s trying to infer speakers are only constructed by engineers OR audiophiles, and I think that’s silly because all speaker designers are ,of necessity, both.  If u guys wanna continue to read more of kenjit’s backfilling and circular reasoning go ahead but I’m done.  Anything else he says from here you can reference my earlier retorts and see why they’re complete BS, but I refuse to waste anymore of my time on this.  Someone else can retort and state kenjit’s obvious contradictions.  Good luck with that, and Peace Out and Happy Hollidays to all.  Yes, even kenjit. 

@kenjit

you said:

“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?”

totally again put your foot in your mouth. You constantly talk about tuning to one’s ears. Now it’s you think about things in right and wrong, black and white. You a dummy boy. 

@retiredfarmer Wrote:

Well there are a lot of different  speakers made and only a few of them are worth owning. I don't find pmc,b&w or atc  ones that I want to own. 

I agree!

Mike