Someone forgot to take his pills today…
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!
122 responses Add your response
@kenjit But here’s where more of ur circular reasoning comes in. 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. Then you present some ASR measurements that are somehow are meant to besmirch ATC. When you have to invoke ASR to make your lame point and infer that somehow that overrides the exceptional commercial success ATC has had on both sides, you’ve lost dude. The market has spoken and you’re just flat-out wrong. Speakers can be tuned the same for both professional and home use and be equally successful. Period. That some “dude” you found didn’t like how the SCM2000 ASL sounds (that speaker doesn’t even exist BTW) means nothing because he’s clearly in the vast minority. I can find someone who actually agrees with you. Don’t mean that’s reality. Fact is, you have no data to back up your contention that studio speakers sound like crap, then you throw out a buncha BS to try to rescue your initially flawed and way too broad statement. Face it dude, once again you’ve been outed and most people here won’t buy the extreme statements you try to sell here just in the name of extremism and outlandish statements. Chalk up another failure on your belt. |
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? |
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. |
studio monitors tend to sound accurate and analytical to most people. one of their design goals is to allow studio engineers to hear any flaws in the recording. some people like them for home use too. me personally i can take them in small doses but only with the right recordings, meaning well mastered and clean. home audio "audiophile" speakers are voiced to be pleasing to the listener and to avoid listening fatigue. one way this is accomplished is by voicing to a sloped curve where the low frequencies begin at a certain output and then frequencies are gradually tapered downward by some degree, example 2db per octave, so that the response is flat, just tilted downward. this is not done with distortion- it is done by tapering the response in the crossover design so that the output is a gradual slope. most people find some degree of elevated bass and slightly rolled of treble to be pleasing. conversely a ruler flat and level response is found by most to be analytical. |
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. |
@kenjit Uh, no. No they absolutely do not and I’ve no idea where you’d even get any such data to support this except in your own mind. I had the pleasure of meeting/speaking at length with one of ATC’s top engineers and nowhere in that conversation did he say their speakers were rubbish for enjoyment, and the fact that their speakers are revered globally as both studio and home monitors would greatly refute your misguided contention.
But, if as you maintain studio monitors are designed to be flat and don’t sound good then B&W speakers must be bad studio monitors. Same with ATC, PMC, etc. Can’t have your argument both ways. As usual, once kenjit’s “theories” are examined at all they devolve into unsupported circular logic that, much like toilet water, circles the bowl and eventually just ends up in the sewer where it belongs. But, wait to hear him double down on his garbage with further unsupported circular logic. Thus why kenjit is so beloved here. Ugh. |
Kenjit NO. A Designer knows what he wants before he ever puts pen to paper. He doesn't need to try caps in crossover, he knows what values equal a given result. You really believe speakers are designed in a hunt and peck fashion? A designer may adjust a few things if they don't work precisely the way he thought, but there is no "tuning like a piano". The only way this trial and error method of creating something happens is if the builder/designer is completely untrained and is fishing for some combo that "works" by ear. This is NOT how modern speakers are designed - not in this day and age of klippel and CAD. Studio people work for the music creators. I can assure you, because I know them and visit them/talk to them, the engineers that work for people like Tom Petty or Pink Floyd spend many many hours getting the sound just right, so the artist is happy. It must sound amazing or they are fired. Unless you want to make some ill founded argument the artist doesn't know what he or she wants, or some other equally inane argument that the artist wants their mix to sound bad, these engineers spend enormous time just getting the sound to be right. You absolutely have no idea what you are talking about. Stop confusing people with this made up crap, pretending you have some special insight. |
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. |
There is no "tuning" of loudspeakers in any factory I have ever seen or been aware of. There is some engineering that happens long before the speaker is built, and the choices the design engineer makes could possibly be considered "tuning"- how wide a bandwidth, what driver elements, ported or sealed box, etc. But certainly not in an adjustable way other than some small crossover tweaks are possible after assembly. So this notion a company "tunes" for a market is BS. Especially the idea audiophile speakers have a specific curve or studio monitors have a curve or this goofy idea of a BBC dip. This is all made up crap people use to explain things they don't understand or a marketing person uses to promote a brand. |
And the wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round... Have not many of you owned enough equipment to fill an entire stereo store? Have you not enjoyed all of it? Some pieces more than others. Sure. Even your first love HK 330 receiver? It's supposed to be fun. I hired piano movers to help with my last, and very possibly just that, my last speakers I'll ever need. Up stairs and to the right boys. After setup, they all wanted to hear them. I did not go through some languid explanation of "they're not properly broken in yet". We fired them up! Four people positively got rowdy.....and giddy. Said they had never heard such things. Kept rotating in and out of the listening chair. Kept commenting about the dynamics, the realism. Are they audiophiles? Nope. But they were that afternoon. The pure joy of surprise of how good something could sound and move them! The music server was rollin' for 1 hour while we moved through War, blues, Van Morrison, Marcus Miller. And then they all left with big smiles and tip money. That was a good afternoon.
|
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. |