Studios use very different speakers than what we use to playback the music. Find out the difference. Check out the Octave catalog HTTP://www.octaverecords.com
The biggest difference is that audiophiles will buy anything with sufficient promotion. Music producers and engineers are way more discriminating, even cynical, in their buying choices. We have the opportunity to put to test a lot of choices without buying and make our decisions based on cold, calculating metrics. I don’t know anyone who chooses a $10k pair of monitors due to its appearance or advertising.
LOL no. Talking about audiophiles as a group is like talking about drivers as a group, disregarding what they drive and why. Audiophiles are primarily split into categories along multiple axis but the most important split perhaps is analytical vs emotional listeners split. Analytical audiophiles are in many ways close to music producers I think, emotional audiophiles are in some ways the opposite. Emotional audiophiles look for gear that will make their music sound *better* than it was recorded as, to their ears, they want to *feel* the music as an emotional journey of sorts. Analytical audiophiles look for the sort of gear that will reveal every tiniest detail of a recording down to details that aren't meant to be heard, like a cable slapping a guitar body, a slight exhalation into a live mic, the grain of a guitar neck or ribbing on a base string. I'm at times one, at other times the other, but I tend more toward the analytical with my personal gear, but not too far into the extreme. But then I also make music, and spend probably 40% of my listening time with rather revealing gear set up 'withering away' at mixing knobs to find the exactly right amount of effect and volume on one instrument in the mix. Tedium that technically speaking matters only to me on that sort of level, but when I find the "right" balance, I'm satisfied and happy. And then I relax listening to someone elses music on a setup that has a much warmer and softer sound than the original mix was intended as, just because I want it to sound good, not accurate to the intention of the original studio dudes who recorded it. I know I'm "eating my own tail" here. I don't care.
I absolutely disagree with your statement. The reason that many people by in blind or only after reading reviews or in promotions is that manufacturers are afraid to demonstrate their products for direct comparison with other manufacturers. This is the reality at least in my country. For example there is no place in Bulgaria where i can test in blind audition 3 or 4 loudspeaker sets in approximately same price range with a reference source and amplifier. Or the opposite variant - reference loudspeaker with different amps. Do you have a place in your country where you can do this?
@@nickolaymiltenov As a longtime customer of a number of pro studio equipment distributors, I am frequently given the competing pieces for a reasonable period to compare on my own, in my own studio. To repay that generosity, I don’t price-shop and buy such pieces online. It gives me great pleasure to support those amazing distributors. I’ve been sent 5 different pairs of speakers worth many tens of thousands of dollars to help me make a choice. Also, consoles, recorders, outboard pieces. My fave distributor at any time will well over $1 million in inventory out on loan. His customers, including myself, know what a privilege it is and obviously, it works. The pro community rewards the manufacturers who go along, punishes those who refuse.
As a recording engineer the answer is simple: they are designed for different purposes. Studio monitors have much more “resolution” and separation in how they present both dynamics and frequencies to pin point problem areas in a mix / master, whereas hi-fi speakers “sweeten” the sound by actually only having resolving power in specific frequency areas and not the whole range. The “problem” with studio monitors for audiophiles is that they will tell you if a mix your listening to sounds bad, but hi-fi speakers mask the trouble spots in an attempt to make everything sound good.
Hi-fi is shorthand for "high fidelity," which means "great faithfulness" to the source material -- going by what you say, then the so-called "hi-fi" speakers you describe aren't really "hi-fi" at all!
@@editorjuno Hi-fi is in comparison to what's was called lo-fi when it came out, nothing more, nothing less. It's a marketing term at best. If you want accuracy you look at the frequency response curve.
@@grandsome1 -- There's no arguing that. The term "lo-fi," however, is quite new -- it never appeared in print back in the late 1940s when the term "hi-fi" was coined. Yes, from a marketing standpoint it was designed to contrast good home playback gear from the typical table radios and phonographs of that era -- but, as an ideal it means "great faithfulness," which amounts to accuracy in sound reproduction.
@@editorjuno The point is that it doesn't matter one bit that a pair of speakers is marketed as "hi fi", because it's nothing more than a sales pitch. If you want to know faithful a pair of speakers are, objectively, you need objective measurements, not subjective descriptors such as marketing terms like "hi fi".
@@santishorts -- Again, no argument. That's why I prefer objective, measurement-oriented reviews from folks like Amir (Audio Science Review) and Erin (Erin's Audio Corner) to anything from de facto marketing and/or sales types like Mr. McGowan and Steve Guttenberg.
I've always been a music enthusiast, but had always used monitors (because I was told it was the best sound possible). I became an audiophile the day I listened to a set of Martin Logans...thats when I heard the soul of the music for the first time and my journey began. Man I live for those "firsts".
As a musician I typically get premaster mixes as uncompressed files. The guys in the band will play them through anything they have from home systems to car radios to stage monitors to headphones, we send our feedback and suggestions to the engineer to mix accordingly. In the end it is always a compromise and we are all listening for something different (biased by our instruments and expectations). That is, we take into account the systems most people will listen to as most music isn’t focused on one application and all recorded music was created for convenience versus a virtual experience. An aside: the studio is like an extra member of the band and can color the whole sound and influence the band just as much as any other member or manager or producer can. With that, the bottom line on monitors or amps or eq’s is, if you like the sound you get then that’s the one for you … the same goes for instruments
When I read Shakespeare, I typically don’t focus on how bad my Early Modern English is … I somehow enjoy the story or poem just as much or actually more, to listening to someone read it with period proper enunciation
I worked in the industry for a successful major label. I used to love the pre-master mixes we would get in advance of releases. To me they almost always sounded better, more impactful and more alive than the final release. Especially with high energy music. The signal and production chain is full of necessary compromises- for technical and commercial reasons. That's why audiophile content usually doesn't sound great on mid fi or lo fi systems, and commercial mainstream music often sounds horrible on high res audiophile systems.
Another interesting thing- pro musicians and major artists almost always have mid fi systems (at best) at home. They are rarely audiophiles. Some might have a high powered system, but it usually won't be hi-res. (They just want the bass punch to be physical.) You would think musicians would have 'ears' as audiophiles typically do, but musicians listen much more the music and performance, almost to the point of being indifferent to the actual sound.
Thanks for this interesting topic. But sadly, we didn't learned much appart they are different. Of course they are... hence the different naming 🤪 _We couldn't have guessed this one on our own_ 😋 Would have liked to hear about: Monitor → Neutral 🆚 Speaker → Sound Signature Acoustically treated studio 🆚 Not acoustically treated listening room (which speakers have to accommodate/deal with)
Maybe a good analogy would be controls on modern TVs: contrast / color / vibrancy / motion smoothing, etc. You can watch a movie that's been recorded to look a certain way, and apply tweaks to make its color saturated, contrast boosted, super smooth motion. It looks nice, if that's what you like. For me I prefer to watch the truest representation of what the producer created - hopefully it was their artistic choice to make it look that way. Similarly I like to listen to music like I watch movies, on an accurate monitor setup without boosting frequencies / added compression, so I hear exactly what the producer created. Not to say someone else's preference is invalid!
I love studio monitors for hi-fi listening, although it's not for everyone but I really like the anylitical sound. Adam Audio A8H and my own DIY bookshelf speakers are all I'll ever need.
Maybe a personal thing. I really like the driest, least coloured sound I can get. That said, in a live music environment, certain colourations sound good. I like a speaker that slightly emphasises the 12-16kHz range. Also, given the distance the sound has to travel, I favour horn loaded designs.
If me as a producer made a track with a drum set that does not sound like it had “life” and your system made it sound like it did, then your system is simulating something that was not supposed to be there in the first place. 🤷🏻♂️
Well, I would agree with you. That's not the idea. What we want is to make sure when the recording has life the speakers in the home reproduce it properly. I think the bigger issue is what speakers are used in the mix. If the engineer wants a live sound then the mix speakers have to give him/her high enough resolution so they can hear what's truly going on. When we build our final mix room the speakers will be our FR30 which are some of the most revealing speakers in the world.
This response is why I feel the video could have been more specific about the different speaker requirements - so people would be less inclined to 'misunderstand' the different but no less relevant objective of domestic audio system compared to a recording studio setup. In the studio it could be that the objective is to be able to easily focus on the component parts of the music, like looking at specific samples under a microscope. Whereas for a domestic playback system reproducing the whole experience including it's context is often more desirable..
If you think most producers or engineers are making recordings of instruments sound like they do in person, then you've recently awaken from a coma. Only the small audiophile labels using " audiophile " pro gear making uncompressed recordings come close. Most recordings go through the wringer before it gets to the consumer. I remember back in the early 90s when studios were using cheap $200 ADCs
I have experienced, that some audiophiles are choosing speakers which they experience gives the maximum musical joy even it's not natural for their money, where others choose the same goal, but that imply the most natural and un-coloured sound. I believe a competent sound engineer are aiming for the latter as well. So, if you have most joy of istening to music at your home that has the most natural sound, to hear as many details as possible, then you will probably end up with a studio monitor speaker.
the whole idea that studio monitors can't give you the sense of the speaker disappearing and give realistic soundstage is ridiculous, they absolutely can, they can bloody pinpoint 3d image at least my monitors (adam audio a7v) can, a friend of mine has ridiculously good and expensive audiophile system, but he says he really loves listening he's nearfields because of the image they produce....yes they also don't mask errors in the mix but some people prefer that, it gives me the tool to appreciate music that is mixed good as well.
I have listened to many hi-end speakers/systems in my 60+ years and I now prefer my Adam A7X monitors over most of them. Listening nearfield I feel I can hear individual instruments and placement more accurately and most importantly I think that nearfield listening takes the "room" acoustics out of the equation somewhat...so if you can't dedicate a room to full treatments, design, etc. a nearfield monitor listening experience is midway between headphones and "normal" speaker listening, but better than even great speakers in a poor acoustic environment.
@@Bootrosgali -- My Kali monitors have excellent dispersion, which results in a pretty wide and tall "sweet spot." IOW and IMO, you've overgeneralized by category.
For me, Studio monitors+studio sub any day for listening to any material. The fidelity they provide is unparalleled. Maybe it's my critical brain at work.
Why would you want anything less.... if its mixed and mastered on studio monitors THEN IT SOUNDS THE WAY ITS SUPPOSED TO SOUND ON STUDIO MONITORS..... I never understood this stupid bullshit argument. Audiophile speakers ARE DESIGNED to color audio...... I dont get it. Its kind of what pushed me away from audio gear to begin with. I bought a pair of Genelecs and a matching Genelec sub and once I got it I realized there is nothing else I would ever really want. So I kinda fell out of the hobby realizing how stupid a lot of reasons and shit people use for excuses is usually always just bullshit. If Genelecs are good enough to mix and master 500 Million dollar movies and videogames or albums that sit on top of the billboard 100... then they are good enough FOR EVERYBODY. If they are not good enough for you....... then you prolly like the smell of your own farts too. Thats basically what I realized in my experience in high end audio. I have the speakers an RME ADI 2 and a Pair of DT1990 pros. DONE.... everything else is just a waste of money. That's not really an opinion its fact. Audiophiles LOSE THEIR SHIT when I say that though...... another reason why I left the audio scene. Too much fart smelling.......
@@ashflame6888 lol. That's quite a comprehensive argument and well articulated too 😂😂😂. Audiophile scene is too much snake oil without understanding the basics of sound and audio electronics. To me, studio electronics represent a high standard of audio research without the usual bullshit. Of course, you get what you paid for, but then, even an entry level studio monitor + sub combo gives us what we really required to achieve high fidelity sound reproduction without driving the costs through the roof. Genelecs are some of the most precise sound reproduction tool out there and pair it with some A grade audio interface like RME, you are sorted for life.
@@djross2423 LOL yeah I feel a certain way about it I guess.... I haven't really voiced my opinion on it in a long time. "To me, studio electronics represent a high standard of audio research without the usual bullshit" That was the number one thing that kept going though my head when I was deciding to buy the Genelecs. I knew I was gonna pay a premium for the Gens but I also felt like if I'm gonna do this I'm only gonna do it once. Ultimately that's what sold me on them.... I couldn't be happier with them. I knew I hit my ceiling within 20 mins of setting them up.
@@ashflame6888 I could not agree more. I am on the same drug! Genelec monitors with a Genelec Sub! I color this marvelous combo thru a miniDSP SHD Studio. I sold my "audiophile" gear some tima ago! Not missed!
For me it sounds like people in studios want to hear reality and audiophiles want to hear something different - even when they claim they want it as accurate as possible. P.S. I like good reproduced music but I wouldn't call myself an audiophile.
Great video sir. There is much truth in what you stated. I have been a studio musician and performer for many years and have been in many different studio environments. I prefer studio monitors for music production, mixing, mastering and just listening for the love of music. It really comes down to getting use to what you have in your environment and how your speakers translate the songs you really know and love. I recently purchased a pair of Focal Alpha 80s for near and mid field monitoring. For me they work for all my needs. They are studio monitors that are very musical, but also revealing. Like any speaker, they must be set up in your room properly to get the best sound. 👌
can I use an eq to get "audiophile" sound from my kali monitors? They sound great for my keyboard but terrible playing music from the computer or tablet
It depends on the music you listen to. For example, I am pianist and listening mostly classical music. As a particular masterpiece was recorded in some dynamics and with acoustic instruments there is an absoulte reference in what should sound. When I listen to piano recordings in hi-fi speakers they always emphasize some region of the spectrum, distorting the original intensity that makes part of the pianist emotional intention. Conversely, when I listen to the same recording in Genelec, Neumann, etc. music come to live and sound as my piano sounds. More or less, they are also some characteristic profile in each monitor, absolute flat sound doesn’t exist. Of course, other parameters as distorsion, harmonics, speed, transients go into the equation but in general one can find better monitors than others. Hi-Fi speakers mask the original sound, better or worse but they impose their own personality to the music that cannot match with some style or another. The gold reference to me are always neutral and flat monitor: perhaps are less spectacular but one can listen to them for hours without fatiguing and learn to recreate emotions from the recording, not absorbing those expressed by the speakers
For my desktop speakers I bought Tannoy Reveal 802 studio monitors. They're great. Made me rethink my main set up. Want the same sound , but 'bigger' :) Home use speakers are made to make it sound better, because recording and playbacl technique, as radio wasn't that good quality. Now you can listen to FLAC ! So yes, studio monitors actually sound grerat, when the recording is great. So listening to you tube sometimes sounds awful. Radio over internet , you can hear what the station does with the sound, even sounds better then the recording sometimes. Imho it's something every audiophile should at least try in their lives. And they're cheap , I bought mine when in sale for 240€ for the pair ! And the good thing is they are active ! So the amp inside is made for the speaker ! And the material ! It's stiffer then...... stiff ;P .Solid , I'm sure they'll be in one piece if I throw them down the stairs. The box, not the drivers ..So, don't believe me try them ! Every audiophile friend is astonished by the sound !
I use a software equalizer in windows for my monitors. Improves the sound a lot. I have a cheaper pair of monitors of the same brand where I don't have to do that. M-audio Bx5a deluxe and AV40
Everyone should ALWAYS use EQ ALL the time. Audiophools who don't use EQ (quality DSP based EQ - no downsides) are just dumb and are convincing themselves that settling for what it sounds like "out of the box" so to speak is correct and ideal. No. Even the best speakers can and should be EQ'd to taste - and that includes even at times changing EQ settings based on the source material! I mean why wouldn't it? The mixing varies greatly... sometimes you need to tone town a different area of the highs, or add something. And you always need to add some low bass. A speaker isn't defined by what it sounds like with a flat source signal through a flat power amp. It's defined by what it is CAPABLE of, and often EQ is needed to show what it is capable of. Who cares if it's down 6db at 35 or 40hz, if it's CAPABLE of playing flat to 30hz with some EQ without any issues? It just so happens to require some extra power to push it in that region due to the design, big deal. If your excursion is in check and there's no significant or discernable distortion, then your speaker is capable of playing flat (or even boosted) down to 30hz... not the 40 it says on the label.
But why my MA STUDIO 20SE (passive) sounds much much better, with more Details, better Mids, better STage,...just everything is better...than with my expensive KS Digital A100 and ATC SCM11, PMC DB1...? So, its not true...., I also had Dynaudio BM12 Studio Monitors, pretty expensive..., and they also have no Chance against my Monitor Audi Studio 20SE HiFi Speakers. Most Studio Monitors under 1000€ are real Crap....
As a long time recording engineer, I agree with most of Paul's points in this video in that I need a high level of clarity as opposed to a big blended sound that most music listeners would prefer. I would only add that we are needing to mix more and more on headphones since that's how so many listeners now consume music. So many of my musician clients are listening through headphones and laptop speakers now that I need to make sure that my mixes work well in those environments. Am I happy about it? No but, as a service provider, I owe my clients the ability to deliver the mixes that work well for them. Earbuds and headphones are all the rage now and that fact does affect how we mix music at this time.
Sadly this is why I dislike most modern "remasters" of otherwise iconic older music. I guess I don't feel as strongly about new recordings because I never heard how they might have sounded if set up the "old" way? And I've recently found something interesting. I set up a vintage system in my secondary room and have a moderately current system in my main room. Era appropriate music definitely seems to sound better on the matching era appropriate system. Could be a total figment of my imagination of course but I'm starting to notice it more and more.
This is a terrible way to go about mastering music. A good set of headphones or earbuds will work wonderfully with a properly mastered mix. You shouldnt try to fix the mix to work within the limitations of the cheapest headphones...on the contrary the headphone companies need to step up and create better products. This is like having a terrible city road, and demanding the car companies adjust their vehicle suspensions to match the crappy road.
Hi Paul, very interesting video thank you. I have listened to PMC studio monitors in my room and haven’t liked them ( too flat sounding), but love the audiophile or domestic speakers Fact 12s. You are absolutely right very different entities all together 👍🏼 Best Peter (UK)
As a video editor who also deals with sounds, a studio monitor is the tool for me to take care of the problems in sounds, but audiophiles, don't care about sound engineering, they just want to enjoy the immersive environment, which makes those hifi speakers have to dim out some frequencies to keep the sound attractive.
As Dean Turner has mentioned, PMC are in use in a few UK studios, as are, as Paul mentioned, B&W, The great BBC used the original LS3/5A (I think). My current speakers, Amphion, are used all over the world, and my good friend Mr Jake Purches of Base 2 Music, specializes in DSD/SACD (only) pipe organ recordings, and mixes/masters on Vivid Giya Spirits, (and the smaller models) as he works for them
I read a review where the writer said, "If I want to hear everything about the recording: where it was recorded, the microphones, the size of the studio and skill of the engineer, then I'd choose these speakers. If I just want to enjoy music, then I listen to my own usual speakers." Saved me $200,000!
So in a way he said: "If I want to enjoy music, I use a speaker that changes the sound so much that I cannot hear the original properly". It's an insult to the studio engineer and artist, because they were unable to make beautiful music. It needs to be changed! And btw: studio monitors are way cheaper than "true" audiophile speakers! For a few thousand dollars you'lll get near perfect Genelecs, for example. Where did the 200.000 come from?
@@CheetahNL Wilson Audio, from a review in Stereophile from a few years back. BTW, I'll take "forgiving" speakers that allow me to enjoy the music but are "only" 99 percent the "true" sound, rather than your monitor sound, which includes trucks passing by the studio and mice farting.
@@cristi724 Not at all. I was talking about the idiocy of creating "monitor" speakers that are so revealing, that they're only fit for judging the microphone placement, recording studio limitations, etc. I once had an expensive (about 3K in today's dollars) set of speakers, but on anything but the highest quality recordings sounded like crap. Sold them and got a pair that offered 99 percent of the resolution, quality and soundstage for less than half the price. What's the point of high fi if you can't enjoy your music collection? Yes, some idiots will say, "Only listen to perfect recordings." Such people love electronics, not music.
@scottbernard8824 Those $200.000 you mentioned doesn't cost you $200.000, but maybe $10.000, same amount as all these snake-oil hifi products. Your comment failed!
Paul I love your Videos, I have a comment about specifically sound stage and speakers disappearing and I understand if it is a live presentation but what about a studio recording, it wouldn’t have the depth and stage wideness that you mention
Studio's are built to have the best depth perception possible... Microphones are not real ears and thus a recording has to be equalized by ear, and translated to your ears to get the best image possible. Only a true linear speaker can tell you where those lines are drawn, in a room that doesn't get in the way of the recording. It's a fusion of monitor+room, not just 'a' monitor or 'a' room. Easily confused, yes....
I had two headphones. One was a set of professional studio monitors from Yamaha based on the NS10’s and the other was their high end consumer headphones at the time. I enjoyed both. The sterility of the professional headphones was great for critical listening as a musician and I even enjoyed how clean and tidy the bass notes were. Everything was very even sounding with the professional set but those consumer grade headphones did something magical to the low-mids that I absolutely love. I think if you’re a musician it’s a no brainer to have studio monitors or studio headphones but only as a baseline to compare with the consumer speakers. I actually bought two sets of those Yamaha MT220’s because I loved the clarity of them so much. I gave my friend the consumer headphones because the material on the ear cups irritated my skin. I really miss those headphones and they’ve been discontinued for awhile now. If I could, I’d go get another pair put up with the irritation.
The actual real difference between "Hi Fi" (or audiophile if you want to peddle in buzzwords) speakers and Monitors are difference is about the near-field. Monitors are specifically designed to be listened to about 4 feet away and Hi Fi are about the longer field, Ie sitting in a loungeroom listening to records. This is important, because different frequencies travel at different speeds and this affects phase. So a monitor is designed to focus those frequencies so they are precisely in phase between 3-8 feet (depending on the monitors there are monitors with a mid-field and even far-field but these are super expensive and designed to mount on walls in large control rooms, the big studios often have multiple monitor systems the engineer can switch between on preference) which is the distance a recording engineer is sitting at from the monitors. But outside of that range the sound goes out of phase and starts sounding muddy and 'messy'. Hi-Fi/Audiophile speakers are designed to fill a room with sound with an EQ curve intended to take what the mastering engineer has put together and render it as pleasantly as possible. Essentially;- Dont buy monitor speakers for your loungeroom, and don't buy Hi-Fi speakers for your studio. They are intended for different things.
They're not analitical, they represent what was recorded which means they sound awesome... All of these terms used by clueless audiophiles is snake oil
@@lukabosnjak3829 You are never going to hear what the recording technician was hearing... you don't have his ears. That's not the point to begin with. The recording technician and the musicians need to correct detailed problems with the recording that can lead to a poor listening experience, e.g. if an instrument covers up the singing voice. This often requires sub-dB volume adjustments on individual channels. These can only be made with a studio monitor setup or with earphones that reduce the influence of the room's acoustics significantly compared to a typical hifi speaker setup... where most of what you are hearing are reflections and room resonances.
IRS-V's cannot be compared to a small 2 way studio monitor. A more relevant comparison would be a similarly sized 2 way audiophile bookshelf speaker vs a high end studio monitor known to sound great like the Mackie HR824mk2. Now these are powered speakers, which may or may not throw a wrench in some people's desired setups... but there is nothing inferior whatsoever about these speakers, or a number of other excellent examples. They can soundstage and disappear as well as any other speaker that is similar in size and design. Now if you like big speakers (I do) or exotic/non-traditional designs, then by all means, your preference is valid and they can have certain subjectively superior aspects to them. But LIKE for LIKE, a small to medium sized bookshelf speaker vs. a good studio monitor... they are the same thing, the latter often being powered, but generally designed more scientifically vs aesthetically or subjectively with intentional "flavor"... the studio monitors are thus often technically superior... which is the best kind of superior. Any "taste" you like can be added via DSP EQ, but you have the benefit of having a starting point that is without inherent flaws in the frequency plot due to driver selection or crossover design... that stuff has been done correctly, as opposed to just hitting a price point (even a moderately high one) and looking good with a particular aesthetic or sound character (read: deviation from correct). Give me some big crazy speakers over a monitor any day don't get me wrong... but if I'm choosing a 2 way bookshelf, I'll happily take the quality monitors and objectively have better speakers than you.
"They can soundstage and disappear as well as any other speaker that is similar in size and design." That statement can't be true. Not only would you have to listen to all other speakers of similar size and design, you would have to compare them to the Mackie. You haven't done even 1% of that. " but if I'm choosing a 2 way bookshelf, I'll happily take the quality monitors and objectively have better speakers than you." In a blind test, you couldn't tell correct from not correct.
I have an english company made pair of PMC IB2 Se's in my room at the moment. ive got to say that they sound absolute amazing. PMC have some of their speakers in the best recording studios around the world. when im sat here listening away i can at least get a feel of what the person recording the music was reaching out for instead of a pair of speakers that colour the sound to their taste.i always thought thats what we are all trying to achieve.a perfect reproduction of what was getting recorded at the time in the studio or the concert somewhere right? or are you saying Paul that your new speaker doesnt sound true?
BTW is not you say is that you want a speaker that will satisfy you individual taste in music.... no mater how acetate the resulting sound may or may not be? I'm not saying that is right or wrong and.. even I may be guilty of it to one extent or another. Also since much of what we hear is reflected sound, can speaker evaluations based on critical listening really be 100% valid?
When I first heard some old Grace Jones and Heart records on a pair of 4311 monitors I bought (and on which the records in question had been mixed), I heard them in a way I'd never heard before, with details that no other speaker good or bad had revealed in quite the same way. If the idea is to "bring the performance into the room", one could as easily argue that listening with the same ears as the mix engineer (i.e., through the same monitors) is the better approach to hearing the recording as it was intended to be heard.
Today’s topic makes me think about Nearfield, midfield and Farfield set ups . I remember people asking about floor monitors at large shows with massive PA and asking why the artist needed a small speaker pointed at their face so they can hear themselves. Maybe you could talk The goals of a system and how it’s designed to meet those goals.
One of the issues with nearfield vs. farfield has to do with two things: imaging and bass. Nearfield monitoring has bass response that does not mirror what happens in-room. If you're mixing for the car or for headphones that's fine. However, if you're mixing for music playback in the home, then that's probably a mistake. The results will then sound thin and lacking in the bottom end. And, of course, speakers don't image in the nearfield.
@@Paulmcgowanpsaudio i’m a big proponent of the always test your mix on multiple systems, the car,the listening room, Nice speakers , speaker so cheap I don’t think they should’ve been made in the first place and so on. Wishing a great holiday to all PS Audio family 🎄🎉
Quite simple. An artist is standing behind the pa not hearing the pa properly so won’t get a true sound which means they can be out of time or key. Wedges or now iems negate that problem
@@nikkic36 oh the joys and fears of a silent stage. 🤘🏽 Ok wait my backline is a pair of XLRs? I guess left is dry right is wet. In my monitors I’ll want vocals,kick , snare, a bit of the hats and just enough of me to know if I’m going out of (it’s metal nobody knows) tune🤣.
I bought Adam T7V a few years ago because it was the best I could get in my country at the time. All others were just crappy computer speakers like Genius or Logitech. Well, let me say that I didn't regret my decision to spend "a lot" of money ($400) at all. I though that audio couldn't get much better until I bought my Focal Clears (I know it's apples and oranges, but still). Now I am interested in trying audiophile speakers too. What would you suggest I go for if I want something that's better than Adams?
@bruce leee Hmm, maybe a subwoofer? If you like bass. Adams are great, but I wish I had more bass, but I don't really want a subwoofer, so I'm looking at tower speakers.
@bruce leee Maybe it's not the speakers, but something in the chain? I know it's a stupid question, but do you have an AMP/DAC and what do you use? Also, did you try using your speakers in some other (bigger) rooms?
@bruce leee Maybe it's just the AMP/speakers combo. Try them with some other AMP, if you get the opportunity. Maybe at some audio store, if you have one near you?
@bruce leee My studio monitors do sound better/fuller in my bedroom than in my living room because it's easier for them to fill the smaller space (I didn't treat any of the rooms). The problem is: they do sound nice to me and much better than anything I had before, but maybe you would find them same/worse than your bookshelf speakers. Can't be 100% certain until you hear them yourself. When I get to listen to Focals, maybe I will also realize that there's something missing with my speakers and I'd be able to help you. I wish you luck in any case. Feel free to comment any time.
My studio monitors sound fantastic in my audio system. I have an EQ and can color them any way I wish. Most "audiophile" stuff is mostly nonsense to sell stuff to cork sniffers
i owned and used a pair of clayton shaw's emerald physics open-baffle cs1.3's. clayton used off-the-shelf pro-audio drivers. his design, which was tri-amped and driven through a prism orpheus preamp/dac (also pro gear) produced some of the best and most *musical* sound i've ever had in my hifi setup. that showed me that there's nothing intrinsically "unmusical" about pro-audio hardware; how it is used in the design of the speaker is what matters. [thanks to walter liederman for helping me understand this.]
The bottom end is, it's just a question of taste. I got 2 pairs of Martin Logan and 3 pairs of JBL 4412, 4430 and 4435 and I'm 90% listening the 4435...
I own a small home studio with 2 sets of studio monitors. I also have a very good stereo in my living room. The monitors are for finding the trouble spots in the mix. The home stereo even though it is decent, makes everything sound good. It's hard to make a proper judgement call on stereo speakers. where as with the monitors, I can make that call accurately.
All I heard repeatedly here was that studio monitors sound different from Audiophile speakers, with no explanation or examples of what those differences are, i.e, what kinds of things would studio engineers be listening for in a recording?
They can sound "flat" in comparison, because there's no boost to the bass or trebles, there's no "warmness" added. It's the most neutral representation of the sound you get. But if you amp up the volume or use and EQ you can make them sound anyway you want unlike the hi-fis.
I’m trying to build a good BUDGET desktop audio set up either a 3.1 or 4.1…. So 1 center and 2 sides and a woofer OR 2 front stereo and 2 sides and a woofer. I’m not super worried about perfectly balanced audio. I’m my room and my personal preference I like mids and lows with no boosts to highs except at the very far end. So pretty much a very shallow V band with a flatter curve on the high end. Was wondering what anyone would recommend for this kind of set up.
How are you anticipating doing audio routing and up/downmixing, what are you playing from, and how would you anticipate the speakers would be placed relative to the listening position? There's quite a few factors that can affect suggested speaker layouts and choices, not just budget. 😊
@@ChristopherWoods oh I’ve been for years now. The problem is that I kind of just jumped in, without a good foundation of audio knowledge, besides very basic stuff from my car audio obsession days lol So there’s many terms and tid bits of things that I don’t know. And on top of that everyone has a different opinion about what’s good or bad. I don’t necessarily need a hi fi set up I’d just like to be able to crank it to 11 once in a while and sit back and say damn that sounds good. Loud clarity, and some punchy bass. And I’ll be happy. Currently I have 2 echo studios and 2 4th gen echos in my bedroom and I personally think they all sound fantastic together. They just don’t get quite loud enough or have enough bass.
The main difference is that studio monitors are meant for near-field listening, which is not the case in a usual home listening environment. They are, as a rule, very detailed and sometimes pretty sterile but should not be overly so as an engineer spends hours a day working in a studio. There are some exceptions though, ProAc Studio 100 being an example. Originally designed as a studio monitor (used by many renowned studios and artists, like Neil Diamond, John Scofield, Bill Frisell, Metallica, and Red Hot Chili Peppers, to name a few) but became a huge success as a home speaker. So much so, that ProAc tried to stop the production of it 3 or 4 times but a huge demand from customers forced them to carry on making them.
Nowadays there are more than a few speakers that are equally good in both pro and home stereo application, comprising enough "exceptions" that the rule has been largely disproved. Many -- perhaps even most -- home stereo applications are not "far field," but rather more like "mid field." This is especially true in places where residences are relatively small with listening spaces to match -- and there are quite a few "studio monitors" that perform exquisitely in that sort of "mid field" environment. In the final analysis, it's the individual product that matters, not whether it's being marketed as a "studio monitor" rather than an "audiophile" speaker.
The line between studio monitors and home stereo speakers has been blurry for 50+ years, starting when JBL dressed up their popular 4310 monitor and called it the L-100 Century, which became their all-time best selling home stereo speaker. Nowadays, studio monitors from makers like Kii Audio, Genelec, Neumann, and even very affordable stuff like Kali Audio's "2nd Wave" models are making home stereo listeners very happy because they are simply excellent loudspeakers that measure and sound great -- and not just in near field applications. Of course there are some monitors that are far short of excellent in that respect, e.g. some Yamaha models are notorious for their "if it sounds good on these crappy things, it'll sound OK on any system" performance -- but if you select carefully, studio monitors offer far better performance for the money than a combination of passive speakers and separate external amplification.
they were old school Yamaha consumer speakers that got adopted by the recording industry bc it turned out that if a mix worked on them, it would usually translate well to radio, boom boxes, cassettes, etc. Though many pros put tissue paper over the slightly too hot tweeters. Some still use them to check their mixes!
Sorry, I think it’s also a bit of comparing apples and oranges. The IRS5 are huge, even way bigger than most main monitors in studios. If you compare a decent 5inch bookshelf speaker to a decent 5inch Monitor (with decent I mean both speakers trying to have a more flat response), there shouldn’t be worlds between them, they will sound different but surely not chawdropping different. P.s. and yes, studio monitors have another purpose and there are monitors which are great for mixing, but sound terrible for enjoying music, but there are also lots of monitors that are fun.
You can’t judge the sound of a speaker in a room that is not acoustically treated. Studio monitors are made for a balanced sound in a controlled environment, so people with proper training that spend 20+ years working on music, people that can hear the difference between 300-350-380hz in an instrument, people that can identify the fundamental frequencies of an instrument in a first listen, can make tiny decisions that can make or break a song. Hifi is so someone can pay a lot of money to hear a hyped sound in their boomy living rooms :)
By the definition you've just given almost nobody listening is going to perceive the tiny difference you've just tweaked to allegedly make or break the song, and given the wild difference acoustic treatment, placement of the speakers and even where you've sat made to what you hear, just stand up and sit down to get two different versions of the same room and speaker elevation, the only person hearing your creation as you intended is you sat in your special spot. Given a blind test of your best mix vs your second best in your own car could you identify which was which? If not I'd highly recommend concentrating on the musical performance itself instead, as everybody else is going to perceive a tonal performance utterly beyond your control.
@@gadget348 you’re right, performance is always no1, but if your job is mixing or mastering (or anything in between like the extensive hours of editing required to achieve a professional result) you HAVE to care about all of these things. I have a great time listening to music on my earbuds too though, its fun. I wouldn’t however buy a very expensive (and pretentious) hifi sound system that simply cannot deliver the quality it has promised. If you want to burn money though, buy a pair of ATCs which is what the best mixing and mastering engineers use. It sounds amazing in the right room and surely kick any hifi’s ass.
Are you saying there is no point spending money on high quality audio systems? The only advice I get from your comment is that I should be either listening to music on audio monitors you recommend (what should I drive them with?), Or I should listen on the cheapest gear I can get, because anything focused on quality is just overpriced, pretentious crap. Could you also explain what overpriced means please? Who decides how much should one spend on equipment?
@@tyczekp Well you can buy whatever you want tbh, speakers are also a matter of taste, but without a good room is like buying a ferrari to go drive on a dirt road. Not everyone is gonna have the privilege of having all of that of course, but some people in the hifi world like to advertise speakers that cost waaaaay too much without giving the whole information to people (such as about acoustics and etc). So by all means, put whatever 30k pair of speakers in a reverby room, but i think is the role of people that know a bit about that to pass on the knowledge
@@lucasmirovski1003 unfortunately the role of people who sell speakers is to sell speakers, just like the role of people who sell Ferraris is to sell cars, not roads. Some would argue that Supra, or even Miata is all you need to enjoy driving, others would laugh at Ferrari from behind the wheel of their Koenigsegg. While others will get an Opel, or Chrysler estate and will get from one place to the other with lots of stuff in the back. If anything is pretentious here, it is your comment.
You say 'flat', for me, it's 'clean'. I've just retired my pair of 1981 B&Ws which I bought 24yrs ago 2nd hand. 22yrs of listening, still going strong, gifted them to a mate. Seriously gorgeous they are. Strangely, I'd describe them as warm and crisp. When I'm ready for MartinLogans I'm sure I'll appreciate them. As a DJ tho I prefer monitors for playback as well as practice. I enjoy the unforgiving detail. I'm now on a set of huge KRKs and subwoofer, to me the sound is scrumptious. Unless we're talking top-of-the-line speakers, I'm a monitors girl through and through.
Picture studio monitors as the analytical architects, meticulously measuring every sonic detail like an artisan crafting a masterpiece with precise tools. Conversely, hi-fi speakers step into the role of sonic painters, adding a touch of vibrancy to the auditory canvas, splashing colors of warmth and richness for a more emotionally resonant experience. Together, they form a duet, each bringing its unique notes to the symphony of sound.
Is the most stupid discurse I ever red 🤦♂️ Just not a real difference, they are comercial speakers quite flat and monitors quite colored. The rest is just marketing: speakers are speakers. Call them monitors don’t change anything, is a matter of taste or professional needs (specially in the case of mixing). Genelec sold the G series for listening and after a while they “confessed” that they were the same as 8020, 8030s… just with different connections.
I am happy with my Focal Shape Twin near field active monitors XLR (inakustik cables) output from my Luxman DAC. The positions is just 1.5cm to the left and right of my 27" PC monitor. The listening distance is between 2.5 feet - 5 feet. The sound is very detailed, smooth, analogy, engaging and have very deep bass. Besides, it's not sound either clinical or warm at all those I can adjust through switching cables or fuses.
Well... so a director of photografy should be glad to know that audience looks to his film with colours and hue unpredictably different from what he saw on camera... After having spent hours to create the images he wanted. No, I'm sorry, I that is called my-fi.
I just came to say that watched this with Stanley Cowells "Lady blue" playing in brackground and somehow the tone and tempo you speak synchronized beautifully with that track lol
Nearly every pro studio uses Yamaha NS-10s for near-field monitors. Some of the best pop and rock records ever made have been mixed using these speakers. However, these speakers will not sound good to an audiophile, in fact, NS-10s can sound awful. But they have excellent impulse response, good midrange clarity and have the unique ability to highlight flaws in the mix in such a in-the-face manner that the engineer can quickly find the problem and fix it.
well, no pro uses NS10s as their primary near field monitors. They are used as a final or back and forth check to make sure a mix holds together and will translate.
But isn't that all just marketing speech, Paul? I'm disappointed you discussed the matter this way. Of course there are differences between these speaker categories but they may very well be perceived the other way round (for instance, directionality of sound in studio monitors can be a very handy thing, active power is very handy, etc.). Sure, there are markets for both and they are quite separate from each other - I just do not see why you felt it necessary to foster the gap between them.
Another insightful talk Paul, thank you! I’m on my 3rd set of PMC speakers (currently 20/26s) I guess I aught to start listening to different brand alternatives, and stop believing marketing hype about studio heritage..?
The new JBL 4349 Studio Monitor enables music lovers at home to enjoy the same exceptional dynamics and accuracy that producers and engineers employ in leading studios. Now, by virtue of a transformative driver, mathematically brilliant horn and woofer design, and classic good looks - great sound has never been more at home. Every detail of the JBL 4349 Studio Monitor has been examined and every assumption has been challenged. The result is a monitor loudspeaker that defies comparison and provides anyone, anywhere with a love of music to re-discover every track, re-visit with every artist and re-trace every musical journey. I promise that new nuance, new energy, and new dynamics will be revealed! - Jim Garrett, Senior Director, Product Strategy and Planning, HARMAN Luxury Audio
I use a pair of KRK 10" Rokits as listening speakers for the past few years, and they are amazing. But you want to know the funny thing? I cannot for the life of me listen to electronic music on them! Even though that's my favorite genre. The speakers just highlight the "fakeness" of it so much that it become almost un-enjoyable to listen to! A related factor I think is that I feel like it's a waste to use those speakers to listen to something that sounds the same or even better on cheaper speakers. Jazz, rock, classical and even hip hop is what I enjoy on those nice studio monitors. And actually these speakers are what got me into listening to other genres, because I found how enjoyable it is to hear all the natural nuances of the performers and the recording equipment. That being said, KRKs color the sound a lot, so they're a perfect compromise for someone that wants a high level Hifi system without spending level Hifi money. You can get a pair new for $1k and they are tri-amped so it's a great entry point. They'll shake the house too for a party. Now on the other-hand when I am at my computer desk and on some basic Bose computer speakers, I listen to electronic music (deep house etc.) all day long at a low volume! Classic "electronic music" that was produced in a more analog fashion such as vintage Depeche Mode I am ok with though on the studio monitors as it still sounds "real." Oh and another thing, one of my favorite bands, Coldplay and U2, I can't really listen to on the studio monitors. Just sounds flat and muddled. Perhaps someone can answer why the heck they mix like that.. Just like with Adele. Skyfall on Tidal sucks on the studio monitors, her voice sounds so processed it's gross. I would imagine it sounds great on some high-Dollar Hifi tower speakers though! I hope that helps as another angle to describe this phenomenon.
@@octaverecordsanddsdstudios1285 You know Radoslaw was being sarcastic, right? As an audio professional I've always wondered about this and hoped you might actually enlighten us!
Coming out of both production and listening, I went with Genelec for my living room, and it works great for me. This is after making sure the room has sufficient absorbers and diffusers, which generally is even more important than speakers! Some people don't like it, because it's very transparent -- you may very well want a particular "sound." It's a bit like: Are all your walls painted white, or do you use color? Add you say: Using your eyes and ears is the most important!
I use a paid of Genelec at my home studio.... they are aaaamaaziiinngggg. This who concept of lifeless and sterile is nonsense. Balance frequency distribution does not mean lifeless as some audiophiles say.
"Some people don't like it, because it's very transparent" How would prove your speakers are more transparent than someone else's? You can't do it with measurements, and if you think you can, you can't provide a single example to back it up.
Here's a different situation: I restore recordings from old and/or damaged media. I use Sennheiser headphones designed for gaming because they bring out ALL flaws. Which studio monitors would be appropriate?
@@djhrecordhound4391 You are most welcome! Let me know what you think! Personally, I’d go for the Genelecs as they are powered and are not quite as fussy as to where you position them. As nearfields, slightly toed in towards the listening position you can get away without a treated room and they are very cohesive. The dispersive tweeter design is superb for example and the treble doesn’t fly all over the place! They are not cheap but even the smaller sized ones are excellent. There are lots of configuration settings for dynamics on the back so you can tailor them to your surroundings.
I have had my KEF LS50W’s for 5 years. Bought a DJ Controller 6 months ago and mix on those. Looking at what I want to get for an upstairs setup…studio or hi fi. It’s interesting hearing how different my Bose Bluetooth sounds than the Kefs.
I like your videos. Mostly recomended and liked. But on this one I not agree 100%. Studio monitors are flat and ussualy boring but they are made to be as much transparent as it can be. When audiophiles talk about transparency and after that they say: "I like this speakers because of sound color..." Beep. Sound color is oposite to transparency. I also like audiophile speakers better than studio monitors but I am sensitive when we putting wrong names on something. You and other companies build speakers and gather customers that like sound and character of your speakers. I will say again. Yes monitors are sterile and boring. Yes your speaker sounds much better, but the monitors are closer to original and by that there is more quality. For the future, wish you much of luck and health and keep doing good job. I am very experienced in this but anyway, I learned much from you.
I have been using separates in my studio since I built it over 15 years ago, using bookshelf speakers made by jbl lol. Started with two left side S-38ii 😂 then an actual pair of Northridge E50. Before building my own monitors my main pair (and favorites made by someone else are the fairly old now) Monitor Audio S2 Silver. Little boxes that rock, make sure to use a high power amp with your separates.
I havent been able to find a hifi system that comes close to representing live music as a 4.1/5.1 near fields in a small room, where you are still close to the speakers. Of course having the room setup reasonably as well. Any hifi setup to sound this good is so much more money. Just my experience. I like to use the Keith Dont Go live recording from Nils Lofgren Acoustic Live. I close my eyes and if everything is setup correctly, it sounds like I am in a small theater with a live acoustic band.
That's what EQ's are for. I run a double system and mix studio monitors with some old band speakers. For listening both together sound best. When i'm working i just run the monitors.
In essence, a sound engineer has to be able to dissect out the individual (instrumental) components of the recording he is sound engineering reflecting the conditions under which it was recorded. His task is then to mix and rebalance these individual audio components against each other to produce a final product that results in the overall best audio reproduction of the ensemble performance, and not necessarily reflecting the acoustic idiosyncracies particular to the conditions under which it was originally recorded.
Studio Monitors have one big difference to consumer products: They are measured on their accuracy of reproducing what the sound engineer wants to hear. The big question though is, what did the sound engineer really want? In times of mass production, they probably want, that the music will sound good on any typical low to medium cost consumer product. So in this case, he will put more of those frequencies in the mix, where he would expect these consumer products won´t reproduce them in the right amount and less of those where it is the other way round. They also often check the mix with those products also. Why: Because they always want to meet the mass, for selling the mass. So if you have one of those expensive HiFi things, you should look out for special recordings made for that, or you have a good equalizer, that is anyway an good idea, as the room, where you are listening, will also change the "mix". One thing you also should consider, that is the range your own ears are still having. Nowadays, there are many people with hearing loss in young years already. Would be interesting to compare mixes 50 years ago with todays, to see what has changed.
The most important thing is that the monitor is black, plastic and fundamentally with uncovered speakers. And then it is also a little different in that it is supposed to provide an accurate sound image to someone who is sitting about a meter away from it. I have the old monitors from the TV studio in the attic at home, they are wooden and each has a volume of about 280 liters. Times are changing ;-)
Exactly and the same can be said for high-end audiophile speakers too. We all want flat. Just remember that within those bounds of flat there's always a +/- 3dB swing that in a speaker is somewhat unavoidable. So what does the designer do with those variations in frequency and loudness? That's where the difference comes in and how it sounds.
Hi Paul, could you eloborate on why listening to music on studio monitors is flawed idea? You mentioned here that audiophile systems can bring music to life and provide a believable sound stage. Are you infering audiophile listeners typically prefer a different tonal balance to mixing/mastering engineers? Do you believe that audiophile systems can provide better localisation than mastering grade monitors? Many thanks for your time.
Hi Eli. I think I would put it another way. A proper audiophile system offers the ultimate in soundstage and realism of the recorded music. It's what we as music lovers would like to hear in our homes. That sound/performance is not something that can be achieved using most studio monitors because they are designed for a different purpose. So, it has to be very difficult for a mix engineer to use a speaker that does not give the results desired if we're interested in a recording that has all the magic we as audiophiles look for. It makes much more sense to mix on the same speakers we want to eventually play it back on. And yes, the speakers are very different in the way they are voiced by the speaker designer.
I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree here Paul. The idea that any system in a non purpose built acoustic environment such as a typical home could deliver the ultimate in soundstaging is inaccurate. Listeners may find your speakers aesthetically pleasing, however, a system with a non flat response delivering the ultimate in realism is a non sequitur.
Because, as a recording/mixing engineer you are working on uncompressed material that can have 30-50dB of dynamic range. Also, it is very convenient to use balanced cable strait from the audio interface or mixing desk.
@@Threemicsrecords What? Well, in the case of my studio monitors, its nice to have an amp that is matched to the drivers in a predictable way, rather than choosing my own amp and hoping it drives the speakers as designed. As a recording / mixing engineer I'm working on material that can have 96db or more of dynamic range, but this is not normally a point of contention between Audiophile and Studio monitors - both are capable of reproducing dymanics accurately.
I love hearing Paul share his wealth of wisdom on all things audio! But this topic has always snagged me- especially as someone who enjoys "flat" audio reproduction and studio gear. Like, would it not be fair to define the "specific set of parameters" that recording & mastering engineers are interested in as an accurate, even representation of the recorded material across the frequency spectrum and stereo field? And if so, how specifically would an audiophile's interests deviate? Does it come down to the aspect that an engineer needs to make compromises in order to create one mix which sounds the best across all devices, therefore not arriving at the pinnacle of what could be represented on the very best systems? And so alternatively, is an audiophile's setup not calibrated to manipulate that same final mix, in order to make it sound the way it hypothetically would on reference speakers in a world where every listener had the highest quality system (making compromises unnecessary)? And if that's the case, would it not be possible to take a high quality set of studio monitors, with excellent specs, in a good room, and apply a sort of an "audiophile algorithm" to process the sound in a way which brings the listening experience up to audiophile standards? And if that isn't the case, what is it about the signal path or other technical variables which cause it to fall short? I'm sure Paul is already articulating all of this masterfully and I'm just not quite understanding, but if there's ANY chance that Gus Skinas would be willing to chime in and describe it from his perspective... it might just be the tipping point needed to convert MANY audio enthusiasts into super avid audiophiles. 🙏👍
It would not be fair to define the "specific set of parameters" (it's an awful phrase, because it's not really parameters) for audio engineers in this fashion. What I want out of a monitor is that it shows me what the biggest problem with the mix is. Then i fix that. at which point I want to monitor to show me what the next biggest problem with the mix is. Does it need to be accurate? Nope. In an ideal dream scenario the monitor would make the current biggest issue worse than it actually is. Maybe someday with AI assistence we could even get there. I don't care if the frequency response is flat, only that it is flat enough, so that if the biggest issue with the mix is that there is too much going on in the low mids, I can identify this problem and don't think I should focus on phase issues between the bass guitar and the distorted rhythm guitar next. Even the best monitors have areas of weakness in this regard and engineers switch between various monitoring set ups to check different potential issues. If you wanted to take a picture of a loved one, you wouldn't go with an MRI or CT machine, even though these are things that MDs use to get very accurate representations of people.
@@simongunkel7457 Wow, that MRI / photograph analogy *floored* me! Nicely said!! Ok, so my basic take is that flatness and accuracy are great attributes for diagnostic purposes & calibrating a mix, but an audiophile setup is more about sweetening and maximizing that audio in an attempt to provide the ultimate customized immersive listening experience. ...And even if I'm not expressing right, your explanation & analogy helped considerably! Thanks for taking the time to share it 🙏👍
@@Rompler_Rocco Yea, I would go so far as to say flatness isn't something I'll look for. There are monitors that are technically more flat than monitors that cost more and are sitting in more good studios. When buying monitors I bring a number of reference mixes, including some that are WIP and knowing that on mix X the reverb on the snare had to be dialed back, I'll see which monitor tells me that the reverb on the snare needs to be dialed back in the clearest way. And then there are 10 other tracks with other issues to go through. Remember that human hearing isn't perfectly flat and the frequency response changes with the listening level. So if a monitor is perfectly flat, the most flat response would take a listening level that is quite loud and if I worked at that level permanently I'd fatigue quicker and would even run the risk of damaging my ears eventually. Not a good thing when you work with audio. Whether a monitor does its job can't really be gleaned from the technical specifications. And I would argue the same is true for a listening system. You go in with a number of your favorite recordings and see which playback system makes them sound the best to you. This notion that there is some ideal way to listen back so it sounds like it did in the studio is flawed, because you change things like which monitors you use and at which level you listen back during the process. Another analogy would be a live show. You've got the FOH mix, which is what the audience gets to hear and you have monitor mixes for each member of the band (this used to be kind of luxury, but by now the equipment is cheap enough that even smaller bands tend to have individual monitor mixes). You could have this idea of wanting to hear what the band hears, but the first problem is that this isn't going to be the same for each member of the band. And nobody on stage actually gets to hear the full song - a bass player might really need the drums up because the timing cues matter to their performance, but the guitar solo would at best be unneccessary and at worst a distraction. If they are doing backing vocals, they need their voice up to hear themselves singing, probably on par with the lead vocals. The FOH sound is a better representation of tha band than the monitor mixes. In the same way a playback system that sounds good is a better representation of an album than the various monitor set ups that went into making the production choices that went into the finished album.
"Like, would it not be fair to define the "specific set of parameters" that recording & mastering engineers are interested in as an accurate, even representation of the recorded material across the frequency spectrum and stereo field? And if so, how specifically would an audiophile's interests deviate?" For me, personally, there is no deviation. If my speakers don't have flat frequency response, low distortion, and even dispersion across the audio passband, then I'm not listening to my music, I'm listening to my speakers.
When i dj on studio monitors it sounds so incredible really struggling to understand why i should use “dj” speakers with boosted eqs in bass etc when i have an amazing clear sound and all the controls on my mixer, feels like i should just take my studio monitors over 15 inch with 18 subs like im being told i need…
Studio monitors are designed 1) with built-in amps for self-contained reproduction, and 2) near field audio (i.e., engineer sitting at mixing panel in small room, rather than in living room). They are also typically designed or praised for being neutral (transparent).
As a recording engineer working in a small studio, I personally use near fields, but most commercial recording studios actually use midfield monitors for most critical listening.
@@Bootrosgali That depends. How accurate is the frequency response of your postulated 8inch monitor speaker, how directional is it, which will affect how it sounds given where it's positioned relative to your ears, and how low distortion is it at your desired listening level?
I bought 8inch powered KRK monitors for listening to electronic music exactly because I thought, well if this is what they use I'll get these and I'll hear it!
Guess what? Studio monitors are not the same, some are flat and striale, some are more lively..just like any speaker they sound different and will appeal to different tastes. They do however more suitable for close listening, so if you have a small room, and you are less than 2 meters from the speakers, a near field studio monitor is a better choice. Again, one which sounds good to you
There are some good audiophile speakers around that are also used as studio speakers. I use PMC speakers at home and think they are excellent, ATC also comes to mind.
That is true, as long as you are not trying to use them in a near field configuration. Professional studios usually have multiple pairs of monitors at various distances from the mixing board. High quality audiophile speakers are often used for mid and far field monitoring, i.e., at distances they were designed for.
@@avsystem3142 I guess you learned something from me. As now you seem to understand that you cant group every studio monitor into a near field monitor. A great many monitors excell at mid which is typical of a living room set up, so this is precisely why this generalization about studio monitors and the entire video decrying studio monitors lacks any validity or common sense. The real issue is idiots that pay thousands for speakers that have terrible response curves and try to say that they are really great and better than a speaker with a flat response. The goal is a flat response. Some speakers achieve that and look great, some like studio monitors achieve that and look blah. The scary thing for people who sell expensive speakers is that average joes can find a pair of 1980's-1990's professional monitors that still present an excellent flat response for a fraction of the costs of fancy-looking Super Duper Gobsmacked Piano Black High Gloss Audiophile Treasured Speakers that cost $5k.
@@calhounj1 The only thing I learned from you is another lesson in how not to comment on CZcams. You're original contention that there is no difference between studio monitors and consumer hi-fi speakers remains nonsense. You appear to think that professional recording engineers and producers are complete fools for not agreeing with you on the subject and foolishly spend capital on purpose built studio monitors when they could save a bundle and just buy "audiophile" speakers.
a lot of classic records were mixed on auratones and i doubt anyone is going to start building $100,000 rooms around them any time soon. good dry sterile mix environment can let a larger quantity of good mixes come out without a lot of fatigue
And yet Gordon Holt bought a set of ATC 50 powered monitors because they made recordings he made sound more like the live performance he recorded than any other speaker he had heard.
Fatiguing depends on which kind of studio monitor you are using, how loud you listen and for how long. There are plenty of high end studio monitors that are not fatiguing. I say high end studio monitors, because the likes of KRK and Yamaha HS8 (as many seems to own in this thread) are NOT proper studio monitors.
To me, the main difference is clear: studio monitors should always expose deficiencies in the reproduced sound in a reliably neutral way. Well recorded and mixed music should always sound good. In contrast, high-end speakers (N.B. speakers, _not_ 'monitors') should inherently flatter audio coming through them, making even badly recorded stuff sound nice. There's artistic licence involved with the design of both studio monitors and high end speakers, with every brand sporting a "house sound". Ultimately the choice is one of cost and trust - do you trust your speakers to be accurate, and do you trust that the cost is justified? Many monitors and high end speakers share much of the same attributes. Practically, nowadays the majority of monitors benefit from things like matched integral amps, a wide range of input support and a lot more integral control over the sound. They're typically designed to be form-follows-function. With speakers, the onus is on the user to source and pair amps and input stages. The cabinet shape and materials used will be often be chosen to give a more premium aesthetic, with effects on the sonics sometimes being a secondary concern. I particularly like the imaging of my coaxial Tannoys for my setup, they're lovely allrounder monitors which I trust and have used for analysis and mixing alongside listening for fun. They translate well to other systems. I've used plenty of excellent monitors from dozens of brands, ATCs would be my lottery win go-to for the living room. You can also get apparent contradictions in the definitions of monitor vs. speaker. For example, I would never use PMC for critical listening or mixing. In my own controlled conditions testing, I've seen how non-linear they can be, and how they behave more like hifi speakers than reference studio monitors. They have a place in some people's setups, and can produce a hyped, lively sound, but I'd never seek to use them professionally.
![If you can't hear this then you're not an audiophile [See description for link to followup video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/48PxwspDvrE/mqdefault.jpg)
The biggest difference is that audiophiles will buy anything with sufficient promotion. Music producers and engineers are way more discriminating, even cynical, in their buying choices. We have the opportunity to put to test a lot of choices without buying and make our decisions based on cold, calculating metrics. I don’t know anyone who chooses a $10k pair of monitors due to its appearance or advertising.
LOL no. Talking about audiophiles as a group is like talking about drivers as a group, disregarding what they drive and why. Audiophiles are primarily split into categories along multiple axis but the most important split perhaps is analytical vs emotional listeners split. Analytical audiophiles are in many ways close to music producers I think, emotional audiophiles are in some ways the opposite. Emotional audiophiles look for gear that will make their music sound *better* than it was recorded as, to their ears, they want to *feel* the music as an emotional journey of sorts. Analytical audiophiles look for the sort of gear that will reveal every tiniest detail of a recording down to details that aren't meant to be heard, like a cable slapping a guitar body, a slight exhalation into a live mic, the grain of a guitar neck or ribbing on a base string.
I'm at times one, at other times the other, but I tend more toward the analytical with my personal gear, but not too far into the extreme. But then I also make music, and spend probably 40% of my listening time with rather revealing gear set up 'withering away' at mixing knobs to find the exactly right amount of effect and volume on one instrument in the mix. Tedium that technically speaking matters only to me on that sort of level, but when I find the "right" balance, I'm satisfied and happy. And then I relax listening to someone elses music on a setup that has a much warmer and softer sound than the original mix was intended as, just because I want it to sound good, not accurate to the intention of the original studio dudes who recorded it.
I know I'm "eating my own tail" here. I don't care.
I absolutely disagree with your statement. The reason that many people by in blind or only after reading reviews or in promotions is that manufacturers are afraid to demonstrate their products for direct comparison with other manufacturers. This is the reality at least in my country. For example there is no place in Bulgaria where i can test in blind audition 3 or 4 loudspeaker sets in approximately same price range with a reference source and amplifier. Or the opposite variant - reference loudspeaker with different amps. Do you have a place in your country where you can do this?
@@nickolaymiltenov As a longtime customer of a number of pro studio equipment distributors, I am frequently given the competing pieces for a reasonable period to compare on my own, in my own studio. To repay that generosity, I don’t price-shop and buy such pieces online. It gives me great pleasure to support those amazing distributors.
I’ve been sent 5 different pairs of speakers worth many tens of thousands of dollars to help me make a choice. Also, consoles, recorders, outboard pieces. My fave distributor at any time will well over $1 million in inventory out on loan. His customers, including myself, know what a privilege it is and obviously, it works. The pro community rewards the manufacturers who go along, punishes those who refuse.
Have you tried KALI AUDIO IN-8 Second Wave?
Any thoughts?
@@tibsyy895 No I haven’t.
As a recording engineer the answer is simple: they are designed for different purposes. Studio monitors have much more “resolution” and separation in how they present both dynamics and frequencies to pin point problem areas in a mix / master, whereas hi-fi speakers “sweeten” the sound by actually only having resolving power in specific frequency areas and not the whole range. The “problem” with studio monitors for audiophiles is that they will tell you if a mix your listening to sounds bad, but hi-fi speakers mask the trouble spots in an attempt to make everything sound good.
Hi-fi is shorthand for "high fidelity," which means "great faithfulness" to the source material -- going by what you say, then the so-called "hi-fi" speakers you describe aren't really "hi-fi" at all!
@@editorjuno Hi-fi is in comparison to what's was called lo-fi when it came out, nothing more, nothing less. It's a marketing term at best. If you want accuracy you look at the frequency response curve.
@@grandsome1 -- There's no arguing that. The term "lo-fi," however, is quite new -- it never appeared in print back in the late 1940s when the term "hi-fi" was coined. Yes, from a marketing standpoint it was designed to contrast good home playback gear from the typical table radios and phonographs of that era -- but, as an ideal it means "great faithfulness," which amounts to accuracy in sound reproduction.
@@editorjuno The point is that it doesn't matter one bit that a pair of speakers is marketed as "hi fi", because it's nothing more than a sales pitch. If you want to know faithful a pair of speakers are, objectively, you need objective measurements, not subjective descriptors such as marketing terms like "hi fi".
@@santishorts -- Again, no argument. That's why I prefer objective, measurement-oriented reviews from folks like Amir (Audio Science Review) and Erin (Erin's Audio Corner) to anything from de facto marketing and/or sales types like Mr. McGowan and Steve Guttenberg.
I've always been a music enthusiast, but had always used monitors (because I was told it was the best sound possible). I became an audiophile the day I listened to a set of Martin Logans...thats when I heard the soul of the music for the first time and my journey began.
Man I live for those "firsts".
As a musician I typically get premaster mixes as uncompressed files. The guys in the band will play them through anything they have from home systems to car radios to stage monitors to headphones, we send our feedback and suggestions to the engineer to mix accordingly. In the end it is always a compromise and we are all listening for something different (biased by our instruments and expectations). That is, we take into account the systems most people will listen to as most music isn’t focused on one application and all recorded music was created for convenience versus a virtual experience. An aside: the studio is like an extra member of the band and can color the whole sound and influence the band just as much as any other member or manager or producer can. With that, the bottom line on monitors or amps or eq’s is, if you like the sound you get then that’s the one for you … the same goes for instruments
When I read Shakespeare, I typically don’t focus on how bad my Early Modern English is … I somehow enjoy the story or poem just as much or actually more, to listening to someone read it with period proper enunciation
As a lifelong musician and audiophile, I agree. My bands have always gone through similar processes when recording.
I worked in the industry for a successful major label. I used to love the pre-master mixes we would get in advance of releases. To me they almost always sounded better, more impactful and more alive than the final release. Especially with high energy music. The signal and production chain is full of necessary compromises- for technical and commercial reasons. That's why audiophile content usually doesn't sound great on mid fi or lo fi systems, and commercial mainstream music often sounds horrible on high res audiophile systems.
Another interesting thing- pro musicians and major artists almost always have mid fi systems (at best) at home. They are rarely audiophiles. Some might have a high powered system, but it usually won't be hi-res. (They just want the bass punch to be physical.) You would think musicians would have 'ears' as audiophiles typically do, but musicians listen much more the music and performance, almost to the point of being indifferent to the actual sound.
Whatcha talking about Willis?@@BCRobot
Thanks for this interesting topic. But sadly, we didn't learned much appart they are different. Of course they are... hence the different naming 🤪 _We couldn't have guessed this one on our own_ 😋
Would have liked to hear about:
Monitor → Neutral 🆚 Speaker → Sound Signature
Acoustically treated studio 🆚 Not acoustically treated listening room (which speakers have to accommodate/deal with)
Maybe a good analogy would be controls on modern TVs: contrast / color / vibrancy / motion smoothing, etc. You can watch a movie that's been recorded to look a certain way, and apply tweaks to make its color saturated, contrast boosted, super smooth motion. It looks nice, if that's what you like. For me I prefer to watch the truest representation of what the producer created - hopefully it was their artistic choice to make it look that way.
Similarly I like to listen to music like I watch movies, on an accurate monitor setup without boosting frequencies / added compression, so I hear exactly what the producer created. Not to say someone else's preference is invalid!
Excellent analogy 😃
I love studio monitors for hi-fi listening, although it's not for everyone but I really like the anylitical sound. Adam Audio A8H and my own DIY bookshelf speakers are all I'll ever need.
Budget powered studio monitors are amazing if money is tight. The detail is incredible even on some sub $100/pair sets.
Maybe a personal thing. I really like the driest, least coloured sound I can get.
That said, in a live music environment, certain colourations sound good. I like a speaker that slightly emphasises the 12-16kHz range. Also, given the distance the sound has to travel, I favour horn loaded designs.
If me as a producer made a track with a drum set that does not sound like it had “life” and your system made it sound like it did, then your system is simulating something that was not supposed to be there in the first place. 🤷🏻♂️
Well, I would agree with you. That's not the idea. What we want is to make sure when the recording has life the speakers in the home reproduce it properly. I think the bigger issue is what speakers are used in the mix. If the engineer wants a live sound then the mix speakers have to give him/her high enough resolution so they can hear what's truly going on. When we build our final mix room the speakers will be our FR30 which are some of the most revealing speakers in the world.
@@Paulmcgowanpsaudio
Thanks for the reply.
Merry Christmas.
Ok I hawe Elac Concentro M and it sounds beutiful.. like Orchestra......
This response is why I feel the video could have been more specific about the different speaker requirements - so people would be less inclined to 'misunderstand' the different but no less relevant objective of domestic audio system compared to a recording studio setup. In the studio it could be that the objective is to be able to easily focus on the component parts of the music, like looking at specific samples under a microscope. Whereas for a domestic playback system reproducing the whole experience including it's context is often more desirable..
If you think most producers or engineers are making recordings of instruments sound like they do in person, then you've recently awaken from a coma. Only the small audiophile labels using " audiophile " pro gear making uncompressed recordings come close. Most recordings go through the wringer before it gets to the consumer. I remember back in the early 90s when studios were using cheap $200 ADCs
I have experienced, that some audiophiles are choosing speakers which they experience gives the maximum musical joy even it's not natural for their money, where others choose the same goal, but that imply the most natural and un-coloured sound. I believe a competent sound engineer are aiming for the latter as well. So, if you have most joy of istening to music at your home that has the most natural sound, to hear as many details as possible, then you will probably end up with a studio monitor speaker.
the whole idea that studio monitors can't give you the sense of the speaker disappearing and give realistic soundstage is ridiculous, they absolutely can, they can bloody pinpoint 3d image at least my monitors (adam audio a7v) can, a friend of mine has ridiculously good and expensive audiophile system, but he says he really loves listening he's nearfields because of the image they produce....yes they also don't mask errors in the mix but some people prefer that, it gives me the tool to appreciate music that is mixed good as well.
I have listened to many hi-end speakers/systems in my 60+ years and I now prefer my Adam A7X monitors over most of them. Listening nearfield I feel I can hear individual instruments and placement more accurately and most importantly I think that nearfield listening takes the "room" acoustics out of the equation somewhat...so if you can't dedicate a room to full treatments, design, etc. a nearfield monitor listening experience is midway between headphones and "normal" speaker listening, but better than even great speakers in a poor acoustic environment.
So you sit in one place at a certain distance to listen to encounter the narrow sweetspot of near field. Sounds kinda limiting man
I agree. Still, the best sound comes from far field monitors in a well treated room.
@@Bootrosgali Sweetspot varies speaker to speaker. My makies have bigger sweetspot
@@Bootrosgali -- My Kali monitors have excellent dispersion, which results in a pretty wide and tall "sweet spot." IOW and IMO, you've overgeneralized by category.
For me, Studio monitors+studio sub any day for listening to any material. The fidelity they provide is unparalleled. Maybe it's my critical brain at work.
Why would you want anything less.... if its mixed and mastered on studio monitors THEN IT SOUNDS THE WAY ITS SUPPOSED TO SOUND ON STUDIO MONITORS..... I never understood this stupid bullshit argument. Audiophile speakers ARE DESIGNED to color audio...... I dont get it. Its kind of what pushed me away from audio gear to begin with. I bought a pair of Genelecs and a matching Genelec sub and once I got it I realized there is nothing else I would ever really want. So I kinda fell out of the hobby realizing how stupid a lot of reasons and shit people use for excuses is usually always just bullshit. If Genelecs are good enough to mix and master 500 Million dollar movies and videogames or albums that sit on top of the billboard 100... then they are good enough FOR EVERYBODY. If they are not good enough for you....... then you prolly like the smell of your own farts too. Thats basically what I realized in my experience in high end audio. I have the speakers an RME ADI 2 and a Pair of DT1990 pros. DONE.... everything else is just a waste of money. That's not really an opinion its fact. Audiophiles LOSE THEIR SHIT when I say that though...... another reason why I left the audio scene. Too much fart smelling.......
@@ashflame6888 lol. That's quite a comprehensive argument and well articulated too 😂😂😂. Audiophile scene is too much snake oil without understanding the basics of sound and audio electronics. To me, studio electronics represent a high standard of audio research without the usual bullshit. Of course, you get what you paid for, but then, even an entry level studio monitor + sub combo gives us what we really required to achieve high fidelity sound reproduction without driving the costs through the roof. Genelecs are some of the most precise sound reproduction tool out there and pair it with some A grade audio interface like RME, you are sorted for life.
@@djross2423 LOL yeah I feel a certain way about it I guess.... I haven't really voiced my opinion on it in a long time.
"To me, studio electronics represent a high standard of audio research without the usual bullshit"
That was the number one thing that kept going though my head when I was deciding to buy the Genelecs. I knew I was gonna pay a premium for the Gens but I also felt like if I'm gonna do this I'm only gonna do it once. Ultimately that's what sold me on them.... I couldn't be happier with them. I knew I hit my ceiling within 20 mins of setting them up.
I am using Dynaudio BM5 MKIII for olayback and I am more than happy with them. Full and 3D sounding speakers and for the price tough to beat cheers
@@ashflame6888 I could not agree more. I am on the same drug! Genelec monitors with a Genelec Sub! I color this marvelous combo thru a miniDSP SHD Studio. I sold my "audiophile" gear some tima ago! Not missed!
For me it sounds like people in studios want to hear reality and audiophiles want to hear something different - even when they claim they want it as accurate as possible. P.S. I like good reproduced music but I wouldn't call myself an audiophile.
Great video sir. There is much truth in what you stated. I have been a studio musician and performer for many years and have been in many different studio environments. I prefer studio monitors for music production, mixing, mastering and just listening for the love of music. It really comes down to getting use to what you have in your environment and how your speakers translate the songs you really know and love. I recently purchased a pair of Focal Alpha 80s for near and mid field monitoring. For me they work for all my needs. They are studio monitors that are very musical, but also revealing. Like any speaker, they must be set up in your room properly to get the best sound. 👌
can I use an eq to get "audiophile" sound from my kali monitors? They sound great for my keyboard but terrible playing music from the computer or tablet
what kind of microphone was used here? sounds soo crisp!
It depends on the music you listen to.
For example, I am pianist and listening mostly classical music. As a particular masterpiece was recorded in some dynamics and with acoustic instruments there is an absoulte reference in what should sound.
When I listen to piano recordings in hi-fi speakers they always emphasize some region of the spectrum, distorting the original intensity that makes part of the pianist emotional intention.
Conversely, when I listen to the same recording in Genelec, Neumann, etc. music come to live and sound as my piano sounds.
More or less, they are also some characteristic profile in each monitor, absolute flat sound doesn’t exist.
Of course, other parameters as distorsion, harmonics, speed, transients go into the equation but in general one can find better monitors than others.
Hi-Fi speakers mask the original sound, better or worse but they impose their own personality to the music that cannot match with some style or another.
The gold reference to me are always neutral and flat monitor: perhaps are less spectacular but one can listen to them for hours without fatiguing and learn to recreate emotions from the recording, not absorbing those expressed by the speakers
What do you think about JBL 4311b and Yamaha NS 40 Studio Monitors ???
In the past many hi-fi speakers were studio monitors in furniture cabinets, particularly from Altec and JBL, EV too.
For my desktop speakers I bought Tannoy Reveal 802 studio monitors. They're great. Made me rethink my main set up. Want the same sound , but 'bigger' :) Home use speakers are made to make it sound better, because recording and playbacl technique, as radio wasn't that good quality. Now you can listen to FLAC ! So yes, studio monitors actually sound grerat, when the recording is great. So listening to you tube sometimes sounds awful. Radio over internet , you can hear what the station does with the sound, even sounds better then the recording sometimes. Imho it's something every audiophile should at least try in their lives. And they're cheap , I bought mine when in sale for 240€ for the pair ! And the good thing is they are active ! So the amp inside is made for the speaker ! And the material ! It's stiffer then...... stiff ;P .Solid , I'm sure they'll be in one piece if I throw them down the stairs. The box, not the drivers ..So, don't believe me try them ! Every audiophile friend is astonished by the sound !
Thank you so much. You answered the question that was always on my mind.
I use a software equalizer in windows for my monitors. Improves the sound a lot. I have a cheaper pair of monitors of the same brand where I don't have to do that. M-audio Bx5a deluxe and AV40
Everyone should ALWAYS use EQ ALL the time. Audiophools who don't use EQ (quality DSP based EQ - no downsides) are just dumb and are convincing themselves that settling for what it sounds like "out of the box" so to speak is correct and ideal. No. Even the best speakers can and should be EQ'd to taste - and that includes even at times changing EQ settings based on the source material! I mean why wouldn't it? The mixing varies greatly... sometimes you need to tone town a different area of the highs, or add something. And you always need to add some low bass. A speaker isn't defined by what it sounds like with a flat source signal through a flat power amp. It's defined by what it is CAPABLE of, and often EQ is needed to show what it is capable of. Who cares if it's down 6db at 35 or 40hz, if it's CAPABLE of playing flat to 30hz with some EQ without any issues? It just so happens to require some extra power to push it in that region due to the design, big deal. If your excursion is in check and there's no significant or discernable distortion, then your speaker is capable of playing flat (or even boosted) down to 30hz... not the 40 it says on the label.
Studio monitors are designed so the mixing and mastering engineers can hear how to properly balance a recording so it sounds great on ALL systems.
Well said. Monitors are made to be analytic and HIFIs are made to sound nice 👍🙂
@@Johan-fw8re yeah but i like studio monitors sound more than hifi... is that normal?
@@davpro1792 i think so 😉
But why my MA STUDIO 20SE (passive) sounds much much better, with more Details, better Mids, better STage,...just everything is better...than with my expensive KS Digital A100 and ATC SCM11, PMC DB1...? So, its not true...., I also had Dynaudio BM12 Studio Monitors, pretty expensive..., and they also have no Chance against my Monitor Audi Studio 20SE HiFi Speakers. Most Studio Monitors under 1000€ are real Crap....
@@Johan-fw8re Studio monitors sounds analytical and revealing but HiFi sounds warm and smooth
As a long time recording engineer, I agree with most of Paul's points in this video in that I need a high level of clarity as opposed to a big blended sound that most music listeners would prefer. I would only add that we are needing to mix more and more on headphones since that's how so many listeners now consume music. So many of my musician clients are listening through headphones and laptop speakers now that I need to make sure that my mixes work well in those environments. Am I happy about it? No but, as a service provider, I owe my clients the ability to deliver the mixes that work well for them. Earbuds and headphones are all the rage now and that fact does affect how we mix music at this time.
Sadly this is why I dislike most modern "remasters" of otherwise iconic older music. I guess I don't feel as strongly about new recordings because I never heard how they might have sounded if set up the "old" way? And I've recently found something interesting. I set up a vintage system in my secondary room and have a moderately current system in my main room. Era appropriate music definitely seems to sound better on the matching era appropriate system. Could be a total figment of my imagination of course but I'm starting to notice it more and more.
This is a terrible way to go about mastering music. A good set of headphones or earbuds will work wonderfully with a properly mastered mix. You shouldnt try to fix the mix to work within the limitations of the cheapest headphones...on the contrary the headphone companies need to step up and create better products. This is like having a terrible city road, and demanding the car companies adjust their vehicle suspensions to match the crappy road.
Hi Paul, very interesting video thank you. I have listened to PMC studio monitors in my room and haven’t liked them ( too flat sounding), but love the audiophile or domestic speakers Fact 12s. You are absolutely right very different entities all together 👍🏼 Best Peter (UK)
As a video editor who also deals with sounds, a studio monitor is the tool for me to take care of the problems in sounds, but audiophiles, don't care about sound engineering, they just want to enjoy the immersive environment, which makes those hifi speakers have to dim out some frequencies to keep the sound attractive.
As Dean Turner has mentioned, PMC are in use in a few UK studios, as are, as Paul mentioned, B&W, The great BBC used the original LS3/5A (I think). My current speakers, Amphion, are used all over the world, and my good friend Mr Jake Purches of Base 2 Music, specializes in DSD/SACD (only) pipe organ recordings, and mixes/masters on Vivid Giya Spirits, (and the smaller models) as he works for them
I read a review where the writer said, "If I want to hear everything about the recording: where it was recorded, the microphones, the size of the studio and skill of the engineer, then I'd choose these speakers. If I just want to enjoy music, then I listen to my own usual speakers." Saved me $200,000!
So in a way he said: "If I want to enjoy music, I use a speaker that changes the sound so much that I cannot hear the original properly". It's an insult to the studio engineer and artist, because they were unable to make beautiful music. It needs to be changed!
And btw: studio monitors are way cheaper than "true" audiophile speakers! For a few thousand dollars you'lll get near perfect Genelecs, for example. Where did the 200.000 come from?
@@CheetahNL Wilson Audio, from a review in Stereophile from a few years back. BTW, I'll take "forgiving" speakers that allow me to enjoy the music but are "only" 99 percent the "true" sound, rather than your monitor sound, which includes trucks passing by the studio and mice farting.
You make 200k decisions based on reviews? I'm pretty sure at 200k you can get those speakers in your home for a demo and decide for yourself.
@@cristi724 Not at all. I was talking about the idiocy of creating "monitor" speakers that are so revealing, that they're only fit for judging the microphone placement, recording studio limitations, etc. I once had an expensive (about 3K in today's dollars) set of speakers, but on anything but the highest quality recordings sounded like crap. Sold them and got a pair that offered 99 percent of the resolution, quality and soundstage for less than half the price. What's the point of high fi if you can't enjoy your music collection? Yes, some idiots will say, "Only listen to perfect recordings." Such people love electronics, not music.
@scottbernard8824 Those $200.000 you mentioned doesn't cost you $200.000, but maybe $10.000, same amount as all these snake-oil hifi products. Your comment failed!
Having studio speakers in the home was the original Hi-Fi marketing strategy back in the 50's, no?
... in Europe also later, I can remember, if they call the Hifi Speakers Studio, it was something special. Marketing, as you said.
Paul I love your Videos, I have a comment about specifically sound stage and speakers disappearing and I understand if it is a live presentation but what about a studio recording, it wouldn’t have the depth and stage wideness that you mention
Studio's are built to have the best depth perception possible... Microphones are not real ears and thus a recording has to be equalized by ear, and translated to your ears to get the best image possible. Only a true linear speaker can tell you where those lines are drawn, in a room that doesn't get in the way of the recording. It's a fusion of monitor+room, not just 'a' monitor or 'a' room. Easily confused, yes....
I had two headphones. One was a set of professional studio monitors from Yamaha based on the NS10’s and the other was their high end consumer headphones at the time. I enjoyed both. The sterility of the professional headphones was great for critical listening as a musician and I even enjoyed how clean and tidy the bass notes were. Everything was very even sounding with the professional set but those consumer grade headphones did something magical to the low-mids that I absolutely love. I think if you’re a musician it’s a no brainer to have studio monitors or studio headphones but only as a baseline to compare with the consumer speakers. I actually bought two sets of those Yamaha MT220’s because I loved the clarity of them so much. I gave my friend the consumer headphones because the material on the ear cups irritated my skin. I really miss those headphones and they’ve been discontinued for awhile now. If I could, I’d go get another pair put up with the irritation.
The actual real difference between "Hi Fi" (or audiophile if you want to peddle in buzzwords) speakers and Monitors are difference is about the near-field. Monitors are specifically designed to be listened to about 4 feet away and Hi Fi are about the longer field, Ie sitting in a loungeroom listening to records. This is important, because different frequencies travel at different speeds and this affects phase. So a monitor is designed to focus those frequencies so they are precisely in phase between 3-8 feet (depending on the monitors there are monitors with a mid-field and even far-field but these are super expensive and designed to mount on walls in large control rooms, the big studios often have multiple monitor systems the engineer can switch between on preference) which is the distance a recording engineer is sitting at from the monitors. But outside of that range the sound goes out of phase and starts sounding muddy and 'messy'. Hi-Fi/Audiophile speakers are designed to fill a room with sound with an EQ curve intended to take what the mastering engineer has put together and render it as pleasantly as possible.
Essentially;- Dont buy monitor speakers for your loungeroom, and don't buy Hi-Fi speakers for your studio. They are intended for different things.
What would I buy for a 5.1 computer setup where the speakers are fairly close in my bedroom? Used mainly for computer games.
Ty bro
Studio monitors tend to have a very analytical sound to them. They can be an excellent option if you are really into analytical listening.
They're not analitical, they represent what was recorded which means they sound awesome... All of these terms used by clueless audiophiles is snake oil
@@lukabosnjak3829 You are never going to hear what the recording technician was hearing... you don't have his ears. That's not the point to begin with. The recording technician and the musicians need to correct detailed problems with the recording that can lead to a poor listening experience, e.g. if an instrument covers up the singing voice. This often requires sub-dB volume adjustments on individual channels. These can only be made with a studio monitor setup or with earphones that reduce the influence of the room's acoustics significantly compared to a typical hifi speaker setup... where most of what you are hearing are reflections and room resonances.
IRS-V's cannot be compared to a small 2 way studio monitor. A more relevant comparison would be a similarly sized 2 way audiophile bookshelf speaker vs a high end studio monitor known to sound great like the Mackie HR824mk2. Now these are powered speakers, which may or may not throw a wrench in some people's desired setups... but there is nothing inferior whatsoever about these speakers, or a number of other excellent examples. They can soundstage and disappear as well as any other speaker that is similar in size and design. Now if you like big speakers (I do) or exotic/non-traditional designs, then by all means, your preference is valid and they can have certain subjectively superior aspects to them. But LIKE for LIKE, a small to medium sized bookshelf speaker vs. a good studio monitor... they are the same thing, the latter often being powered, but generally designed more scientifically vs aesthetically or subjectively with intentional "flavor"... the studio monitors are thus often technically superior... which is the best kind of superior. Any "taste" you like can be added via DSP EQ, but you have the benefit of having a starting point that is without inherent flaws in the frequency plot due to driver selection or crossover design... that stuff has been done correctly, as opposed to just hitting a price point (even a moderately high one) and looking good with a particular aesthetic or sound character (read: deviation from correct). Give me some big crazy speakers over a monitor any day don't get me wrong... but if I'm choosing a 2 way bookshelf, I'll happily take the quality monitors and objectively have better speakers than you.
"They can soundstage and disappear as well as any other speaker that is similar in size and design."
That statement can't be true. Not only would you have to listen to all other speakers of similar size and design, you would have to compare them to the Mackie. You haven't done even 1% of that.
" but if I'm choosing a 2 way bookshelf, I'll happily take the quality monitors and objectively have better speakers than you."
In a blind test, you couldn't tell correct from not correct.
I have an english company made pair of PMC IB2 Se's in my room at the moment. ive got to say that they sound absolute amazing. PMC have some of their speakers in the best recording studios around the world. when im sat here listening away i can at least get a feel of what the person recording the music was reaching out for instead of a pair of speakers that colour the sound to their taste.i always thought thats what we are all trying to achieve.a perfect reproduction of what was getting recorded at the time in the studio or the concert somewhere right? or are you saying Paul that your new speaker doesnt sound true?
Go compare a bunch of studio monitors in one room…focal, pmc, Adam, dynaudio, atc, quested etc. they all sound different…there is no absolute
BTW is not you say is that you want a speaker that will satisfy you individual taste in music.... no mater how acetate the resulting sound may or may not be?
I'm not saying that is right or wrong and.. even I may be guilty of it to one extent or another.
Also since much of what we hear is reflected sound, can speaker evaluations based on critical listening really be 100% valid?
When I first heard some old Grace Jones and Heart records on a pair of 4311 monitors I bought (and on which the records in question had been mixed), I heard them in a way I'd never heard before, with details that no other speaker good or bad had revealed in quite the same way. If the idea is to "bring the performance into the room", one could as easily argue that listening with the same ears as the mix engineer (i.e., through the same monitors) is the better approach to hearing the recording as it was intended to be heard.
Now try a pair of Stax electrostatic earphones. You will lose all interest in speakers instantly. :-)
Today’s topic makes me think about Nearfield, midfield and Farfield set ups . I remember people asking about floor monitors at large shows with massive PA and asking why the artist needed a small speaker pointed at their face so they can hear themselves. Maybe you could talk The goals of a system and how it’s designed to meet those goals.
One of the issues with nearfield vs. farfield has to do with two things: imaging and bass. Nearfield monitoring has bass response that does not mirror what happens in-room. If you're mixing for the car or for headphones that's fine. However, if you're mixing for music playback in the home, then that's probably a mistake. The results will then sound thin and lacking in the bottom end. And, of course, speakers don't image in the nearfield.
@@Paulmcgowanpsaudio i’m a big proponent of the always test your mix on multiple systems, the car,the listening room, Nice speakers , speaker so cheap I don’t think they should’ve been made in the first place and so on.
Wishing a great holiday to all PS Audio family 🎄🎉
@@PooNinja And to you and yours as well, my friend.
Quite simple. An artist is standing behind the pa not hearing the pa properly so won’t get a true sound which means they can be out of time or key. Wedges or now iems negate that problem
@@nikkic36 oh the joys and fears of a silent stage. 🤘🏽
Ok wait my backline is a pair of XLRs? I guess left is dry right is wet. In my monitors I’ll want vocals,kick , snare, a bit of the hats and just enough of me to know if I’m going out of (it’s metal nobody knows) tune🤣.
I bought Adam T7V a few years ago because it was the best I could get in my country at the time. All others were just crappy computer speakers like Genius or Logitech. Well, let me say that I didn't regret my decision to spend "a lot" of money ($400) at all. I though that audio couldn't get much better until I bought my Focal Clears (I know it's apples and oranges, but still). Now I am interested in trying audiophile speakers too. What would you suggest I go for if I want something that's better than Adams?
@bruce leee Hello. Not yet, but I hope to go to a music equipment shop and listen to a few speakers there. Focal Aria 936 for example.
@bruce leee Hmm, maybe a subwoofer? If you like bass. Adams are great, but I wish I had more bass, but I don't really want a subwoofer, so I'm looking at tower speakers.
@bruce leee Maybe it's not the speakers, but something in the chain? I know it's a stupid question, but do you have an AMP/DAC and what do you use? Also, did you try using your speakers in some other (bigger) rooms?
@bruce leee Maybe it's just the AMP/speakers combo. Try them with some other AMP, if you get the opportunity. Maybe at some audio store, if you have one near you?
@bruce leee My studio monitors do sound better/fuller in my bedroom than in my living room because it's easier for them to fill the smaller space (I didn't treat any of the rooms). The problem is: they do sound nice to me and much better than anything I had before, but maybe you would find them same/worse than your bookshelf speakers. Can't be 100% certain until you hear them yourself. When I get to listen to Focals, maybe I will also realize that there's something missing with my speakers and I'd be able to help you. I wish you luck in any case. Feel free to comment any time.
i think its just fun to hear stuff from different speakers. new, old, big small. i own more then one pair or sunglasses or shoes for that very reason.
My studio monitors sound fantastic in my audio system. I have an EQ and can color them any way I wish. Most "audiophile" stuff is mostly nonsense to sell stuff to cork sniffers
i owned and used a pair of clayton shaw's emerald physics open-baffle cs1.3's. clayton used off-the-shelf pro-audio drivers. his design, which was tri-amped and driven through a prism orpheus preamp/dac (also pro gear) produced some of the best and most *musical* sound i've ever had in my hifi setup. that showed me that there's nothing intrinsically "unmusical" about pro-audio hardware; how it is used in the design of the speaker is what matters. [thanks to walter liederman for helping me understand this.]
The bottom end is, it's just a question of taste. I got 2 pairs of Martin Logan and 3 pairs of JBL 4412, 4430 and 4435 and I'm 90% listening the 4435...
ML🤘🏽 lectostat 4 life… or until I can afford an MBL system 🤣
Still using JBL 4311
I own a small home studio with 2 sets of studio monitors. I also have a very good stereo in my living room. The monitors are for finding the trouble spots in the mix. The home stereo even though it is decent, makes everything sound good. It's hard to make a proper judgement call on stereo speakers. where as with the monitors, I can make that call accurately.
All I heard repeatedly here was that studio monitors sound different from Audiophile speakers, with no explanation or examples of what those differences are, i.e, what kinds of things would studio engineers be listening for in a recording?
They can sound "flat" in comparison, because there's no boost to the bass or trebles, there's no "warmness" added. It's the most neutral representation of the sound you get. But if you amp up the volume or use and EQ you can make them sound anyway you want unlike the hi-fis.
I’m trying to build a good BUDGET desktop audio set up either a 3.1 or 4.1…. So 1 center and 2 sides and a woofer OR 2 front stereo and 2 sides and a woofer. I’m not super worried about perfectly balanced audio. I’m my room and my personal preference I like mids and lows with no boosts to highs except at the very far end. So pretty much a very shallow V band with a flatter curve on the high end. Was wondering what anyone would recommend for this kind of set up.
How are you anticipating doing audio routing and up/downmixing, what are you playing from, and how would you anticipate the speakers would be placed relative to the listening position? There's quite a few factors that can affect suggested speaker layouts and choices, not just budget. 😊
@@ChristopherWoods didn’t even think of most of that lol I’ll have to get back to you on that one haha thanks for the reply though!
@@LikelyLagging time to fall down that rabbit hole ;-) would it be for PC or home cinema?
@@ChristopherWoods oh I’ve been for years now. The problem is that I kind of just jumped in, without a good foundation of audio knowledge, besides very basic stuff from my car audio obsession days lol So there’s many terms and tid bits of things that I don’t know. And on top of that everyone has a different opinion about what’s good or bad. I don’t necessarily need a hi fi set up I’d just like to be able to crank it to 11 once in a while and sit back and say damn that sounds good. Loud clarity, and some punchy bass. And I’ll be happy. Currently I have 2 echo studios and 2 4th gen echos in my bedroom and I personally think they all sound fantastic together. They just don’t get quite loud enough or have enough bass.
The main difference is that studio monitors are meant for near-field listening, which is not the case in a usual home listening environment. They are, as a rule, very detailed and sometimes pretty sterile but should not be overly so as an engineer spends hours a day working in a studio. There are some exceptions though, ProAc Studio 100 being an example. Originally designed as a studio monitor (used by many renowned studios and artists, like Neil Diamond, John Scofield, Bill Frisell, Metallica, and Red Hot Chili Peppers, to name a few) but became a huge success as a home speaker. So much so, that ProAc tried to stop the production of it 3 or 4 times but a huge demand from customers forced them to carry on making them.
Nowadays there are more than a few speakers that are equally good in both pro and home stereo application, comprising enough "exceptions" that the rule has been largely disproved. Many -- perhaps even most -- home stereo applications are not "far field," but rather more like "mid field." This is especially true in places where residences are relatively small with listening spaces to match -- and there are quite a few "studio monitors" that perform exquisitely in that sort of "mid field" environment. In the final analysis, it's the individual product that matters, not whether it's being marketed as a "studio monitor" rather than an "audiophile" speaker.
The line between studio monitors and home stereo speakers has been blurry for 50+ years, starting when JBL dressed up their popular 4310 monitor and called it the L-100 Century, which became their all-time best selling home stereo speaker. Nowadays, studio monitors from makers like Kii Audio, Genelec, Neumann, and even very affordable stuff like Kali Audio's "2nd Wave" models are making home stereo listeners very happy because they are simply excellent loudspeakers that measure and sound great -- and not just in near field applications. Of course there are some monitors that are far short of excellent in that respect, e.g. some Yamaha models are notorious for their "if it sounds good on these crappy things, it'll sound OK on any system" performance -- but if you select carefully, studio monitors offer far better performance for the money than a combination of passive speakers and separate external amplification.
" studio monitors are meant for near-field listening" what a load of bollocks. Ever heard of mid or far field? Look at Kinoshita. Nearfield my ass.
Great video, really enjoyed it thanks. Did I get something wrong? I thought the NS10 was Sony? Cheers
they were old school Yamaha consumer speakers that got adopted by the recording industry bc it turned out that if a mix worked on them, it would usually translate well to radio, boom boxes, cassettes, etc. Though many pros put tissue paper over the slightly too hot tweeters. Some still use them to check their mixes!
Sorry, I think it’s also a bit of comparing apples and oranges. The IRS5 are huge, even way bigger than most main monitors in studios. If you compare a decent 5inch bookshelf speaker to a decent 5inch Monitor (with decent I mean both speakers trying to have a more flat response), there shouldn’t be worlds between them, they will sound different but surely not chawdropping different. P.s. and yes, studio monitors have another purpose and there are monitors which are great for mixing, but sound terrible for enjoying music, but there are also lots of monitors that are fun.
You can’t judge the sound of a speaker in a room that is not acoustically treated. Studio monitors are made for a balanced sound in a controlled environment, so people with proper training that spend 20+ years working on music, people that can hear the difference between 300-350-380hz in an instrument, people that can identify the fundamental frequencies of an instrument in a first listen, can make tiny decisions that can make or break a song. Hifi is so someone can pay a lot of money to hear a hyped sound in their boomy living rooms :)
By the definition you've just given almost nobody listening is going to perceive the tiny difference you've just tweaked to allegedly make or break the song, and given the wild difference acoustic treatment, placement of the speakers and even where you've sat made to what you hear, just stand up and sit down to get two different versions of the same room and speaker elevation, the only person hearing your creation as you intended is you sat in your special spot. Given a blind test of your best mix vs your second best in your own car could you identify which was which? If not I'd highly recommend concentrating on the musical performance itself instead, as everybody else is going to perceive a tonal performance utterly beyond your control.
@@gadget348 you’re right, performance is always no1, but if your job is mixing or mastering (or anything in between like the extensive hours of editing required to achieve a professional result) you HAVE to care about all of these things. I have a great time listening to music on my earbuds too though, its fun. I wouldn’t however buy a very expensive (and pretentious) hifi sound system that simply cannot deliver the quality it has promised. If you want to burn money though, buy a pair of ATCs which is what the best mixing and mastering engineers use. It sounds amazing in the right room and surely kick any hifi’s ass.
Are you saying there is no point spending money on high quality audio systems? The only advice I get from your comment is that I should be either listening to music on audio monitors you recommend (what should I drive them with?), Or I should listen on the cheapest gear I can get, because anything focused on quality is just overpriced, pretentious crap. Could you also explain what overpriced means please? Who decides how much should one spend on equipment?
@@tyczekp Well you can buy whatever you want tbh, speakers are also a matter of taste, but without a good room is like buying a ferrari to go drive on a dirt road. Not everyone is gonna have the privilege of having all of that of course, but some people in the hifi world like to advertise speakers that cost waaaaay too much without giving the whole information to people (such as about acoustics and etc). So by all means, put whatever 30k pair of speakers in a reverby room, but i think is the role of people that know a bit about that to pass on the knowledge
@@lucasmirovski1003 unfortunately the role of people who sell speakers is to sell speakers, just like the role of people who sell Ferraris is to sell cars, not roads. Some would argue that Supra, or even Miata is all you need to enjoy driving, others would laugh at Ferrari from behind the wheel of their Koenigsegg. While others will get an Opel, or Chrysler estate and will get from one place to the other with lots of stuff in the back. If anything is pretentious here, it is your comment.
"The difference is : they are different." Ok.
the trick to mixing is reference mixes it doesnt matter what speakers you use as long as they can handle the basics well
You say 'flat', for me, it's 'clean'. I've just retired my pair of 1981 B&Ws which I bought 24yrs ago 2nd hand. 22yrs of listening, still going strong, gifted them to a mate. Seriously gorgeous they are. Strangely, I'd describe them as warm and crisp. When I'm ready for MartinLogans I'm sure I'll appreciate them. As a DJ tho I prefer monitors for playback as well as practice. I enjoy the unforgiving detail. I'm now on a set of huge KRKs and subwoofer, to me the sound is scrumptious. Unless we're talking top-of-the-line speakers, I'm a monitors girl through and through.
Have you seen Bob Ludwig or Bob Katz mastering studio?
Picture studio monitors as the analytical architects, meticulously measuring every sonic detail like an artisan crafting a masterpiece with precise tools. Conversely, hi-fi speakers step into the role of sonic painters, adding a touch of vibrancy to the auditory canvas, splashing colors of warmth and richness for a more emotionally resonant experience. Together, they form a duet, each bringing its unique notes to the symphony of sound.
Is the most stupid discurse I ever red 🤦♂️
Just not a real difference, they are comercial speakers quite flat and monitors quite colored.
The rest is just marketing: speakers are speakers. Call them monitors don’t change anything, is a matter of taste or professional needs (specially in the case of mixing).
Genelec sold the G series for listening and after a while they “confessed” that they were the same as 8020, 8030s… just with different connections.
Is there a measurement to indicate how much better a particular hi-fi speaker sounds better than a studio montior?
Whether artists have them in their own homes ;)
So, is a 'studio monitor' the same as a 'reference speaker'??
I am happy with my Focal Shape Twin near field active monitors XLR (inakustik cables) output from my Luxman DAC. The positions is just 1.5cm to the left and right of my 27" PC monitor. The listening distance is between 2.5 feet - 5 feet. The sound is very detailed, smooth, analogy, engaging and have very deep bass. Besides, it's not sound either clinical or warm at all those I can adjust through switching cables or fuses.
That ending shot, is that California?
Well... so a director of photografy should be glad to know that audience looks to his film with colours and hue unpredictably different from what he saw on camera... After having spent hours to create the images he wanted. No, I'm sorry, I
that is called my-fi.
I just came to say that watched this with Stanley Cowells "Lady blue" playing in brackground and somehow the tone and tempo you speak synchronized beautifully with that track lol
Nearly every pro studio uses Yamaha NS-10s for near-field monitors. Some of the best pop and rock records ever made have been mixed using these speakers. However, these speakers will not sound good to an audiophile, in fact, NS-10s can sound awful. But they have excellent impulse response, good midrange clarity and have the unique ability to highlight flaws in the mix in such a in-the-face manner that the engineer can quickly find the problem and fix it.
well, no pro uses NS10s as their primary near field monitors. They are used as a final or back and forth check to make sure a mix holds together and will translate.
But isn't that all just marketing speech, Paul? I'm disappointed you discussed the matter this way. Of course there are differences between these speaker categories but they may very well be perceived the other way round (for instance, directionality of sound in studio monitors can be a very handy thing, active power is very handy, etc.). Sure, there are markets for both and they are quite separate from each other - I just do not see why you felt it necessary to foster the gap between them.
Because he needs to sell his speakers without competition from the much more affordable and fairly priced pro-audio.
Another insightful talk Paul, thank you! I’m on my 3rd set of PMC speakers (currently 20/26s) I guess I aught to start listening to different brand alternatives, and stop believing marketing hype about studio heritage..?
Great explanation!
Thank you for this
The new JBL 4349 Studio Monitor enables music lovers at home to enjoy the same exceptional dynamics and accuracy that producers and engineers employ in leading studios. Now, by virtue of a transformative driver, mathematically brilliant horn and woofer design, and classic good looks - great sound has never been more at home. Every detail of the JBL 4349 Studio Monitor has been examined and every assumption has been challenged. The result is a monitor loudspeaker that defies comparison and provides anyone, anywhere with a love of music to re-discover every track, re-visit with every artist and re-trace every musical journey. I promise that new nuance, new energy, and new dynamics will be revealed!
- Jim Garrett, Senior Director, Product Strategy and Planning, HARMAN Luxury Audio
I use a pair of KRK 10" Rokits as listening speakers for the past few years, and they are amazing. But you want to know the funny thing? I cannot for the life of me listen to electronic music on them! Even though that's my favorite genre. The speakers just highlight the "fakeness" of it so much that it become almost un-enjoyable to listen to! A related factor I think is that I feel like it's a waste to use those speakers to listen to something that sounds the same or even better on cheaper speakers. Jazz, rock, classical and even hip hop is what I enjoy on those nice studio monitors. And actually these speakers are what got me into listening to other genres, because I found how enjoyable it is to hear all the natural nuances of the performers and the recording equipment. That being said, KRKs color the sound a lot, so they're a perfect compromise for someone that wants a high level Hifi system without spending level Hifi money. You can get a pair new for $1k and they are tri-amped so it's a great entry point. They'll shake the house too for a party.
Now on the other-hand when I am at my computer desk and on some basic Bose computer speakers, I listen to electronic music (deep house etc.) all day long at a low volume! Classic "electronic music" that was produced in a more analog fashion such as vintage Depeche Mode I am ok with though on the studio monitors as it still sounds "real." Oh and another thing, one of my favorite bands, Coldplay and U2, I can't really listen to on the studio monitors. Just sounds flat and muddled. Perhaps someone can answer why the heck they mix like that.. Just like with Adele. Skyfall on Tidal sucks on the studio monitors, her voice sounds so processed it's gross. I would imagine it sounds great on some high-Dollar Hifi tower speakers though!
I hope that helps as another angle to describe this phenomenon.
Probably your best video yet. I would have appreciated a few more minutes on what makes the distinction regarding frequency response etc.
Thanks. Perhaps that's what we'll do next so you can see what the real differences are.
@@octaverecordsanddsdstudios1285 You know Radoslaw was being sarcastic, right? As an audio professional I've always wondered about this and hoped you might actually enlighten us!
@@soundman127 I would be happy to do my best to enlighten but can you be more specific about the question you'd like answered.
Coming out of both production and listening, I went with Genelec for my living room, and it works great for me. This is after making sure the room has sufficient absorbers and diffusers, which generally is even more important than speakers!
Some people don't like it, because it's very transparent -- you may very well want a particular "sound." It's a bit like: Are all your walls painted white, or do you use color?
Add you say: Using your eyes and ears is the most important!
I use a paid of Genelec at my home studio.... they are aaaamaaziiinngggg. This who concept of lifeless and sterile is nonsense. Balance frequency distribution does not mean lifeless as some audiophiles say.
"Some people don't like it, because it's very transparent"
How would prove your speakers are more transparent than someone else's? You can't do it with measurements, and if you think you can, you can't provide a single example to back it up.
@@AT-wl9yq if you don't believe in measurement, we don't have common words and can't effectively communicate.
If you're in need of a pair of desktop speakers, try the Dynaudio Lyd 5. They are very enjoyable and great value.
Here's a different situation:
I restore recordings from old and/or damaged media. I use Sennheiser headphones designed for gaming because they bring out ALL flaws.
Which studio monitors would be appropriate?
Genelec. Check them out. Very accurate. Or ATC. Both are exceptional.
@@SlinkiestTortoise23 Noted, thanx!
@@djhrecordhound4391 You are most welcome! Let me know what you think! Personally, I’d go for the Genelecs as they are powered and are not quite as fussy as to where you position them. As nearfields, slightly toed in towards the listening position you can get away without a treated room and they are very cohesive. The dispersive tweeter design is superb for example and the treble doesn’t fly all over the place! They are not cheap but even the smaller sized ones are excellent. There are lots of configuration settings for dynamics on the back so you can tailor them to your surroundings.
I have had my KEF LS50W’s for 5 years. Bought a DJ Controller 6 months ago and mix on those. Looking at what I want to get for an upstairs setup…studio or hi fi. It’s interesting hearing how different my Bose Bluetooth sounds than the Kefs.
I like your videos. Mostly recomended and liked. But on this one I not agree 100%. Studio monitors are flat and ussualy boring but they are made to be as much transparent as it can be. When audiophiles talk about transparency and after that they say: "I like this speakers because of sound color..." Beep. Sound color is oposite to transparency. I also like audiophile speakers better than studio monitors but I am sensitive when we putting wrong names on something. You and other companies build speakers and gather customers that like sound and character of your speakers. I will say again. Yes monitors are sterile and boring. Yes your speaker sounds much better, but the monitors are closer to original and by that there is more quality. For the future, wish you much of luck and health and keep doing good job. I am very experienced in this but anyway, I learned much from you.
I have been using separates in my studio since I built it over 15 years ago, using bookshelf speakers made by jbl lol. Started with two left side S-38ii 😂 then an actual pair of Northridge E50. Before building my own monitors my main pair (and favorites made by someone else are the fairly old now) Monitor Audio S2 Silver.
Little boxes that rock, make sure to use a high power amp with your separates.
I havent been able to find a hifi system that comes close to representing live music as a 4.1/5.1 near fields in a small room, where you are still close to the speakers. Of course having the room setup reasonably as well. Any hifi setup to sound this good is so much more money. Just my experience.
I like to use the Keith Dont Go live recording from Nils Lofgren Acoustic Live. I close my eyes and if everything is setup correctly, it sounds like I am in a small theater with a live acoustic band.
That's what EQ's are for. I run a double system and mix studio monitors with some old band speakers. For listening both together sound best. When i'm working i just run the monitors.
In essence, a sound engineer has to be able to dissect out the individual (instrumental) components of
the recording he is sound engineering reflecting the conditions under which it was recorded. His task is then to mix and rebalance these individual audio components against each other to produce a final product that results in the overall best audio reproduction of the ensemble performance, and not necessarily reflecting the acoustic idiosyncracies particular to the conditions under which it was originally recorded.
Studio Monitors have one big difference to consumer products: They are measured on their accuracy of reproducing what the sound engineer wants to hear. The big question though is, what did the sound engineer really want? In times of mass production, they probably want, that the music will sound good on any typical low to medium cost consumer product. So in this case, he will put more of those frequencies in the mix, where he would expect these consumer products won´t reproduce them in the right amount and less of those where it is the other way round. They also often check the mix with those products also. Why: Because they always want to meet the mass, for selling the mass. So if you have one of those expensive HiFi things, you should look out for special recordings made for that, or you have a good equalizer, that is anyway an good idea, as the room, where you are listening, will also change the "mix". One thing you also should consider, that is the range your own ears are still having. Nowadays, there are many people with hearing loss in young years already. Would be interesting to compare mixes 50 years ago with todays, to see what has changed.
The most important thing is that the monitor is black, plastic and fundamentally with uncovered speakers.
And then it is also a little different in that it is supposed to provide an accurate sound image to someone who is sitting about a meter away from it.
I have the old monitors from the TV studio in the attic at home, they are wooden and each has a volume of about 280 liters. Times are changing ;-)
So i have always been under the impression studio monitors are meant to give a "flat" response or to not color the sound
Exactly and the same can be said for high-end audiophile speakers too. We all want flat. Just remember that within those bounds of flat there's always a +/- 3dB swing that in a speaker is somewhat unavoidable. So what does the designer do with those variations in frequency and loudness? That's where the difference comes in and how it sounds.
Hi Paul, could you eloborate on why listening to music on studio monitors is flawed idea? You mentioned here that audiophile systems can bring music to life and provide a believable sound stage. Are you infering audiophile listeners typically prefer a different tonal balance to mixing/mastering engineers? Do you believe that audiophile systems can provide better localisation than mastering grade monitors? Many thanks for your time.
Hi Eli. I think I would put it another way. A proper audiophile system offers the ultimate in soundstage and realism of the recorded music. It's what we as music lovers would like to hear in our homes. That sound/performance is not something that can be achieved using most studio monitors because they are designed for a different purpose. So, it has to be very difficult for a mix engineer to use a speaker that does not give the results desired if we're interested in a recording that has all the magic we as audiophiles look for. It makes much more sense to mix on the same speakers we want to eventually play it back on.
And yes, the speakers are very different in the way they are voiced by the speaker designer.
I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree here Paul. The idea that any system in a non purpose built acoustic environment such as a typical home could deliver the ultimate in soundstaging is inaccurate. Listeners may find your speakers aesthetically pleasing, however, a system with a non flat response delivering the ultimate in realism is a non sequitur.
@@elistowe8638 Exactly!
@@elistowe8638 Agreed
This dude doesn't know physics, that's for sure.
Tank you, tis was a really interesting video
And a question - why active Studio Monitors have so big power amplifiers embedded?
Because, as a recording/mixing engineer you are working on uncompressed material that can have 30-50dB of dynamic range. Also, it is very convenient to use balanced cable strait from the audio interface or mixing desk.
@@Threemicsrecords What? Well, in the case of my studio monitors, its nice to have an amp that is matched to the drivers in a predictable way, rather than choosing my own amp and hoping it drives the speakers as designed.
As a recording / mixing engineer I'm working on material that can have 96db or more of dynamic range, but this is not normally a point of contention between Audiophile and Studio monitors - both are capable of reproducing dymanics accurately.
@@MrHarmonicminor With that answer, you cannot be a mixing engineer. 😂🤣
I love hearing Paul share his wealth of wisdom on all things audio! But this topic has always snagged me- especially as someone who enjoys "flat" audio reproduction and studio gear. Like, would it not be fair to define the "specific set of parameters" that recording & mastering engineers are interested in as an accurate, even representation of the recorded material across the frequency spectrum and stereo field? And if so, how specifically would an audiophile's interests deviate? Does it come down to the aspect that an engineer needs to make compromises in order to create one mix which sounds the best across all devices, therefore not arriving at the pinnacle of what could be represented on the very best systems? And so alternatively, is an audiophile's setup not calibrated to manipulate that same final mix, in order to make it sound the way it hypothetically would on reference speakers in a world where every listener had the highest quality system (making compromises unnecessary)? And if that's the case, would it not be possible to take a high quality set of studio monitors, with excellent specs, in a good room, and apply a sort of an "audiophile algorithm" to process the sound in a way which brings the listening experience up to audiophile standards? And if that isn't the case, what is it about the signal path or other technical variables which cause it to fall short? I'm sure Paul is already articulating all of this masterfully and I'm just not quite understanding, but if there's ANY chance that Gus Skinas would be willing to chime in and describe it from his perspective... it might just be the tipping point needed to convert MANY audio enthusiasts into super avid audiophiles. 🙏👍
It would not be fair to define the "specific set of parameters" (it's an awful phrase, because it's not really parameters) for audio engineers in this fashion. What I want out of a monitor is that it shows me what the biggest problem with the mix is. Then i fix that. at which point I want to monitor to show me what the next biggest problem with the mix is. Does it need to be accurate? Nope. In an ideal dream scenario the monitor would make the current biggest issue worse than it actually is. Maybe someday with AI assistence we could even get there. I don't care if the frequency response is flat, only that it is flat enough, so that if the biggest issue with the mix is that there is too much going on in the low mids, I can identify this problem and don't think I should focus on phase issues between the bass guitar and the distorted rhythm guitar next. Even the best monitors have areas of weakness in this regard and engineers switch between various monitoring set ups to check different potential issues. If you wanted to take a picture of a loved one, you wouldn't go with an MRI or CT machine, even though these are things that MDs use to get very accurate representations of people.
@@simongunkel7457 Wow, that MRI / photograph analogy *floored* me! Nicely said!!
Ok, so my basic take is that flatness and accuracy are great attributes for diagnostic purposes & calibrating a mix, but an audiophile setup is more about sweetening and maximizing that audio in an attempt to provide the ultimate customized immersive listening experience.
...And even if I'm not expressing right, your explanation & analogy helped considerably! Thanks for taking the time to share it 🙏👍
@@Rompler_Rocco Yea, I would go so far as to say flatness isn't something I'll look for. There are monitors that are technically more flat than monitors that cost more and are sitting in more good studios. When buying monitors I bring a number of reference mixes, including some that are WIP and knowing that on mix X the reverb on the snare had to be dialed back, I'll see which monitor tells me that the reverb on the snare needs to be dialed back in the clearest way. And then there are 10 other tracks with other issues to go through. Remember that human hearing isn't perfectly flat and the frequency response changes with the listening level. So if a monitor is perfectly flat, the most flat response would take a listening level that is quite loud and if I worked at that level permanently I'd fatigue quicker and would even run the risk of damaging my ears eventually. Not a good thing when you work with audio. Whether a monitor does its job can't really be gleaned from the technical specifications. And I would argue the same is true for a listening system. You go in with a number of your favorite recordings and see which playback system makes them sound the best to you. This notion that there is some ideal way to listen back so it sounds like it did in the studio is flawed, because you change things like which monitors you use and at which level you listen back during the process. Another analogy would be a live show. You've got the FOH mix, which is what the audience gets to hear and you have monitor mixes for each member of the band (this used to be kind of luxury, but by now the equipment is cheap enough that even smaller bands tend to have individual monitor mixes). You could have this idea of wanting to hear what the band hears, but the first problem is that this isn't going to be the same for each member of the band. And nobody on stage actually gets to hear the full song - a bass player might really need the drums up because the timing cues matter to their performance, but the guitar solo would at best be unneccessary and at worst a distraction. If they are doing backing vocals, they need their voice up to hear themselves singing, probably on par with the lead vocals. The FOH sound is a better representation of tha band than the monitor mixes. In the same way a playback system that sounds good is a better representation of an album than the various monitor set ups that went into making the production choices that went into the finished album.
"Like, would it not be fair to define the "specific set of parameters" that recording & mastering engineers are interested in as an accurate, even representation of the recorded material across the frequency spectrum and stereo field? And if so, how specifically would an audiophile's interests deviate?"
For me, personally, there is no deviation. If my speakers don't have flat frequency response, low distortion, and even dispersion across the audio passband, then I'm not listening to my music, I'm listening to my speakers.
When i dj on studio monitors it sounds so incredible really struggling to understand why i should use “dj” speakers with boosted eqs in bass etc when i have an amazing clear sound and all the controls on my mixer, feels like i should just take my studio monitors over 15 inch with 18 subs like im being told i need…
Studio monitors are designed 1) with built-in amps for self-contained reproduction, and 2) near field audio (i.e., engineer sitting at mixing panel in small room, rather than in living room). They are also typically designed or praised for being neutral (transparent).
As a recording engineer working in a small studio, I personally use near fields, but most commercial recording studios actually use midfield monitors for most critical listening.
Try Genelec 8361A.
Not all studio monitors are self powered, but they do seem to be getting to be the most popular these days.
So even 8inch monitors and listening from 10 feet away is going to be a totally flawed music listening experience??
@@Bootrosgali That depends. How accurate is the frequency response of your postulated 8inch monitor speaker, how directional is it, which will affect how it sounds given where it's positioned relative to your ears, and how low distortion is it at your desired listening level?
I bought 8inch powered KRK monitors for listening to electronic music exactly because I thought, well if this is what they use I'll get these and I'll hear it!
KRK is not what pro sound engineers and mastering engineers use. Those are toys.
Guess what? Studio monitors are not the same, some are flat and striale, some are more lively..just like any speaker they sound different and will appeal to different tastes.
They do however more suitable for close listening, so if you have a small room, and you are less than 2 meters from the speakers, a near field studio monitor is a better choice.
Again, one which sounds good to you
There are some good audiophile speakers around that are also used as studio speakers. I use PMC speakers at home and think they are excellent, ATC also comes to mind.
That is true, as long as you are not trying to use them in a near field configuration. Professional studios usually have multiple pairs of monitors at various distances from the mixing board. High quality audiophile speakers are often used for mid and far field monitoring, i.e., at distances they were designed for.
@@avsystem3142 I guess you learned something from me. As now you seem to understand that you cant group every studio monitor into a near field monitor. A great many monitors excell at mid which is typical of a living room set up, so this is precisely why this generalization about studio monitors and the entire video decrying studio monitors lacks any validity or common sense. The real issue is idiots that pay thousands for speakers that have terrible response curves and try to say that they are really great and better than a speaker with a flat response. The goal is a flat response. Some speakers achieve that and look great, some like studio monitors achieve that and look blah. The scary thing for people who sell expensive speakers is that average joes can find a pair of 1980's-1990's professional monitors that still present an excellent flat response for a fraction of the costs of fancy-looking Super Duper Gobsmacked Piano Black High Gloss Audiophile Treasured Speakers that cost $5k.
@@calhounj1 The only thing I learned from you is another lesson in how not to comment on CZcams. You're original contention that there is no difference between studio monitors and consumer hi-fi speakers remains nonsense. You appear to think that professional recording engineers and producers are complete fools for not agreeing with you on the subject and foolishly spend capital on purpose built studio monitors when they could save a bundle and just buy "audiophile" speakers.
a lot of classic records were mixed on auratones and i doubt anyone is going to start building $100,000 rooms around them any time soon. good dry sterile mix environment can let a larger quantity of good mixes come out without a lot of fatigue
Nice job Paul 👍
I have noticed over the decades that a lot of high end home speakers have also been used as studio monitors.
Please listen to Presonus Sceptre series Monitors. Give us your opinions
Great point Paul...
Now post the frequency response of the IRSV's so we can all have a good laugh. 😃😄😁😆
And yet Gordon Holt bought a set of ATC 50 powered monitors because they made recordings he made sound more like the live performance he recorded than any other speaker he had heard.
I have grown to like the sound of studio monitors. They get fatiguing very quickly though so I have another setup for general listening.
Fatiguing depends on which kind of studio monitor you are using, how loud you listen and for how long. There are plenty of high end studio monitors that are not fatiguing. I say high end studio monitors, because the likes of KRK and Yamaha HS8 (as many seems to own in this thread) are NOT proper studio monitors.
@@rabarebra People can just apply a high-shelf filter if they find the treble fatiguing.
To me, the main difference is clear: studio monitors should always expose deficiencies in the reproduced sound in a reliably neutral way. Well recorded and mixed music should always sound good. In contrast, high-end speakers (N.B. speakers, _not_ 'monitors') should inherently flatter audio coming through them, making even badly recorded stuff sound nice.
There's artistic licence involved with the design of both studio monitors and high end speakers, with every brand sporting a "house sound".
Ultimately the choice is one of cost and trust - do you trust your speakers to be accurate, and do you trust that the cost is justified? Many monitors and high end speakers share much of the same attributes.
Practically, nowadays the majority of monitors benefit from things like matched integral amps, a wide range of input support and a lot more integral control over the sound. They're typically designed to be form-follows-function. With speakers, the onus is on the user to source and pair amps and input stages. The cabinet shape and materials used will be often be chosen to give a more premium aesthetic, with effects on the sonics sometimes being a secondary concern.
I particularly like the imaging of my coaxial Tannoys for my setup, they're lovely allrounder monitors which I trust and have used for analysis and mixing alongside listening for fun. They translate well to other systems. I've used plenty of excellent monitors from dozens of brands, ATCs would be my lottery win go-to for the living room.
You can also get apparent contradictions in the definitions of monitor vs. speaker. For example, I would never use PMC for critical listening or mixing. In my own controlled conditions testing, I've seen how non-linear they can be, and how they behave more like hifi speakers than reference studio monitors. They have a place in some people's setups, and can produce a hyped, lively sound, but I'd never seek to use them professionally.
Absolutely well said....