Another Open Question To Audiophiles With Studio Experience

[jonheal]

Well, my last question generated a healthy dose of banter, so I thought I'd ask another. (Although this is more of a pontification.)

Recently I bought a copy of Propellerhead Reason to see if there's any chance I can put together some not-completely-sucky music.

I've also wanted to rig up a modest "studio" in our guestroom to produce said music. So I wandered into Guitar Center to listen to and compare some small, relatively inexpensive monitors, namely:

KRK Rocket 5 Gen 2
M-Audio BX5a Deluxe
Mackie MR5
Yamaha HS50M

Now, these are all supposed to be flat, sterile studio monitors. Theoretically, shouldn't they all sound the same, or at least VERY similar? But you know what? They all sounded VASTLY different. As different as any bunch of similarly-sized hi-fi speakers you might stick together.

So here's my opinion at this point. There ain't no "flat" speakers. There ain't no "accurate" speakers. You pick the ones that abuse your particular ears the least and you buy them.

[cliveb]

So I wandered into Guitar Center to listen to and compare some small, relatively inexpensive monitors...

They all sounded VASTLY different. As different as any bunch of similarly-sized hi-fi speakers you might stick together.

So here's my opinion at this point. There ain't no "flat" speakers. There ain't no "accurate" speakers.
The key point here is that you auditioned inexpensive speakers. Of course they're not flat or accurate - nowhere near. You need to spend *serious* money to even start approaching that goal. And of course even the finest speakers in the world are orders of magnitude less flat and accurate than a cheap CD player.

Hardly worth bothering, is it? :-)

[Nonreality]

I have a friend that does this same thing and he likes to listen to his music through decent regular speakers. He want's to hear what the average person that will be buying his music is going to hear. He also listens in his vehicle just to get that perspective. I really don't think you need any exotic or specialized speakers for your purpose. Some that you like the way they sound for your type of music. Just my opinion of course.

[Eric Seaberg]

The facility I work at, where I am Chf Audio Engineer, has all Genelec monitors. A lot of people like them, and just as many don't, which proves your point Cliveb. You have to find something you're VERY comfortable with, and spend a LOT of time tuning your ear/brain combination. This can virtually be done with ANY style of "professional" studio monitor... look at how well the Yamaha NS10s or Auratone 5Cs have done!!

We chose Genelec S30Ds in three of our main rooms. They have a ribbon tweeter, are tri-amped and are very easy to listen to for LONG periods of time without too much ear fatigue.

Studios and Edit bays all have 1030As. Our mixes from the S30Ds translate very well to these 6.5" bi-amped monitors.

Our main video post suite has 1037Bs. Tri-amped and VERY LOUD, but still not a lot of fatigue after long listening periods.

We're currently building an HDTV Remote Truck, as well as converting our 4-video edit suites to HD w/ 5.1 monitoring. They will all have Genelec systems, as well as Genelecs in the truck, because that's what our brain is used to. I know for a fact that a mix I do in the truck will feel exactly right in any one of the video suites because all Genelecs 'feel' the same to me.

I do a lot of location recording on my own, and also have Genelecs for that (1030As and 8020s). Again, it's what I'm used to when I'm working. However, the 5.1 listening/entertainment room in our home has Tannoy surrounds and sub. This gives me an 'alternate' listening experience when I bring work home to 'verify'.

All-in-all, do NOT buy speakers JUST BECAUSE A SALESMAN TOLD YOU THEY'RE GREAT!! Make up your own mind based on what feels right to you.

BTW, a GREAT test for listening to speakers when shopping is to play a dry (no effects), speaking human voice. Your brain KNOWS what the human voice is supposed to sound like and, when you turn the volume DOWN, i.e. 75-80dB SPL, you will hear flaws in the mids and top end if there. Pick a speaker that sounds like the person is standing in front of you speaking.

MHO...

[jonheal]

The key point here is that you auditioned inexpensive speakers. Of course they're not flat or accurate - nowhere near. You need to spend *serious* money to even start approaching that goal. And of course even the finest speakers in the world are orders of magnitude less flat and accurate than a cheap CD player.

Hardly worth bothering, is it? :-)

Har har!

I guess the point I was trying to make was that the claim that studio monitors are more "accurate" to me is now total bee-ess. If they're ACCURATE, they should all sound alike. I mean the waveform passing through the voice coils is a measurable, definable thing.

But they don't, and that's fine. I guess I didn't really expect them to.

FWIW, I thought the Yamahas were a little shrill and the Mackies boomy. The KRKs and M-Audios actually sounded kinda similar -- laid back. I preferred them. I'll pick between the two of them. (Plus, the look better. And it's a well known fact that better looking speakers sound better.)

[opaqueice]

BTW, a GREAT test for listening to speakers when shopping is to play a dry (no effects), speaking human voice. Your brain KNOWS what the human voice is supposed to sound like and, when you turn the volume DOWN, i.e. 75-80dB SPL, you will hear flaws in the mids and top end if there. Pick a speaker that sounds like the person is standing in front of you speaking.


Very good advice. I have a high quality recording that includes a wide variety of sounds: a piano concerto recorded from the audience (complete with crinkly candy wrapper), a burble of conversation, nearby voices, car doors shutting, etc., and I find it extremely useful as a gauge of speakers.

[Rodney_Gold]

The best test Cd for both hifi and Studio monitors speakers/systems is this one
Sound Check 2 By Alan Parsons
http://www.interstudio.co.uk/sndchk.htm
Years ago , I listened to a set of Mackie Hr1024's or something like that (can't remember the exact miodel , but they been around a long time) and I was pretty much impressed at their value for money and the bass that came from such small speakers.

[funkstar]

The best test Cd for both hifi and Studio monitors speakers/systems is this one
Sound Check 2 By Alan Parsons
http://www.interstudio.co.uk/sndchk.htm
Thats an interesting CD. Might have to think about getting it you never know when it could come in handy :)

[Phil Leigh]

Studio Monitors are tools. Any workman needs to be comfortable with their tools and what suits one won't suit another. "Flat" has nothing to do with this...at all. No speaker is "flat" (on or off-axis) outside of an anechoic chamber anyway.

The most important aspect of any tool is "can I use it for a long time without pain/injury/discomfort and produce the results I desire..."

There are many other criteria (field servicability, endurance etc) that apply to pro gear.


Most people who have spent a long time working with their monitors understand the delta between what they hear when recording and the average experience of the end consumer. However, they will usually sanity check mixes on a variety of equipment anyway, just in case.

[honestguv]

I guess the point I was trying to make was that the claim that studio monitors are more "accurate" to me is now total bee-ess.

In order to support your claim you would have to compare the deviation in sound of your active "studio monitors" with the deviation in sound of the same priced audiophile amplifier + audiophile passive speakers. Can you spot the problem with this?

I rather doubt the very cheap speakers you claim to be "studio monitors" would be used as accurate monitors of recorded sound in any commercial studios. Teenagers home bedrooms/studios yes but not "real" studios.

If you were to compare the difference in sound of "real" active "studio monitors" against the difference in sound of equivalently priced audiophile amplifier and audiophile passive speakers what would be the outcome?


If they're ACCURATE, they should all sound alike. I mean the waveform passing through the voice coils is a measurable, definable thing.

That would be true if there was an accurate directivity for loudspeakers. Since there isn't, even loudspeakers with a perfect direct sound are going to sound different in any room with significant indirect sound.

[Nonreality]

In order to support your claim you would have to compare the deviation in sound of your active "studio monitors" with the deviation in sound of the same priced audiophile amplifier + audiophile passive speakers. Can you spot the problem with this?

I rather doubt the very cheap speakers you claim to be "studio monitors" would be used as accurate monitors of recorded sound in any commercial studios. Teenagers home bedrooms/studios yes but not "real" studios.

If you were to compare the difference in sound of "real" active "studio monitors" against the difference in sound of equivalently priced audiophile amplifier and audiophile passive speakers what would be the outcome?



That would be true if there was an accurate directivity for loudspeakers. Since there isn't, even loudspeakers with a perfect direct sound are going to sound different in any room with significant indirect sound.

Boy if everything said was true with a speaker, that company would be very well off. Make a speaker that was perfectly flat in response, and that everyone liked.

[Themis]

Make a speaker that was perfectly flat in response, and that everyone liked.I suppose that it's as easy as composing a song that everyone (at any time) likes. ;)

[Nonreality]

I suppose that it's as easy as composing a song that everyone (at any time) likes. ;)Very true, but I think that is probably easier.