BigH
Well-known member
altruistic.lemon said:
They should be similar but due to size and budget considerations they won't. Also some are designed for small rooms or close listening.
They should be similar but due to size and budget considerations they won't. Also some are designed for small rooms or close listening.
altruistic.lemon said:
Yet again another post attempting to knock down arguments that were never made.
The term 'boom and tizz' was not applied to all passive loudspeakers but quite specifically to budget designs and in a following post the point was clarified further.
Such obvious misrepresentation makes your arguments nonsensical and casts a doubt on pretty much anything that you say.
Out of interest, I have stated quite clearly a fondness for dipoles in other threads along with a totally unambiguous statement that the best system I have ever heard in a domestic environment included a pair of Martin Logan Statements, a system of large passive electrostatic panels combined with active subwoofer towers. In fact I was so knocked out that some ten years later I spent an awful lot of money on a 'budget' version of that system, my SME/Koetsu front end, ARC amplification with ML CLS IIIz and paired REL subs came close, but, as they say, no cigar.
Furthermore, if you are going to champion the cause of dipolar panels, it would be better if you explained the advantages rather more clearly, your implication that 'Magneplanar and Electrostatic' speakers are somehow not 'electromechanical designs' is total nonsense.
BigH said:
i think you're right, but it means the accuracy of studio monitors is a bit of a myth. Certainly the speakers I heard sounded as different as the ones in the Hi Fi shops.
abacus said:
Sorry Bill, I kind of see what you are getting at but sadly you are quite wrong.
The main monitors in a professional studio are usually built in and some distance from the mixing position, the kind of small 'near field' monitors you are describing are rarely used for recording in a professional environment, when they are used it is usually during mix down or mastering to give an indication (rather ironically) of what the mix will sound like in a domestic environment.
Most of the small monitors you find in music shops or pro-audio dealers are aimed at the home studio or small time production unit and are worlds away from a proper main monitor.
Hi-fi speakers are sometimes used in the control room and usually work fine unless they are the more fragile type in which case they are quickly blown up. Treated rooms tend to encourage higher playback levels than hi-fi speakers can comfortably manage which is why even such thoroughly competent designs by companies such as Harbeth and PMC are rarely used as main monitors though they can be a delight to mix on in a suitable setting.
John Duncan
Well-known member
altruistic.lemon said:
This is quite true though the important differences, ie not presentational ones, get smaller as the monitors get better.
Good recording monitors have to be accurate in many different ways, not just tonally but in terms of dynamics and transient response. Studio engineers very quickly get to know what works and what does not, as they have the enviable advantage of being able to move from the studio floor with the sound of live instruments to the control with same instruments playing through the monitors.
if you ever get the chance to visit a professional studio and experience this it can be very enlightening.
John Duncan said:
Rather too much time on my hands today, it gives me a chance to get on my soapbox.
steve_1979
Well-known member
altruistic.lemon said:
How so?
Regarding my first point, you cannot catagorically state that all yamaha guitars sound the same. Unless you can somehow prove it to me, but having worked in guitar shops and spent many moons in studios recording stuff, I'd like to know where you get this idea from?
As for the second point, in what way does it not bear scrutiny? Please expand? Serious question - do you actually know what goes in to recording music and how they acheive what they do?
davedotco said:
Yes, strand being the operative word. Never yet heard "boom" or "tizz" coming out of any speaker uness it was on the soundtrack. A tired old cliche that deserves to get rebutted. Oh yes, I've heard a few actives as well some of which do a fine line in removing the life from the music - you can see why they need to be heard in the producer's studio and nowhere else...
the record spot said:
I am not sure whether to take this reply seriously or not, are you simply responding to the terminology or have you genuinely never heard speakers that emphasise the mid bass to compensate for the lack of true bass depth? Just asking.
I am also getting a bit fed up of being treated like I am some sort of apologist for active speakers, this is simply not the case.
I too have heard some pretty poor active speakers in my time, some quite unlistenable, but unlike some I do not jump to the conclusion that all actives are bad any more than I discount all passive speakers after hearing some of the rubbish that finds it's way into some dealers.
I have a background that encompasses both pro-audio and real hi-fi and find the entrenched and often quite absurd views on both sides of the devide quite amusing though the ignorance is often quite astounding.
davedotco said:
Hi Dave, your background is neither here nor there to me, but your trotting out of the "boom / tizz" cliche leaves me cold. I've heard some pretty poor actives too and I've heard some great ones. My personal preference is Yamaha, Genelec and one or two others I've heard. I won't claim to be an expert but I've heard a few. I'm glad you don't discount all passives, which is rather refreshing after the earlier evidence.
the record spot said:
Actives removing life from the music, another tired old cliche...
ZZZZzzzz
Yes and if you'd bothered to check my previous posts on actives, you'd know how much I really believe that. Not.
In response to the op, I've only heard 2 speakers/systems that compete with mine. One involved some massive (in size and price) Quad panels (can't remember the exact model) that sounded remarkably like my active monitors, apart from the bass which was bolstered by a REL sub and was way behind what I'm used to hearing. The other was the Avi ADM40s, the ADM40s were maybe a touch lighter in the bass but also a touch smoother, a very enjoyable sound either way. Avi aside, the only other active hifi speakers I've heard properly were some Adam standmounts (can't remember the model) and the Dynaudio Xeos, both of which disappointed me for the same reason - they lacked the sort of natural clarity I've come to associate with decent actives. Other than that, based on what I've heard so far, it would be studio actives all the way for me, for sound and value. Mine wipe the floor with any passive hifi speaker I've ever had or demoed in every department you care to think of. Bar looks!
SpursGator
Well-known member
A couple of comments - first, no two speakers sound alike, and in fact it is/was something of an engineering challenge to get a perfectly matched pair from the same production line. The frequency response curve of any speaker, with all of its peaks and valleys, started as a razor-flat line of pink noise. There is not a speaker in the world - whether you call it a monitor or not - with a flat response. They are all completely different from each other.
Second, I disagree with the notion that a 'studio monitor' is necessarily flatter than a home hifi speaker. Manufacturers in both worlds must make trade-offs and thus choices at every turn. The oft-copied 'BBC monitor' speakers (Rogers LS3/5A et al) were famously not flat, but featured a dip in the midrange, as does a hifi speaker that became much-beloved as a monitor, the ProAc Studio 100. Engineers often are trying to hear the limits of what they are mixing and how hard they can push it, especially at the low end, and a speaker that shines a little light on the lower midbass can be helpful.
Third, there are different types of tizz-and-boom - or rather, different levels of sophistication. What I describe above, the so-called BBC dip, mirrors what people always do when they have cheap graphic equalisers - the smiley face profile. The bass and treble are boosted, the mid cut. This is the essence of tizz-and-boom - but some of the most refined speakers on the market do exactly the same thing. I will use ProAc as an example, since I admire and recommend this company all the time and don't want this to seem too critical. In despite having a big midrange dip, shows that maybe there are situations in which a little tizz-and-boom is a good design decision, despite its association with cheap speakers.
And as for all of the axioms being giving here in an attempt to define the difference between monitors and speakers, there is no difference - or rather, there are a wide variety of speakers from both worlds being used in both settings, with almost total overlap. They are all different and thus, it's a meaningless distinction even if we manage to make sense of it.
Second, I disagree with the notion that a 'studio monitor' is necessarily flatter than a home hifi speaker. Manufacturers in both worlds must make trade-offs and thus choices at every turn. The oft-copied 'BBC monitor' speakers (Rogers LS3/5A et al) were famously not flat, but featured a dip in the midrange, as does a hifi speaker that became much-beloved as a monitor, the ProAc Studio 100. Engineers often are trying to hear the limits of what they are mixing and how hard they can push it, especially at the low end, and a speaker that shines a little light on the lower midbass can be helpful.
Third, there are different types of tizz-and-boom - or rather, different levels of sophistication. What I describe above, the so-called BBC dip, mirrors what people always do when they have cheap graphic equalisers - the smiley face profile. The bass and treble are boosted, the mid cut. This is the essence of tizz-and-boom - but some of the most refined speakers on the market do exactly the same thing. I will use ProAc as an example, since I admire and recommend this company all the time and don't want this to seem too critical. In despite having a big midrange dip, shows that maybe there are situations in which a little tizz-and-boom is a good design decision, despite its association with cheap speakers.
And as for all of the axioms being giving here in an attempt to define the difference between monitors and speakers, there is no difference - or rather, there are a wide variety of speakers from both worlds being used in both settings, with almost total overlap. They are all different and thus, it's a meaningless distinction even if we manage to make sense of it.
steve_1979
Well-known member
Craig M. said:
I agree. I've heard the Event Opals and they're shockingly good. A fair bit better than all of the passive speakers I've heard in fact. The only speakers that I've heard that were noticabilly better than the Opals are the Genelec 8260A and Quested V2108. I haven't heard the ADM40's but the old ADM9T's with the sub would probably give the Opals a run for their money too.
As for actives removing the life from the music... :roll:
IMO the clearer sound of a good pair of actives allows you to hear the music better which gives it more 'life' not less.
SpursGator said:
You make some good points, though the world of 'studio monitors' is far more complex than most people think, there are a fair number of completely different types of speakers that are used in professional audio, full size recording monitors, monitors for mixing amd mastering, broadcast monitors, speech monitors (the LS3/5a for example) , quality assessment monitors and probably a few I haven't mentioned.
In a serious professional environment they are just tools, selected for and used to do the job in hand.
The 'smiley face' response is very common in speakers at all levels and is very common in inexpensive and mid price speakers. The reason is obvious, no real bass extension so a mid bass hump is applied to give them some body and a presence boost to stop them sounding dark or shut in. Surprisingly (or maybe not), a lot of people liked speakers that sound like this and there are plenty of speaker manufacturers who are not shy about giving them what they want.
The midrange dip that you talk about is commonplace in small two way systems, neither driver is that comfortable around the crossover point which can cause a degree of unruly behaviour that can reduce clarity and if unchecked sound harsh. In these situations a flat response can be a liability, distortion of one kind or another, can make the speaker sound quite forward so a mid band dip is often a viable compromise.
steve_1979
Well-known member
altruistic.lemon said:
The only active HiFi speakers that I've heard were the ADM9T's which I prefer to any of the active monitors in the same price range.
The 6.5" Genelec 8040A and Quested S7R models are on a par quality wise but they're also a bit more expensive too. That's not to say that expensive models such as the Genelec 8260A or Quested V2108 aren't better though.
steve_1979 said:
I'd have to do a direct comparison to say if the ADM40s were better or not. I have done a direct comparison between the 9Ts and sub (I have my cousins here while he moves house) and Opals though, and it's the Opals to me. Having said that, even though I think there is a fair margin, for some music I prefer the 9Ts and sub. The 9rss and sub would be a much closer run thing and might swing the other way. I think it's probably for the best if I don't hear the 8260A's! You've got me intrigued though... :doh:
I could not agree more with your last sentence.
BigH
Well-known member
I heard lots of different systems, for me I always felt the passive systems were getting in the way of the music.
the record spot said:
I didn't bother as your statement stood alone and made no reference to previous comments.
Besides, I could not care less what you've said in the past.
Interestingly there was a news piece on this site not long ago about Genelec bringing their active speakers to a home environment. There are many factors that go into purchasing audio equipment, performance is just one of many. For the home environment aesthetics are important and it seems Genelec realise this.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram