Near field studio monitors?

[Gazzip]

Lots of advice flying around on this and other forums at the moment that we should ditch our audiofool passive bookshelf loudspeakers in favour of their less expensive active/passive studio cousins from the professional market. For my money this is really, really bad advice, but I would love to hear what others think.

I am pretty sure that studio nearfield monitors are not designed for listening to music. They are designed for listening through music, which enables the studio professional in the mix to hear what their tracks and mix are all doing. I have heard pro market Yamaha, Adam and Genolec Active NF’s and find them all way too analytical and...well...unmusical.

PMC make a studio range and a pro range of near field/bookshelf’s, as do ATC. I don’t know much about ATC but PMC have no crossover between the two versions (no pun intended). For PMC there are different horses for different courses.

I think what I am trying to say is that having a pro-market loudspeaker that can open up every nuance of the recording may not necessarily be portraying what the artist intended you to hear. They may be portraying what the engineer is meant to hear.

 

[ellisdj]

Is there a difference designed in for a studio listening position?

Such as about a metre from the ear across a highly reflective desk?

 

[Andrewjvt]

Lots of advice flying around on this and other forums at the moment that we should ditch our audiofool passive bookshelf loudspeakers in favour of their less expensive active/passive studio cousins from the professional market. For my money this is really, really bad advice, but I would love to hear what others think.

I am pretty sure that studio nearfield monitors are not designed for listening to music. They are designed for listening through music, which enables the studio professional in the mix to hear what their tracks and mix are all doing. I have heard pro market Yamaha, Adam and Genolec Active NF’s and find them all way too analytical and...well...unmusical.

PMC make a studio range and a pro range of near field/bookshelf’s, as do ATC. I don’t know much about ATC but PMC have no crossover between the two versions (no pun intended). For PMC there are different horses for different courses.

I think what I am trying to say is that having a pro-market loudspeaker that can open up every nuance of the recording may not necessarily be portraying what the artist intended you to hear. They may be portraying what the engineer is meant to hear. 

Listen to a PMC pro next to.a PMC hifi speaker of the same driver size/configuration and you will answer your own question.
I think you'll be surprised how similar they sound.

The only difference between ATC pro and hifi range is the finish of the cabinets

The advantages of active over passive is nothing to do with hifi or studio monitoring application.

My studio monitors are very musical imo but as they are very cheap they have limits

 

[Gazzip]

Lots of advice flying around on this and other forums at the moment that we should ditch our audiofool passive bookshelf loudspeakers in favour of their less expensive active/passive studio cousins from the professional market. For my money this is really, really bad advice, but I would love to hear what others think.

I am pretty sure that studio nearfield monitors are not designed for listening to music. They are designed for listening through music, which enables the studio professional in the mix to hear what their tracks and mix are all doing. I have heard pro market Yamaha, Adam and Genolec Active NF’s and find them all way too analytical and...well...unmusical.

PMC make a studio range and a pro range of near field/bookshelf’s, as do ATC. I don’t know much about ATC but PMC have no crossover between the two versions (no pun intended). For PMC there are different horses for different courses.

I think what I am trying to say is that having a pro-market loudspeaker that can open up every nuance of the recording may not necessarily be portraying what the artist intended you to hear. They may be portraying what the engineer is meant to hear.

Listen to a PMC pro next to.a PMC hifi speaker of the same driver size/configuration and you will answer your own question. I think you'll be surprised how similar they sound.

The only difference between ATC pro and hifi range is the finish of the cabinets

The advantages of active over passive is nothing to do with hifi or studio monitoring application.

My studio monitors are very musical imo but as they are very cheap they have limits

As per my original post PMC do not have the same NF monitor loudspeakers in their consumer range as in their pro range, so the comparison you suggest is not possible. Pro NF monitors are designed for a specific, professional use, which is very different from home audio use. The two are not interchangeable in my opinion.

 

[Andrewjvt]

Lots of advice flying around on this and other forums at the moment that we should ditch our audiofool passive bookshelf loudspeakers in favour of their less expensive active/passive studio cousins from the professional market. For my money this is really, really bad advice, but I would love to hear what others think.

I am pretty sure that studio nearfield monitors are not designed for listening to music. They are designed for listening through music, which enables the studio professional in the mix to hear what their tracks and mix are all doing. I have heard pro market Yamaha, Adam and Genolec Active NF’s and find them all way too analytical and...well...unmusical.

PMC make a studio range and a pro range of near field/bookshelf’s, as do ATC. I don’t know much about ATC but PMC have no crossover between the two versions (no pun intended). For PMC there are different horses for different courses.

I think what I am trying to say is that having a pro-market loudspeaker that can open up every nuance of the recording may not necessarily be portraying what the artist intended you to hear. They may be portraying what the engineer is meant to hear. 

Listen to a PMC pro next to.a PMC hifi speaker of the same driver size/configuration and you will answer your own question. I think you'll be surprised how similar they sound.

The only difference between ATC pro and hifi range is the finish of the cabinets

The advantages of active over passive is nothing to do with hifi or studio monitoring application.

My studio monitors are very musical imo but as they are very cheap they have limits

As per my original post PMC do not have the same NF monitor loudspeakers in their consumer range as in their pro range, so the comparison you suggest is not possible. Pro NF monitors are designed for a specific, professional use, which is very different from home audio use. The two are not interchangeable in my opinion. 

Is nf another word for small?

 

[davedotco]

I'll offer the 'other' perspective.

Firstly I do not subscribe to the theory that pro-speakers are over clinical, it is the lack of control that passive speakers exhibit in the bass, the phase and other issues that cloud the midrange around the crossover point and audible cone breakup from the main driver not sufficiantly supressed by slow roll off passive crossovers.

In affordable speakers, factors such as these are adjusted to the designers taste and gives the speaker a degree of character that the prospective buyer will like or dislike.

Active designs suffer from none of these problems so the better models have a characterless, see (hear?) through quality that is hard to do without once you become accustomed to it.

To my ears, there are good inexpensive monitors that outperform the usual budget combinations with ease but sadly they are rarely available to audition in a manner suited to hi-fi users. I have been lucky in recent times in that I have been able to try a few designs at home, in pretty much optimum conditions, so I could really get a handle on just how well they can perform.

 

[Gazzip]

Is there a difference designed in for a studio listening position?

Such as about a metre from the ear across a highly reflective desk?

For nearfield yes, they are not designed for domestic use hence my post. You cannot stick pro NF’s, which are designed to be extremely revealing and placed either side of your head on a mixing desk, keyboard etc., on a pair of hifi stands 3m apart, and then sit three metres away and expect audio magic to unfold. If audio magic is what you hear from this configuration then I’m sorry but you don’t have a clue about how music is supposed to sound.

Recording studios remix all music (post NF monitor “perfection”) to sound good on Home hifi. The use of pro NF monitors for listening to music at home is therefore irrelevant, no?

 

[davedotco]

Lots of advice flying around on this and other forums at the moment that we should ditch our audiofool passive bookshelf loudspeakers in favour of their less expensive active/passive studio cousins from the professional market. For my money this is really, really bad advice, but I would love to hear what others think.

I am pretty sure that studio nearfield monitors are not designed for listening to music. They are designed for listening through music, which enables the studio professional in the mix to hear what their tracks and mix are all doing. I have heard pro market Yamaha, Adam and Genolec Active NF’s and find them all way too analytical and...well...unmusical.

PMC make a studio range and a pro range of near field/bookshelf’s, as do ATC. I don’t know much about ATC but PMC have no crossover between the two versions (no pun intended). For PMC there are different horses for different courses.

I think what I am trying to say is that having a pro-market loudspeaker that can open up every nuance of the recording may not necessarily be portraying what the artist intended you to hear. They may be portraying what the engineer is meant to hear.

Listen to a PMC pro next to.a PMC hifi speaker of the same driver size/configuration and you will answer your own question. I think you'll be surprised how similar they sound.

The only difference between ATC pro and hifi range is the finish of the cabinets

The advantages of active over passive is nothing to do with hifi or studio monitoring application.

My studio monitors are very musical imo but as they are very cheap they have limits

As per my original post PMC do not have the same NF monitor loudspeakers in their consumer range as in their pro range, so the comparison you suggest is not possible. Pro NF monitors are designed for a specific, professional use, which is very different from home audio use. The two are not interchangeable in my opinion.

Is nf another word for small?

It's another word for not loud enough or powerful enough to be used as main monitors.

Few if any such speakers are really designed for true nearfield use, you would have to sit very close indeed to be in the near field in most rooms, I used all the speakers I was able to try at a normal hi-fi distance.

 

[Gazzip]

Lots of advice flying around on this and other forums at the moment that we should ditch our audiofool passive bookshelf loudspeakers in favour of their less expensive active/passive studio cousins from the professional market. For my money this is really, really bad advice, but I would love to hear what others think.

I am pretty sure that studio nearfield monitors are not designed for listening to music. They are designed for listening through music, which enables the studio professional in the mix to hear what their tracks and mix are all doing. I have heard pro market Yamaha, Adam and Genolec Active NF’s and find them all way too analytical and...well...unmusical.

PMC make a studio range and a pro range of near field/bookshelf’s, as do ATC. I don’t know much about ATC but PMC have no crossover between the two versions (no pun intended). For PMC there are different horses for different courses.

I think what I am trying to say is that having a pro-market loudspeaker that can open up every nuance of the recording may not necessarily be portraying what the artist intended you to hear. They may be portraying what the engineer is meant to hear.

Listen to a PMC pro next to.a PMC hifi speaker of the same driver size/configuration and you will answer your own question. I think you'll be surprised how similar they sound.

The only difference between ATC pro and hifi range is the finish of the cabinets

The advantages of active over passive is nothing to do with hifi or studio monitoring application.

My studio monitors are very musical imo but as they are very cheap they have limits

As per my original post PMC do not have the same NF monitor loudspeakers in their consumer range as in their pro range, so the comparison you suggest is not possible. Pro NF monitors are designed for a specific, professional use, which is very different from home audio use. The two are not interchangeable in my opinion.

Is nf another word for small?

Near Field.

 

[Andrewjvt]

I'll offer the 'other' perspective.

Firstly I do not subscribe to the theory that pro-speakers are over clinical, it is the lack of control that passive speakers exhibit in the bass, the phase and other issues that cloud the midrange around the crossover point and audible cone breakup from the main driver not sufficiantly supressed by slow roll off passive crossovers.

In affordable speakers, factors such as these are adjusted to the designers taste and gives the speaker a degree of character that the prospective buyer will like or dislike.

Active designs suffer from none of these problems so the better models have a characterless, see (hear?) through quality that is hard to do without once you become accustomed to it.

To my ears, there are good inexpensive monitors that outperform the usual budget combinations with ease but sadly they are rarely available to audition in a manner suited to hi-fi users. I have been lucky in recent times in that I have been able to try a few designs at home, in pretty much optimum conditions, so I could really get a handle on just how well they can perform.

I agree but is not Gazzip stating that there is a difference in design of a 'near field' studio speaker in the output at a certain distance to its hifi counterpart?

 

[Andrewjvt]

Lots of advice flying around on this and other forums at the moment that we should ditch our audiofool passive bookshelf loudspeakers in favour of their less expensive active/passive studio cousins from the professional market. For my money this is really, really bad advice, but I would love to hear what others think.

I am pretty sure that studio nearfield monitors are not designed for listening to music. They are designed for listening through music, which enables the studio professional in the mix to hear what their tracks and mix are all doing. I have heard pro market Yamaha, Adam and Genolec Active NF’s and find them all way too analytical and...well...unmusical.

PMC make a studio range and a pro range of near field/bookshelf’s, as do ATC. I don’t know much about ATC but PMC have no crossover between the two versions (no pun intended). For PMC there are different horses for different courses.

I think what I am trying to say is that having a pro-market loudspeaker that can open up every nuance of the recording may not necessarily be portraying what the artist intended you to hear. They may be portraying what the engineer is meant to hear. 

Listen to a PMC pro next to.a PMC hifi speaker of the same driver size/configuration and you will answer your own question. I think you'll be surprised how similar they sound.

The only difference between ATC pro and hifi range is the finish of the cabinets

The advantages of active over passive is nothing to do with hifi or studio monitoring application.

My studio monitors are very musical imo but as they are very cheap they have limits

As per my original post PMC do not have the same NF monitor loudspeakers in their consumer range as in their pro range, so the comparison you suggest is not possible. Pro NF monitors are designed for a specific, professional use, which is very different from home audio use. The two are not interchangeable in my opinion. 

Is nf another word for small?

It's another word for not loud enough or powerful enough to be used as main monitors.

Few if any such speakers are really designed for true nearfield use, you would have to sit very close indeed to be in the near field in most rooms, I used all the speakers I was able to try at a normal hi-fi distance. 

I'm trying to.dispell the myth that studio monitors that are not loud enough for main duties are not designed only to be listened to at close distance say on a desk.

 

[davedotco]

Is there a difference designed in for a studio listening position?

Such as about a metre from the ear across a highly reflective desk?

For nearfield yes, they are not designed for domestic use hence my post. You cannot stick pro NF’s, which are designed to be extremely revealing and placed either side of your head on a mixing desk, keyboard etc., on a pair of hifi stands 3m apart, and then sit three metres away and expect audio magic to unfold. If audio magic is what you hear from this configuration then I’m sorry but you don’t have a clue about how music is supposed to sound.

Recording studios remix all music (post NF monitor “perfection”) to sound good on Home hifi. The use of pro NF monitors for listening to music at home is therefore irrelevant, no?

But that is nonsense throughout. When auditioned at home, the monitors were placed about 8 ft apart, with a listening distance of about 10 ft. Audio magic most definitely did occur, particularly when the price is taken in context.

The idea that "studios remix all music to sound good on home hifi" is simply not true, pop music is mixed for the iPod generation which is why, genuinely good recordings are so highly prized.

 

[ellisdj]

I watched a video on the tube where a chap in a studio wss talking about the speakers they use. But he clearly said we use these for work but when we play the music back to the customer we use something else

 

[davedotco]

Near field monitors are rarely, if ever, balanced for true near field use, if they were, they would be bass heavy when listened to at hi-fi listening distances. This is actually the opposite of what happens in practice where monitors tend to sound tighter and more controlled in the bass compared to comparable hi-fi speakers when used in a similar fashion.

The hi-fi industry as a whole is very conservative and protective of it's business model and is quite comfortable trotting out these myths and stories to keep the 'punters' on message.

Remember, if a highly regarded hi-fi speaker sounds bright or lose in the bass, then it probably a positioning problem or a system missmatch, if a studio speaker sounds poor, it is just plain cr@p.

 

[davedotco]

I watched a video on the tube where a chap in a studio wss talking about the speakers they use. But he clearly said we use these for work but when we play the music back to the customer we use something else

In this case will want to sell the music, that means making it sound 'good' to the mass market buyer, the iPod or in car user.

 

[ellisdj]

Maybe thats what they meant but I don't remember it being meant like that.

I think it was more we use these genelec but when we play to the customer we use something better - the better was the co. the vid was about.

This is just from memory and I might have that bit wrong

 

[davedotco]

Maybe thats what they meant but I don't remember it being meant like that.

I think it was more we use these genelec but when we play to the customer we use something better - the better was the co. the vid was about.

This is just from memory and I might have that bit wrong

I havn't seen the video but I have worked in a number of studios and they all try and find ways to impress the customer. Everything from taking them into the control room and 'blowing them away' with the main monitors to taking them outside and playing stuff in the car.

My experience is also that working musicians and other industry pros tend to use pro speakers at home, and no, that doesn't really prove anything either. There is as much bullsh!t in the pro industry as there is in hi-fi, experience is the key.

 

[Andrewjvt]

It's the same for hifi
Law of physics can't be changed.

The larger the speaker and more.powerful the more realistic or 'live' it will sound so people would naturally show off the finished product on large powerful monitors.
Same for hifi speakers too.

That's possibly why they would mix on small near field monitors but play back on large main monitors.
I don't think it has anything to do.with the sound, sounding to clinical.or cold

 

[hybridauth_Facebook_100004211376004]

I've had a subscription email or two from pmc in the last few months or so with them showing off some of their studio installs... and they definitely aren't designed for near field use...so why does everyone think that recording studio engineers sit and listen with their heads stuck between a pair of near field monitors sat either side of a mixing desk...I very much doubt that is the case these days.

 

[lindsayt]

I'll offer the 'other' perspective.

Firstly I do not subscribe to the theory that pro-speakers are over clinical, it is the lack of control that passive speakers exhibit in the bass, the phase and other issues that cloud the midrange around the crossover point and audible cone breakup from the main driver not sufficiantly supressed by slow roll off passive crossovers.

In affordable speakers, factors such as these are adjusted to the designers taste and gives the speaker a degree of character that the prospective buyer will like or dislike.

Active designs suffer from none of these problems so the better models have a characterless, see (hear?) through quality that is hard to do without once you become accustomed to it.

To my ears, there are good inexpensive monitors that outperform the usual budget combinations with ease but sadly they are rarely available to audition in a manner suited to hi-fi users. I have been lucky in recent times in that I have been able to try a few designs at home, in pretty much optimum conditions, so I could really get a handle on just how well they can perform.

If you have 2 speakers that are identical, apart from one being active and one being passive, it is quite possible that the active version will sound clinical - undynamic - and with bass that sounds better controlled. Whilst the passive speaker may well sound more dynamic in the bass - less clinical - but also with bass that sounds relatively loose / wooly / uncontrolled.

In this example neither version is particularly good.

Ideally bass should sound tuneful / textured AND dynamic. Because that's how bass drums, double basses etc sound in real life!

All it takes is a basic understanding of over-damped, under-damped and critically damped systems to realise that bass drivers may well be too over-damped in active systems and may therefore sound undynamic / clinical.

This would be exacerbated if the speaker is so small that lack of bass extension is an issue, as an overdamped bass driver that filters out bass drums and bass guitairs really would sound clinical.

 

[Andrewjvt]

I'll offer the 'other' perspective.

Firstly I do not subscribe to the theory that pro-speakers are over clinical, it is the lack of control that passive speakers exhibit in the bass, the phase and other issues that cloud the midrange around the crossover point and audible cone breakup from the main driver not sufficiantly supressed by slow roll off passive crossovers.

In affordable speakers, factors such as these are adjusted to the designers taste and gives the speaker a degree of character that the prospective buyer will like or dislike.

Active designs suffer from none of these problems so the better models have a characterless, see (hear?) through quality that is hard to do without once you become accustomed to it.

To my ears, there are good inexpensive monitors that outperform the usual budget combinations with ease but sadly they are rarely available to audition in a manner suited to hi-fi users. I have been lucky in recent times in that I have been able to try a few designs at home, in pretty much optimum conditions, so I could really get a handle on just how well they can perform.

If you have 2 speakers that are identical, apart from one being active and one being passive, it is quite possible that the active version will sound clinical - undynamic - and with bass that sounds better controlled. Whilst the passive speaker may well sound more dynamic in the bass - less clinical - but also with bass that sounds relatively loose / wooly / uncontrolled.

In this example neither version is particularly good.

Ideally bass should sound tuneful / textured AND dynamic. Because that's how bass drums, double basses etc sound in real life!

 

All it takes is a basic understanding of over-damped, under-damped and critically damped systems to realise that bass drivers may well be too over-damped in active systems and may therefore sound undynamic / clinical.

This would be exacerbated if the speaker is so small that lack of bass extension is an issue, as an overdamped bass driver that filters out bass drums and bass guitairs really would sound clinical.

A speaker should not act as a musical instrument by playing its own tune.
It should not add to the recording but also should not subtract anything either.
There is no reason why an active speaker would do this.just because it is a more efficient design and exhibits greater control over outdated passive counterpart.

More hifi myth imo

 

[lindsayt]

"Control" is a misleading word to use in the context of the increased bass damping that you get with active versions of passive speakers.

"Increased damping" is a more accurate description. Increased damping in the context of bass drivers comes with the penalty of dynamic compression. It's the wading through treacle effect of increased damping.

That is a scientific fact.

For most people for most modern small slimline ported 2 way speakers - the typical basic design of nearfield studio monitors - the bass will sound subjectively better from the increased damping. That's because grossly underdamped bass drivers sound too loose / woolly. IE the increased dynamic compression is a price worth paying for reduced wooliness.

There's another price to pay with most active crossovers. This deserves a separate thread, which I'll be happy to start.

And "outdated" is a misleading term to use in the context of passive vs active speakers. Active speakers have been around for 50 years.

 

[Andrewjvt]

I'm no expert on PMC
But a quick look at the website and I can find lots of similar products and hifi models

Please explain how models could sound different?

Twotwo5 v twenty5 21

Both have same drivers and I suspect roughly similar volume?

Why could these not be compared?

Id much rather have the active pro than the hifi one.

Why don't you.arrange a home demo and tell us what you think?

I think it's only 3500 that's for speaker and amp?

How much would the hifi equivalent cost say with a naim super uniti?

 

[Andrewjvt]

"Control" is a misleading word to use in the context of the increased bass damping that you get with active versions of passive speakers.

 

"Increased damping" is a more accurate description. Increased damping in the context of bass drivers comes with the penalty of dynamic compression. It's the wading through treacle effect of increased damping.

 

That is a scientific fact.

 

For most people for most modern small slimline ported 2 way speakers - the typical basic design of nearfield studio monitors - the bass will sound subjectively better from the increased damping. That's because grossly underdamped bass drivers sound too loose / woolly. IE the increased dynamic compression is a price worth paying for reduced wooliness.

 

There's another price to pay with most active crossovers. This deserves a separate thread, which I'll be happy to start.

 

And "outdated" is a misleading term to use in the context of passive vs active speakers. Active speakers have been around for 50 years.

Can you name one manufacturer of passive and active models that agree with you or say their passive models are not inferior to the active?

I use the term outdated as in people's traditional way of thinking.

 

[newlash09]

Please start the thread on active cross overs, I would be very interested in learning . Thanks