Near field studio monitors?

[drummerman]

I find it more puzzling that most 'studio' monitors look like the automotive equivalent of a tractor.

You'd need an understanding wife.

 

[andyjm]

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.

In a domestic environment, a substantial portion of what your hear from your speakers is the result of reflections from wall, floor and ceiling. This can result in augmentation or reduction in specific frequency ranges depending on the design of the speaker and shape of the room.

Nearfield monitors are designed such that most (if not all) of the sound is heard directly from the speaker. This is particularly the case if they are used in their intended environment (a studio control room) which is acoustically treated and has little reflection and the speaker is placed close to the listener.

The tonal balance of a near field monitor will be different than designed if used in a domestic setting - doesn't mean it won't work, and you might be happy with the sound, but it wasn't what the designer intended.

The classic example that I have direct experience of is the BBC LS3/5A, which was designed for monitoring in outside broadcast vans - which given the size of the van is about as near field as you can get. This speaker developed quite a following in the HiFi world, but when used in a domestic setting sounded different to its original intended use.

 

[Gazzip]

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?

Am I missing something here? The PMC speakers you name have completely different drive units? Their dimensions are significantly different in volumetric terms? They have fundamentally different crossover topologies? Their transmission line lengths are different? Beyond the fact that their model names are made up of numbers and they both wear a PMC badge I see absolutely no similarity between these models whatsoever on paper.

There are model crossover in the PMC pro/domestic ranges when you get to the larger models such as IB2, MB2, BB5 etc., and this makes sense to me, but their small monitor ranges are very different. Doesn’t that say something to you? Like perhaps their smaller pro monitors are meant for use in a studio whereas their smaller domestic monitors are meant for use in the home?

 

[Gazzip]

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.

I suspect that PMC Twenty5 21’s are “inferior” to TwoTwo5’s in a heavily treated studio environment when used as a nearfield monitor, in the same way that PMC TwoTwo5’s are “inferior” to Twenty5 21’s when used in a “lively” or “dead” domestic environment. I also suspect that this is why PMC make both models. Horses for courses.

 

[davedotco]

Even if we confine ourselves to smaller, more domestically acceptable models, there is a big difference to the way such speakers are used.

Even quite modest studios will have some degree of acoustic treatment, generally this will reduce reflections and 'room gain' so that you can sit a couple of meters from the speaker and still be in the near field, where >50% of what you hear is direct from the speaker. At home, a more reflective and reverberant environment, you would have to sit impractically close to be truly in the near field.

Balancing a speaker for near field use is, in my experience, almost never done, adjusting for positioning (boundary, desktop, free space etc), is far more important, part of the reasons why such speakers have controls to adjust bass and treble output.

Another factor is that pro speakers are often used at much higher spls than are used in the home, Fletcher Munsen comes into play here, another reason why the bass/treble controls are so useful. It is generally my experience that pro models sound more dynamic and open at low levels than many mainstream hi-fi models, ideal for hi-fi in fact.

A word of warning though, in most cases pro speakers do sound 'different' to hi-fi speakers, so if you are looking for something that sounds like your favourite hi-fi speaker, only better, you may be disappointed. There is no doubt in my mind that, price for price, pro speakers get you closer to the recording, however there are those who insist that this does not mean closer to the music. I do not agree with this at all, but though they might be expressed in different ways, this is a common view in the hi-fi fraternity.

 

[abacus]

A speaker is designed (Or should be) to turn electrical energy into mechanical energy as accurately as possible, and it is easier to design an active speaker (As the designer has full control over everything) for this then a passive one. (The active also allows controls to be incorporated to better integrate with the room WITHOUT causing any downsides of its own)

Most active speakers are designed for pro use, and therefore visually do not integrate well in a domestic environment, plus they also require more cabling for them to work, so while they can offer better quality sound than similar passives, they are not practical for all.

Apart from visually and cabling, you should not focus on either active or passive, but instead go to some live music venues and choose speakers that give close to this sound within your budget, (If you are going for sound accuracy) or if you just want something that sounds nice to your ears, (Most Hi-Fi users don’t seem interested in accuracy and authenticity) buy speakers that do just this.

Bill

 

[Gazzip]

A speaker is designed (Or should be) to turn electrical energy into mechanical energy as accurately as possible, and it is easier to design an active speaker (As the designer has full control over everything) for this then a passive one. (The active also allows controls to be incorporated to better integrate with the room WITHOUT causing any downsides of its own)

Most active speakers are designed for pro use, and therefore visually do not integrate well in a domestic environment, plus they also require more cabling for them to work, so while they can offer better quality sound than similar passives, they are not practical for all.

Apart from visually and cabling, you should not focus on either active or passive, but instead go to some live music venues and choose speakers that give close to this sound within your budget, (If you are going for sound accuracy) or if you just want something that sounds nice to your ears, (Most Hi-Fi users don’t seem interested in accuracy and authenticity) buy speakers that do just this.

Bill

Just penned a long response to this but the site ate it. My main point was that pro studio monitors are not used in the final stages of mastering. Grotboxes, earbuds, car stereos and domestic hifi are the final medium used for studio listening, mastering and creating what the artist intended their audiences to hear. The mix is adjusted so it sounds good on these “inferior” mediums, so pushing that final recorded signal back through studio monitors in your home is not presenting how the music was supposed to sound. Quite far from it actually.

 

[nopiano]

A speaker is designed (Or should be) to turn electrical energy into mechanical energy as accurately as possible, and it is easier to design an active speaker (As the designer has full control over everything) for this then a passive one. (The active also allows controls to be incorporated to better integrate with the room WITHOUT causing any downsides of its own)

Most active speakers are designed for pro use, and therefore visually do not integrate well in a domestic environment, plus they also require more cabling for them to work, so while they can offer better quality sound than similar passives, they are not practical for all.

Apart from visually and cabling, you should not focus on either active or passive, but instead go to some live music venues and choose speakers that give close to this sound within your budget, (If you are going for sound accuracy) or if you just want something that sounds nice to your ears, (Most Hi-Fi users don’t seem interested in accuracy and authenticity) buy speakers that do just this.

Bill

Just penned a long response to this but the site ate it. My main point was that pro studio monitors are not used in the final stages of mastering. Grotboxes, earbuds, car stereos and domestic hifi are the final medium used for studio listening, mastering and creating what the artist intended their audiences to hear. The mix is adjusted so it sounds good on these “inferior” mediums, so pushing that final recorded signal back through studio monitors in your home is not presenting how the music was supposed to sound. Quite far from it actually.

I think one of the reasons for the differing opinions here may be the music we are thinking about. My reference is usually unamplified Orchestra, singer or grand piano. Yours may be an electronically created record that has no live equivalent. Another’s may be stadium rock. Another might be night club jazz, or a local pub band.

I’m sure the approach to recording and mixing differs significantly, so maybe we should give an example or two to help clarify things?

 

[Andrewjvt]

A speaker is designed (Or should be) to turn electrical energy into mechanical energy as accurately as possible, and it is easier to design an active speaker (As the designer has full control over everything) for this then a passive one. (The active also allows controls to be incorporated to better integrate with the room WITHOUT causing any downsides of its own)

Most active speakers are designed for pro use, and therefore visually do not integrate well in a domestic environment, plus they also require more cabling for them to work, so while they can offer better quality sound than similar passives, they are not practical for all.

Apart from visually and cabling, you should not focus on either active or passive, but instead go to some live music venues and choose speakers that give close to this sound within your budget, (If you are going for sound accuracy) or if you just want something that sounds nice to your ears, (Most Hi-Fi users don’t seem interested in accuracy and authenticity) buy speakers that do just this.

Bill

Just penned a long response to this but the site ate it. My main point was that pro studio monitors are not used in the final stages of mastering. Grotboxes, earbuds, car stereos and domestic hifi are the final medium used for studio listening, mastering and creating what the artist intended their audiences to hear. The mix is adjusted so it sounds good on these “inferior” mediums, so pushing that final recorded signal back through studio monitors in your home is not presenting how the music was supposed to sound. Quite far from it actually.

All this until tested is only your theory. And unless all the normal 'hifi' perceptions are eliminated it's just an opinion.

Go listen to a few first

Like I've said - I'm not a PMC fan so maybe you.can tell me what's so different about the drivers on those models.

I can speak for ATC and apart from an s spec tweeter on the 50s upwards the drivers are the same and I've had a demo of.all the active range at ATC of the pro range and they set them up like a hifi in a typical.lounge and there is nothing near field compared to the hifi what so ever apart from the looks.

That goes for all the other studio monitors I've heard too.

Point is you don't have to be ridiculously close to listen to them properly.

My jbls sounded much better in my old lounge about 6mx 4m

My new lounge is tiny and they sound worse.

 

[ellisdj]

Surely pro speakers are ugly on purpose - its costs a lot for a nice fiinish - save on that its cheaper to sell.

Noone wants to pay more in the pro world - they are there to make money not indulge in the love of it all

 

[Andrewjvt]

Surely pro speakers are ugly on purpose - its costs a lot for a nice fiinish - save on that its cheaper to sell.

Noone wants to pay more in the pro world - they are there to make money not indulge in the love of it all 

It will look pretty for sure but not sound any different.

And many speakers now days are a shinny pianno black.anyway wood veneer on The other hand still has taste.

All my opinion and no disrespect to anyone with pianno black speakers dominating the house like a hifi shop.

 

[CnoEvil]

Apart from visually and cabling, you should not focus on either active or passive, but instead go to some live music venues and choose speakers that give close to this sound within your budget...

+1

This would always be my advice....though I would say, choose a system that does this.

 

[davedotco]

Surely pro speakers are ugly on purpose - its costs a lot for a nice fiinish - save on that its cheaper to sell.

Noone wants to pay more in the pro world - they are there to make money not indulge in the love of it all

In the main anyway. Finish is, on the most part irrelevant in a pro environment, facilities have to be useable, eq is often provided (and used) to suit the environment and positioning and more advanced features such as calibration and standardisation across a number of speaker systems.

On the other hand, you can get just the absolute bare bones, a favourite of mine...

Unity Audio 'The Rock' with amplification by Tim de Paravicini and drivers custom made by Elac.

 

[stereoman]

Well said about passives that they rather serve uncontrolled / wooly bass in comparison to actives. Even when actives are limited and clinical sounding, I find them really musical and spot on with sound. My next purchase will be actives.

 

[Gazzip]

A speaker is designed (Or should be) to turn electrical energy into mechanical energy as accurately as possible, and it is easier to design an active speaker (As the designer has full control over everything) for this then a passive one. (The active also allows controls to be incorporated to better integrate with the room WITHOUT causing any downsides of its own)

Most active speakers are designed for pro use, and therefore visually do not integrate well in a domestic environment, plus they also require more cabling for them to work, so while they can offer better quality sound than similar passives, they are not practical for all.

Apart from visually and cabling, you should not focus on either active or passive, but instead go to some live music venues and choose speakers that give close to this sound within your budget, (If you are going for sound accuracy) or if you just want something that sounds nice to your ears, (Most Hi-Fi users don’t seem interested in accuracy and authenticity) buy speakers that do just this.

Bill

Just penned a long response to this but the site ate it. My main point was that pro studio monitors are not used in the final stages of mastering. Grotboxes, earbuds, car stereos and domestic hifi are the final medium used for studio listening, mastering and creating what the artist intended their audiences to hear. The mix is adjusted so it sounds good on these “inferior” mediums, so pushing that final recorded signal back through studio monitors in your home is not presenting how the music was supposed to sound. Quite far from it actually.

All this until tested is only your theory. And unless all the normal 'hifi' perceptions are eliminated it's just an opinion.

Go listen to a few first

Like I've said - I'm not a PMC fan so maybe you.can tell me what's so different about the drivers on those models.

I can speak for ATC and apart from an s spec tweeter on the 50s upwards the drivers are the same and I've had a demo of.all the active range at ATC of the pro range and they set them up like a hifi in a typical.lounge and there is nothing near field compared to the hifi what so ever apart from the looks.

That goes for all the other studio monitors I've heard too.

Point is you don't have to be ridiculously close to listen to them properly.

My jbls sounded much better in my old lounge about 6mx 4m

My new lounge is tiny and they sound worse.

It’s not just about drivers Andrew, especially with transmission line speakers where the tuning of the line will fundamentally alter the low/mid output.

Pro studio monitors tend to er towards a flat response because this is good sound to work with. Unfortunately it is not generally thought of as a great sound for relaxing and listening to. Not just my opinion but the opinion of most mixing engineers who set up venues and auditoriums where live audio is played. They will generally tip that flat response, lifting the lower frequencies so it produces a sound which is nice to listen to. This is known as a house curve. Many domestic hifi loudspeaker manufacturers work by the same principles and tune their products to boost the FR lows in the same way, giving them a more powerful sound.

I think that listening to music on pro studio monitors is a bit like viewing artwork under a very, very bright light. Yes you will see more detail, but does it add to the overall experience and is it what the artist intended you saw? I think not on both counts but it’s all about opinion.

 

[Gazzip]

Well said about passives that they rather serve uncontrolled / wooly bass in comparison to actives. Even when actives are limited and clinical sounding, I find them really musical and spot on with sound. My next purchase will be actives.

This isn’t a debate about active vs passive. Plenty of those going on elsewhere... This is about the FR setup of studio pro monitors vs domestic hifi bookshelf speakers. I do however wholeheartedly agree with you that active speakers are better by design on many levels.

 

[stereoman]

Well said about passives that they rather serve uncontrolled / wooly bass in comparison to actives. Even when actives are limited and clinical sounding, I find them really musical and spot on with sound. My next purchase will be actives.

This isn’t a debate about active vs passive. Plenty of those going on elsewhere... This is about the FR setup of studio pro monitors vs domestic hifi bookshelf speakers. I do however wholeheartedly agree with you that active speakers are better by design on many levels.

Oh I see...ok. Too quick to post this case

 

[Andrewjvt]

A speaker is designed (Or should be) to turn electrical energy into mechanical energy as accurately as possible, and it is easier to design an active speaker (As the designer has full control over everything) for this then a passive one. (The active also allows controls to be incorporated to better integrate with the room WITHOUT causing any downsides of its own)

Most active speakers are designed for pro use, and therefore visually do not integrate well in a domestic environment, plus they also require more cabling for them to work, so while they can offer better quality sound than similar passives, they are not practical for all.

Apart from visually and cabling, you should not focus on either active or passive, but instead go to some live music venues and choose speakers that give close to this sound within your budget, (If you are going for sound accuracy) or if you just want something that sounds nice to your ears, (Most Hi-Fi users don’t seem interested in accuracy and authenticity) buy speakers that do just this.

Bill

Just penned a long response to this but the site ate it. My main point was that pro studio monitors are not used in the final stages of mastering. Grotboxes, earbuds, car stereos and domestic hifi are the final medium used for studio listening, mastering and creating what the artist intended their audiences to hear. The mix is adjusted so it sounds good on these “inferior” mediums, so pushing that final recorded signal back through studio monitors in your home is not presenting how the music was supposed to sound. Quite far from it actually.

All this until tested is only your theory. And unless all the normal 'hifi' perceptions are eliminated it's just an opinion.

Go listen to a few first

Like I've said - I'm not a PMC fan so maybe you.can tell me what's so different about the drivers on those models.

I can speak for ATC and apart from an s spec tweeter on the 50s upwards the drivers are the same and I've had a demo of.all the active range at ATC of the pro range and they set them up like a hifi in a typical.lounge and there is nothing near field compared to the hifi what so ever apart from the looks.

That goes for all the other studio monitors I've heard too.

Point is you don't have to be ridiculously close to listen to them properly.

My jbls sounded much better in my old lounge about 6mx 4m

My new lounge is tiny and they sound worse.

It’s not just about drivers Andrew, especially with transmission line speakers where the tuning of the line will fundamentally alter the low/mid output.

Pro studio monitors tend to er towards a flat response because this is good sound to work with. Unfortunately it is not generally thought of as a great sound for relaxing and listening to. Not just my opinion but the opinion of most mixing engineers who set up venues and auditoriums where live audio is played. They will generally tip that flat response, lifting the lower frequencies so it produces a sound which is nice to listen to. This is known as a house curve. Many domestic hifi loudspeaker manufacturers work by the same principles and tune their products to boost the FR lows in the same way, giving them a more powerful sound.

I think that listening to music on pro studio monitors is a bit like viewing artwork under a very, very bright light. Yes you will see more detail, but does it add to the overall experience and is it what the artist intended you saw? I think not on both counts but it’s all about opinion.

but have you actually listened to a few? or is it how youd typically think it should be? i think you may be supprised

Ive a few demos arranged over the next few months so im going to add passive PMC v Active PMC if i can now. ill also contact them regards tunning

 

[Electro]

Apart from visually and cabling, you should not focus on either active or passive, but instead go to some live music venues and choose speakers that give close to this sound within your budget...

+1

This would always be my advice....though I would say, choose a system that does this.

This is exactly what I have done when putting my system together.

I wanted live sounding music in and added to my room , a bit like a musical extension where the walls dissapear giving the impression that the venue has been added to my room and so that the music sounds like it is being played in the space it was created .

A tall order perhaps but I think I am dam close to achieving just that .

 

[Gazzip]

A speaker is designed (Or should be) to turn electrical energy into mechanical energy as accurately as possible, and it is easier to design an active speaker (As the designer has full control over everything) for this then a passive one. (The active also allows controls to be incorporated to better integrate with the room WITHOUT causing any downsides of its own)

Most active speakers are designed for pro use, and therefore visually do not integrate well in a domestic environment, plus they also require more cabling for them to work, so while they can offer better quality sound than similar passives, they are not practical for all.

Apart from visually and cabling, you should not focus on either active or passive, but instead go to some live music venues and choose speakers that give close to this sound within your budget, (If you are going for sound accuracy) or if you just want something that sounds nice to your ears, (Most Hi-Fi users don’t seem interested in accuracy and authenticity) buy speakers that do just this.

Bill

Just penned a long response to this but the site ate it. My main point was that pro studio monitors are not used in the final stages of mastering. Grotboxes, earbuds, car stereos and domestic hifi are the final medium used for studio listening, mastering and creating what the artist intended their audiences to hear. The mix is adjusted so it sounds good on these “inferior” mediums, so pushing that final recorded signal back through studio monitors in your home is not presenting how the music was supposed to sound. Quite far from it actually.

All this until tested is only your theory. And unless all the normal 'hifi' perceptions are eliminated it's just an opinion.

Go listen to a few first

Like I've said - I'm not a PMC fan so maybe you.can tell me what's so different about the drivers on those models.

I can speak for ATC and apart from an s spec tweeter on the 50s upwards the drivers are the same and I've had a demo of.all the active range at ATC of the pro range and they set them up like a hifi in a typical.lounge and there is nothing near field compared to the hifi what so ever apart from the looks.

That goes for all the other studio monitors I've heard too.

Point is you don't have to be ridiculously close to listen to them properly.

My jbls sounded much better in my old lounge about 6mx 4m

My new lounge is tiny and they sound worse.

It’s not just about drivers Andrew, especially with transmission line speakers where the tuning of the line will fundamentally alter the low/mid output.

Pro studio monitors tend to er towards a flat response because this is good sound to work with. Unfortunately it is not generally thought of as a great sound for relaxing and listening to. Not just my opinion but the opinion of most mixing engineers who set up venues and auditoriums where live audio is played. They will generally tip that flat response, lifting the lower frequencies so it produces a sound which is nice to listen to. This is known as a house curve. Many domestic hifi loudspeaker manufacturers work by the same principles and tune their products to boost the FR lows in the same way, giving them a more powerful sound.

I think that listening to music on pro studio monitors is a bit like viewing artwork under a very, very bright light. Yes you will see more detail, but does it add to the overall experience and is it what the artist intended you saw? I think not on both counts but it’s all about opinion.

but have you actually listened to a few? or is it how youd typically think it should be? i think you may be supprised

Ive a few demos arranged over the next few months so im going to add passive PMC v Active PMC if i can now. ill also contact them regards tunning

Yes. I have recently heard Adam A5X (or perhaps it was 7X) Yamaha HS5 and Genelec 8020C. Bags of detail on offer but not a very comfortable listen. If you and the others here promoting the virtues of pro equipment over domestic hifi equipment actually like the sound of pro actives then I’m very happy for you. Afterall we all know that music and how it is presented is a very personal thing.

 

[davedotco]

Well said about passives that they rather serve uncontrolled / wooly bass in comparison to actives. Even when actives are limited and clinical sounding, I find them really musical and spot on with sound. My next purchase will be actives.

This isn’t a debate about active vs passive. Plenty of those going on elsewhere... This is about the FR setup of studio pro monitors vs domestic hifi bookshelf speakers. I do however wholeheartedly agree with you that active speakers are better by design on many levels.

Most (though not all) studio monitors have eq to adjust frequency response to suit room conditions so it is difficult to categorise their frequency response as say, bright or bassy.

Dynaudio, with their new Lyd models make this easy for the non technical, with a 'Tilt' control enabling Dark, Neutral or Bright settings. Modern studio speakers, even quite modestly priced ones, are a lot more sophisticated than you might think.

Edit to add: I have had the Adam and Yamaha speakers you mention in my home and really do not recognise the points you made, set up correctly I found them a very eay listen.

 

[Andrewjvt]

That's why ATC (and dynaudio to less degree) are my choice. They can compete imo with any make/model at any cost imo

They have all the virtues of quality studio monitors but can be very good quality play back speakers as others have also noted.
They don't have any difference in voicing or tuning.

As regards the cheaper monitors it's value for money and for very little cash can bring a few traditional hifi set ups to their knees.

I've also not noted the harsh listening on these cheap models.either that's why I recommend them.
So far I've not heard any difference between studio or hifi except better bass control and being more accurate.

I was also surprised how good the cheap.ones sound and like you also thought they would not sound good in my mind on first purchase.

I'd be up for a studio monitor v passive hifi set up blind test.
But for now I bid good day as I have a baby to clean

 

[Gazzip]

That's why ATC (and dynaudio to less degree) are my choice. They can compete imo with any make/model at any cost imo

They have all the virtues of quality studio monitors but can be very good quality play back speakers as others have also noted. They don't have any difference in voicing or tuning.

As regards the cheaper monitors it's value for money and for very little cash can bring a few traditional hifi set ups to their knees.

I've also not noted the harsh listening on these cheap models.either that's why I recommend them. So far I've not heard any difference between studio or hifi except better bass control and being more accurate.

I was also surprised how good the cheap.ones sound and like you also thought they would not sound good in my mind on first purchase.

I'd be up for a studio monitor v passive hifi set up blind test. But for now I bid good day as I have a baby to clean

You polishing your hifi again?

 

[ellisdj]

Surely pro speakers are ugly on purpose - its costs a lot for a nice fiinish - save on that its cheaper to sell.

Noone wants to pay more in the pro world - they are there to make money not indulge in the love of it all

It will look pretty for sure but not sound any different.

Quite the opposite was my thinking - if money is saved on the finish does that allow you to have more for your money inside the box at the same rrp? Is that why some prefer pro speakers to the hifi versions?

 

[Gazzip]

Surely pro speakers are ugly on purpose - its costs a lot for a nice fiinish - save on that its cheaper to sell.

Noone wants to pay more in the pro world - they are there to make money not indulge in the love of it all

It will look pretty for sure but not sound any different.

Quite the opposite was my thinking - if money is saved on the finish does that allow you to have more for your money inside the box at the same rrp? Is that why some prefer pro speakers to the hifi versions?

If you look at the larger PMC monitors then this rings true. You can buy a pair of passive MB2S’s for example at £13K. The MB2SE hifi version will put you back £20K. The extra £7K buys you pretty finishes and a matching pair of stands. However, PMC’s smaller home use/studio monitors are a completely different breed to one another. This leads me to believe that smaller pro audio versions are designed to sound different, hence the original post.