studio monitor / hi fi speaker

theoretically speaking, what is the difference between a studio monitor and hi fi speaker when you spend serious money
i.e. £20, 000 up ?

Should both types of speakers be able to perform both tasks equally well at that price point ?

 

A studio monitor's primary task is to reproduce the signal it is being fed as precisely as possible.

A Hi-Fi speaker is designed to sound as good as possible to the person buying it, how it goes about this varies hugely as does peoples perception of what sounds good.

 

What he said ^^

A monitor has to do a job, nothinbg more and nothing less.
A hifi speaker has to pander to the buyers preferences.

 

but in order to sound good, it does need to reproduce the sound accurately providing the signal was good originally.

Why shouldn't a studio monitor costing over £20, 000 sound good ? ?

 

I guess, if the material you feed it sounds good it will also sound good.

I want a speaker that has some forgiving, it wont make bad recordings unlistenable, it should also pander to my personal taste in reproduction, but that wouldnt be a monitor.
Granted, other equipment in the chain plays a parts aswell.

 

Going for about 0.5 of your "serious money" is the Merlin VSM - this is a speaker which I am lucky to own. It has undergone careful incremental development over the years and is designed "to provide the listener with all of the benefits of a studio monitor design plus those that audiophiles hold dear". This it does wonderfully (IMNSHO). For info on this speaker see the develpoment white paper or the Merlin website here .

 

Studio Monitor... generally for "Near-Field" listening. Meaning you are sitting pretty close to the speakers. Usually in a studio control room. They don't tend to need any careful placement, and are usually put atop the mixing desk.
These speakers are neutral & yet can give out some good tight bass.

Hifi Speakers... generally for when sitting away from the speakers. As a result they tend to "interact" more with the room/position they are in. Careful placement needed for the best sound.

 

I think the main difference is that studio monitors over £20,000 are normally designed into the room. They also more often than not have horns for the treble/midrange to control the directivity. They are often active, using bi or tri amplification and active crossovers. This holds many advantages I find.

You will find that once over about £10,000 studio monitors sound quite alike in comparison to the difference between Hi-Fi speakers. I suppose because they have a common aim, where Hi-Fi does not.

In my experience a good monitor sounds better than most good Hi-Fi speakers if connected to really good electronics (that suit the sound you want) and fed with a good recording. I'd rather hear a good recording as really good than have everything lower to an averagely pretty good sound/

Hmm.. I think a big point is that most good studio monitors expect to be placed in a good room as well though. When you get a Hi-Fi speaker that happens to suit the room it is placed in, then you can probably get a better sound than a monitor that is designed to go in a treated room, but placed in an ‘average’ living room.

Johnny, what do you do for a living if you don’t mind me asking? Just curious as the questions you ask seem to have a pro audio backing to them. They are also asked in a manner to intentionally aggravate people

 

Paul, I’m afraid the term 'monitor' is far more general than that. Westlake’s are monitors! One would normally differentiate between near, mid and far (or main) field monitors though.
Edited to add, I don't think you can spend £20,000 on a nearfield.

 

Yep - the monitor provides accurate uncoloured reproduction of the recording made for engineering (mixing) replay purposes at -what I feel - is often high sound pressure levels but in the home a speaker needs other attributes, concentration on soundstaging, openness etc.

 

Actually in this case I disagree. Though judging by the Cables thread Johnny will avoid answering any difficult questions, whilst asking his own.

 

Lol well I was just remembering old threads with that red dude who has a pointy prodding device!

 

b&w 801s are used for mastering as well as for hi fi. There must be a reason for this.

Nobody has answered the questions so far.

They are both speakers, so what are their differences in design ?

below a certain price point , the cost restricts the design of the speaker.

However, above the price point, cost is not a factor, therefore theoretically, both hi fi and mastering monitors, ought to be designed with similar specifications ?
or not ?

 

Is this like cables?
Another axe to grind?

 

Well, duh... it's because they are good speakers!

Not. The best research on "what makes a good sounding speaker" has been done by Floyd Toole at Harman... However, speaker designers at other companies haven't seen the light (so to speak) and consequently there's no standard specification that they are all working towards...

PS. Tell us what speakers you're using

 

Johnny you didn't make yourself clear.

Mastering studios use Hi-Fi speakers because that is what the music will be played on. The mastering is the last step in the production of a recording so this is where it is tailored to sound good on a 'Hi-Fi' rather than 'monitors'.

You are unlikely to find B&W 801's used in a recording (not mastering) studio.

PMC and ATC seem to be used in both though. Reasons for this? ..I'm not sure. I suppose they represent the portion of Hi-Fi equipment that is built in the belief accuracy sounds best. They are probably about as accurate as you can get from a 'conventional' loudspeaker design. I know transmission lines are not that conventional but still probably more so than horn mid and treble units, co-axial driver arrays and soffit mounted stuff.

Why do you refuse to answer other questions?

 

Probably more to the point, they are 'average' speakers! I'm not saying they are not good, but that they have a sound like a lot of other good Hi-Fi.

 

I don't have a specific loudspeaker which I listen to on, not that it's relevant. Neither is what I do for a living.

Mastering is not actually necessary.
It is clearly detrimental to the quality.
Have a listen to any commercially available recording.

 

Hi,

Theoretically speaking, there is no difference between theory and practice, practically speaking, there usually is.

Not really, a Studio Monitor and a domestic "high end" speaker serve very different purposes. There is some overlap, but it is slight.

A monitor is a tool to dissect, analyse and MONITOR for quality, a domestic speaker is a tool to enjoy music.

Ciao T

 

Pretty much all commercially available recordings are mastered... so what are you comparing it to? Have you got a recording pre and post mastering by a professional outfit?

I do, and I have to agree that it was worse afterwards lol! Still I don’t think it is always the case.