OT: Studio Monitor as home speakers ?

[mauriziodececco]

As a consequence of a number of changes we are doing in our flat, i need to sell my good old Triangle column HiFi speaker and find something smaller, to put under a huge tv screen .

 

So i took a look to the current HiFi market and i am perplex; from one side, the market shrinked, essentially shifted to bluetooth players.

Second, i cannot stand the HiFi market bullshit; you know, things like using a 32bit 1Mhz Dac to process material mastered at 16bit/44Khz, or nice phrases like

"our AB class amplifier put together the best aspect of class A and class B amplifiers", that while technically true is simple ridicule for audio (you essentially cannot

use a class B amplifier for audio). Without talking about the prices.

 

So, as my kid is now 14 years old, and home equipement do not risk anymore to be destroyed without warning, i am considering the idea to use professional material

to listen to music at home; studio monitor with a small mixer or something. With the cost of Hifi speakers, i can by middle level Genelecs.

 

I now the response is different; studio monitor try to be as flat as possible, while hifi try to make the listener happier, depending on the kind of music.

 

Any experience on the subject ? By the way, i would listen essentially Jazz and other acoustic music (Bossa, new tango, flamenco, etc).

 

Maurizio

[PianoMan51]

I have used an old pair of Audix nearfield monitors as home theatre speakers for years. Speakers really are speakers. The only caveat is that they may have a fairly small sweet spot for stereo imaging, so height and angle placement is more important. You may also want a small sub woofer for more modern music and film scores.

[erik_nie]

nice topic.

I used to be a high-end nerd, with sand filled stands, expensive cabling. Never happy with the sound.

Had a high-end Primare amplifier, B&W 805, Velodyne sub, seperate DAC.

 

When the B&W where in repair I used old JBL Control 1C speaker. So much more musical (Although my high-end mind said that i could hear the cross-filter and the high was sometimes a little bit sharp)

I kept on playing music, instead of listening to my audio-set.

 

Sold everything and bought a Naim Unitiqute (for easy streaming, spotify connect, WAF,...) Kept Sub + JBL speakers. Got rid of the expensive thick speaker cable and used cheap speakers cable that I had.

Even put the speakers on the tv table instead of stands. Everything wrong on high-end spec.... But loved the music. In a way frustrating and eye-opening.

 

Then I made an even wronger switch to vintage B&O beolab 8000 mk2 speakers. The low-end was no as strong as with the sub, but sold the sub. The stereo-image was not as good as the jbl speakers (who are amazing with the imaging). But the Beolab 8000 speaker are sounding rich and nice with better mids and highs. No need to be in the hotspot.

 

I would go for some 2nd hand stuff, keeps it's money. I went for looks (love the beolab since i was young), ease of use and nice sound. Not for phase correctness, flat spectrum, spacial correctness. Nice to have when playing high-end selected music.

[Markyboard]

I did this years ago and would never go back to home audio stuff. My retired studio monitors, Tannoy LGMs powered by my original studio BGW 8000 amp and a Mackie 1402 VLZ mixer served as our family room "entertainment center" for years. But as in my home studio the monitors were just to big, often in the way and trying to place these in a stereo field configuration didn't work so well.

 

I eventually sold the Tannoys and amp and moved my next pair of studio monitors, Genelec 1031As upstairs. I wall mounted these and bought a Pre-Sonus sub where along with the Mackie mixer they serve today. No traditional audio receiver needed which is really just a preamp/mixer anyway and usually not a very good one at that. But if you need the video features and connectivity you may have little choice.

 

For Blue Ray and such we watch downstairs where I have a more traditional NAD receiver. Also NHT speakers mounted on the walls for 5.1, which I believe are still in that "pro" category, whatever that means.

 

The nice thing about this arrangement is I can easily set up keyboards in my family room for get togethers or a change of scenery.

[Al Coda]

I use 1 of my coax Tannoy DTM -8 pairs as my home speakers.

Great sound.

 

A.C.

[Markyboard]

I use 1 of my coax Tannoy DTM -8 pairs as my home speakers.

Great sound.

 

A.C.

 

No doubt. I loved the sound of those LGMs. Just could never make them work with the rooms I had.

[timwat]

I own a few pairs of studio monitors. I've also owned a full audiophile sound system.

 

There's an enormous difference between the two.

 

IMHO, the dry, flat and precise studio monitor experience is useful for its intended purpose. And to my ear there are far more enjoyable listening experiences.

 

It's impossible to describe in words. And I understand how you don't get it until you've actually experienced it - I didn't either, until.

 

A great system is rarely inexpensive. There is a substantive and emotional difference to be had with a truly great set of speakers. Whether that's worth the large cumulative price tag is a personal thing. But I would guess no one will appreciate an audiophile system quite the way a musician does.

[KuruPrionz]

I have 3 "playback systems".

 

A home studio with computer access to the interwebz, brought out into the world with a pair of Mackie HR824 speakers I bought 10+ years ago used.

I guess iTunes is called Music now, it has an equalizer feature. For studio work, I just use the speakers as they are. For "home stereo" I can adjust the equalizer with a "loudness" curve, which is what most of us are used to hearing.

A subwoofer would be nice but I don't have one. That is playback system one, it sounds a bit better than "pretty ok" and I like it.

 

A pair of JBL P40 9" 3-way speakers I found at Starvation Army for $30 hooked up to a Teac EX-M1, which has AM-FM and a CD player. It is maybe 5 watts per side and has a built in loudness feature, no EQ at all.

I play used CDs I find here and there (super cheap) in the kitchen and guitar repair work space. The speakers are side by side on the breakfast bar, sort of mono/stereo. I am usually 20 feet away and it's not played loud. That is playback system two, it sounds a bit better than "pretty ok" and I like it.

 

Last but not least is a GE Superadio with a 6" 2 way speaker system. That's for bedroom listening, it is on a window sill near the foot of the bed. Sometimes late at night I will put on a terrific jazz/blues station that comes from Anacortes or find a Canadian pop music channel. Pure mono. I wish it had an input for playback but it doesn't and isn't going to grow one. That is playback system three and I like it.

 

I save my "persnickety" for recording and live performance. I've heard high end stereo systems many times. If the room is treated they can sound great, mostly that highlights the inherent imperfections of various recordings, I find myself analyzing the recording rather than just listening to the music. When I listen to music, I just want to listen to music. Too perfect is too perfect.

 

So hook up something pretty OK and enjoy it!!!!!

[Markay]

Well 30 years ago I bought a pair of highly regarded "audiophile" speakers secondhand, Rogers Studio 1A's. They were built to the specs the BBC's specified for manufacturers who wanted to supply the BBC with large bookshelf monitors for use in BBC studios. KEF and B&W also made them for this purpose.

 

So they were highly regarded for home hifi and studio use. I suspect that as music digitised and studios became smaller audiophile and studio requirements diverged. Small monitors with good near field imaging became more important than larger speakers that needed larger rooms to breath.

 

To the OP why not consider some second hand quality speakers from the 80's 9r 90's? There are still plenty around at realitively cheap prices.

[Docbop]

I've been using studio monitors since my first musician buddy got a pair of JBL 4310's back in the 70's. Since I got back into recording around 2000 and computer being my music source with audio interface I've used powered studio monitors. I wouldn't say studio monitors are flat in general most have their own sound KRK Rockit that are popular have a very hyped bass. So a matter of listening and finding a sound you like. I live in apartment these days so I go for small speaker preferably with front port to help keep from disturbing my neighbors. I have a set of Yamaha's on my keyboard and my computer system a set of small Adam monitors. I think the Adams are best speakers I've had in ages. Very natural sounding with the ribbon tweeter and the stereo imaging and definition is fantastic. But speakers are a personal thing so find a place with a lot of brands, bring some music with you that you're familiar with and do a lot of listening.

[Dave Bryce]

Speakers really are speakers.

Not sure I agree.

 

First of all, drivers are made from all sorts of different materials. A polypropylene cone does not sound like a Kevlar cone, nor a paper cone, nor an aluminum cone. Soft dome tweeters vs. metal tweeters, planar ribbons vs. folded ribbons - all sorts of different sonic signatures. When taking this into account, it's interesting to consider published specs. 40Hz on a paper cone does not sound like 40Hz through an aluminum one...

 

Next, you have ported cabinet vs sealed, with passive radiator (driver on the back with no electronics connected to it) technology sitting right in between the two. Each of these approaches have benefits and drawbacks. What the cabinet is made of and the way the drivers are laid out in the cabinet will also make a difference - two way three way, or something like an MTM/D'appolito design where you have a tweeter carefully positioned betiween two identical woofers...and there are even different ways of approaching that, such as using a LPF on one of the two identical woofers so it acts like an onboard sub. There are all sorts of different driver array philosophies.

 

Then, there's the dual concentric (tweeter in the middle of the woofer) design, for those who are fans of time and phase alignment. There are a few ways to do that as well - for example, some designs use a horn in the middle (Urei 813, Presonus Sceptre), others do not (Tannoy).

 

Of course, passive vs active argument comes into play, including not just the onboard amp thing but the active crossover vs. the passive crossover, which leads to what kind of amp you're using...and what kind of interconnect (yes, it does make a difference).

 

I haven't even touched on mid field vs near field, room placement, decoupling or room treatment - all factors. What about a sub (both home and studio)? Some want them, some don't.

 

Bottom line is that there really isn't a right or wrong, per se - more like what works for you, your music, your ears, your room and your budget.

 

dB

Ex-professional speaker pimp

[Irena]

I've had similar feelings around audiophile speakers and have had great experiences using studio monitors for day-to-day listening. As noted, there's that pleasant-vs.-revealing tradeoff to sort out, and sweet spot can be a challenge in anything smaller than an expensive/hefty far-field main. My best results have come from three-way speakers in the large-midfield category--big enough to fill the room without breaking the bank.

 

For many years I have used an old pair of JBL 4410's with a consumer-segment tube amp to warm things up a bit. Sloppy for reference monitoring as you'd guess, but a nice sound for listening. More recently I picked up a pair of used Klein+Hummel O410's on the cheap. I bought them for monitoring, but wondered if they might work for recreational listening given their design (e.g., dome mid-range drivers, which tend to mitigate harshness in my experience). I've been astonished by how nice they sound across the board. I've since hung them in my living/dining area and couldn't be happier.

[PianoMan51]

Speakers really are speakers.

Not sure I agree.

 

First of all, drivers are made from all sorts of different materials. A polypropylene cone does not sound like a Kevlar cone, nor a paper cone, nor an aluminum cone. Soft dome tweeters vs. metal tweeters, planar ribbons vs. folded ribbons - all sorts of different sonic signatures. When taking this into account, it's interesting to consider published specs. 40Hz on a paper cone does not sound like 40Hz through an aluminum one...

 

Next, you have ported cabinet vs sealed, with passive radiator (driver on the back with no electronics connected to it) technology sitting right in between the two. Each of these approaches have benefits and drawbacks. What the cabinet is made of and the way the drivers are laid out in the cabinet will also make a difference - two way three way, or something like an MTM/D'appolito design where you have a tweeter carefully positioned betiween two identical woofers...and there are even differnt ways of doing that, such as using a LPF on one of the two identical woofers so it acts like an onboard sub. There are all sorts of different driver array philosophies.

 

Then, there's the dual concentric (tweeter in the middle of the woofer) design, for those who are fans of time and phase alignment. There are a few ways to do that as well - for example, some designs use a horn in the middle (Urei 813, Presonus Sceptre), others do not (Tannoy).

 

Of course, passive vs active argument comes into play, including not just the onboard amp thing but the active crossover vs. the passive crossover, which leads to what kind of amp you're using...and what kind of interconnect (yes, it does make a difference).

 

I haven't even touched on mid field vs near field, room placement, decoupling or room treatment - all factors. What about a sub (both home and studio)? Some want them, some don't.

 

Bottom line is that there really isn't a right or wrong, per se - more like what works for you, your music, your ears, your room and your budget.

 

dB

Ex-professional speaker pimp

And I guess I don"t understand your post. Rather than list the Encyclopedia of different speaker design possibilities, I would really like to understand the difference in design between studio monitors and audiophile speakers other than the already discussed issues of flatness and sweet spot. My assumption (and yes, that sets me up for being an ass) is having only one listener/speaker geometry would allow a designer to tune the product in a way that"s much harder to do when trying to cover a wider area and differing distance to the ear. And that using an internal amp also eliminates all the design variables that go with having to accommodate different amp configurations.

[eric]

I've been using a pair of Adam A7 speakers for turntable listening the past 7-8 years at least. Very satisfying.

[timwat]

I would really like to understand the difference in design between studio monitors and audiophile speakers other than the already discussed issues of flatness and sweet spot. My assumption (and yes, that sets me up for being an ass) is having only one listener/speaker geometry would allow a designer to tune the product in a way that"s much harder to do when trying to cover a wider area and differing distance to the ear. And that using an internal amp also eliminates all the design variables that go with having to accommodate different amp configurations.

 

I don't know if this helps at all, but I'll chime in.

 

Consider Dave's reference to planar speakers in his earlier post. I owned Magnepan 3.5r speakers for a few years. They're like big wide doors - 6 ft tall, 3 feet wide, 1 inch thin.

 

The sound you get from them, and what you hear - is very very different from a 'box' speaker. And there are a lot of ways to describe how they are different besides flatness and sweet spot. They aren't without their own set of weaknesses, and certainly not perfect. But rather than bore anyone with a word salad to describe something in writing, suffice to say 10 minutes listening to big planar speakers will immediately dispel the presumption that it's just a matter of degrees of difference, IMHO.

 

Maybe that makes this post (and my previous) completely useless as well. I hope not.

 

tim

[KuruPrionz]

 

A comprehensive post to be sure. Among the things you didn't touch on, you left out the shape of the front baffle. That can change the shape/size of the "sweet spot" and the overall accuracy (or lack thereof) of the stereo image.

 

Not that I'm splitting hairs or anything!!!!

 

I remember reading an interview in Tape Op with the engineer that runs the recording studio on David Gilmore's houseboat on the Thames. He said they got a $10,000 set of speaker cables and determined that they sounded better hooked up in one direction as opposed to the other direction. Could be bong hits? I dunno but talk about splitting the hairs on a gnat's arse!

 

Personally, I really prefer the sound of 3 way speakers like my humble JBLs compared to the more common 2 way speakers, like my durable, reliable but also humble Mackies.

I hear a more detailed, smoother sound in that range with the mid cones vibrating. When I win the lottery, I will get the GOOD stuffs!!!!

[Markyboard]

And I guess I don"t understand your post. Rather than list the Encyclopedia of different speaker design possibilities, I would really like to understand the difference in design between studio monitors and audiophile speakers other than the already discussed issues of flatness and sweet spot. My assumption (and yes, that sets me up for being an ass) is having only one listener/speaker geometry would allow a designer to tune the product in a way that"s much harder to do when trying to cover a wider area and differing distance to the ear. And that using an internal amp also eliminates all the design variables that go with having to accommodate different amp configurations.

 

Speaker manufacturers make near identical versions of some of their models for both consumer/home use and pro use. Other than connectors, finish/cosmetics, and packaging the speakers are near identical and sound the same. At least that's always been my impression based on what I've read. They are however marketed completely different from what I recall when I was shopping around.

 

"Audiophile" speakers differ from studio reference monitors for the same reasons dB outlined above. Different cabinet sizes, materials and shapes, components, configuration, electronic design, tuning for the intended space/set up etc. Really this is no different than comparing one pair of studio monitors to another. It's just a broader range of variables - maybe.

 

I don't subscribe to the general sentiment that audiophile speakers sound a certain way vs studio reference monitors. I'd say one set of audiophile speakers vs another model can be just as different as a pair of audiophile speakers vs a pair of reference monitors.

 

A speaker is a speaker... each with it's unique set of characteristics and sound.

[PianoMan51]

 

Maybe that makes this post (and my previous) completely useless as well. I hope not.

 

Ha! No it doesn"t.

 

First let me apologize for the tone of my response to Dave. I think I"ve been reading too much news. I normally try to monitor and attenuate my own level of 'seriousness" much closer.

 

Second, I heard a pair of giant electrostatics in 1984 and was blown away. Yes, this is a fundamentally different sound than cone speakers, similar to the difference between ribbon and dynamic mics.

 

But back to the OP"s question. My knee-jerk answer is if you want the best bang-for-buck sound just for yourself then spend $400 on a great pair of wired studio headphones. If two people are sitting eight feet from a TV, then spend $1000 on great near-field monitors and position them optimally. If you want that same quality of sound through your whole, large room, then spend $10k on gear and another $??k on room treatment.

 

Or, as Billy Joel sang, 'you get more mileage from a cheap pair of sneakers'.

[Dave Bryce]

Rather than list the Encyclopedia of different speaker design possibilities, I would really like to understand the difference in design between studio monitors and audiophile speakers other than the already discussed issues of flatness and sweet spot.

I WAS answering that.

 

The point is that there are all sorts of design philosophies, and none of them are "right" - if nothing else, the designers have no control over the room they'll be in or where they're placed - botth critical factors in loudspeaker performance. There are studio monitor companies that intentionally tune their products to have more of a "hi-hi" curve, and there are hi-fi manufacturers who strive for a product that scopes flat; and, as previously noted, there are companies that take pretty much the same product, dress it up a bit differently, and sell it to both markets....and price point differences that might surprise you.

 

Everyone wants to hear different things, and there is - as far as I know - no source that is absolutely right.

 

My assumption (and yes, that sets me up for being an ass) is having only one listener/speaker geometry would allow a designer to tune the product in a way that"s much harder to do when trying to cover a wider area and differing distance to the ear. And that using an internal amp also eliminates all the design variables that go with having to accommodate different amp configurations.

...and also restricts one to using an amp that physically fits and doesn't exceed heat tolerances...and allows a manufacturer to hit the price point they want.

 

Believe it or not, it can be very reasonably argued and supported that the primary reason that speaker manufacturers put amps in speakers is so they could sell you amps. Seriously.

 

dB

[Delaware Dave]

I have Mirage Speakers from the legacy line. The concept is like Bose speakers as they are Bi-polar (almost omni-polar). Size 45 3/8"H x 11 1/2"H x 9 1/2"D, weight 71 pounds each. They have matching speakers on the front and back so the sound comes out of the front and as well out of the back. The back reflects off the ceiling and walls and returns in a slight delay over the front, giving them natural reverb, almost a "live" sound. They are sort of odd ball in terms of sound delivery, but trust me, not only do they sound absolutely awesome but they sound nothing like studio monitors of any kind. Studio monitors could never deliver the sound that these deliver. Not only are they dependent on positioning in the room but are effected by the room itself. I have a cathedral ceiling in my family room (about 25 feet high at the peak). When turned up the sound is all around the room hitting me from multiple directions. I could never get that with the front firing studio monitors.

 

The issue I have is that speaker placement is crucial, positioning of the speakers does influence the sound. My wife likes to move them so that they are aesthetically positioned in the room; I rearrange them so that they are harmonically pleasing. So the speakers are constantly being repositioned.

 

https://hometheaterhifi.com/volume_2_4/v2n4k.html

[RandyFF]

I would really like to understand the difference in design between studio monitors and audiophile speakers other than the already discussed issues of flatness and sweet spot. My assumption (and yes, that sets me up for being an ass) is having only one listener/speaker geometry would allow a designer to tune the product in a way that"s much harder to do when trying to cover a wider area and differing distance to the ear. And that using an internal amp also eliminates all the design variables that go with having to accommodate different amp configurations.

 

I don't know if this helps at all, but I'll chime in.

 

Consider Dave's reference to planar speakers in his earlier post. I owned Magnepan 3.5r speakers for a few years. They're like big wide doors - 6 ft tall, 3 feet wide, 1 inch thin.

 

The sound you get from them, and what you hear - is very very different from a 'box' speaker. And there are a lot of ways to describe how they are different besides flatness and sweet spot. They aren't without their own set of weaknesses, and certainly not perfect. But rather than bore anyone with a word salad to describe something in writing, suffice to say 10 minutes listening to big planar speakers will immediately dispel the presumption that it's just a matter of degrees of difference, IMHO.

 

Maybe that makes this post (and my previous) completely useless as well. I hope not.

 

tim

I've heard a few high end systems where I was blown away, very different than any other systems I've heard. I tend to think of it as how 3D the sound is. I was at an outdoor wedding where there were 2 different sets of speakers playing, plus there was a gentle slope of a hill close by. I felt like I was 'walking in the sound', glorious feeling!

 

If you don't appreciate the obscure and hair-splitting of audiophiles, read up from places like CNET. They often have a bang for the buck speakers they recommend.

 

The room is a huge part of the equation. Depending on how problematic a room is you might be wise to spend as much treating the room as for the speakers themselves. And the narrow sweet spot of studio monitors can be problematic for a larger living room setup. If I had a tightly defined place where me and few other people were listening, then studio monitors could be well-placed.

[Dr Mike Metlay]

In my experience, a lot of this depends on the interaction of the speakers with the room they're in. I use relatively small speakers because my room is very small; I live in a wonderful sweet spot that leaves very little room for moving around, but that's fine as that's where I do nearly all of my listening. Therefore, I have a pair of small-to-medium format studio monitors and I love how they sound to me.

 

I haven't had a room big enough to set up my stereo and have anything like a decent listening experience since 1996, and I haven't had the time or inclination to sit in such a room and listen to speakers in such a way since my first kid was born in 1995. If I want to immerse myself in really amazing sound, I'll lie on my bed and put on my relatively expensive and beautiful-sounding headphones through my reasonably high-end DAC and call it (very) good.

 

Anyone want to buy a pair of small Mirages, vintage 1979ish?

[Docbop]

In my experience, a lot of this depends on the interaction of the speakers with the room they're in. I use relatively small speakers because my room is very small; I live in a wonderful sweet spot that leaves very little room for moving around, but that's fine as that's where I do nearly all of my listening. Therefore, I have a pair of small-to-medium format studio monitors and I love how they sound to me.

 

I haven't had a room big enough to set up my stereo and have anything like a decent listening experience since 1996, and I haven't had the time or inclination to sit in such a room and listen to speakers in such a way since my first kid was born in 1995. If I want to immerse myself in really amazing sound, I'll lie on my bed and put on my relatively expensive and beautiful-sounding headphones through my reasonably high-end DAC and call it (very) good.

 

Anyone want to buy a pair of small Mirages, vintage 1979ish?

 

Yes. Need to use speakers and amp (if not powered) that you drive enough to hit the sweet spot for each to sing their best. I see people all the time get BIG speakers or amp and it sounds dull, because their in a room they can't open them up enough to make them really wake up. That also applies to live gear too.

[MoodyBluesKeys]

Back around 2000, I got four of the smallest B&W speakers (2 new at about $300 each, 2 used from eBay) for the four corners and a used sideways one in the same line for center channel. Using an old 15" passive woofer in a floor mounted cabinet that I added a 100 watt amp to, all controlled by an Onkyo system. Had the money then - I was looking for speakers and went to a high-end audio place in Va. Beach. I could really tell the B&W from the others they had (the Nautilus were awesome, but WAY over my price point). Still using them.

Didn't have any musical amp/speakers then except a MusicMan 15" bass amp. Other rooms, the bedroom has a couple of ancient Radio Shack cabinets, and speakers have been replaced, both woofers & tweeters. Shop has similar except even older Fisher cabinets (I bought used in 1960), also with replacement speakers. Couple more of the 15" floor woofers, they are passive with dual cone windings and built in filters.

 

It all still works. Probably not as good as when new, but I don't either.

 

For keyboards, I use pair of 10" QSC if I have to move them, couple of ElectroVoice 12" in the shop/studio, and pair of 2nd generation JBL EON 15's at church (where I don't usually ever have to move them.

Like others have said, best way (if you already have something) is to try it in the environment and see if it is satisfactory.

[GRollins]

Oh, lordy...where to start?

 

This could be a really, really long post in a really, really long thread, but I'll keep it brief for the time being, in part because supper is nearly ready. A few random points, in no particular order:

 

--Speakers for stage/monitor use with built-in amplification are irrevocably compromised. Period. To keep the weight down they use switching power supplies which for various technical reasons cannot supply current when the amp demands it, so dynamics are badly compromised. I've got an old Hafler P500 (stereo, 250W/ch) on the island in the kitchen because I'm recapping it. I have some much lighter QSC amps that I bought (stereo, 350W/ch) because I was tired of carrying the P500's ~70# weight to gigs. Yes, they're lighter. So what? They sound like shit compared to the Hafler, in spite of being 20-30 years newer. Zero, and I mean zero dynamics. No low end. Zip. For me playing bass, this is a Really Bad Thing. Why are they so pitiful? Switching power supplies. (partly...there are other problems, too) Don't argue with me about the fact that they're spec'd for 350W and should sound better/louder/whatever. They're horrible by comparison. I keep them because I'm not 20 years old anymore and my back doesn't much like the Hafler's weight. But the sound of the Hafler? Light-Fuckin'-Years beyond the QSCs. No goddamned contest. A deaf man could hear the difference just because the Hafler literally shakes the floor and the QSCs struggle to blow a mosquito off course. Mind you, Hafler wasn't really even high end...more like mid-fi with an attitude. Real high end stuff is a totally, whole, 'nother order of existence, but it's gotten so bloody expensive that I had to opt out. Doesn't mean I can't hear the differences, just that nowadays a decent turntable costs five times what an entire high end system cost back in the '80s. I can no longer justify that sort of financial commitment.

 

--Have you noticed that speakers don't have distortion specs? There's a reason for that. They're terrible. Absolutely terrible. Studio monitors and live speakers have ridiculous distortion levels. We're talking 5-10% or more. Er...and you were obsessing about 0.1% vs. 0.01% distortion in your electronics? High end speakers have lower distortion, but it's still at scary levels, so they don't brag about it because once you start that discussion, things spiral out of control very quickly.

 

--There was a thread here recently where a member was trying to argue about guitar players and how loud they play. Suffice it to say that there are perfectly good reasons why guitar players play loud. One of the compromises that "pro" speaker manufacturers make is to go for efficiency. When you make that choice, there are inevitable consequences, one being compression. The suspension of the driver itself has to be stiff to keep the driver from tearing itself apart. But...that means that the driver will not respond to dynamics the way it should. The poster didn't want to hear that, but we all have to face our learning curve sooner or later. Hi-fi speakers, by contrast, are far more linear in terms of dynamics. Play with the cone of a butyl rubber surround hi-fi driver, then play with a pro driver with a crimped paper surround. Notice how much stiffer the pro driver is? That will manifest itself as compression. Want to try an experiment? Take a bass and play it through a stereo system. Lots of laughs. Don't blame me for the shredded drivers, though. You'll bottom the voice coils against the back of the magnet structure and they'll be destroyed. Think of it as a learning experience. Then sit back and meditate on the "why" of the destruction. Very educational.

 

--There are people who care about the Nth degree of sound quality and there are people who don't care a whit as long as they can hum along with the song. Neither way is right or wrong, it's just different priorities. There are people who had simply never realized the differences out there. I loved those people when I was toiling in the high end audio market. Play them something good and there's this period of a minute or two where their faces fall apart, because they had never known that reproduced music could sound so beautiful. After that, you own them. Utterly. They will do absolutely anything to experience that again. Then the next guy through the door asks how loud it will play and you know there's no point in wasting time trying to open him up. Sell him something loud and send him on his way. He's happy. The guy with the good stuff is happy. Some people care. Some don't. It varies. Some people have ordinary equipment because they either don't know it can be better or can't afford better. Some people have good hardware, but don't really need it; they would be just as happy with a "hum along" system, but the salesman did a good job on them and sent them home with a more expensive system than they truly needed. The world is full of people who are satisfied with ear buds because they're convenient. For that matter a lot of people these days are driven by convenience rather than quality. That's their choice to make.

 

Grey

[mauriziodececco]

Wow, thanks for the tons of informations and for the different opinions :->.

 

It seems a very complex subject, with only a reasonable answer coming out, go and listen to the different solutions, answer quite difficult to implements in these Covid time.

 

In my specific case, the situation is set by a number of compromises; small, strange room for listening music (4.5 x 2 m, with one side partially open and windows on the other side),

limited space for the speakers, and limited budget, so the point is more how to get a reasonable listening than the best possible one.

The small Genelec (8020) that they market in Finland also as Hifi as G Two, with different connections, are good candidate for the space constraint.

But i'll take a look to the second hand market, it would be a pity to throw way my nice little NAD amplifier.

 

In general, in my eyes the HiFi industry lost a lot of credibility with the digital transition; digital give you a fixed quality, a good one, but there are limits on what you can get out of it; trying to applying the same marketing

themes you used in the good old analog world do not work, and become to be ridiculous.

 

But, there is still a part of analog in the system, notably amplifiers and speakers; a while ago, my old low end Hifi amplifier broke, and i bought a small Nad, a C315BEE, used with the same 2002 Triangle speakers; the difference was incredible and very difficult to explain; it is not like having more highs or lows, or more dynamic or something you can easily define; i heard Kind of Blue, that i hear at least twice a month since i discovered Miles in the 80s, and the impression was simply the Coltrane changed the sax, it bought a better one :->.

 

A last point: i am reading a super interesting book, Perfecting Sound Forever by Greg Milner, that touch the interesting subject of how much the sound and listening experience is a lot more a cultural fact than a technical one.

One of the point if that the whole HiFi concept is misleading, in the sense of getting a perfect reproduction of an ideal original listening experience that actually never existed, and how a lot of modern music was born when amplification came in (and allowed for exemple double bass solos). Very interesting reading (only pity is that i bought it in French instead of the original version).

 

Maurizio

[Markay]

I have Mirage Speakers from the legacy line. The concept is like Bose speakers as they are Bi-polar (almost omni-polar). Size 45 3/8"H x 11 1/2"H x 9 1/2"D, weight 71 pounds each. They have matching speakers on the front and back so the sound comes out of the front and as well out of the back. The back reflects off the ceiling and walls and returns in a slight delay over the front, giving them natural reverb, almost a "live" sound. They are sort of odd ball in terms of sound delivery, but trust me, not only do they sound absolutely awesome but they sound nothing like studio monitors of any kind. Studio monitors could never deliver the sound that these deliver. Not only are they dependent on positioning in the room but are effected by the room itself. I have a cathedral ceiling in my family room (about 25 feet high at the peak). When turned up the sound is all around the room hitting me from multiple directions. I could never get that with the front firing studio monitors.

 

The issue I have is that speaker placement is crucial, positioning of the speakers does influence the sound. My wife likes to move them so that they are aesthetically positioned in the room; I rearrange them so that they are harmonically pleasing. So the speakers are constantly being repositioned.

 

https://hometheaterhifi.com/volume_2_4/v2n4k.html

Well a kindred soul here. I have Mirage bi polars as the main LR main speakers in my big room surround sound system. No subs, driven by a quality amp they can break glass and seperate concrete from rio. Nothing beats them for a live in room concert experience particularly when you want to relive the dream in pandemic times. But were I remixing a live performance of a cover band I would use the Rogers I mentioned above as my reference monitors.

 

It doesnt matter how far you delve into the tech of speaker design, the fact no one mentions in these discussions is that as we age we end up with our own unique EQ, be that influenced by tinnitus, age or sitting to too close the cymbals for too long. Buy what sounds good to you.

[RABid]

I listen to more music on my studio monitors/computer than anything, but they have a narrow sweet spot. That would not work for my TV room which has seating across a 90 degree angle. For that I have an Infinity 5.1 setup with towers, sub woofer, etc... The best studio monitors will not give me the same experience. I need speakers with much wider dispersion.

[Theo Verelst]

Some of those warm monitors for the control room would do a sort of dimension trick that would make stereo panning very clear. I've worked on my mixer skills to create a (relatively soft) dynamics and reverb based acoustic preparation (prevention of some common modes and more friendly on the medium length room resonances) which on most decent and good digital sources make for a much more balanced listening experience. My monitoring isn't forgiving, it monitors broad band with lost of watts whatever you feed them, so if you do digital, you're going to hear reconstruction errors bouncing around all the time, and the analog mixer trick makes this less prevalent.

 

T