I assume you meant studio monitor and hi-fi speakers???
Not a heck of a lot
most studio monitors usually have a less home friendly appearence, are often designed with near field monitoring (so quite close to person in studio) and most cases are designed to be ultra revealing so the engineer can easily hear if there is somthing wrong with the recording....
There may be more but it's not a hard and fast rule...
ATC are a company that came from the pro/studio field. I think their speakers are fantastic but have noticed they without exception will tell you straight away if the recording was badly made or if even a tiny hint of tape hiss existed on the masters (I noticed this on a freddie king CD I had which had not revealed any tape hiss on any other system or speaker I had tried it on - wich included Living Voice Auditorium and B&W CDN7NT's and other speakers in the £1500 range.
John
Not a heck of a lot
most studio monitors usually have a less home friendly appearence, are often designed with near field monitoring (so quite close to person in studio) and most cases are designed to be ultra revealing so the engineer can easily hear if there is somthing wrong with the recording....
There may be more but it's not a hard and fast rule...
ATC are a company that came from the pro/studio field. I think their speakers are fantastic but have noticed they without exception will tell you straight away if the recording was badly made or if even a tiny hint of tape hiss existed on the masters (I noticed this on a freddie king CD I had which had not revealed any tape hiss on any other system or speaker I had tried it on - wich included Living Voice Auditorium and B&W CDN7NT's and other speakers in the £1500 range.
John
studio monitors=photograph
hi-fi speakers= painted picture
see what i mean? a studio monitor shows whats there, exactly whats there, nothing more,nothing less(ideally). whereas a hi fi speaker is usually the engineers interpretation on what a good speaker should sound like! personally, i used to be a studio monitor guy, hell i listened to my music on monitoring headphones(when i couldnt use speaker). But now that ive tried fullrange, i dont know, theres something to be said for so called "musicality"(distortion). currently im really liking my sound, as colored as it is.
hi-fi speakers= painted picture
see what i mean? a studio monitor shows whats there, exactly whats there, nothing more,nothing less(ideally). whereas a hi fi speaker is usually the engineers interpretation on what a good speaker should sound like! personally, i used to be a studio monitor guy, hell i listened to my music on monitoring headphones(when i couldnt use speaker). But now that ive tried fullrange, i dont know, theres something to be said for so called "musicality"(distortion). currently im really liking my sound, as colored as it is.
John, we posted almost at the same time. Had I seen your post I wouldn't have posted.
There are differences, indeed. Hi-Fi speakers from a "Hi-Fi perspective" tend to be superior. The popular Yamaha NS10 near-field monitor is universally considered a poor monitor. It was made to sound like another poor monitor, the JBL 4312. It's the sound most sound engineers are familiar with.
"The people that hate this little speaker have several reasons for doing so. They say the speaker just doesn't sound good. They say it's too bright, especially in the upper mid frequencies. Actually, the NS10's have a 7dB peak around 1500Hz. Then, of course, there's the bass response problem. There isn't much there to work with. These are all good reasons not to like this speaker, yet it's an important component in most recording studios and is used by many successful recording engineers worldwide. There must be a reason for this."
The full article is here, for those that care.
Then there are the purely aesthetic differences.
There are differences, indeed. Hi-Fi speakers from a "Hi-Fi perspective" tend to be superior. The popular Yamaha NS10 near-field monitor is universally considered a poor monitor. It was made to sound like another poor monitor, the JBL 4312. It's the sound most sound engineers are familiar with.
"The people that hate this little speaker have several reasons for doing so. They say the speaker just doesn't sound good. They say it's too bright, especially in the upper mid frequencies. Actually, the NS10's have a 7dB peak around 1500Hz. Then, of course, there's the bass response problem. There isn't much there to work with. These are all good reasons not to like this speaker, yet it's an important component in most recording studios and is used by many successful recording engineers worldwide. There must be a reason for this."
The full article is here, for those that care.
Then there are the purely aesthetic differences.
ope sorry yeah see what you meant now (thought it was a reply to me the mention of B&W)....
Re Yamaha... they also did make some superb monitors. The NS1000M with it's mid and trebble berillium domes. They are very very good monitor speakers. Though are revealing to the extreme and hard to drive ( a lot of amps will just trip the protection circuit within no time if you try to turn the volume up)...
I would say if you like a lot of older music (<50's 60's studio monitors are a definite no no as they are really critical)....
However if you are in to really good quality recordings then they can make the better recorded music sound sublime....
Partly why I like ATC's domestic speakers as they tend toward monitor sound but not too far it's rediculous. Having a system good enough also makes it easier to live with monitor-esk speakers...
Well it's my humbe opinion anyway
Re Yamaha... they also did make some superb monitors. The NS1000M with it's mid and trebble berillium domes. They are very very good monitor speakers. Though are revealing to the extreme and hard to drive ( a lot of amps will just trip the protection circuit within no time if you try to turn the volume up)...
I would say if you like a lot of older music (<50's 60's studio monitors are a definite no no as they are really critical)....
However if you are in to really good quality recordings then they can make the better recorded music sound sublime....
Partly why I like ATC's domestic speakers as they tend toward monitor sound but not too far it's rediculous. Having a system good enough also makes it easier to live with monitor-esk speakers...
Well it's my humbe opinion anyway
No the studio monitor is supposed to be ultra transparent and overhighlight any problems in the recording.
You may find in the studio (esspecially with pop) they will do some post production where they will compress the sound etc. to make it sound good in a car. However, no such thing should have been done to the masters
John
You may find in the studio (esspecially with pop) they will do some post production where they will compress the sound etc. to make it sound good in a car. However, no such thing should have been done to the masters
John
As in HiFi vs Studio monitor?Ahmad_tbp said:
I believe, I stress, that one of you monitor sets in the studio position reveal flat sterile sound. The other set should be lose and fat maybey a big rock speaker with some 10's or 12's in it. You may be able to model your work from balance between the two(small near field and a distant big fat set). It would never hurt to listen to your work while driving in the car and on the cheap radio sitting in the kitchen. This is how you will KNOW that your recording is good. Next go to the doctor and order a perfect set of ear drums! See where this is going? Listen to it with peers even if they are just friends and family. Small children have been known to influence some serious hits. I'm not kidding.
At least two sets of speakers in the studio, three is better and you should be very comfortable understanding the sound from each set. Otherwise you are gambling, and many great records have come from that formula too! If it rocks, it rocks.
Set up a few pairs and a flip switch. If you are going soundtrack digital everything I just said is rubbish. That's a different thing all together. I hope this helps as it comes from experience working with some really good music biz people.
Shawn.
There is another difference not too widely known I think.
Generally, hifi speakers are voiced to sound 'nice'.
Monitors generally ideally, have a flat frequency response. Some of them, by doing this, have heavy cones, and as such need big magnets and voice coils to create the 'B times L' ie magnet flux times voice coil length, to create force to drive the cone, to move the air, and to stop it moving. Also, resitors and co. in the crossover would have to be bigger, too.
This costs big money, hence atc's huge magnets, the most expensive part of the speaker.
Obviously there is more to it, like phase response, and waterfall decay.
And a lot of hifi speakers again try to reach this ideal of a flat response.
The big difference, is that studio monitors generally are more sturdily built, and the voice coils don't compress due to heat quite as much, so you can drive them hard and loud without trouble.
Some of them, in fact aren't quite so 'flat' and are voiced to be a bit soft to ensure long listening without fatigue.
Here's that word again, accurate, if they are all accurate, but different, there really isn't such a thing, as I think of accurate as objective and definitive, and they all can't be that if different.
But in reality, as with amplifiers, there really is no such thing as a studio speaker or a hifi one, hifi is a stupid name dreamt up by marketing people, who try to make you think you are getting somehting different, just like an audiophile amplifier, and a pro amp, there is no difference in the circuit to make it that way, both are just amplifiers and the pro ones generally are much better.
how do you make an audiophile circuit topology?
Generally, hifi speakers are voiced to sound 'nice'.
Monitors generally ideally, have a flat frequency response. Some of them, by doing this, have heavy cones, and as such need big magnets and voice coils to create the 'B times L' ie magnet flux times voice coil length, to create force to drive the cone, to move the air, and to stop it moving. Also, resitors and co. in the crossover would have to be bigger, too.
This costs big money, hence atc's huge magnets, the most expensive part of the speaker.
Obviously there is more to it, like phase response, and waterfall decay.
And a lot of hifi speakers again try to reach this ideal of a flat response.
The big difference, is that studio monitors generally are more sturdily built, and the voice coils don't compress due to heat quite as much, so you can drive them hard and loud without trouble.
Some of them, in fact aren't quite so 'flat' and are voiced to be a bit soft to ensure long listening without fatigue.
Here's that word again, accurate, if they are all accurate, but different, there really isn't such a thing, as I think of accurate as objective and definitive, and they all can't be that if different.
But in reality, as with amplifiers, there really is no such thing as a studio speaker or a hifi one, hifi is a stupid name dreamt up by marketing people, who try to make you think you are getting somehting different, just like an audiophile amplifier, and a pro amp, there is no difference in the circuit to make it that way, both are just amplifiers and the pro ones generally are much better.
how do you make an audiophile circuit topology?
hi everyone and thanks a lot for ur very usefull informations 
unfortunatly studio monitors are out of my price range , so i have to stick w my hi fi system .
my kenwood speakers are big and so loud enough for me ( 10" woofer , 4" mid and 1.5" tweeter ) and i use them w a kenwood home hifi system as my audio system for recordin/playin etc , it has 2 tone controls and 14 bands graphic/parametric EQ .
so if i put all tone controls and eqs in flat , and put speakers in a good degree , can i hear a sound near to studio monitors ???
and one thing else , unfortuately i cant buy anythin online from here , so can u propose me any free e-book or any article online bout anything i have to know bout sound in general ! recording , etc ...
thank u all so much ...
unfortunatly studio monitors are out of my price range , so i have to stick w my hi fi system .
my kenwood speakers are big and so loud enough for me ( 10" woofer , 4" mid and 1.5" tweeter ) and i use them w a kenwood home hifi system as my audio system for recordin/playin etc , it has 2 tone controls and 14 bands graphic/parametric EQ .
so if i put all tone controls and eqs in flat , and put speakers in a good degree , can i hear a sound near to studio monitors ???
and one thing else , unfortuately i cant buy anythin online from here , so can u propose me any free e-book or any article online bout anything i have to know bout sound in general ! recording , etc ...
thank u all so much ...
Studiomonitors vs HiFi? Phew... Difficult topic, as a good hifi system can perform equally well as decent monitors. Though the other way around is not quite so simple.
A whole bunch of studiomonitors are active; they have matching amps built in. The crossover network is active, and can be designed to have the drivers perform their best in the given cabinet, without becoming very large and expensive. The amplifiers are (impedance) matched to the drivers, which ensures optimal performance and efficiency. Furthermore, the more expensive active monitors have protection circuitry built in. This can be anything from a soft-clip limiter to cone excursion protection. Anyhing to protect the drivers from overheating and physical damage caused by abuse.
On the sound side; monitors are generally designed to work in the near field: anywhere to 2 mtrs from the speaker. The engineer in the studio usually won't move far outside the sweetspot being behind the console, so most monitors are designed to sound best just there: in the sweet spot. And all good studio's are acoustically designed or at least optimised. This will greatly affect the monitors' sound on-axis. The purpose of a studiomonitor is to translate everything that's going on in a mix to useable information. In other words, a monitor should not sound "nice" or "fun", but be very accurate and "ruthless", if you will. Ofcourse, in order to be able to work long, efficient hours on it, you should like the monitor's sound, as every speaker has a certain character. But given it's nearfield design and built-in amps, you usually won't have to hassle much or try different amps to get the best possible sound out of the speaker.
To conclude this: it IS possible to do recording and mixing on a (above average) hi-fi. But you **HAVE** to know your system inside and out, and back again. I have mixed a complete album on a NAD T752 with Tannoy Stratford speakers. ([EDIT:] http://www.joshuamorin.com/mp3.shtml (Drunk, Stoned or in love) ) Far from ideal, but with some A/B comparison, it will work. I know an engineer who does all his mixing an Avalon Mixing Monitors, which are sort of "upgraded" hi-fi speakers. They are awesome and cost truckloads of money and need an equally great amp to perform good enough to be useful. On an average amp with average speakers, it's possible to make good mixes, but it would be adviseable to get small (8" max) "mini-monitors" to get best results. Normally large speakers are more fatiguing to work with. But any small speaker with hyped bass and treble will be useless too. You might get the idea the speaker is very revealing, but usually it's just distorting and causing listening fatigue. You don't need enormous bass exention - it's nice and useful, but not mandatory. You DO need, however, smooth and detailed highs and mids (Dynaudio and Adam are very good at this). But first and foremost, you must absolutely KNOW your system. Studiomonitors are not mandatory, just very, very helpful.
On a side note: someone replied here that compression should not be used in mastering. That's not always true. Compression is hardly ever used when mastering classical music, but in pop and expecially rock, compression is extensively used throughout the entire production process. A good compressor can make a recording (or one track in it) soud "bigger" and "fatter", which is exactly what rock music is all about. So to make a good mix even better, you need good mastering. In pop music, mastering is all about clever and subtly EQ-ing and compressing the stereo mix, to make it sound more open and transparent, while increasing RMS level (and decreasing headroom...), which gives a song more "impact".
A whole bunch of studiomonitors are active; they have matching amps built in. The crossover network is active, and can be designed to have the drivers perform their best in the given cabinet, without becoming very large and expensive. The amplifiers are (impedance) matched to the drivers, which ensures optimal performance and efficiency. Furthermore, the more expensive active monitors have protection circuitry built in. This can be anything from a soft-clip limiter to cone excursion protection. Anyhing to protect the drivers from overheating and physical damage caused by abuse.
On the sound side; monitors are generally designed to work in the near field: anywhere to 2 mtrs from the speaker. The engineer in the studio usually won't move far outside the sweetspot being behind the console, so most monitors are designed to sound best just there: in the sweet spot. And all good studio's are acoustically designed or at least optimised. This will greatly affect the monitors' sound on-axis. The purpose of a studiomonitor is to translate everything that's going on in a mix to useable information. In other words, a monitor should not sound "nice" or "fun", but be very accurate and "ruthless", if you will. Ofcourse, in order to be able to work long, efficient hours on it, you should like the monitor's sound, as every speaker has a certain character. But given it's nearfield design and built-in amps, you usually won't have to hassle much or try different amps to get the best possible sound out of the speaker.
To conclude this: it IS possible to do recording and mixing on a (above average) hi-fi. But you **HAVE** to know your system inside and out, and back again. I have mixed a complete album on a NAD T752 with Tannoy Stratford speakers. ([EDIT:] http://www.joshuamorin.com/mp3.shtml (Drunk, Stoned or in love) ) Far from ideal, but with some A/B comparison, it will work. I know an engineer who does all his mixing an Avalon Mixing Monitors, which are sort of "upgraded" hi-fi speakers. They are awesome and cost truckloads of money and need an equally great amp to perform good enough to be useful. On an average amp with average speakers, it's possible to make good mixes, but it would be adviseable to get small (8" max) "mini-monitors" to get best results. Normally large speakers are more fatiguing to work with. But any small speaker with hyped bass and treble will be useless too. You might get the idea the speaker is very revealing, but usually it's just distorting and causing listening fatigue. You don't need enormous bass exention - it's nice and useful, but not mandatory. You DO need, however, smooth and detailed highs and mids (Dynaudio and Adam are very good at this). But first and foremost, you must absolutely KNOW your system. Studiomonitors are not mandatory, just very, very helpful.
On a side note: someone replied here that compression should not be used in mastering. That's not always true. Compression is hardly ever used when mastering classical music, but in pop and expecially rock, compression is extensively used throughout the entire production process. A good compressor can make a recording (or one track in it) soud "bigger" and "fatter", which is exactly what rock music is all about. So to make a good mix even better, you need good mastering. In pop music, mastering is all about clever and subtly EQ-ing and compressing the stereo mix, to make it sound more open and transparent, while increasing RMS level (and decreasing headroom...), which gives a song more "impact".
Well, it's much simpler than that.
Real studio monitors are only a standard accepted speaker. Auratones (aka awful tones), NS-10 and 10M's, JBL 412 or whatever. The JBL's are studio mains, the others are used as near field monitors.
Simply, the engineer needs to hear the same sound if he travels between studios. Everything else is hype. It's really that simple.
-Chris
Real studio monitors are only a standard accepted speaker. Auratones (aka awful tones), NS-10 and 10M's, JBL 412 or whatever. The JBL's are studio mains, the others are used as near field monitors.
Simply, the engineer needs to hear the same sound if he travels between studios. Everything else is hype. It's really that simple.
-Chris
well i simply disagree ...
functionnality :
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
hype :
http://www.bwspeakers.com/images/SpeakerModel/images/Model_Nautilus/main.jpg
(i'm not saying that the bw isn't a good speaker. although, it is designed for wide dispersion, and thus is not a studio monitor, or not even a really accurate system as it is a "wide dispersion" system, and doesn't have a constant directivity)
there is a LOT more between hi fi and studio than just a question of "same sound for comparison and work".
sure the NS10, because, as engineers are selling music to people who don't have extremely good speakers, but to people who have cheap boomboxes, like the NS10 is.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.