Audiophile vs Pro Speakers

[Wombat]

Getting back to the subject of the thread: If we restrict "pro speakers" to "speakers made for studios" and not "speakers made for stadions", it becomes more managable. Are there differences that are relevant? The ones I can think of: Some studio monitors (but not all) are tuned to be flat, whereas many hifi speakers are tuned somewhat warmer, with more bass. Unless one wants to use dsp or an equalizer in the system, this may make some studio monitors sound too bright for some listeners. Furthermore, the dispersion pattern of specific studio monitors might not be the dispersion pattern you want for your home system. Some studio monitors (again not all) are not made with wide and even dispersion in mind, as they are primarily listened to in the near field and/or in heavily treated studios. In the home, some listeners prefer wide dispersion, either because one doesn't want a narrow sweetspot, or because one prefers a larger sense of envelopment and spaciousness, which often come with wider dispersion (but sometimes at the expense of precise imaging). That said, I don't think any of those would be concerns with the 705p/708p, as you can equalize them, and their dispersion is relatively controlled, and not super-narrow. Haven't heard them though.

One thing about traditional PA loudspeaker components is that they generally have high efficiency and are well engineered.. They evolved from a requirement for excellence in speech articulation in larger spaces. Much of the audio research came from these companies. They produced loudspeakers that work very well in domestic HiFi applications, using the commercial components.. A lot of the subsequent development in the industry was to make domestic speakers smaller to satisfy an expanding market. There are studio monitors that translate well to HiFi. Generalisations are subjective and are often limited by a narrow exposure to 'what can be done' in the wider world.

How many enthusiasts are constrained by speaker size limitation? Most I would think. This limits their options and maybe their opinions.

 

[oivavoi]

One thing about traditional PA loudspeaker components is that they generally have high efficiency and are well engineered.. They evolved from a requirement for excellence in speech articulation in larger spaces. Much of the audio research came from these companies. They produced loudspeakers that work very well in domestic HiFi applications, using the commercial components.. A lot of the subsequent development was to make domestic speakers smaller. There are studio monitors that translate well to HiFi. Generalisations are subjective and are often limited by a narrow exposure to 'what can be done' in the wider world.

Agreed. Personally, I often prefer good studio monitors over the average "hifi" speaker.

 

[Purité Audio]

Had a very pleasant and interesting chap visit last evening a member of this very forum as well.
He made several really interesting comments but ( he was listening to the Kiis and Dutch&Dutch 8Cs ) that with accurate/ flat response speakers you can just dial in the FR of your choice, chatting with him even briefly about mixing and mastering was fascinating , a subject I would really like to learn more about.

Keith

 

[fas42]

I have no idea what you interpret my post as saying. Since you reject the very basis of acoustics by your dismissal of speaker radiation pattern, there really isn't any common ground here.

Maybe you should just agree to disagree with science.

Well, at the moment I don't understand precisely what you mean by "coherent time cues" - looking up that phrase in Google, and also "coherent time cue", yields zero results - as a phrase.

Does live sound have "coherent time cues"?

 

[fas42]

Getting back to the subject of the thread: If we restrict "pro speakers" to "speakers made for studios" and not "speakers made for stadions", it becomes more managable. Are there differences that are relevant?.

When I did an exercise a few years ago in buying some small active studio speakers, I was surprised at how generally poor in quality they were - I had certainly expected a higher standard than I found; they could only sustain a very low level of volume before demonstrating very obvious problems - and weren't at all interesting to listen to, as a source of music ... the ideal "measuring tool", then? ...

 

[j_j]

Oivavoi has a very good point. If we are not talking about very-high-level speakers (stadium, etc) that are required by physics to be highly distorted (remember, air is not a linear medium beyond 120dB, and you can even see the nonlinearity at 90dB flat weight SPL, just barely), then the question is radiation pattern and direct response.

 

[j_j]

Does live sound have "coherent time cues"?

If you have to look that up, you're completely underwater. And yes, any unreinforced sound has direct sound.

I did point you to a bunch of my own tutorials, and obviously you would rather ignore them and continue to argue, than actually go and learn how the world actually works. I will give you ONE LAST CHANCE before I block you.

Go read this. There will be a test when you reply the next time:

http://www.aes.org/sections/pnw/jj.htm click on "spatial hearing tutorial".

This is an actual assignment, directed to you to see if you can actually engage in informed dialog.

 

[fas42]

Okay, done that - BTW, very good resource page - the key element of that is that hearing is considered to be a mechanical system, essentially dependent on the construction of the ear to interpret what the meaning of the sound information is - no reference to the brain's ability to decode what the information may convey, if there happen to be inconsistencies in what the ears mechanically receive. Is it assumed that the brain is incapable of deeper analysis of the sound content - or has research been done into this aspect?

 

[fas42]

Perusing some of the other presentations on the http://www.aes.org/sections/pnw/jj.htm page - specifically, the Spatial Perception of Audio vs. The Home Theatre document. There is a piece in the What do we hear in a real space? section which I resoundingly disagree with,

The bad news:
The first arrival from a loudspeaker locates the loudspeaker really, really well. Even when you don’t want it to.

This is precisely the behaviour that distinguishes less than fully competent reproduction - the metric I use to determine the state of tune of a setup. If the first arrival from the speaker clearly "locates" its location, then the reproduction is substandard, compared to what it could be.

 

[fas42]

Hmmm ... there are multiple versions of the same material on that page - slightly re-worked versions of the same underlying concepts - with different titles. So, makes it difficult to know beforehand which documents are truly on a different subject.

 

[j_j]

Okay, done that - BTW, very good resource page - the key element of that is that hearing is considered to be a mechanical system, essentially dependent on the construction of the ear to interpret what the meaning of the sound information is - no reference to the brain's ability to decode what the information may convey, if there happen to be inconsistencies in what the ears mechanically receive. Is it assumed that the brain is incapable of deeper analysis of the sound content - or has research been done into this aspect?

It's an active system, not a passive system, so that's clear, B U T remember that if there is no information going up the auditory nerve, then the brain has nothing to work with.

Given the actual scarcity of the actual information, the brain does a pretty fantastic job.

And, yes, there are many version. I've given that talk maybe 100 times at this point, pretty much on every continent except Africa and Antarctica, and if southern Turkey counts, then also Africa (but I know, I know)

 

[Old Listener]

When I did an exercise a few years ago in buying some small active studio speakers, I was surprised at how generally poor in quality they were - I had certainly expected a higher standard than I found; they could only sustain a very low level of volume before demonstrating very obvious problems - and weren't at all interesting to listen to, as a source of music ... the ideal "measuring tool", then? ...

You dismissive comment would have more value if you specified how long ago you made the observations, what speakers you listened to and what audiophile speakers you compared them to.

 

[j_j]

You dismissive comment would have more value if you specified how long ago you made the observations, what speakers you listened to and what audiophile speakers you compared them to.

That's not terribly surprising, since the most likely thing is that he prefers a lot of diffuse sound and does not want time domain cues in his presentation. Most monitors are very, very direct. I will also say that I've encountered more than one or two that are just plain awfuuulllll.

 

[jhaider]

Getting back to the subject of the thread: If we restrict "pro speakers" to "speakers made for studios" and not "speakers made for stadions", it becomes more managable. Are there differences that are relevant? The ones I can think of: Some studio monitors (but not all) are tuned to be flat, whereas many hifi speakers are tuned somewhat warmer, with more bass.

It seems to me the biggest difference between great studio monitors and great hifi speakers is finish type and quality.

 

[Werner]

pretty much on every continent except Africa and Antarctica, and if southern Turkey counts, then also Africa (but I know, I know)

That's still Asia.

 

[Werner]

It seems to me the biggest difference between great studio monitors and great hifi speakers is finish type and quality.

What sort of studio monitor? Newell & Holland identify at least three classes, each with their own requirements.

-recording monitor
-mix monitor
-mastering monitor

 

[j_j]

That's still Asia.

I know, I know. Nobody invited me to anywhere in Africa to give the talk.

 

[fas42]

You dismissive comment would have more value if you specified how long ago you made the observations, what speakers you listened to and what audiophile speakers you compared them to.

Around two years ago - I went to every single pro music shop in Sydney, and listened to everything they had - note, I didn't come across any of the really 'serious' brands, or models - the most expensive was $AU2,500. Behringer, Tannoy, Genelec, Dynaudio, Mackie, KRK, JBL were the brands I came across - what I was after were speakers that didn't fall apart when a bit of loudness was called for; nearly all failed in some fashion - I ended up buying small Behringer Truths, because they never faltered, and they were excellent value for money; they were also the ones that presented the best sense of the soundstage with a particular Peter Green track I tried on each one. There was no comparing to audiophile speakers; the first step was them not to have severe problems doing the job - anything else was cream. In this respect, say, JBL were very disappointing - way off the mark.

 

[fas42]

Regarding direct versus diffuse, IME the subjective "take" on what one is hearing doesn't alter significantly when moving from one extreme to the other. Unlike a conventional system where the illusion collapses when outside the sweet spot, the presentation I prefer remains fully intact - the performance continues to sit in a "3d" space, just as it would for live performers.

 

[j_j]

Regarding direct versus diffuse, IME the subjective "take" on what one is hearing doesn't alter significantly when moving from one extreme to the other. Unlike a conventional system where the illusion collapses when outside the sweet spot, the presentation I prefer remains fully intact - the performance continues to sit in a "3d" space, just as it would for live performers.

Not being an MD, I have nothing to add here.