Do you think it's a bad thing or a good thing that a manufacturer is present both within the studio market and the hifi market?

[levimax]

To me it appears it is relatively easy for a manufacturer know for pro/studio gear to start selling into the Hi-Fi market at modest levels. It also appears that if you really want to address both markets you need seperate lines, JBL comes to mind as an example. For me personally I find pro/studio gear to generally be higher quality and lower cost than Hi-Fi gear with the "cost" being aesthetics less compatible with a domestic setting and different feature sets with lack of a remote control being the biggest difference.

 

[somebodyelse]

My Q would be, how/why could anyone view it a negative?

The HiFi press have often painted studio speakers as analytical and soulless, thus to be avoided. Except when they decide they like the odd one or two, like the old LS3/5a which was made for a specific purpose that wasn't HiFi. If that's what you've grown up with then you could easily see association with studios as a negative.

 

[somebodyelse]

Loudspeakers aimed at the professional user need necessarily to measure well.

Like the NS-10 or the Auratones whose poor measurements are defended because they have a specific use? Or some of the others that have a good reputation but have turned out not to measure well? PMC comes to mind with their headless panthers, but I'm sure there were others. My view used to be that they would have to measure well to survive in the studio market, but the counterexamples disabused me of that notion.

 

[respice finem]

To me it appears it is relatively easy for a manufacturer know for pro/studio gear to start selling into the Hi-Fi market at modest levels. It also appears that if you really want to address both markets you need seperate lines, JBL comes to mind as an example. For me personally I find pro/studio gear to generally be higher quality and lower cost than Hi-Fi gear with the "cost" being aesthetics less compatible with a domestic setting and different feature sets with lack of a remote control being the biggest difference.

Some (like me) are crazy enough to use pro gear for home listening. Yes a less "drab" look would be nicer, but one gets used to almost everything.
A guest thougt, the plastic JBL fascia was piano lacquer
More recent pro gear has remote control too, even very good, like RME.

 

[Barrelhouse Solly]

I like to get the best gear I can afford. That means that high end gear is mostly out of reach. My aesthetic requirement is fading into the background. I want something simple with good ergonomics if it has controls. I don't want assertive decor. If money were no object I'd want the best sound I can hear. Because I listen at low to moderate volumes I don't need high power. Good 40 watt amps aren't that expensive. I'd spend most of my "infinite" budget on speakers.

 

[Robin L]

Makes me think of my limited experience in studio work. I was assistant engineer at a couple of sessions at Skywalker. I remember the engineer checking out their monitors—Wilson WATTs—with one of his own recordings. Nasty sound. It exposed everything that was wrong with that recording or, conversely, everything that was wrong with the sound of the WATTs. So, he decided to use his own UK "Monkey Coffins", mellow sounding and easy to live with for eight hours a day. The playback gear this man used for his home post production studio had floorstanding NHTs in a room designed for monitoring symphonic recordings.

The other engineer I assisted used headphones, mainly. He'd fly all over the country with all the recording gear tightly packed, with no room for excess. I guess in the case of both engineers they had enough experience with the tools they used to be able to have a fair guess what their recordings would sound like on a variety of playback gear, and both were known for excellent recordings.

I remember the Hearts of Space studio that assembled programs used High-End gear including Theil floorstanding speakers, an Oracle turntable and a sonically treated room. I recall some of the shows' voice-over outros mentioned the audio gear used in the production of that show.

I trust measurements. Stereophile had a review of the Infinity Primus 360 floorstanding speakers including some impressive measurements. By a stroke of luck, I found a full 5.0 set of the Infinity Primus speakers for $79 at an Amvets in Fresno. I still have the Primus 250s, am very happy with them, particularly with symphonic music.

 

[Suono]

Some speaker manufacturers only have products targeted towards home audio, some only have products targeted towards hifi, and some have both.

I'm curious what kind of "signal" this sends to consumers. So if you are looking for something for home audio, would a presence in the studio market build credibility, or the opposite? Or not matter at all?

I can of course suspect what the ASR crowd will answer here, but I'd be interested in an open discussion on the subject.

Sound is one; there are no sounds classifiable by use. There are things that sound and things that don't.

 

[sigbergaudio]

Sound is one; there are no sounds classifiable by use. There are things that sound and things that don't.

Well, things that sound, don't all sound the same.

 

[Suono]

Well, things that sound, don't all sound the same.

Of course, I've seen studios with B&W, Avalon...I've seen audiophiles using Genelec Neumann..

 

[Timcognito]

I bought my first EV recntly, it's a Hyundai Ionic 5. I like it and just like audio, read the reviews did a test drive on few cars and bought one. So yesterday I was driving home a saw a very large Hyundai backhoe tractor for the first time and thought, man, I bet that thing kicks butt. Sometimes your reputation is built on doing a good job and your brand transcends all markets you participate in.

 

[WillBrink]

The HiFi press have often painted studio speakers as analytical and soulless, thus to be avoided. Except when they decide they like the odd one or two, like the old LS3/5a which was made for a specific purpose that wasn't HiFi. If that's what you've grown up with then you could easily see association with studios as a negative.

My mind would not work that way at all, and would view experience and acceptance on the pro side a good thing, but audiophiles can be talked into believing anything I suppose.

 

[sceptical1]

90% of what I listen to sounds great. Call me a successful audiophile.
The studio guys and their stuff is good enough for me and always has been.

 

[respice finem]

I prefer to say objectivists vs. subjectivists - because objectivists are not audiophobic either, at least I'm not

 

[EERecordist]

Professional and consumer require different product management, marketing, and distribution. Since the 70s-80s home studios are a very large segment of professional.

In the US, consumer audio distribution is going more direct, people are buying without auditioning, You still have the consumer local shops in big enough cites with repair and some used sales. Best Buy, I believe, phased out their listening rooms. Some home audio flows through the home theater installation channel today.

Pro audio is distributed by Vintage King, Sweetwater, specialized dealers in major recording cities, and with Guitar Center serving home studios.

Some professional gear, like ATC, goes through indirect distribution in the US.

I'm not familiar with the UK, Europe, oil countries, Japan, Singapore, Australia, and other parts of the world.

I'm fine with pro audio equipment in the home where appropriate. It is generally designed to be more reliable. I prefer the accurate style of reproduction.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

"Do you think it's a bad thing or a good thing that a manufacturer is present both within the studio market and the hifi market?"

I can't see how it would be a bad thing. Unless it means that the manufacturer ends up with a too diverse portfolio for it to be profitable.

Studio gear is subject to fashion so product choice is not guaranteed to be entirely rational or measurements based. Despite this, if I ran a studio with multiple clients, I'd select robust, reliable and supportable products (downtime is money). And where there are diverse opinions on what sounds "right" (speakers, microphones and acoustics) I would go for middle of the road solutions (and more than one option *) to make the studio as universally useful as possible.

* Excepting soffit-mounted main speakers.

 

[Karmacoma]

A good thing.

 

[Vini darko]

Diversify market
Increase brand reach
Profit ( hopfully)

 

[Audionaut]

I am beginning to doubt that the majority of ltraditional loudspeaker manufacturers (not Sigberg,AsciLB KEF etc) make any measurements at all.
Keith

Who should that be?
I don't know of any major loudspeaker manufacturer that doesn't measure.
Most of them even have a portfolio of rooms including an anechoic chamber.
Kind of disqualifying you yourself by such comments.


On the question of this thread:
It doesn't really matter if the companies serve studio and home audio at the same time.
I think it's always good to master everything.
A good example is Yamaha, who cover the full range from high end instruments to electronics to speakers in all sectors.
Possibly even with their own measuring facilities

 

[Purité Audio]

So all those poor measuring loudspeakers reviewed in Stereophile you believe they measure and then completely disregard those measurements?
I to my shame at the very beginning of PA. represented manufacturers whom I know did not measure during development or at any point come to that.
Keith

 

[RexrothPigeon]

The divide between markets is eroding thanks to assessments focused on measured performance and engineering. I view that as a good thing.

This precisely

The divide was always a ruse and I will not miss it