• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Hi end professional studio monitors vs hi end "hi-fi" speakers

Tryphon

Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2021
Messages
34
Likes
115
Location
Moulinsart
This list would be just as useless as a list of the most iconic photos and the camera used to take them. Or to make it more clear a list of the finest fiction books and the typewriter/pen used to write
Yes and no. On one end, listing gear used for "Kind of blue" (as an example of an album many people like) will be more archeology than practical information. But on the other hand we are in the middle of the "circle of confusion" as per Floyd Toole where as end user we rely on decision made using unnormed listening gear.
Btw; the analogy with photography (in the pre digital fine arts world) will be about the paper and masking done for the original print (see for example price gap between prints done by Edward Weston and the ones by his son Cole).

Because they can. High-end speakers with good amplification is a nice solution, but extremely expensive in terms "performance per dollar".
You are probably right in that. To take again the example of Galaxy studios, when you build a hall of a few hundred square meters and a few dozen of concrete tons on spring for isolation, high-end speaker are pocket money.
 

DSJR

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 27, 2020
Messages
3,291
Likes
4,405
Location
Suffolk Coastal, UK
Back in the 90's, when pro choices weren't really available at all to UK domestic consumers (I think it was big in-wall JBL and Tannoy models back then with a smattering of Westlake and so on), one chap I remember just went out and bought a pair of original issue (so more 'neutral') B&W 801's as so many CD's were mastered using these. At least the larger bass driver over typical domestic passive models back then would have given some more 'impact' and hearing a pair later on in a domestic environment, rather than a treated mastering room or large dem room full of speakers, I can see then at least good judgement - he loved them!

Today, with speakers at all price points performing better than ever, I feel the more open a window into the mastering session we can achieve (I don't think we can go back any further really), the better the music may sound. Recording and mastering engineers do seem to be able to hear through their preferred monitors well, so the boxes themselves need not be an impediment as we know from the rather good 1950's classic recordings.
 

lowkeyoperations

Active Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2021
Messages
298
Likes
289
I have a question more or less related to the topic (and challenging the "professional" or "amateur" qualification of these two type of speaker) :
Why so many mastering studio use high-end hifi speakers as their monitors ? In particular the most regarded/wealthy/award winning ones.
To take just one example, just have a look at Galaxy studio. Mixing rooms are stuffed with big Genelec but the mastering suite have Eggleston Works speakers.
Does the professional members of the forum have some ideas on that ?

There are a few factors:-

Mixing and Mastering are quite different tasks. Firstly, mixing studios have traditionally been based on a mixing room that is visually connected to a performance room with a window. The mixing room has a huge mix console. This has meant that monitoring in mix rooms has often been a pair of nearfields placed on the meter bridge and a big pair of soffit mounted mains on each side of the window to the performance room. In this arrangement, the space for a decent pair of mid-far field monitors often does not exist.

Mastering has most often been done in rooms that dont require a huge mixing console as most of the time its only a small number of tracks being required. Many mastering rooms try to keep interference from the console and studio furniture to a minimum by removing those elements. The rooms arent connected to a performance room, so there is no restriction on how the monitors are to be placed. That opens up the possibility of mid-far field monitors.

For example B&W 802's or big Duntechs have been very popular in Mastering studios. Theres really no way those types of speakers could fit in a mixing studio.

Generally speaking, mixing rooms have also double as tracking rooms, where recording the band and mixing their songs has happened together. That's kind of the creative process and it's often got several people in the studio, including the band members...who want to hear what it sounds like LOUD, hence the soffit mounted mains.

Mastering tends not to have the whole band present. Possibly just the mastering engineer and maybe the producer. So a big expensive pair of soffit mounted mains isnt required [which are usually more expensive than even quite high end hifi speakers]. Also, Mastering engineers value their hearing more than drummers and guitar players, so they don't monitor as loud. Most nearfields don't have fully extended bass, so being able to master tracks with a good understanding of the 20-40 Hz range isn't necessarily best done on a pair of nearfields with 5" mid woofers.

So mid to far field speakers come in to play because the mastering room usually isn't full of consoles and band members. The volume of soffit mounted mains isn't required, but a full range playback system, beyond the capability of a pair of nearfields, is required. And because there are way fewer mastering studios than mixing studios, the studio monitor manufacturers have not focussed their attention on that segment.

Then there's the case that mastering engineers are 'really' into listening to the details...because that's their job. So it's not surprising that many are really into hifi as well. Or at least really into the pursuit of sound quality.
 

Inner Space

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
1,285
Likes
2,938
This list would be just as useless as a list of the most iconic photos and the camera used to take them. Or to make it more clear a list of the finest fiction books and the typewriter/pen used to write them.
I disagree. It would show numerous "impossible" results - i.e. ASR-approved recordings mixed on ASR-disapproved monitors. It might make people think.
 

dfuller

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 26, 2020
Messages
3,321
Likes
5,014
I have a question more or less related to the topic (and challenging the "professional" or "amateur" qualification of these two type of speaker) :
Why so many mastering studio use high-end hifi speakers as their monitors ? In particular the most regarded/wealthy/award winning ones.
To take just one example, just have a look at Galaxy studio. Mixing rooms are stuffed with big Genelec but the mastering suite have Eggleston Works speakers.
Does the professional members of the forum have some ideas on that ?
So... A lot of mastering studios don't, and are using actives. Often the big box active ATCs. For those using passives, they're doing so because they find the particular speakers to be a good tool. The big Revels see use in mastering rooms not because they're passive hi-fi speakers, but because they're super well behaved on and off axis and low distortion.
 
Top Bottom