Studio Monitors Sound Different From Hifi Speakers. But Should They?

[sigbergaudio]

We make speaker systems for both studios and for consumers. And they're the same speaker systems. I'm not sure if the following article will spark debate or something everyone here on ASR agrees with, but I think it's an interesting subject!

From the introduction of the article:
Studio monitors are supposed to be neutral and accurate. Hifi speakers are supposed to sound enjoyable and musical. As a result, they often sound very different. But why?

I believe that’s not just unnecessary—it’s wrong. Let’s dig into why this divide exists, and why I think it’s time to move past it.

The full article can be read here:

Studio Monitors Sound Different From Hifi Speakers. But Should They?

Introduction Studio monitors are supposed to be neutral and accurate. Hifi speakers are supposed to sound enjoyable and musical. As a result, they often sound very different. But why? I believe that’s not just unnecessary—it’s wrong. Let’s dig into why this divide exists, and why I think it’s...

www.sigbergaudio.com

 

[Behrelec 37]

The numerous passive loudspeakers made for home use always sound according to the house's teachings, that is, the house where they are manufactured, so they are always a colored sound, which always pleases the customer group that the marketing in question, as well as the appearance and the rhythm, melody and sound image of the product, on average, appeals to. Appearance often determines your interior design preferences, and marketing in turn pleases your mental and internal balance to be ahead of the consumer technology, otherwise everyone would also buy much older speaker sets and not so many new ones if marketing were not so prominent in every country. Marketing therefore bites many people, because the new set has to be sold as new and supposedly better quality. And customers are needed to pay for rising salaries in these companies.

Studio monitor speakers (name: different-style speaker, same logic) do not need to please the masses with their appearance, so product development relies on higher-quality technology, although not every manufacturer does this of course. Marketing for studio people is mainly focused on ease of use, because the competition is really tough there. Studio monitors try not to color the sound, and the starting point is the band or ensemble that colors it in its own unique style, for me, for you, for everyone, according to their taste.

 

[Audionaut]

We make speaker systems for both studios and for consumers. And they're the same speaker systems.

You already gave the answer yourself in the first sentences.
A good loudspeaker is a good loudspeaker, regardless of whether it plays in the studio or the living room.

 

[olieb]

I believe that’s not just unnecessary—it’s wrong. Let’s dig into why this divide exists, and why I think it’s time to move past it.

I see two questions here.
Studio speakers and rooms are tools to craft a specific result. They are designed so that it becomes easier to achieve that.
Living rooms are for recreation and enjoyment.
Do we want the same sound in both cases?

If we want the same sound, then there is the next question.
Rooms have a considerable impact on the sound and studio acoustics are quite different from typical living room acoustics.
Does a living room loudspeaker have to be different to create the same/similar ‘sound impression’ for the listener?

 

[solderdude]

Do we want the same sound in both cases?

good question... IMHO not everyone wants the same 'sound'. People have preferences, different rooms, listening habits etc.

Does a living room loudspeaker have to be different to create the same/similar ‘sound impression’ for the listener?

Living room speakers also (most likely) for the average owner has to 'look pleasing'.
Studio monitors, in general, don't.

There are people that have amplifiers (and a preference for using them) and most 'hifi speakers' are passive.
The better studio monitors are active ones and are used in proper setups and/or corrected in certain ways.

 

[digitalfrost]

I agree with you on this. I have a friend who set up a home studio, he uses Yamaha HS8 in the studio, but in the living room has some hifi speakers "to enjoy music". I'm like bro, if your music doesn't sound good fix the software, not the hardware.

It all adds to the circle of confusion.

Audio's Circle of Confusion

Audio’s “Circle of Confusion” is a term coined by Floyd Toole [1] that describes the confusion that exists within the audio recording and r...

seanolive.blogspot.com

I recently got Audio Frist Fidela, which are arguably pretty accurate https://www.spinorama.org/speakers/Audio First Design Fidelia/ErinsAudioCorner/index_eac.html

If any of this studio monitor / hifi divide were true, my ears should be bleeding because of the "accuracy". Instead I find that I can enjoy even more music than before, because the speakers are simply very good. I know I write this into a lot of threads lately that "I recently got Audio Frist Fidela", but first I'm over the moon with these things. It was an improvement that I not thought possible, and it's not like what I had before was bad in any way. And second, when I say something I want people to be able to relate/compare to where I'm coming from. Having the spinorama data available makes my reference easily understandable.

You write:

A smooth, downward-sloping frequency response at the listening position. Yes, even in the studio.

I also recently built my own tone controls using free of charge tools: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-the-pc-using-drc-fir-eqapo-and-python.62000/

And with these speakers I was torn between not using DRC at all because I thought often it with was worse with DRC. In the end I settled at having just 0.5dB/oct downward slope starting at 2khz and a very short frequency dependend window (250ms at 20hz). This puts 20khz down just by 1.66dB. But it makes a big positive difference in the sound, especially in the midrange. I don't know why but with these speakers I can take loads of high frequency and it doesn't sound harsh. I never had a speaker before that could do that. I have measurements from the same listening position before and after, they look pretty similar pre DRC, but these sound so much better.

Studio speakers and rooms are tools to craft a specific result. They are designed so that it becomes easier to achieve that.
Living rooms are for recreation and enjoyment.

Rooms have a considerable impact on the sound and studio acoustics are quite different from typical living room acoustics.
Does a living room loudspeaker have to be different to create the same ‘sound impression’ for the listener?

I think this is an interesting question. I sit in the nearfield and thus even with DRC, I have an almost flat curve at the listening position. Since I can change target slopes with the push of a button, I can easily compare and while I used lots of downward slope in the past because of harsh highs, now it seems unnecessary dull to me most of the times if I do that.

Naturally somebody who sits 3m away (10 feet in freedom units) in a living room will most likely experience way less high frequency energy, because of reflections playing more of a role and also air as medium will absorb some volume the shorter the wavelength is. Now you could argue, hey let's equalize our living room speakers with a rising frequency response to compensate for that. I don't think that's a good idea, but it could explain the discussions about house curves / target curves and wheter or not to equalize above Schröder.

 

[tmtomh]

I agree that a good speaker is a good speaker, period.

That said, there does seem to have been a culture that's developed over the years whereby many producers, engineers, and so on feel that they want their studio monitors to be highly "detailed" and "revealing" so they can "fully see into the mix" and easily engage their "analytical" listening abilities to root out any sonic issues with the production. In contrast, they - and many audiophile consumers - seem to want a more "relaxed" and often "warm but still detailed but not too detailed" sound when they are listening for pleasure at home.

Like most of these audiophile preferences that I don't personally share, I can understand it even though I don't agree with it. I suspect these preferences cropped up because in decades past it was harder to find neutral speakers, and the dominant methods for EQ'ing speakers - for example analogue graphic equalizers - were not as benign in their negative effects as today's DSP is.

If you really do prefer an objectively different sound signature for each type of activity, that's totally fine. But even then you don't need two different kinds of speakers: a well-designed speaker (neutral, even directivity) can easily be EQ'd to sound a little warmer, a little more or less forward in the mids, a a little more or less detailed in the treble, and so on. If a speaker's high level of "detail" makes it sound harsh or fatiguing, that's a design flaw, not an inevitable consequence of being able to hear that "detail." And if a speaker's "mellowness" makes it hard to discern all the details, that is again a fault, not an inevitable consequence of a pleasant-sounding speaker.

 

[DVDdoug]

Every speaker and every room sounds different to some extent.

Hi-Fi speakers and monitors have the same job... To accurately reproduce sound.

I believe it was Floyd Toole who said that main studio monitors are capable of being played very loud and reliably 24/7.

Hi-Fi speakers are sometimes used as monitors and I believe that was more common in the past. I remember reading that Motown was using AR3's and constantly blowing the midranges. (They kept spare midrange drivers on-hand.)

And of course, some people use "monitors" in their home setups.

"High Fidelity" means highly faithful. Ideally we hear what was created & heard in the studio. Or, at least the reproduction system should be capable of that, and then you can EQ or make other tweaks from there.

 

[Matt_Holland]

Studio monitors are supposed to be neutral and accurate. Hifi speakers are supposed to sound enjoyable and musical. As a result, they often sound very different. But why?

The irony is that a huge amount of studio monitors are not neutral (PMC, ATC, NS10s, etc) so their success must be that they appeal to a large number of engineers who value their colourations and how they enable them to do their job better.

I don’t have extensive experience with monitors, but plenty with hifi speakers. My impression is that the biggest differences are in dispersion: hifi speakers typically delivering the more diffuse but larger soundstage. In terms of tonality, monitors often have emphasis around 1Khz leading to a “colder” “harder” sound which possibly is more revealing of certain things in a mix that are important for engineers.

The last monitors I heard were Neuman KH310. Definitely no emphasis anywhere in the spectrum. Narrow dispersion produced a very small precise soundstage with little depth. Incredible resolution and SPL, but I would find them boring as a home audio speaker because I prefer a larger soundstage and a bit more “liveliness” to the sound.

I am in no doubt that a truly great speaker can operate as both monitor and playback solution. I hope to hear the Sigberg products one day.

 

[Mort]

The last monitors I heard were Neuman KH310. Definitely no emphasis anywhere in the spectrum. Narrow dispersion produced a very small precise soundstage with little depth. Incredible resolution and SPL, but I would find them boring as a home audio speaker because I prefer a larger soundstage and a bit more “liveliness” to the sound.

I used to be this way, and still keep a wider directivity passive tower in my family room. I do like the livelier, bigger feel especially with acoustic recordings.

But for personal listening, I've come to appreciate the neutrality and clarity of great monitors and high direct ratio listening. I find the music more compelling.

 

[Salt]

This is what @Floyd Toole just said:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ith-major-audio-luminaries.62951/post-2330193

 

[sigbergaudio]

I see two questions here.
Studio speakers and rooms are tools to craft a specific result. They are designed so that it becomes easier to achieve that.
Living rooms are for recreation and enjoyment.
Do we want the same sound in both cases?

I think the answer is yes here.

If we want the same sound, then there is the next question.
Rooms have a considerable impact on the sound and studio acoustics are quite different from typical living room acoustics.
Does a living room loudspeaker have to be different to create the same/similar ‘sound impression’ for the listener?

I don't think so. I think that a speaker that works well in a less than ideal room, will work even better in a better room.

 

[sigbergaudio]

I agree that a good speaker is a good speaker, period.

That said, there does seem to have been a culture that's developed over the years whereby many producers, engineers, and so on feel that they want their studio monitors to be highly "detailed" and "revealing" so they can "fully see into the mix" and easily engage their "analytical" listening abilities to root out any sonic issues with the production. In contrast, they - and many audiophile consumers - seem to want a more "relaxed" and often "warm but still detailed but not too detailed" sound when they are listening for pleasure at home.

Yes, but here I almost think the hifi people have it right. I'm not thinking on overly colored speakers here, but say a Kef speaker, it typically sounds what I'd call neutral and natural, it's not harsh or bright. But it doesn't lack any resolution or detail that makes it harder to work with than a harsh and/or bright speaker.

To add to that, most engineers work long hours, why would you want a monitor that is fatiguing. Imo it's a myth, along with the myth about the NS10 being superior to an accurate/neutral speaker (which has been discussed at length in several threads here).

If you really do prefer an objectively different sound signature for each type of activity, that's totally fine. But even then you don't need two different kinds of speakers: a well-designed speaker (neutral, even directivity) can easily be EQ'd to sound a little warmer, a little more or less forward in the mids, a a little more or less detailed in the treble, and so on.

Agreed.

If a speaker's high level of "detail" makes it sound harsh or fatiguing, that's a design flaw, not an inevitable consequence of being able to hear that "detail." And if a speaker's "mellowness" makes it hard to discern all the details, that is again a fault, not an inevitable consequence of a pleasant-sounding speaker.

Agreed.

 

[olieb]

If you really do prefer an objectively different sound signature for each type of activity, that's totally fine. But even then you don't need two different kinds of speakers: a well-designed speaker (neutral, even directivity) can easily be EQ'd to sound a little warmer, a little more or less forward in the mids, a a little more or less detailed in the treble, and so on.

Sure, as long as it is only about a bit more or less energy in specific frequency bands, this can be EQed. But the spatial qualities of wider or narrower radiation and its interactions with the room acoustics, that is a different story.

I don't think so. I think that a speaker that works well in a less than ideal room, will work even better in a better room.

I don't think it is that simple. For instance in bass every room is different and a speakers characteristics might not translate to another room easily. And the same holds to a degree for spatial qualities. If the radiation pattern is optimised (to a certain extent) to specific room characteristics it might not be near an optimum in another, quite different room/listening situation.

I think the answer is yes here.

I personally would agree, but again there seems to be different preferences in different people.

 

[sigbergaudio]

I don't think it is that simple. For instance in bass every room is different and a speakers characteristics might not translate to another room easily. And the same holds to a degree for spatial qualities. If the radiation pattern is optimised (to a certain extent) to specific room characteristics it might not be near an optimum in another, quite different room/listening situation.

But the bass changes mainly as consequence of the size of the room, and a specific size isn't typically connected to whether the room is a studio or a living room. The bass typically needs to be handled by EQ and/or ability to adjust the level in both situations.

Are some radiation patterns more suited to a specific size of room (within the typical spread of room sizes between different studios and living rooms)? Maybe. Are we aware of any such studies or experiments?

 

[Behrelec 37]

I forgot to mention the very important advantage of choosing studio monitors over passive speakers, that you can listen to good quality studio monitors all day long without tiring your ears. Passive speakers have those colorations, so they are not suitable for studios in many cases.

You can listen to passive speakers for a few hours a day, then you are already a completely exhausted and tired man. This point cannot be emphasized enough. Quality monitors are also, jokingly speaking, now that you can work with them without your teeth baring or your head going into a fog.

 

[sigbergaudio]

I forgot to mention the very important advantage of choosing studio monitors over passive speakers, that you can listen to good quality studio monitors all day long without tiring your ears. Passive speakers have those colorations, so they are not suitable for studios in many cases.

You can listen to passive speakers for a few hours a day, then you are already a completely exhausted and tired man. This point cannot be emphasized enough. Quality monitors are also, jokingly speaking, now that you can work with them without your teeth baring or your head going into a fog.

That feels like a bit of a generalization. Not all passive speakers are fatiguing.

 

[Matt_Holland]

I forgot to mention the very important advantage of choosing studio monitors over passive speakers, that you can listen to good quality studio monitors all day long without tiring your ears. Passive speakers have those colorations, so they are not suitable for studios in many cases.

You can listen to passive speakers for a few hours a day, then you are already a completely exhausted and tired man. This point cannot be emphasized enough. Quality monitors are also, jokingly speaking, now that you can work with them without your teeth baring or your head going into a fog.

What on earth are you going on about?
There are plenty of passive speakers that you can listen to for extended periods.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

That feels like a bit of a generalization. Not all passive speakers are fatiguing.

Right. And not all monitors are "quality."

 

[sigbergaudio]

Right. And not all monitors are "quality."

Also true.