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

[lowkeyoperations]

I thought it was an interesting pitch until I scrolled down to the price! Do I really need to spend the same amount for a pair of floorstanders that are accurate, as a Tesla Model 3? If they were an order of magnitude cheaper I think you would be onto something.

That said I’ve got different speakers in my studio and my lounge room and that works well too. Better than if I had the same in both rooms imo.

I have Dynaudio XD20 actives in the lounge room that are both accurate and non fatiguing, running with Dirac live. My wife loves them. They are slightly relaxed (due to my Dirac harman curve) and can be listened to all day long. They also look really nice. We listen to them in midfield, about 4m away in an 8x5m room. They are generally on all day streaming from Spotify.

I have Amphion One15s in the studio. I listen to them in super nearfield, less than 1 metre away. My wife thinks they are ugly. I think they sound wonderful, running with Dirac live and a sub. A little forward in the mids, but time aligned, with a waveguide. Beautiful sounding vocals but SPL limited.

Do the One15s work as well in mid field in a larger room? No. They are too small. Do the Dynaudios work as well in super nearfield less than a metre away? Nope, the tweeter and woofer are a bit too far apart. Although in a previous location I had the One15s nearfield and the Dynaudios in the same studio as midfields and had great results with 2 slightly different (but quite accurate) presentations.

I don’t think accurate hifi speakers are as rare as you make out. Though I guess we could always argue about definitions. How accurate is “accurate”? While Dirac Live or in speaker DSP certainly makes them more accurate, the room will always do its best to mess things up.

Nor do I think non-fatiguing studio monitors are particularly rare. I didn’t find my Neumanns fatiguing nor are my Amphions. Maybe I’m just lucky.

For me personally the biggest difference between studio monitors and lounge room hifi are:- 1.Listening distance, 2.Aesthetics.

When my Neumanns were replaced with Amphions in the studio, they took up residence in the lounge room for a short period of time. I thought they sounded both non fatiguing and accurate (if a little small) however they were quickly banned from the lounge room for being “ugly grey boxes”. Hence the walnut veneer Dynaudios :lol:

But yes, accuracy and non-fatiguing is a great combo to aim for! And why not make them beautiful as well, just for the icing on the cake.

 

[sigbergaudio]

I thought it was an interesting pitch until I scrolled down to the price! Do I really need to spend the same amount for a pair of floorstanders that are accurate, as a Tesla Model 3? If they were an order of magnitude cheaper I think you would be onto something.

You don't have to spend anything, that is up to you.

That said I’ve got different speakers in my studio and my lounge room and that works well too. Better than if I had the same in both rooms imo.

I have Dynaudio XD20 actives in the lounge room that are both accurate and non fatiguing, running with Dirac live. My wife loves them. They are slightly relaxed (due to my Dirac harman curve) and can be listened to all day long. They also look really nice. We listen to them in midfield, about 4m away in an 8x5m room. They are generally on all day streaming from Spotify.

I have Amphion One15s in the studio. I listen to them in super nearfield, less than 1 metre away. My wife thinks they are ugly. I think they sound wonderful, running with Dirac live and a sub. A little forward in the mids, but time aligned, with a waveguide. Beautiful sounding vocals but SPL limited.

Do the One15s work as well in mid field in a larger room? No. They are too small. Do the Dynaudios work as well in super nearfield less than a metre away? Nope, the tweeter and woofer are a bit too far apart. Although in a previous location I had the One15s nearfield and the Dynaudios in the same studio as midfields and had great results with 2 slightly different (but quite accurate) presentations.

I don’t think accurate hifi speakers are as rare as you make out. Though I guess we could always argue about definitions. How accurate is “accurate”? While Dirac Live or in speaker DSP certainly makes them more accurate, the room will always do its best to mess things up.

I don't think the article explicitly states that accurate hifi speakers are rare, but I guess it can be read that way. With regards to Dirac Live and DSP, I don't think a speaker should need that above Schroeder - a poor speaker can't be "fixed" that way. Room correction is exactly that, to help mitigate issues with the room, not the speakers.

Nor do I think non-fatiguing studio monitors are particularly rare. I didn’t find my Neumanns fatiguing nor are my Amphions. Maybe I’m just lucky.

Here we are in disagreement, but I will not elaborate further as I don't want to directly talk about competitors in a negative way. Let's just say our experiences differ.

For me personally the biggest difference between studio monitors and lounge room hifi are:- 1.Listening distance, 2.Aesthetics.

This is certainly true.

But yes, accuracy and non-fatiguing is a great combo to aim for! And why not make them beautiful as well, just for the icing on the cake.

Agreed.

 

[lowkeyoperations]

You don't have to spend anything, that is up to you.

Don’t worry if I could I would

I don't think the article explicitly states that accurate hifi speakers are rare, but I guess it can be read that way.

With regards to Dirac Live and DSP, I don't think a speaker should need that above Schroeder - a poor speaker can't be "fixed" that way. Room correction is exactly that, to help mitigate issues with the room, not the speakers.

Agreed. But below that certainly necessary, even with a reasonable amount of room treatment.

Here we are in disagreement, but I will not elaborate further as I don't want to directly talk about competitors in a negative way. Let's just say our experiences differ.

I wonder whether SPL plays a role. I rarely monitor over 75dB as I’m not tracking nor having anyone else in my studio. I’m guessing the higher the SPL the more fatigue becomes a factor?

This is certainly true.



Agreed.

 

[Audionaut]

I’m guessing the higher the SPL the more fatigue becomes a factor?

My personal and completely subjective experience is that fatigue at high sound pressure levels is caused almost exclusively by distortion from incompetent speakers that are unable to realize high levels without major distortion.
With loudspeakers that sound completely consistent and undistorted at any volume, it is rather the case that turning the volume knob is always more fun, so that you have to pay attention to your hearing.

 

[sigbergaudio]

Don’t worry if I could I would



Agreed. But below that certainly necessary, even with a reasonable amount of room treatment.

I wonder whether SPL plays a role. I rarely monitor over 75dB as I’m not tracking nor having anyone else in my studio. I’m guessing the higher the SPL the more fatigue becomes a factor?

SPL / distortion, and possibly long hours, placement, room.. People are probably more or less sensitive to this as well.

 

[Hear Here]

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

That article is along similar lines to this one I spotted some years ago that provocatively describes the main difference as - "hi-fi speakers are meant to sound good with any sound and in any space, while studio monitors are meant to sound bad"

Studio Monitors Vs Speakers, What’s the Difference? - Andertons Blog

Studio monitors, regular speakers – what’s the difference? Find out what’s best for you and why studio monitors are perfect for mixing.

blog.andertons.co.uk

 

[Behrelec 37]

Top-of-the-line active speakers are extremely powerful, so the sound pattern is strong and free of distortion. Even quiet sounds are clear, and the depth of the sound can be crystal clear and emotional even at a distance of tens of kilometers, for example when watching the old war movie Thin Red Line in Blu-ray format on your Genelec speakers and definitely digitally connected to the speakers in your living room. The depth and pinpoint accuracy of the sound are such that you feel like you are a soldier among others in that place and at that time.

It is an incomprehensible window in time, recorded on a Blu-ray disc in 1998. Even the opening scene on the ship, where artillery fire on the horizon causes distant explosions on these Pacific islands, brings out the credible distance of several kilometers in a particularly natural way. With passive speakers, the sound becomes muddy or at least significantly less clear and less believable.

A well-adjusted, high-quality active speaker in your room will exceed even the sound quality of expensive commercial passive speakers in terms of the credibility of the recording, clearly exceeding your expectations.

 

[sigbergaudio]

That article is along similar lines to this one I spotted some years ago that provocatively describes the main difference as - "hi-fi speakers are meant to sound good with any sound and in any space, while studio monitors are meant to sound bad"

Studio Monitors Vs Speakers, What’s the Difference? - Andertons Blog

Studio monitors, regular speakers – what’s the difference? Find out what’s best for you and why studio monitors are perfect for mixing.

blog.andertons.co.uk

If you read more than the first two sentences of the article you linked to, it doesn't really say that? But weird intro.

 

[sigbergaudio]

Top-of-the-line active speakers are extremely powerful, so the sound pattern is strong and free of distortion. Even quiet sounds are clear, and the depth of the sound can be crystal clear and emotional even at a distance of tens of kilometers, for example when watching the old war movie Thin Red Line in Blu-ray format on your Genelec speakers and definitely digitally connected to the speakers in your living room. The depth and pinpoint accuracy of the sound are such that you feel like you are a soldier among others in that place and at that time.

It is an incomprehensible window in time, recorded on a Blu-ray disc in 1998. Even the opening scene on the ship, where artillery fire on the horizon causes distant explosions on these Pacific islands, brings out the credible distance of several kilometers in a particularly natural way. With passive speakers, the sound becomes muddy or at least significantly less clear and less believable.

A well-adjusted, high-quality active speaker in your room will exceed even the sound quality of expensive commercial passive speakers in terms of the credibility of the recording, clearly exceeding your expectations.

Is this a Genelec advertisement? And you can hear the depth of the sound tens of kilometers away? Really? I doubt you will hear any sound from the speakers tens of kilometers away.

 

[Digital_Thor]

It makes sense, that if you need the same spl at 3-4 meters, as you need at 0,5 to 1meters... Things are going to be different.
Besides, different designs of speakers shift from nearfield to farfield at different distances, so the premise of even having to choose between a studio monitor or hifi speaker, is the wrong starting point to begin with IMO.
I would start with the room, the preferred spl at the listening position, price, space and abilities to setup the system etc.... Then we might begin to talk about which speakers that could fulfil your needs.
Forget labels and storytelling - aim for needs, possibilities, and data

 

[Behrelec 37]

Well, at least the Old series 8260a and New "Ones series" and the "Masters series" are capable of these depths of precision.

It is extremely sad that too many of you have not taken advantage of the coaxial connector on Blu-ray players to listen to movie soundtracks using the above models. Even music becomes significantly more accurate when listened to digitally without an external DAC converter.

 

[olds1959special]

I have a 5.1 setup with studio monitors and I recently replaced the rear speakers with passive hifi speakers. Since they are rear surrounds, I don’t find that it matters too much, and they happen to work well being front ported (since they are near a back wall.) The amps sit on a table nearby. I just had to lower the volume slightly to make them match.

Interestingly when I listen to music in quadraphonic I can face the front or back and the sound is a little different, but they all blend together well.

 

[Duke]

Must admit that I see the room-interaction challenges and opportunities as being sufficiently different in recording studios and home audio that what I would do (and have done) for each differs accordingly.

That being said, given how exceptionally consistently @sigbergaudio's speakers interact with whatever room they are in, I can see the same loudspeakers being very well-suited for both applications.

 

[sigbergaudio]

Must admit that I see the room-interaction challenges and opportunities as being sufficiently different in recording studios and home audio that what I would do (and have done) for each differs accordingly.

That being said, given how exceptionally consistently @sigbergaudio's speakers interact with whatever room they are in, I can see the same loudspeakers being very well-suited for both applications.

Studios are very different as well. Some are very well damped, some were built 40-50 years ago and perhaps patched a bit along the way, but not necessarily super damped. Some are also control room / recording studio in the same room, so they deliberately have some reverb.

And some are tiny, and others are like the one below, which is basically a barn (the picture only shows about half the room).

 

[Audionaut]

There are many correlations among audio enthusiasts.
For example, many enjoy photography and have good photographic equipment.
Another common occurrence is that many audio enthusiasts have beautiful Oriental rugs.

And - maybe - some dogs

 

[sigbergaudio]

Yes, those rugs are strange, they're in almost every studio I visit. Maybe the cheapest type?

 

[Audionaut]

Maybe the cheapest type?

If they are, I bought them for too much money

 

[rf1938]

Many studios use near field monitors, most are in rooms with some if not extensive acoustic treatment. I've personally never seen anyone EQ playback in an edit or mixing studio. I use JBLs in my edit room, and they reproduce content fine for broadcast purposes. I have a sub, but rarely use it as consumer use of subs would be uncommon. I'm just trying to properly evaluate the quality of the material I'm working with, and not monitor content in a way that is wildly out of touch with what people at home would be hearing. My home setup is quite different, for obvious reasons. I wouldn't spend the kind of money I do at home in my edit room, simply not worth it. My content has passed all the highest tech and subjective standards networks have and have had no complaints. My biggest gripe is that the majority of tvs, soundbars, and occasionally hifi systems are so badly out of calibration that it makes me winch to see and hear them at people's houses. Don't get me started about content on phones...