What is the technical difference between HiFi speakers and studio monitors?

[JulianW]

We already know about things like:

• Higher price
• Fancier design
• Wider dispersion
• More suited for far-field listening

But what exactly does "more forgiving playback" mean in technical terms?


Is it just a matter of equalizing?

Or are harmonic distortions involved?

 

[Purité Audio]

‘More forgiving playback’ just like every other subjective term means, absolutely nothing.
Keith

 

[mhardy6647]

None a priori.
"Monitor" became a marketing term in the 1970s, if not before.
If a loudspeaker is used in a studio to monitor sound (produced or reproduced) it is a studio monitor.
A Horrortone (Auratone cube) is a studio monitor.
Think about that.

 

[mhardy6647]

The "read what it says, not what it seems to say" ambiguity of the headline in that ad is delicious, isn't it?

 

[JulianW]

‘More forgiving playback’ just like every other subjective term means, absolutely nothing.
Keith

Okay, fair point – but are there any technical parameters that typically correlate with this kind of listening impression?


For example: slight bass lift, gentle treble roll-off, higher second-order harmonic distortion?





Would be interesting to see if there’s a measurable basis for what people describe as “forgiving” playback.

 

[Purité Audio]

The speaker’s measurements entirely characterise its performance, tilted up treble, recessed mid , everything is in the measurements if the manufacturer considers measurements important, makes and publishes them.
Keith

 

[DVDdoug]

Just for fun I went online and checked a couple of audiophile glossaries and they didn't have "forgiving" A little more searching would probably find something but ALL of this non-scientific audiophile talk is useless nonsense.

The main characteristic of speakers/monitors is on & off axis frequency response. Then things like sensitivity, maximum power level & maximum SPL, and distortion.

-------
They both have the same purpose and can be interchangeable.

Most "monitors" these days are active whereas most hi-fi and home theater speakers are passive (except for the subwoofer).

Most monitors don't have a grill. The drivers are exposed & visible.

Monitors are typically sold by places that sell musical instruments and pro audio equipment.

 

[DSJR]

Monitors used to go louder and with greater power handling (?) and often had far better bass quality (less boom), Some had a more lifted and 'explicit sounding' midrange (no, not NS10s as these were very extreme, even then) and of course the finish of most was painted rather than (expensively these days) wood veneered.

I'd say these days the differences are extremely blurred. pro monitors tend to be active (a concept still alien to domestic audio dealers who like to make shedloads in separates and future amp/cable 'upgrades).

Let's just say the pro speakers are tools for the job, where higher end domestic speaker confections are ' lifestyle or hobby statements.'

I'll get me coat

 

[sigbergaudio]

@JulianW

More forgiving sound isn't necessarily a property of all hifi speakers, but some. It may mean simply a neutral sound, or it may mean a somewhat recessed response typically in the 1-4khz area. Dispersion characteristics combined with on-axis response will dictate how the sound is perceived.

Low compression / low distortion is also helpful in avoiding listening fatigue at louder levels, which is perhaps more often a property of studio monitors rather than hifi speakers.


Technical differences in general terms - This is difficult to answer. There are so many different approaches and philosophies across both hifi speakers and studio monitors that the differences can be both huge and almost non-existant depending on which speakers you compare.

I think the only thing that is generally true is that most studio monitors are active, and most hifi speakers are passive.

 

[EERecordist]

That is a good question. I worked as a recording engineer in a control room, best of its time. The room is still best. It records the best musicians with the best microphones, in the best rooms daily. My experience was acoustic instruments. Electric instruments go into the recording process their own way. Of course we recorded them too.

Drivers today in a proper box have low distortion. Most distortion in a proper design is in the lows. Professional monitors are used in their sweet spot. Near/mid/far field design is a factor. For a studio buy, the main determinant is subjective translation. ASR is very critical of ATC. Many friends who bought ATC note their value finding flaws in tracking and mixing. There are surely ASR commenters with studios and opinions.

In sum, frequency response is the technical difference.

 

[Hear Here]

One Professional Audio publication a couple of years ago featured and article written by a professional studio engineer.

His headline description of the difference between pro monitors and domestic speakers was on the lines "Pro monitors are designed to make music sound bad, whereas domestic speakers are designed to make music sound good".

He went on to clarify this slightly tongue-in-cheek comment by explaining that the pro engineer starts with the raw studio recordings, complete with all sorts of imperfections, imbalances, etc and he needs these his speakers to shout these deficiencies at him, so he can do his best to resolve them before a Master Recording can be produced and sent to the pressing and streaming houses.

By contrast, he suggested that the ideal domestic speaker is designed to make music sound as exhilarating and exciting as possible, without emphasising any residual imperfections.

Whether we go along with this notion is up to us, but I have very little interest in speaker measurements (that the room will mess up anyway) and will choose my speakers based on how sublimely they deliver the sound, and how much excitement and exhilaration I get from listening to the music. I'm not interested in dull speakers or amplifiers and I must agree with the magazine article that many speakers and amps designed for maximum accuracy above any other factor, fall into the "dull" category.

Others may disagree. But if sitting in a room with speakers of both categories, most may well change your minds! I have been seduced into buying "accurate" pro speakers and accurate pro-brand amps and been seriously disappointed with them.

 

[sigbergaudio]

One Professional Audio publication a couple of years ago featured and article written by a professional studio engineer.

His headline description of the difference between pro monitors and domestic speakers was on the lines "Pro monitors are designed to make music sound bad, whereas domestic speakers are designed to make music sound good".

As a manufacturer that market the same speaker to both studios and music enthusiasts, I am inclined to disagree with him.

Whether we go along with this notion is up to us, but I have very little interest in speaker measurements (that the room will mess up anyway) and will choose my speakers based on how sublimely they deliver the sound, and how much excitement and exhilaration I get from listening to the music. I'm not interested in dull speakers or amplifiers and I must agree with the magazine article that many speakers and amps designed for maximum accuracy above any other factor, fall into the "dull" category.

I suspect those that sound dull aren't actually that accurate in terms of their ability to reproduce a natural / lifelike sound.

 

[olieb]

I'm not interested in dull speakers or amplifiers and I must agree with the magazine article that many speakers and amps designed for maximum accuracy above any other factor, fall into the "dull" category.

I wonder how a pro can resolve the deficiency of "dullness", if his speakers are dull by necessity?
Or do you think "dullness" is not an important problem?
Kind of a contradiction I see here.
"Revealing" to me will cut both ways. If a speaker cannot reveal a flaw it will not be able to reveal much excitement either, unless you prefer some kind of "special sound" like a sauce that dominates everything.

Others may disagree.

EDIT: For me the biggest part of the excitement is in the music anyways and this excitement can even happen through my tablet speakers sometimes.

 

[Audionaut]

We already know about things like:

• Higher price
• Fancier design
• Wider dispersion
• More suited for far-field listening

What do we (supposedly) know then?
A hi-fi speaker can sound however it wants. It just has to please the buyer. In other words, it can also be an expensive cucumber that radiates irregularly and has a bent frequency response.

A studio monitor has to meet certain specifications, for example those specified by the broadcasting companies that order them, such as the BBC in the 1960s.

Most people are familiar with near-field monitors for home use, whose dispersion angle is optimized for precisely this purpose.
However, there are of course also midfield monitors and main monitors for sound reinforcement in larger and more spacious rooms, which have a different, clearly defined dispersion angle and are capable of reproducing high sound pressure levels undistorted in the midfield and far field.

What all good monitors have in common is that they are tuned as linearly as possible, that they have good impulse processing, that the measurements on which they are based are reproducible and repeatable, and that they have a defined and consistent dispersion suitable for the intended use.

 

[Vacceo]

One Professional Audio publication a couple of years ago featured and article written by a professional studio engineer.

His headline description of the difference between pro monitors and domestic speakers was on the lines "Pro monitors are designed to make music sound bad, whereas domestic speakers are designed to make music sound good".

He went on to clarify this slightly tongue-in-cheek comment by explaining that the pro engineer starts with the raw studio recordings, complete with all sorts of imperfections, imbalances, etc and he needs these his speakers to shout these deficiencies at him, so he can do his best to resolve them before a Master Recording can be produced and sent to the pressing and streaming houses.

By contrast, he suggested that the ideal domestic speaker is designed to make music sound as exhilarating and exciting as possible, without emphasising any residual imperfections.

Whether we go along with this notion is up to us, but I have very little interest in speaker measurements (that the room will mess up anyway) and will choose my speakers based on how sublimely they deliver the sound, and how much excitement and exhilaration I get from listening to the music. I'm not interested in dull speakers or amplifiers and I must agree with the magazine article that many speakers and amps designed for maximum accuracy above any other factor, fall into the "dull" category.

Others may disagree. But if sitting in a room with speakers of both categories, most may well change your minds! I have been seduced into buying "accurate" pro speakers and accurate pro-brand amps and been seriously disappointed with them.

I have listened to this song on a gazillon different speakers and evironments: from studios with Genelecs to high end B&W in living rooms. No speaker will make it less crunchy:

And that´s the point, you can actually like something incredibly crude, poorly played and poorly recorded.

 

[Audionaut]

I must agree with the magazine article that many speakers and amps designed for maximum accuracy above any other factor, fall into the "dull" category

Yes, that can be good, because that's what the “sound” is: unspectacular, linear, constant, boring.

Good studio speakers are not sounded and, in the best case, don't have any sound of their own.

And you're right, that sounds boring at first, which is why many hi-fi speaker companies provide their own sounding by default, such as a slight loudness tuning and a “spectacular” dispersion behavior, which can sound very convincing and captivating with some styles of music.

If it is a good monitor, you can adjust the “boring” sound relatively easily to your own taste with EQuing and proven target listening curves (B&K, Harman, for example), whereby the dispersion behavior remains the same. However, if desired, many virtual sound generators that have emerged from the development of virtual room sound can also help here.

 

[Behrelec 37]

already Genelec's Master Series in your living room will amaze many people with what they are really capable of.

Most of humanity's hi-fi enthusiasts who have tasted the Sam product family and mainly these aluminum 83xx series do not yet realize at all what they are losing when they move to a larger Master Series. Because the quality level of live recordings with music it brings already surpasses many top-end speaker manufacturers beautifully and naturally.

Genelec's aluminum eggs should only be an intermediate stage in your hi-fi adulthood. Young adults enjoy small toys, while adults go to a heavy Master Series, and enjoy maximally all the fruits and quality of humanity's recording work with a Master Series, and at best a Genelec subwoofer.

 

[Audionaut]

Young adults enjoy small toys, while adults go to a heavy Master Series, and enjoy maximally all the fruits and quality of humanity's recording work with a Master Series, and at best a Genelec subwoofer.

You heard a commercial from the Genelec advertising department.
We'll continue with the normal program in a moment.

 

[Hear Here]

As a manufacturer that market the same speaker to both studios and music enthusiasts, I am inclined to disagree with him.

One market will be short-changed if you offer identical speakers hoping to satisfy both. ATC, possibly the biggest studio monitor supplier in the UK offers a different range to the 2 markets, so they genuinely cater for both, though many domestic customers fall into the trap of choosing from the pro range - I did myself!

 

[Hear Here]

I wonder how a pro can resolve the deficiency of "dullness", if his speakers are dull by necessity?
Or do you think "dullness" is not an important problem?
Kind of a contradiction I see here.
"Revealing" to me will cut both ways. If a speaker cannot reveal a flaw it will not be able to reveal much excitement either, unless you prefer some kind of "special sound" like a sauce that dominates everything.

EDIT: For me the biggest part of the excitement is in the music anyways and this excitement can even happen through my tablet speakers sometimes.

The pro studio engineer isn't there to be excited or exhilarated - he is there to manipulate the raw material to improve it as far as it can be improved, so hopefully it will be exciting to the buyers of the CD, vinyl or streaming service. If he was excited by the raw material, he wouldn't know what needed to be done with it, or he'd think his job was over before it began.