Home or Studio speakers

[Joe_Carr]

This is something I always wondered about but does most audiophiles use home audio speakers, amps, receivers, etc? Or do most people like to use active studio monitors to listen to there music? I always liked powered speakers since then you don't need a receiver to power the speakers and also less cables to use for your system.

Or do people like to use home audio receivers or amps to power passive studio monitors? Basicly I wanted to know if most people like to use monitors as there speakers for there home theater or home stereo system.

[Woochifer]

Did some room treatments get ripped out of this forum? I hear an echo ...

[Smokey]

Or do most people like to use active studio monitors to listen to there music?

There are some quality [2.1] powered speakers out there that are about $400-500 price range. But a separate system (with active sub) at the same price range will out perform those active speakers.

Did some room treatments get ripped out of this forum? I hear an echo ...

Echo of the same note

[Joe_Carr]

Well there are studio monitors that cost around $500 each or even $1,000 each so would audiophiles that have money mostly use these kinda of speakers or would audiophiles still use a standard high end receiver, speakers, etc? I just wanted to know that in general is studio monitor speakers popular to use for home use?


Btw I don't understand what you guys mean by there is a echo. What does that have to do with asking about if most people use monitors or home speakers for listening to there music???

[Ajani]

Well there are studio monitors that cost around $500 each or even $1,000 each so would audiophiles that have money mostly use these kinda of speakers or would audiophiles still use a standard high end receiver, speakers, etc? I just wanted to know that in general is studio monitor speakers popular to use for home use?


Btw I don't understand what you guys mean by there is a echo. What does that have to do with asking about if most people use monitors or home speakers for listening to there music???

OK fine I'll bite:

Most audiophiles don't use studio monitors. Pro gear is most often used by the pros. Audiophiles usually buy speakers and separate amplification (generally either an integrated amp or a preamp + power amp, but rarely ever a receiver)...

[Joe_Carr]

How come most consumers don't use monitors for there music? I thought studio monitors are true audiophile speakers since they play lifelike sounds and plays exactly how your music or movie was recorded. They do have studio subwoofers if you want more bass or a 2.1 system or you can have multiple monitors and have a 7.1 surround sound system.

[basite]

How come most consumers don't use monitors for there music? I thought studio monitors are true audiophile speakers since they play lifelike sounds and plays exactly how your music or movie was recorded. They do have studio subwoofers if you want more bass or a 2.1 system or you can have multiple monitors and have a 7.1 surround sound system.

and what makes you think "home" speakers can't?
stupid sales talk...

by the way, "monitoring" is often done on active speakers, so in a studio, while recording, they use monitors. just to hear if there aren't any "faults", stupidities, anomalies, ... in the recording, and, to actually hear what's being recorded at the moment.

For every post production step, in a DECENT studio, seperate gear is used most of the time. For an example, George Lucas' studio uses B&W 801's and big classe amps & gear for post production.

Monitors are sometimes also used as post production, when in a mobile studio, pro stuff (on festivals and all), ... because it's easier to take with you, as you need only 1 component, and a cable, and you have sound.

Do mind, the "monitors" you're talking about, (as in, any monitor you've EVER owned), is more a pc speaker, sometimes used in small, not too expensive, amateur home "studios". In professional studio rooms, or PA stuff, they would never have any chance.

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

[bfalls]

Aren't Studio Monitors more for near-field listening? With home audio the room is a big factor of the sound reproduction. I don't think this is the case with professional studios and near-field monitors.

[basite]

Aren't Studio Monitors more for near-field listening? With home audio the room is a big factor of the sound reproduction. I don't think this is the case with professional studios and near-field monitors.

studio monitors are most of the times on the smaller side, which makes it harder in a larger room, or at greater listening distances (5-6m), but there are larger studio montitors too, which have no real problem filling a normal sized room...

[GMichael]

Haven't I seen this question before?
before?
before?
before?

[Mash]

But do go review a recent thread about what is the best bookshelf speaker............... playing near here. These discussions were perhaps driven a little by the need to correct the assumption held by some that full range servo-controlled self-powered speakers do not actually exist. They do, i.e.the Mackie HR824, and they work quite well.

But prejudice never dies. And I have made a good living by eschewing what "everybody knows", which then allowed me to solve those problems everyone else thought were insolvable..... it was a hell of a fine way to have employment security.

THE most important component in a sound system is the room. Is the ceiling high enough, like 15 feet or more? Is the ceiling symmetric? Does the room have L, W, H dimensions that are neither identical nor nearly so, nor multiples of each other? Is the room's construction REALLY solid?

We all must match our desired sound system to both our budgets AND the room in which that system will be used.

We had a **real** log chalet in upstate NY that was hell for solid and stout, the room's generous dimensions were odd ratios of each other, and the symmetric ceiling rose to 20 feet. I had our Magneplanars in that room with the T/M panels driven with Futterman monoblocks and an Ampzilla pushing the bass panels. Velodyne servosubs rolled in below 50 Hz. That setup was totally killer. Those Maggies perform beautifully in a large-volumed room. In a smallish room? Not so much.

I also have a Jolida pushing MMG's in our bedroom here with a Velo SS on the bottom and that provides a quite satisfying result. The Magneplanars simply would not fit in that bedroom so they are in our "great room".

In our kitchen, panel speakers would be impractical because the wall oven, cooktop, fridge, dishwasher and whatever else are at one end and a gas fireplace is at the other end. But a pair of Mackie HR824's work VERY WELL on the fireplace mantle, and these Mackie speakers will accept balanced XLR cables. I use 50 foot long balanced XLR cables from the tuner/CDP/cassett player at the cooking end of the kitchen to the Mackie HRS120 servosub beside the fireplace at the other end. You simply CANNOT use 50-foot long unbalanced interconnects.

The resulting sound in that kitchen is quite pleasing when compared to my reference of live sound. And since I do the cooking here, and since a happy cook produces great meals, ................................

[Woochifer]

Aren't Studio Monitors more for near-field listening? With home audio the room is a big factor of the sound reproduction. I don't think this is the case with professional studios and near-field monitors.

Exactly. Plus, their sound properties are often used for very specific purposes.

For example, for many years the Yamaha NS-10 was one of the most widely used studio monitors in the world. Why? Because its sound characteristics made it ideal for emulating the playback of a car stereo and/or a small sub/sat system, which at that time represented the fastest growing segments of the audio market.

And going back even further, in its heyday the JBL 43xx series was also the widely used studio monitor ever. During that era, the growing market was wide floorstanding speakers with large woofers. Like the Yamaha NS-10, the JBL monitors allowed the engineers to replicate how a mix would sound on a large floorstanding speaker.

Note that these bestselling studio monitors were popular not because they sounded the best, but because they could mimic the most commonly used home speakers of that particular time period.

[Woochifer]

For every post production step, in a DECENT studio, seperate gear is used most of the time. For an example, George Lucas' studio uses B&W 801's and big classe amps & gear for post production.

The alignment for that particular mixing room at Skywalker Sound is very different than a typical recording studio. It's not a near field setup, and it uses a reference 5.1 arrangement.

As mentioned in my previous post, studio monitors have a very specific purpose that might differ a lot from the goals for typical home listening. Same with live concert rigs.

[Joe_Carr]

Well there are large monitors out there that have alot of power and can fill a large room. I seen some 8in woofers or even 15in woofers so those will be very loud. But if monitors are good about mimicing home speakers then that means overall studio monitors are better since you have have monitors that sound closer to home speakers or have them sound great and clear and precise and play exactly how your music or movie was recorded. Basicly you have a choice that if you want to make your monitors sound like home speakers or have them sound perfect. I always known that audiophiles want to hear everything on there music exactly how your music was recorded so you can feel the music and hear every members of the band clearly.

[Smokey]

For example, for many years the Yamaha NS-10 was one of the most widely used studio monitors in the world. Why? Because its sound characteristics made it ideal for emulating the playback of a car stereo...

So what you are exactly saying is that Yamaha NS-10 sounded like car speakers

[Mash]

many folks here do not understrand what a servo-feedback controlled full-range speaker [such as a Mackie HR824] really IS.

First, what it is NOT:

It is not a near-field, nor a far-field, monitor.

It is a speaker with an OUTPUT that is continuously corrected to its (preamp) INPUT.

This is what the previous "echo discussions" about the Mackie HR824 Studio Monitors were intended to convey.

The Yamahaha NS-10 (not a servo-feedback controlled loudspeaker) is irrelevant old-news.

And the sound system used in the mixing room at Skywalker Sound and which likely cost >$100K is also irrelevent. Would YOU spend $100K on a sound system? I wouldn't. I invested far more than that on stocks in the spring of 2009. A block of Eaton acquired at $37/share is now above $100/share which equates to many years of pre-retirement income for us. How many of us really know how much money we will need in our future?

The important point is to remain flexible and to not be caught in an endless cycle of upgrades that could lead one to a financially uncomfortable place in retirement. Sooner or later all of us run out of make-up time..........

[Feanor]

many folks here do not understrand what a servo-feedback controlled full-range speaker [such as a Mackie HR824] really IS.

First, what it is NOT:

It is not a near-field, nor a far-field, monitor.

It is a speaker with an OUTPUT that is continuously corrected to its (preamp) INPUT.

This is what the previous "echo discussions" about the Mackie HR824 Studio Monitors were intended to convey.

The Yamahaha NS-10 (not a servo-feedback controlled loudspeaker) is irrelevant old-news.
...

The Mackie HR824mk2 is an impressive speaker; thanks to Mash's reference, I've looked at its design and specs. I agree with Mash on the issue of "near field".

"Near field" simply means that most of the sound the listener hears comes directly from the speaker, not from room reflections. I don't favor the use of "near fields" to describe monitors: the better term would be "controlled dispersion", i.e. they limit the width and height of frequency distribution to limit reflection from the room (and mixing desk, etc. in studio use). There is no harm -- and typically some advantage -- to using "controlled dispersion" speakers in the home for exactly the same reason as in the studio. That is, less distortion and flatter frequency response at the listening position.

One minor clarification: the servo control in the case of the HR824 applies only to the woofer -- which is probably a good thing because, arguably, feedback isn't quick enough to correct high-frequency driver anomalies without doing more harm than good.

[mlsstl]

To the original poster and the home vs studio speaker question - "most" people buy components for the home for a very simple reason - that is what's available at the stores where they shop. Most people, whether ordinary buyers or audiophiles, don't think to go to a musical instrument store that sells pro and studio equipment when they shop.

If a person does happen to visit a pro equipment shop, my suggestion would still be the same. Don't get caught up with the technicalities of passive vs powered. Instead, buy what sounds right to you. You're the one who has to live with it after it comes home. ;-)

[Feanor]

To the original poster and the home vs studio speaker question - "most" people buy components for the home for a very simple reason - that is what's available at the stores where they shop. Most people, whether ordinary buyers or audiophiles, don't think to go to a musical instrument store that sells pro and studio equipment when they shop.

If a person does happen to visit a pro equipment shop, my suggestion would still be the same. Don't get caught up with the technicalities of passive vs powered. Instead, buy what sounds right to you. You're the one who has to live with it after it comes home. ;-)

I don't entirely agree. Considering the technical aspects of a speaker is likely to guide you to a better decission. Would Magneplanar MMGs be a wise choice for desktop computer speakers? Uhmmm ... no. Of course this is an absurd example, but often less blatant technical differences ought to affect your choice. There is a big difference between (1) passive speakers with wide dispersion and designed to be placed on stands 2+' from the wall, on the one hand vs. (2) self-powered limited, limited dispersion, speakers designed for a range of placements.

[mlsstl]

I don't entirely agree. Considering the technical aspects of a speaker is likely to guide you to a better decission. Would Magneplanar MMGs be a wise choice for desktop computer speakers? Uhmmm ... no. Of course this is an absurd example, but often less blatant technical differences ought to affect your choice. There is a big difference between (1) passive speakers with wide dispersion and designed to be placed on stands 2+' from the wall, on the one hand vs. (2) self-powered limited, limited dispersion, speakers designed for a range of placements.

I would have thought, when shopping for speakers, that certain aspects would be self evident for a shopper. If you can't accommodate the physical dimensions of a particular speaker, its technicalities really don't matter.

Passive versus active has nothing to do with the dispersion of a speaker. One can make wide and narrow dispersion speakers of either type. Same thing with stands vs floor standers or wall proximity - again you can make powered or passive versions of either.

One has to be careful not to assume that generalities about studio speakers are true for all makes and models.

What I caution against is getting caught up with the idea that an audio component one buys "must" have a particular technical feature.

[Feanor]

I would have thought, when shopping for speakers, that certain aspects would be self evident for a shopper. If you can't accommodate the physical dimensions of a particular speaker, its technicalities really don't matter.

Passive versus active has nothing to do with the dispersion of a speaker. One can make wide and narrow dispersion speakers of either type. Same thing with stands vs floor standers or wall proximity - again you can make powered or passive versions of either.

One has to be careful not to assume that generalities about studio speakers are true for all makes and models.

What I caution against is getting caught up with the idea that an audio component one buys "must" have a particular technical feature.

I acknowledge that passive vs. active has nothing to do with dispersion. Likewise I grant that not all studio monitors do the same things. What's more, I agree it's not a case of home being "better" than studio or vice versa.

Like Woochifer said, speakers are designed to do different things. In that regard I'm saying that studio monitors, as a category, are generally designed to provide more flexibility than "home" speakers. (That flexibility happens to include built-in amps and more placement options in many cases.) Further, I will say that the option of using studio monitors is often overlooked by audiophiles and other home users.

[blackraven]

Geez Spanky, you provided fodder for some thought provoking discussion for a change.

[Mash]

First, I would like to point out that this really should NOT ONLY be a discussion of studio monitors versus audiophile speakers per se, but rather the desirability of using servo-feedback control of cone loudspeakers, because the latter is the key to the performance of the Mackie HR824 and its stablemates.

By contrast, a membrane speaker would not (in my opinion) need servo-feedback control because the moving mass of the membrane is similar in order of magnitude to the mass of the air being moved. Examples of membrane speakers are the various Magnepan speakers and ELS.

When you connect an arbitrarily-selected amplifier to a passive loudspeaker you introduce variation. This means the loudspeaker designer has no idea what you will do with his beloved baby, and his reputation is involved with the ultimate judgement rendered by the user community. This is heartburn city. The self-powered loudspeaker solves this speaker-plus-amplifier problem, and then opens the door to the next step: providing servo-feedback control to the speaker cones. I don't think we want to get hung up on dispersion.

I have been aware of the point raised by RGA that the servo-feedback in the Mackie is only being applied to the woofer, which crosses over to the tweeter at 1900 Hz. So I investigated whether this is a limitation.

Now one can adopt various levels of rigor to this study, and one must also make some educated assumptions because manufacturers do not want to help their competition. (I have certainly delt with this last point.)

Some of my references:

See R.J. Roark, "Formulas for Stress & Strain", 4th, p219, Table X, case 11.
See R.D. Blevins, "Formulas for Natural Frequencies & Mode Shapes", 1st, p240, Table 11-1, case 1

I tapped the cone of an unpowered Mackie HR824 and concluded that the frequency of the cone was around 30 Hz. So I used increasingly more exact equations with this starting point, and I peterbated the presumed woofer cone frequency. The latter did not influence the calculated mass ratio.

Note: I considered cone-flex frequency, and not the frequency of the cone on its suspension, i.e. the transducer's rigid body frequencies. This was because cone loudspeakers are pistonic transducers (see Olsen's "Theoretical Acoustics"), i.e. they are assumed rigid. I used a solver to set the tweeter cone stiffness to be equal to the woofer cone stiffness, i.e.equavelent pistonic stiffnesses, solving for tweeter material thickness.

I concluded that the (effective) mass of the Mackie HR824 Woofer was between 67 times to 105 times greater than the effective mass of the tweeter. The woofer operates up to 1900 Hz while the tweeter operates up to maybe 20,000 hz suggesting a frequency ratio of 10.5, but the p-p displacement at 20k Hz will be a lot less than at 1900 Hz, so the peak velocities may be similar. I have forgotten the relationshio for p-p displacement and velocity versus frequency & SPL but I may make the time to refresh my memory.

My conclusion is that the servo-control feature is not needed for the tweeter.

[Feanor]

First, I would like to point out that this really should NOT ONLY be a discussion of studio monitors versus audiophile speakers per se, but rather the desirability of using servo-feedback control of cone loudspeakers, because the latter is the key to the performance of the Mackie HR824 and its stablemates.

By contrast, a membrane speaker would not (in my opinion) need servo-feedback control because the moving mass of the membrane is similar in order of magnitude to the mass of the air being moved. Examples of membrane speakers are the various Magnepan speakers and ELS.

....

Thanks for your rigorous discussion on the matter of servo feedback, Mash. I'm not supprised by your conclusions in that regard. Heavier, less rigid drivers are the ones more likely to need or benefit from servo feedback. (BTW, it was me not RGA who pointed out that the Mackie uses feedback only on the woofer.)

On the other hand the OP's question pertained to "home" vs. studio speakers. On that main point, perhaps we can also agree studio monitors typically have specific attributes that can benefit the user, depending on circumstances -- apart from use the servo-feedback.

[Mash]

"(BTW, it was me not RGA who pointed out that the Mackie uses feedback only on the woofer.)"

Oops! Well, it was late in the day............ and those plate & spherical shell segment stiffness & modal analysis equations are very intricate.

"On the other hand the OP's question pertained to "home" vs. studio speakers. On that main point, perhaps we can also agree studio monitors typically have specific attributes that can benefit the user, depending on circumstances -- apart from use the servo-feedback."

"Studio speakers" as a genre DO offer substantial benefits to the home user who eschews a tubie-planar system for whatever reason. I have noted that many seemed unaware that there are also such very different "versions and flavors" of (self powered) studio speakers.

I understand servo-feedback, and I became well aware of its audible benefits in the first Velodyne servo-sub I bought. I have a CD "New Celtic Moon" and on track 12 a bass drum is first struck and then the drum head tension is increased producing a rising "Boom-Bimmm" sound on the servo-sub. A standard sub just produces a muddy "Bummmm". I became interested in the Mackies only when I discovered that they also featured servo-feedback. I was not then interested in studio monitors per se.

I have four distinct systems, two tubie-planar and two more casual systems using the Mackies. The latter are much closer in performance to the tubie-planar systems than previous cones-in-boxes units, and a substantial performance differential becomes annoying when comparisons are unavoidable.

I should think that one would also pursue the best end result, and selecting a speaker offering servo-feedback control in lieu of an otherwise-comparable speaker lacking same should definitely help further that goal. I have a strong personal aversion for "do-overs" because they cost time and money.

A flexible approach to these matters usually provides the most satisfying results.