Difference between loudspeaker and monitor

[dtr20]

I've had this discussion with a bunch of friends and we can only guess. What is the difference between loudspeaker and monitor speakers? We think loudspeakers broadcast out and monitors are more directional. Any thoughts? 

[jjptkd]

Wiki description:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studio_monitor

 

Studio monitors are loudspeakers specifically designed for professional audio production applications, such as recording studios, filmmaking, television studios, radio studios and project or home studios, where accurate audio reproduction is crucial. Among audio engineers, the term monitor implies that the speaker is designed to produce relatively flat (linear) phase and frequency responses. In other words, it exhibits minimal emphasis or de-emphasis of particular frequencies, the loudspeaker gives an accurate reproduction of the tonal qualities of the source audio ("uncolored" or "transparent" are synonyms), and there will be no relative phase shift of particular frequencies—meaning no distortion in sound-stage perspective for stereo recordings. In general, studio monitors use a sealed box design, without a bass reflex port or passive radiator speaker to improve the low-frequency response. Bass reflex ports or passive radiators are not used because they affect the response and sound.

Beyond stereo sound-stage requirements, a linear phase response helps impulse response remain true to source without encountering "smearing". An unqualified reference to a monitor often refers to a near-field (compact or close-field) design. This is a speaker small enough to sit on a stand or desk in proximity to the listener, so that most of the sound that the listener hears is coming directly from the speaker, rather than reflecting off of walls and ceilings (and thus picking up coloration and reverberation from the room). Monitor speakers may include more than one type of driver (e.g., a tweeter and a woofer) or, for monitoring low-frequency sounds, such as bass drum, single-driver subwoofer cabinets may be used.

Also, studio monitors are made in a more physically robust manner than home hi-fi loudspeakers; whereas home hi-fi loudspeakers often only have to reproduce compressed commercial recordings, studio monitors have to cope with the high volumes and sudden sound bursts that may happen in the studio when playing back unmastered mixes. Reference monitors are loudspeakers generally used to gauge what a recording will sound like on consumer-grade speakers.

[russ69]

Not sure if this helps or not but I have never heard a studio monitor that I would like in my home, horses for courses. 

[Woofers and Tweeters]

 

 

[Grizzog]

An interesting description from Wikipedia.

I've owned and researched plenty of monitors. Bass reflex is quite common in the design. Robust design? I'm sure some do, but I'd put any of my loudspeakers against any I've owned for driver and box quality.

Honestly, below the super expensive monitors, I'm pretty sure it just means a relatively flat speaker with a basic enclosure and no grill. Consumer speakers require more finish.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jjptkd]

This is pretty much what I've always understood "monitors" as being, pulled from the wiki above:

 

"An unqualified reference to a monitor often refers to a near-field (compact or close-field) design. This is a speaker small enough to sit on a stand or desk in proximity to the listener, so that most of the sound that the listener hears is coming directly from the speaker, rather than reflecting off of walls and ceilings (and thus picking up coloration and reverberation from the room.")

 

Now the studio monitor definition in the wiki clip reminds me of the "pro" speakers like the KP-250 where they are very raw and loud, and really don't sound that good in a home environment without some care taken in either EQ-ing or equipment matching. From what I understand all the "pro" stuff is meant to be EQ-ed or tweaked, not plug and play like you'd expect from a home speaker.

[Chris A]

6 hours ago, dtr20 said:

What is the difference between loudspeaker and monitor speakers?

Generally, studio monitors are built to be used in mixing and mastering studios.  That means that they're "reference loudspeakers".  This means a lot more than just "flat frequency response on axis". 

 

If you exclude the near-field and "lo-fi" arguments found in that Wikipedia article--which are the antithesis of "hi-fi"--studio monitor loudspeakers should be better than typical home hi-fi loudspeakers and much more neutral...not "rawer and louder".  

 

The Professional series from Klipsch aren't really designed to be "studio monitor loudspeakers", but rather solutions to other professional needs like cinema (behind the screen, surround, subwoofer), and PA.  These type of professional loudspeakers are designed for purpose and for price.

 

To confuse professional with "studio monitor" isn't very useful, IMHO.

 

Chris

 

 

 

 

 

[jjptkd]

8 minutes ago, Chris A said:

The Professional series from Klipsch aren't really designed to be "studio monitor loudspeakers", but rather solutions to other professional needs like cinema (behind the screen, surround, subwoofer), and PA.  These type of professional loudspeakers are designed for purpose and for price.

 

To confuse professional with "studio monitor" isn't very useful, IMHO.

 

Chris

 

Yes, I see your point and think you're right. It's not only not useful but inaccurate.

 

"studio monitor loudspeakers should be better than typical home hi-fi loudspeakers and much more neutral"

 

Why doesn't everyone just buy studio monitors then? Does Klipsch even sell or have they ever sold studio monitors? Seems odd they'd ignore an entire segment of the market.

[DizRotus]

What's in a name?  One person's "monitor" is another person's speaker.  I've owned BBC LS3/5a "monitors" and Auratone recording monitors.  The LS3/5a are excellent as home speakers, albeit bass deprived.  The Auratones are dreadful as home speakers.  They were designed to permit recording engineers to hear how their work would sound when played through crummy speakers, like those found in older cars.

 

IMO, studio or recording monitors do not sound better in homes.  Take my LS3/5a speakers.  They are excellent in small spaces at moderate SPLs.  In large spaces and at high SPLs, they sound lifeless compared to Heresy, La Scalas, etc.  It's mostly semantics.

 

[Schu]

Whats the difference between a monitor and a TV...

[russ69]

23 minutes ago, Schu said:

Whats the difference between a monitor and a TV...

A tuner.

[Rich_Guy]

1 hour ago, Schu said:

Whats the difference between a monitor and a TV...

 

A Monitor does not have a built in tuner and has more options for inputs than a TV.

 

My Panasonic TH-50PH9UK professional model plasma is a monitor or display not a TV. It has no built in tuner or speakers, it has optional add on inputs available with some options that no TV has via 4 removable input board cards. Since there is no built in tuner it has no coax input but does have available VGA, DVI, HDMI, component, composite, BNC and a variety of some very exotic industrial input options available. It also has more settings to control picture than your usual TV. I connect it to my HTPC which has 4 tuners to watch TV.

 

[Chris A]

7 hours ago, jjptkd said:

Why doesn't everyone just buy studio monitors then?

 

If you read that Wikipedia article, you'll see that some people do just that.  Those 30-50 year-old JBL monitors still command top dollar from collectors (mostly in Asia).  LS3/5A monitors from the BBC are also in some demand, exceeding the resale price of other loudspeakers of like configuration in resale value. Genelec monitors aren't inexpensive, etc.  Some of this is pedigree and some performance as Neil so kindly pointed out. 

 

Like I said, to be called a "hi-fi studio monitor" implies something more than just flat FR on-axis.  There is more going on but there is also what I'd call the "modulation distortion deniers" that ignore the effects of flattened out performance at higher SPL.  Direct radiating studio monitors will exhibit the same effects of modulation distortion at higher SPL as any other direct radiating loudspeaker.  Horn-loaded loudspeakers will simply walk all over the direct radiating loudspeakers at higher SPL--and you see those differences in the choices that the different studios make in their studio monitor loudspeakers--with some choosing large horn-loaded high frequency drivers and large direct-radiating woofers (usually more than one woofer per loudspeaker).  Some of what you read in the Wikipedia article is not exactly accurate, particularly the comments about all studio monitors' abilities to reproduce dynamics.

 

This is from that same Wikipedia article that you linked above:

 

Quote

Monitors are used by many professional producers and audio engineers. The advantage of a studio monitors is that the production translates better to other sound systems.^[13] In the 1970s, the JBL 4311’s domestic equivalent, the L-100, was used in a large number of homes, while the Yamaha NS-10 served both domestically and professionally during the 1980s. Despite not being a "commercial product" at the outset, the BBC licensed production of the LS3/5A monitor, which it used internally. It was commercially successful in its twenty-something-year life,^[7][14] from 1975 until approximately 1998. The diminutive BBC speaker has amassed an "enthusiastic, focused, and … loyal following", according to Paul Seydor in The Absolute Sound.^[15]Estimates of their sales differ, but are generally in the 100,000 pairs ballpark.^[15][16]

 

Professional companies such as Genelec, Neumann (formerly Klein + Hummel), Quested, and M & K sell almost exclusively to the professional monitor market, while most of the consumer audio manufacturers confine themselves to supplying speakers for the home. Companies that straddle both worlds, like Tannoy, ADAM, PMC, Focal/JM Labs, surrounTec, Dynaudio, and JBL, tend to clearly differentiate their monitor and hi-fi lines.

 

7 hours ago, jjptkd said:

Does Klipsch even sell or have they ever sold studio monitors? Seems odd they'd ignore an entire segment of the market.

 

Yes, but some of this is due to the clique behavior of the mixing/mastering community--which clearly has led them astray in terms of their departures over time from hi-fi monitoring like the use of near-field monitoring such as the NS-10 (and the Auratone that Neil mentioned above) and the current state of "loudness war" pop music of many genres championed by those that hawk and defend the practices of "throwaway music". 

 

PWK set the course of his company early on and while he had ample opportunity to chase the studio monitor marketplace, he clearly chose not to go into that cliquish market since his views on loudspeaker reproduction diverged so sharply with that professional community segment.  The company has since chosen to not pursue that business segment (studio monitors) for their own reasons but I'd guess that it's that same "clique" behavior by the recorded music production community that keeps trying to pull away from hi-fi practices in the name of commercialization.   

 

Chris

[Don Richard]

Many of the monitor speakers are powered and biamped with FFT processing.. There are not many home speakers configured that way. They are very expensive for their size

[jjptkd]

White Van "Studio Monitors":

 

 

[Grizzog]

27 minutes ago, jjptkd said:

White Van "Studio Monitors":

The magnet on that woofer is so cute though...

[dtr20]

Klipsch has "monitor" speakers like the r-15m, never figured out why they were labeled monitor instead of bookshelfs

[Paducah Home Theater]

12 hours ago, Schu said:

Whats the difference between a monitor and a TV...

 

Same deal applies to TV's, there are professional reference monitors that costs up to $26,000 for what amounts to a pretty small TV.  But, the colors and brightness are spot on and they don't tend to change easily.  

 

https://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-monitors/cat-oledmonitors/product-BVME250A/

 

 

[Chris A]

32 minutes ago, dtr20 said:

Klipsch has "monitor" speakers...never figured out why they were labeled monitor instead of bookshelves

 

"Monitor" and "loudspeaker" are often abused terms, especially when the two words are used together.  The following is from http://music.stackexchange.com/questions/23271/what-is-the-difference-between-monitors-and-loudspeakers-in-technical-terms:

 

Quote

There are at least two types of speakers referred to as monitors, and at least two types of speakers referred to as loudspeakers:

1. studio monitors -- speakers that are specifically designed to have flat response, minimal distortion and so on. Their intended use is in the context of a recording studio to provide unadulterated playback of the recorded material.

2. live monitors -- speakers that are used during live performance (sometimes for playback during recording) so that the performer can hear what they, and the rest of the ensemble are doing. These need to be loud enough for the situation at hand, and need balanced output, but don't need the pristine characteristics of studio monitors. Often, these are wedges positioned at the front of the stage, projecting back towards the ensemble.

3. live loudspeakers -- the speakers that are used to project the sound of the performer out to the audience. More often these are referred to as "PA". Here overall power, and distortion free operation are the prime considerations. Some deviations from perfectly flat frequency response are sometimes acceptable, esp. if other speakers, e.g. sub-woofers, can fill in the missing signal.

4. stereo loudspeakers -- the speakers used to project the sound for home audio systems. These are tuned to produced sound that is more pleasing for listening entertainment.

The important difference between stereo loudspeakers and studio monitors is that the former are often voiced in a way that affects sound away from what is recorded; e.g. some may be bass heavy, or have a smile shaped frequency response curve etc. Ideally, studio monitors do not introduce any color of their own, but...perfectly reproduce the recorded sound being played back on them. This reflects the different purposes: the former are designed for enjoyment, the later are designed for critical listening.

 

We haven't talked very much about critical listening.  Most everyone's got the idea of "enjoyment" down pat. 

 

Professionals changing the recorded music for the purposes of commercialization must listen critically.  This is the use of studio monitors.

 

Professionals that are recording directly from musicians like to hear the real thing, I've found.  They listen using studio monitors or really good headphones to make sure that everything is going well in the recording chain, i.e., for quality control.

 

All the trained musicians that I know like listening to the real thing...even at home reproduced via loudspeakers, if it's possible.  But they've learned to automatically ignore the stuff that's been done to the recordings in the name of commercialization when they listen to the playing and compositions in order to borrow something for their own use--or to learn their trade.

 

Chris

[wvu80]

Nobody has mentioned turning the speakers to the back.  Most monitors have TRS and XLR connectors, not speaker wire posts.