Difference between loudspeaker and monitor

[Marvel]

1 hour ago, wvu80 said:

Most monitors have TRS and XLR connectors, not speaker wire posts.

 

You are talking about self powered speakers. While many 'studio monitors' now are self powered, this is a more recent trend.

 

Most studio monitors/monitoring systems are direct radiators (except for the Westlakes, and even they now have a lot of DR monitors)

http://www.westlakeaudio.com/Speakers/Professional_Series/reference_series.html

 

Some older studios actually had Altecs with horns, but mostly for playback in the studio and not at the mix position in the control room. Many TV stations and remote trucks don't have room for larger systems, so there was a real niche market for higher quality, small audio monitors.

 

 

[wvu80]

1 minute ago, Marvel said:

You are talking about self powered speakers. While many 'studio monitors' now are self powered, this is a more recent trend.

 

You are right.

 

Part of the problem on this discussion is that "monitor" is a broad class, just as you pointed out.  There are many kinds of monitors, powered, un-powered, near field, etc.  I would not be surprised if "monitor" was an advertisement term as well, further muddying the waters. 

[HDBRbuilder]

21 hours ago, russ69 said:

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.

Well...back in the day, we installed two Belles as the studio monitors for one of the Rolling Stones mobile studios semi-rig set-ups...they parked it outside the plant and had the Belles installed for the studio monitors...sounded great and I would love to have them in MY home...just saying...

[Marvel]

The Stones or the Belles?

[russ69]

7 hours ago, HDBRbuilder said:

Well...back in the day, we installed two Belles as the studio monitors for one of the Rolling Stones mobile studios semi-rig set-ups...they parked it outside the plant and had the Belles installed for the studio monitors...sounded great and I would love to have them in MY home...just saying...

 

Back in the day it was common to use big horn systems in the studio. The term studio monitors came around later when the big systems were ditched and replaced by near field monitors. When I play some of the old stuff, it often comes alive on big horn systems, just like when it was mixed down.  

[wvu80]

7 hours ago, HDBRbuilder said:

Well...back in the day, we installed two Belles as the studio monitors for one of the Rolling Stones mobile studios semi-rig set-ups...they parked it outside the plant and had the Belles installed for the studio monitors...sounded great and I would love to have them in MY home...just saying...

 

OK, I don't care who you are, that's a cool story. 

[HDBRbuilder]

Actually, I had a pair of JBL 4311WX "studio monitors" about 6 years BEFORE we installed those Belles in that mobile recording studio...so...I guess JBL must have got an early jump on calling something they marketed a studio monitor.  If I remember correctly, it was actually a pair of those JBL studio monitors that were replaced by the Belles...the rig was relatively new, but already had monitors in it when it arrived...the Belles were mounted high and upside down at downward and slightly-towed-in angles.

[Khornukopia]

 

 

Some of the factory equalized, self powered bi-amped studio monitors sound really good right from the start. Many passive LOUDspeakers will have their owners juggling amplifiers, pre-amps, crossovers, caps, woofers, wires, midrange drivers, horns, tweeters and / or buying more loudspeakers while attempting to get better sound. In other words, studio monitors are no fun.

[dtr20]

2 hours ago, HDBRbuilder said:

Actually, I had a pair of JBL 4311WX "studio monitors" about 6 years BEFORE we installed those Belles in that mobile recording studio...so...I guess JBL must have got an early jump on calling something they marketed a studio monitor.  If I remember correctly, it was actually a pair of those JBL studio monitors that were replaced by the Belles...the rig was relatively new, but already had monitors in it when it arrived...the Belles were mounted high and upside down at downward and slightly-towed-in angles.

I would love pictures of that

[HDBRbuilder]

17 minutes ago, dtr20 said:

I would love pictures of that

Some were taken, but not by me...not sure if they can be found by the Historian in the archives...IF they ever even made it to the archives.

[IB Slammin]

On ‎12‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 4:52 AM, Chris A said:

 

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:

 

 

 

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

 

 Is it true ( in days of old ) that engineers used 6x9 ovals as monitors?  That way they could mix music to sound best in cars? 

tc

[Chris A]

1 hour ago, IB Slammin said:

 Is it true ( in days of old ) that engineers used 6x9 ovals as monitors?  That way they could mix music to sound best in cars? 

I'd guess that the Auratones are effectively the same thing (Neil can tell us).  But yes, I've heard the same thing: one of the gates that the mastering guys did was to audition their music through a 6 x 9 driver used in autos.

 

Chris

[DizRotus]

27 minutes ago, Chris A said:

I'd guess that the Auratones are effectively the same thing (Neil can tell us).  But yes, I've heard the same thing: one of the gates that the mastering guys did was to audition their music through a 6 x 9 driver used in autos.

 

Chris

 

Yes.  That was supposed to be the idea.  Auratones were part of the opening salvoes in the loudness wars.  Songs were mixed to compress the dynamic range so that they could be heard over the cheap speaker (no stereo in the beginning) and high noise floor in cars of that era.

 

Contrast that to listening to a hi-res Pono file in a modern car.  I find myself turning it up during soft passages and then down during louder parts.

[IB Slammin]

1 hour ago, Chris A said:

I'd guess that the Auratones are effectively the same thing (Neil can tell us).  But yes, I've heard the same thing: one of the gates that the mastering guys did was to audition their music through a 6 x 9 driver used in autos.

 

Chris

 

  I always believed that to be a reason why some LP's sounded so bad on a good system.

[juniper]

I think the premise of this thread interesting, and some of the thoughts. I have been around some Altec studio monitors for years, they were the standard in many a recording studio for decades, and to this day some of the best studios in the  world still use them for playback. LOOK at what Jean Hiraga, Serious stereo and many other designers have done with the lowly studio monitor,see their reviews. I know a fella, who has wired and set up studios for music execs, home systems, and countless big name artists for their home studios, per he, in the right designed space the Altec 604 of the right vintage is hard to beat .. Integration is so important and how you like to listen and your space....

[-js-]

21 minutes ago, juniper said:

I think the premise of this thread interesting, and some of the thoughts. I have been around some Altec studio monitors for years, they were the standard in many a recording studio for decades, and to this day some of the best studios in the  world still use them for playback. LOOK at what Jean Hiraga, Serious stereo and many other designers have done with the lowly studio monitor,see their reviews. I know a fella, who has wired and set up studios for music execs, home systems, and countless big name artists for their home studios, per he, in the right designed space the Altec 604 of the right vintage is hard to beat .. Integration is so important and how you like to listen and your space....

 

 

I mean no disrespect at all, and have so little experience compared to so many 'round these parts, but from what I've read mostly here, I would think a big part of that "hard to beat" phrase would be in the design of the listening space.  yes, the speakers play a big part too.  but how many times does a discussion about "why my speakers sound awful" turn to "what is your room like", etc., etc?

[HDBRbuilder]

What I always thought was strange is that back in the day, for a number of years, radio stations (especially smaller ones) used MOSTLY 45 rpm records for on-the-air play...then went to assembling those songs onto tapes for on-the-air play.  But, 45 rpm had the ABILITY to actually have MORE hi-fidelity than the LP, whether it was mixed for that or not.  And many "singles" came out in mono versions instead of stereo for a number of years, even though the LP version was in stereo.  Sooooo, if they were actually mixing down from masters to singles primarily for airplay through auto speakers, that would explain why so many 45 rpm singles from that era sound crappy compared to the LP version, even though the higher groove tracking area on 45 rpm records would actually allow for a much higher fidelity.  Case in point:  the Byrds' rendition of Dylan's "Tambourine Man".  It was mono on the original 45 rpm single (sounds great, even in MONO!), which was ALSO a different mix than the LP version (ALSO in mono-ORIGINALLY, later brought out in stereo, with yet another mix!).

[Dkfan9]

On 12/13/2016 at 2:28 PM, DizRotus said:

 

Yes.  That was supposed to be the idea.  Auratones were part of the opening salvoes in the loudness wars.  Songs were mixed to compress the dynamic range so that they could be heard over the cheap speaker (no stereo in the beginning) and high noise floor in cars of that era.

 

Contrast that to listening to a hi-res Pono file in a modern car.  I find myself turning it up during soft passages and then down during louder parts.

So you're expressing an implied preference for compression

[gottajam]

I remember seeing it mentioned that B&W 800 series are used as monitors at Abby Road Studio. B&W likes to name drop that every chance they get. It seems odd to me that studios do not use the absolute best sounding speakers possible as that is their main product is sound.   

[DizRotus]

1 hour ago, Dkfan9 said:

So you're expressing an implied preference for compression

 

No.  I'm making the observation that cars are less than ideal listening environments, which might explain why compression is so common.  I prefer music that is not mastered to sound best in a moving car.