How are "consumer audio speakers" tweaked as opposed to studio monitors?

[Dolemite]

Quote from Dolemite

"Actually, the Studiophiles are far from flat."

No speaker truly is.

No fucking kidding! But based on M-Audio's claims and the original poster's assertions, I felt the need to point out that at least one reviewer noted serious colorations and deviations in frequency response in this model.

Being the way I am, I have had the opportunity to listen to $10,000 - $20,000 speakers.
Some I liked, some I did not. BUT, even when I buy my $200 paradigms I compared
them to other speakers of about the same price. Actually, they sound better then any
Bose or any Kenwood speaker by a far margin.
They are just made with a different science behind them, that is Paradigm expects
the buyer to have really compared their product to others.

This is just plain the wrong approach to choosing monitors.

1. You can't compare monitors based on what "sounds better." Indiscriminately flattering speakers won't give you much of a perspective on a mix.

2. You shouldn't be listening to Bose or Kenwood at all.

I'm just going to hope that you got a great deal on Paradigm Mini Monitors, rather than a pair of Titans or Atoms. IMO, these two models have a pretty crispy high-end, "one-note" bass, and only average imaging. Given those characteristics, I'd be surprised if mixes done on these speakers would translate very well. Stepping up to the Mini Monitors or B&W DM300 series is a whole new deal for about $50 more...flatter on-axis response (no harsh treble, ahhhh!), detailed imaging, and meaningful bass.


So...back to the "monitors vs. hifi speakers" issue. Since this comes up sooo often around here I think it bears some examination. As I see it (YMMV, IMHO, and all the usual disclaimers), the quick answer will always be that no, you shouldn't use hifi speakers as monitors - but only because most people make no distinction between the JBLs/Cerwin Vegas/Bose (gasp!) you find at Best Buy/Circuit City for around $200 in amongst clueless khaki-wearing employees, and the slightly more expensive PSBs/Paradigms/B&Ws hocked by equally sleazy but better dressed and somewhat better informed salesmen in boutique audio stores.

However, no generalizations can be safely made with either hifi speakers or true monitors, other than ruling out the mass market consumer speakers. Alesis M1's are monitors, if we are to believe the marketing, yet most people agree they don't function well in that application. Meanwhile, many people have called the similarly-priced Yorkville YSM-1's a great value in monitors. The same applies to hifi speakers, in both casual listening and mixing/monitoring applications. Judgements should be made on a model-by-model basis...and should be based on both reviews/second hand accounts and listening tests.

 

[barefoot]

There are only two criteria [which there seems to be any consensus on] that define speakers as being recording monitors:

1. "Flat" on axis half-space (quasi anechoic) frequency response.

2. "Matched" pairs.

Obviously the degree to which these attributes are successfully achieved varies quite significantly. And, in case you didn't know, there are many other characteristics like distortion, dynamic compression, dispersion, transient response, power response, etc., which define the accuracy of a speaker. And these vary even more wildly between the various brands and models of monitors.

Other than this sort of unwritten guaranty that these two parameters I listed are met, there is really nothing else you can point to that differentiates consumer speakers from monitors. Many consumer speakers are designed to have flat on axis response, and some even come in matched pairs. There's just no unwritten rule that this should necessarily be the case.

barefoot