My monitor arrangement. Am I crazy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bip Bop
  • Start date Start date
OK....but then, if you are going to use $2000 dollar Hi-Fi speakers...why not just get the studio monitors for $2000, which are usually designed for close/mid-field monitoring, unlike a Hi-Fi system...? :)

Just sayin....

I think it's even more trouble when folks grab less expensive "Hi-Fi" systems...and have the perspective that ___________ CD sounds great on it, therefore why not use them to also monitor mixes.

Mind you, I'm not saying you can't use non-monitor speakers. I mean, people check their mixes on car speakers, but they still don't mix on them....though once you dial something in, you can get use to it....
...but it's about using that which is purpose-built.
I have a great 3-way, expensive Hi-Fi set of speakers in the studio. I'll run playback on them all the time....but I don't mix on them.
 
miroslav said:
OK....but then, if you are going to use $2000 dollar Hi-Fi speakers...why not just get the studio monitors for $2000, which are usually designed for close/mid field monitoring, unlike a Hi-Fi system...? :)


.
Click to expand...
once again it depends on which stereo speakers you choose for one thing.

As for the thing about people choosing cheap hi-fi speakers ..... it depends again ....... but if you're gonna compare cheap hi-fi and cheap monitors there really isn't a lot of difference. The cheap monitors are simply bookshelf speakers with the word monitor in their model name.

And I'm not saying that people should buy stereo speakers instead of monitors ...... I'm just setting the record straight because newbies read that as being home stereo speakers are hyped and they take that to mean ALL of them and it's just not any more true than the idea that ALL monitors are flat.
Cheap stuff is cheap stuff regardless of whether they put the word monitor on it or not.
And quality stuff is quality stuff .......
 
I always get confused by these discussions...

It seems to me that unless you have a well-treated room with high-end, expensive monitoring gear set up in the appropriate manner, then all speaker/amp/room combos are going to sound different...so does "flat" really have any meaning in that context?

My guess is that most hobbyists don't have all that stuff going for them, and also aren't spending thousands on monitors alone.

My thought has always been that in the lower priced range that most of us are confined to, you simply buy the best sounding (to you) speakers you can afford, whether they're labeled as "monitors" or not, and you listen to a lot of commercially produced music through them...get to know how they sound, and then mix with them. In any situation with a fixed, moderate budget, isn't that more or less the way to go?

Personally, I mix with Bose 301 speakers I bought new for around $500 back in the early '90's. I think they work great. The bottom end is a little exaggerated, and the top doesn't have as much clarity as other speakers I've heard, but they're quite serviceable.

I can't imagine that if I bought little nearfields labeled as monitors for a few a few hundred bucks today that they'd somehow be substantially more "true", "accurate" and flat...? Maybe they would, but I'm not spending 100's just to find out.

If one can find older high-end hi fi speakers that originally sold for top dollar at a reasonable cost, wouldn't it be likely that they'd be superior to new "monitors" going for the same price new?
 
Yeah...OK...but I think the $$$$ range that most newbies live in when it comes to monitors and/or "Hi-Fi" speakers....they ARE often hyped and crappy sounding (and I agree with you, the so-called cheap monitors are also crappy sounding).

Where's the guy who was looking to wire up his Boom Box for monitoring 'cuz he said his mixes sounded just the way he liked them on it. :facepalm:
 
heatmiser said:
If one can find older high-end hi fi speakers that originally sold for top dollar at a reasonable cost, wouldn't it be likely that they'd be superior to new "monitors" going for the same price new?
Click to expand...
yep and that's sorta my point.
I see comments about even expensive stereo speakers as being no good 'cause all home speakers are hyped and it's not true.
I thought we were supposed to be about accurate info for newbies. Well then it's not accurate to say all home speakers are hyped ..... it's not even close to accurate.

One other thing I rarely see mentioned ........ NO speaker is completely flat .... they ALL have bumps and ridges in their response curves and those are exacerbated by room issues.
The very best speakers just have fairly small deviations but I've never seen a speaker with an actually flat response curve ...... and yet I see comments about "monitors are flat" all the time.
That's another thing that's simply not true and I think it's important for people to understand that.

Ultimatelly no matter what you have you have to 'learn' your monitors and understand how mixes made on them translate to other systems.
 
miroslav said:
Yeah...OK...but I think the $$$$ range that most newbies live in when it comes to monitors and/or "Hi-Fi" speakers....they ARE often hyped and crappy sounding (and I agree with you, the so-called cheap monitors are also crappy sounding).

:
Click to expand...
And I agree except that if we stipulate that cheap monitors are also crappy sounding then even at lower prices I don't see the advantage of getting something that just has the word monitor on it. Regardless of price range if we compare apples to apples the flaws and/or benefits of one versus the other isn't that great.
 
OK...you're looking at price-to-price mainly.
While cheap monitors are not going to sound as good as expensive ones, I think many (maybe not most) are at least somewhat designed for close monitoring, and the better ones even more so. Like I said, they are purpose-built.
Most hi-fi speakers are not meant for close-monitoring....actually, I don't think any are.

How many cheap monitors are actually just re-named hi-fi speakers....that I don't know, but you are right there there are cheap ones that are just called "monitors" but are nothing more than bookshelf speakers.

I wasn't really looking at the very low-end $$, where either type are probably crappy....nor at the very high-end $$$$$....but in the middle $$$, where the word "monitor" actually statst to mean something specific.
How many "Hi-Fi" systems in that middle range can show perfectly flat frequency responses.....mmmmm...until I see the certified test graphs (and not just a mention in the specs), I don't think many will.

Most folks when they drop $1-2k on a Hi-Fi system, are not dropping that on just the speakers.
 
miroslav said:
Most folks when they drop $1-2k on a Hi-Fi system, are not dropping that on just the speakers.
Click to expand...
most people, when they drop 1-2k on a recording set up and not dropping that on just the speakers.
Once again you're not comparing apples to apples.
We're talking speakers here , NOT the total system of auxillary gear. So it's not fair to talk about 1500 dollar monitors but then talk about a total stereo system which means the speakers would only be 400-500 dollars. It's not a fair comparison and so, has no meaning.

And NO speaker has a "perfectly flat frequency response".
 
I didn't segue off on the price thing...so what people spend or don't spend wasn't my point, rather that hi-fi speakers in the moderate/middle range are not going to be flat or designed for close monitoring like purpose-built monitors.
If someone can only afford $200 for a pair of monitors or hi-fi speakers....that's a different discussion.

My Mackie 824 monitors which only cost about $1300 for the pair are about as close to FLAT as you will see on a frequency response chart, and they are certified as such....I have the actually measurement graphs and documentation.
 
miroslav said:
I didn't segue off on the price thing...so what people spend or don't spend wasn't my point, rather that hi-fi speakers in the moderate/middle range are not going to be flat or designed for close monitoring like purpose-built monitors.
If someone can only afford $200 for a pair of monitors or hi-fi speakers....that's a different discussion.

My Mackie 824 monitors which only cost about $1300 for the pair are about as close to FLAT as you will see on a frequency response chart, and they are certified as such....I have the actually measurement graphs and documentation.
Click to expand...
1500 dollar a pair Paradigms or B&W's or Theils or any of the other maunfacturers of that type will also come with freq graphs and will be as flat.
You are correct in that they won't mostly be designed for near field listening ..... that is very true.
But as far as freq response ...... doesn't sound to me like you have had much interaction with quality stereo speakers and/or knowledge of same.
 
I said I wanted to see the certified graphs....because I don't regularly shop for Hi-Fi speakers. :)

I think the point here is that if we are going to watch what to kind of forum info newbs pick up on....while I can agree that not all Hi-Fi systems are necessarily "hyped" (depending on your price range and system)....
...I don't think that pushing the idea that hi-fi systems and studio monitors are "apples to apples" if in the same price range.

If they were....there would be many more Hi-Fi speakers used in recording studios for mixing/monitoring, rather than purely for playback, if at all.
 
Not aimed at anyone in particular....

There are several basic differences between a hi fi speaker and a studio monitor (even excepting that hi fi speakers have to be "domestically attractive" whereas monitors are usually as dull as soup visually)

Hi fi speakers are almost all passive. This means that $ for $ more can be done to the speaker and its works than an active monitor and I would guess that 90% of all monitors sold to the projjy market are active?

Power handling. Hi fi speakers have to go loud enough of course but they are not built for the abuse that monitors can expect. You would not put a bass guitar thru a pair of $5000 B&Ws? But a digital recording of a bass into a monitor is as good as doing that. The fact that monitors have built in amps helps enormously here. In theory the amps should limit before driver damage occurs and in practice this seems to obtain pretty well.

WARNING! Old Fart mode being engaged!

I "grew up" with hi fi. I did not ever own much of it, built some stuff but there always seemed to be daft things draining my resources like mortgage, utility bills, babies.....Barely had enough for essentials like fags and beer!....But I was aware of it, experienced it and fixed a lot of it. A famous quote..."Closest to the Original Sound". THAT was the goal in those days ("hi fi" went silly about 30yrs ago and got all tweaky and "subjective". I stopped buying the mags)

Loudspeaker reviews were conducted to test whether the unit under test reproduced natural sounds convincingly. Speech (V hard!) bells, keys, small instrument forces, i.e. Celeste, acoustic guitar*. Flatness of FR was desirable but not vital. The watchword was "colouration" (and still should be) very good speakers had very little of it.
The Quad ESL does not have a very flat response but it had and still has about the lowest colouration of any speaker not surprisingly therefore they make superb quality monitors and IF you have the space and the cash would make excellent GP monitors (you would need at least 4!)

*Very few speakers could do justice to a concert grand in full chat. I recall one that could, the KEF R105. HF News managed to assemble 200watts worth of amplification and got very close to the the piano's levels but STILL the amps clipped!
Today for a full SPL test a monitor might be asked to reproduce a 50W valve amp +4x12 at full tilt? VERY few monitors could do that today I would aver!

So, basically we should want speakers, hi fi or monitor, to be accurate reproducers of the input wave. You all have a readily available test signal? Comes out of gob!

Dave.
 
I used a pair of Mission 762 Hifi speakers for years as my mid field monitors (Yamaha NS10's close), in fact the 762's are in my lounge room now. Mixes on the 762's always translated well to other systems and I love the sound of them. I only retired them from the studio when Mission released a studio monitor, Mission Pro SM6P, which is very similar to the 762.

Another side note was that my first hifi speakers were both for me by my Grandmother in 1970, they were a pair of Sony's which is what we could afford. They came from a real Hifi shop that used to be around back then before discount shops did them in. The Sony's came with a Gerard turn table and a Monarch amplifier, I still have the Amp and Speakers, in fact the Sony's are in my recording room as talk and playback speakers, above the control room window here, not bad still going strong(ish) after 43 years. I used the Sony's and Monarch amp as my first monitoring set up when I had a TEAC 3340S 4 track.

I agree that some Hifi speakers make excellent monitors.

Alan.
 
Last edited:
Yup.

When you get to a certain level, there's no real difference between good hifi speakers and those sold as studio monitors. This particularly applies to British built speakers.

Just as an example, years ago the BBC designed the LS3/5A monitor for use in mobile units and small edit suites--they were amongst the first small speakers to offer true hifi/monitor grade sound. You could actually buy them in hifi shops or pro audio dealers--and the only difference was the choice of connector on the back.

Similarly, I've seen stacked QUAD Electrostatics (with sub) used in both high end professional studios and the hifi rooms of people with more money than me!

As others have been at pains to say though, we're talking about true hifi, not a cheap boom box or music centre.
 
Bobbsy said:
...Similarly, I've seen stacked QUAD Electrostatics (with sub) used in both high end professional studios and the hifi rooms of people with more money than me! ...
Click to expand...
Interesting to find that here when I was just going to mention one desirable aspect in general presumably for accuracy would be to try to stay as close to a point source as possible. Ie avoiding multiple arrivals.
It occurs perhaps in this case the goal with the electrostatics might have been SPL / headroom?
 
mixsit said:
Interesting to find that here when I was just going to mention one desirable aspect in general presumably for accuracy would be to try to stay as close to a point source as possible. Ie avoiding multiple arrivals.
It occurs perhaps in this case the goal with the electrostatics might have been SPL / headroom?
Click to expand...

Not too sure Mixit but are you suggesting that stacked ESLs are not a good idea for stereo imaging? If so, not so!

The ESL radiates HF from a central strip (about 50mm wide IIRC) . Stacking two such strips and angling them appropriately gives superb imaging (if you can get hold of two identical line source speakers, preff' with small< 100mm cones you will experience the best stereo imaging ever!).

Of course the speakers are large and even a pair in a domestic setting need a lot of room around and especially behind them. Another reason they are only used by rich bastards!

Dave.
 
Worth also mentioning that the ESLs were not being used like a typical home studio near field pair--this was a huge control room (wide enough for something like a 128 channel analogue board with room to spare) with several levels to accommodate engineers at the board plus various producers, clients and hangers-on on couches behind them on gradually rising steps. They also had more conventional mid fields and near fields available.
 
Yeah I figured they'd be fairly tall rig and wondered how that would work out. So more of a line array effect? Initially I had intended more to address (question) the OP's combining of the two monitors though.
 
The "two monitors" thing I agree with. Using two speakers, both full range, stacked is bound to result in a very lumpy frequency response so it'll be luck of the draw how it translates to a "universal mix" Far better would be to put in a switch unit to toggle between the two types of speaker.

Stacking ESLs, on the other hand, was a very accepted practice and sound great in large spaces. One of the happiest moments of my life was many years ago when a girlfriend who was French by origin asked me to spend a week in France with her to "help sort out a hifi for her Godmother". When we got there it turned out Godmother was filthy rich and lived in a chateau in the Burgundy region. She had an old barn she'd converted to a huge library and actually gave music recitals there, mainly string quartets and the like like. She'd decided she wanted an uber hifi so she could listen to music and give record recitals in the same space. My prescription was two sets of 3 stacked ESLs with a nice sub disguised as a coffee table--she actually flew me out again to install it all once the gear was delivered. It sounded amazing in the huge space--my only regret was that it was a system that, for my needs I could only dream about since I didn't happen to have a 10 metre by 25 metre stone barn with peaked roof and books down both sides to play with. I didn't have the 25K pounds either!

Oh, and the French girlfriend was kinda fun as well!
 
Use any monitors you like, but do not use them the same time as multi-point sound sources.
Your sound picture will be smeared out, it is principle wrong.
They will sound wronger as separately.
Check low frequencies with one pair and details with other this case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top