Recording vs hi-fi

  • Thread starter Thread starter MaxMix
  • Start date Start date
C7sus,
That was deep and VERY meaningful. I take my hat of to you (this time).

Peace...........ChrisO :cool:
 
Hi-Fi applies more to studio monitors and reference amps than high end speakers because the high end stuff does have humps in the response curve and slower transient response than studio monitors. so which do you say is more faithful to the original sound.

Remember that most "audiophiles" learned most of what they know from salespersons that really dont know dick about audio.

I aught to know because every other system in my home is high end and most of my friends are audiophiles who talk like they are selling something half the time because they listen to those dumbasses.
 
because the high end stuff does have humps in the response curve and slower transient response than studio monitors.
Click to expand...

darrin_h2000,

Sorry to disagree. Even though it's true that most audiophiles tend to believe the loads of bullshit fed to them by sales people, this claim of yours about the difference between Hi-fi and pro audio is really not accurate.

Since there's such a wide array of a design approaches in Hi-fi, it's almost meaningless to make a blanket statement. But, considering a significant percentage of Hi-fi speakers are electrostatic or ribbon designs, which is virtually nonexistent in pro audio, you'd have to conclude Hi-fi speakers generically have better transient response than pro monitors.

"Flat frequency response" is also nothing rare in Hi-fi. Of course, the method used to measure that response and how well this actually translates in a room is always suspect. But it's no more suspect than the claims made by most pro monitor manufacturers.

Just looking at the drivers used in a loudspeaker can tell you a great deal about its 'potential' performance.

[It's like looking at the speed rating on the tires of a car. It doesn't matter what kind of engine or suspension you have, if your tires are only H rated you're never going to take a turn at 180 mph (290 kmph) and live to tell about it. Now, Z rated tires don't mean much if they're mounted on a stock Honda Civic, but at least there's the potential for modifying the car]

Anyone familiar with designing loudspeakers will instantly recognize the drivers used in the vast majority of pro monitors (save for some of the newer in house JBL designs). They are variations on common OEM designs made by a half a dozen or so big driver manufacturers. Other than a few exceptions like Quested, most of the drivers used by pro monitors are similar to those used in Mid-fi (at best) consumer speakers like Polk and Boston Acoustics.

This is not to say that excellent results cannot be obtained from such components, or conversely, poor results obtained from badly implemented expensive hi-end components. It's just that, for example, the Vifa dome tweeters and polypropylene woofers used in Event monitors have inherent performance limitations which cannot be overcome by even the most skillful designer
[Limit a Porsche designer to regular family car radial tires and there's only so much he can do].

I'm not suggesting that people go and trade their monitors in for Hi-fi speakers. I don't see many out there that would be well suited for the purpose. My point is, there's a great deal of hype and misinformation in both Hi-fi and pro audio (though more so in Hi-fi). Just because a pro monitor manufacturer spent a lot of time in an anechoic chamber tweaking for a flat frequency response doesn't say much about the other, far less trivial, aspects of the monitor's performance.

barefoot
 
Hey! Barefoot! You can't do that! Its against tradition! You're posting something I agree with, even though darrin's remark holds vast for the majority.

If anyone remembers any of my posts, I have always said that the best mid / nearfield monitors available to day are the JBL LSR series, and the ones made by Quested. They have made products designed to achieve certain parameters, without consideration given to available components. They achieved their aims because of their design criteria.

The sharing of components is purely done for economics, of cause. However, I cannot ever see the point of creating something around components with inherent faults, like those made by Vifa for example. Neither can I see the point of designers carrying on creating enclosures without due consideration for internal design and venting - properly. Again look at Quested and JBL, and you will find that these elements have been considered VERY carefully.

And, Barefoot, ribbon disigns are used quite a lot in pro audio, but only in the mastering phase, as their characteristics are not really suitable to a 'normal' control room environment.
 
A little correction to my statement:

I'm not suggesting that people go and trade their monitors in for Hi-fi speakers. I don't see many out there that would be well suited for the purpose."
Click to expand...

This is assuming we compare products in the same price range. For example, would I suggest exchanging your 20/20's or Mackie's for a set of Hi-fi oriented B&W Nautilus 805's or Dynaudio Confidence 3's? YES. No question that these Hi-fi speakers would make much better monitors. But, here we're comparing pro speakers for $100's with Hi-fi speakers for $1000's. If you can afford $1000's then you're probably better off looking at 'hi-end' pro monitors.

barefoot
 
One can argue the right tool for the right job. I use electrostatic speakers on my listening system with a good reference amp. and If I was using a set of yamaha ns10s to do my monitoring I would only use the martin logans to let the client listen to his recording on because 9 times out of ten. hes going to hate the sound of the recordings on the studio monitors.

so studio monitors= mixing mastering

high end stereo speakers= to sell the product.

Ive accually seen speaker manufacurers have thier speakers pictures taken with famous engineers such as Alan Parsons, George Martin while the speakers were in positions that would negate their use for doing the mixing like behind the console with the woofers covered or behind the engineer. while if you saw the real room In the articals in home recording they are usualy using nearfeilds.

Hell I would get my picture took with most high end manufacturers stuff If they parked a dumptruck load of money in my front yard. If I was a real whore I would do it for a pair of speakers.:rolleyes:
 
I wish to say this with all the thoughtful, measured, respectful consideration possible:

Anyone who would spend $124K on an home listening audio system is a complete, utter, total, raving jackass.

His only just fate would be to have his stack of speakers fall on him and crush him to death.
 
so studio monitors= mixing mastering

high end stereo speakers= to sell the product.
Click to expand...
darrin_h2000,

It still reads to me like you're making the old argument "Hi-fi sounds good, pro monitors sound accurate". If you take the example of the four speakers I mentioned in my last post, not only will you find that the Hi-fi speakers sound unquestionably better than the pro monitors, but they also measure at least as well in frequency response, and far better in other areas like transient response, harmonic distortion and intermodulation distortion. They sound better and are more accurate. I also chose these particular models because they are the same basic size and configuration as the nearfield monitors.

I didn't choose electrostats because I don't consider them to be accurate. They have significant dynamic compression at normal listening levels. NS10's are a whole other quagmire I'd rather not step into:).

barefoot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top