Hi-Fi versus monitor speakers
TonyL
music "producers" to use the current vernacular. In this mag I keep seeing
references to monitor speakers being preferable to hi-fi speakers. The line
they take is that hi-fi speakers are designed to "enhance the sound" while
studio monitor speakers are designed so that you hear "what is really
there".
But there is more..they say "..even modestly priced monitors will give you a
more accurate picture of what you are hearing,"
I'm puzzled, I thought the whole idea of hi-fi was to reproduce accurately
what was recorded. Why should "modestly priced monitors" be better ?
Comments please ?
Dave Plowman (News)
No simple answer. Plenty of speakers originally designed as monitors end
up on the domestic market - the BBC designed ones being one example. And
some domestic designs end up as being a de facto standard for pro use as
'average quality' monitoring.
The most accurate speakers by some margin would be the Quad electrostatic
designs - but these were rarely used as studio monitors.
--
*Xerox and Wurlitzer will merge to market reproductive organs.
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
TonyL
>
>> I'm puzzled, I thought the whole idea of hi-fi was to reproduce
>> accurately what was recorded. Why should "modestly priced monitors"
>> be better ? Comments please ?
>
> No simple answer. Plenty of speakers originally designed as monitors
> end up on the domestic market - the BBC designed ones being one
> example. And some domestic designs end up as being a de facto
> standard for pro use as 'average quality' monitoring.
>
> The most accurate speakers by some margin would be the Quad
> electrostatic designs - but these were rarely used as studio monitors.
>
So, is there anything fundamentally different about studio monitors ? Are
they not just high spec. speakers...or sold as such ?
Don Pearce
Their intention is to be ruthlessly revealing, rather than kind to the
sound.But of course, provided the music is well recorded, that is a
good thing for Hi Fi.
They will also typically be rated for producing high levels for
extended periods without wilting.
d
Phil Allison
" TonyLummox "
** Sure - you are a 100% damn troll.
For anyone curious, wiki has a pretty good explanation of the topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studio_monitor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studio_monitor#Monitor_vs_Hi-Fi_speakers
BTW:
One of the best 3-way box speakers ever made was the Yamaha NS1000M -
it was popular as both a professional studio monitor and domestic hi-fi
speaker.
http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/hfw/oldeworldehtml/yamahans1000m.html
Interestingly, it has the uncanny ability to sound very much like a Quad
ESL57.
..... Phil
Brian Gaff
fact that people like 'a sound' and I suppose if the studio is doing things
well, it can afford to adjust the environment to be a neutral as possible.
However, the proof that this does not work only needs you to listen to
recordings made in different studios, or even the same studio with a
different producer.
I would also say that some real monitor speakers are able to take abuse
better than hi fi units often do... grin...
Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"TonyL" <TonyLacyR...@Nu-Ware.com> wrote in message
news:G9udnZkSVtlOEC_U...@bt.com...
Brian Gaff
Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:503860c...@davenoise.co.uk...
Jim Lesurf
> real music "producers" to use the current vernacular. In this mag I
> keep seeing references to monitor speakers being preferable to hi-fi
> speakers. The line they take is that hi-fi speakers are designed to
> "enhance the sound" while studio monitor speakers are designed so that
> you hear "what is really there".
Sweeping generalisations are not unknown to occur in magazines. :-)
> But there is more..they say "..even modestly priced monitors will give
> you a more accurate picture of what you are hearing,"
...as above. :-)
> I'm puzzled, I thought the whole idea of hi-fi was to reproduce
> accurately what was recorded.
...or in some cases may mean, 'produce a result that the customers (or
reviewers) like and cause them to buy (recommend).' :-)
> Why should "modestly priced monitors" be
> better ?
Might be best if you asked the person who wrote the assertions in the
magazine to explain.
> Comments please ?
Don't believe everything you read in magazines?...
More seriously, you'd have to get them define *which* 'monitor' or 'hifi'
speakers they are on about, what they mean by 'enhance', etc. A genuine
studio monitor might be designed to cope with things like sustained
ultra-high power levels, be rugged and survive rough treatment that might
damage domestic designs, be designed for a nearfield listening environment,
etc. ... or not. Similarly, there is large variety of 'hifi speakers'.
Ditto for kinds of music being recorded, replayed, etc. Are they thinking
of teenagers with cheap recording gear in their bedroom, or of large studio
recordings of classical music, etc.
Do they list any of the speakers they have in mind, or report any of the
comparison tests they did to reach their opinions? if so, judge on that
basis. If not, regard it as a sweeping opinion on their part that may or
may not be useful in any given case. :-)
Slainte,
Jim
--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Eiron
> Yeah, strange that the BBC seem to have a lot of Bose speakers then...
> Brian
Which ones?
--
Eiron.
Dave Plowman (News)
Brian Gaff <Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Yeah, strange that the BBC seem to have a lot of Bose speakers then...
Used for monitoring? Not in my experience. They were used for things like
foldback or PA.
--
*It's not hard to meet expenses... they're everywhere.
Serge Auckland
"TonyL" <TonyLacyR...@Nu-Ware.com> wrote in message
news:G9udnZkSVtlOEC_U...@bt.com...
A similar question (what are monitor speakers) was asked on another Forum,
and here was my reply:-
The term "monitor" can mean several things:- It can be a loudspeaker of
extremely high quality on which you can make judgements about audio quality,
equalisation, compression etc. It should be as accurate as possible, so that
whatever decisions are made about changing the sound of a recording
shouldn't reflect the character of the 'speaker. Main monitors of this sort
tend to be large, whether floor standing or soffit mounted.
The second use of the term, sometimes also called near-field monitors, are
small, good quality loudspeakers, typical of what will be used by home
listeners, and on which you can check that the mix you created on the main
monitors will also sound reasonable on "real-world" loudspeakers. They are
also often used in production areas, edit suites etc as convenient small but
decent loudspeakers on which to work.
The third use of the word "monitor" is a small, low quality loudspeaker used
just to make sure there is a signal there, and that what you're listening to
is what you expect it to be. These can be 1U rack-mount units, talking
bricks, or the small Fostex units which you see everywhere on people's desks
in broadcast organisations, music companies etc.
The BBC had Grade 1, Grade 2 and Grade 3/ungraded for the above categories.
To which somebody also added a fourth meaning, that of loudspeakers on stage
so musicians can hear themselves.
Consequently, the term "monitor" can mean whatever you want it to mean!
S.
Iain Churches
> TonyL <TonyLacyR...@Nu-Ware.com> wrote:
>> I sometimes read a magazine called Computer Music, aimed at wanabee and
>> real music "producers" to use the current vernacular. In this mag I
>> keep seeing references to monitor speakers being preferable to hi-fi
>> speakers. The line they take is that hi-fi speakers are designed to
>> "enhance the sound" while studio monitor speakers are designed so that
>> you hear "what is really there".
>
>> But there is more..they say "..even modestly priced monitors will give
>> you a more accurate picture of what you are hearing,"
>
>> I'm puzzled, I thought the whole idea of hi-fi was to reproduce
>> accurately what was recorded. Why should "modestly priced monitors" be
>> better ? Comments please ?
>
> No simple answer. Plenty of speakers originally designed as monitors end
> up on the domestic market - the BBC designed ones being one example. And
> some domestic designs end up as being a de facto standard for pro use as
> 'average quality' monitoring.
>
> The most accurate speakers by some margin would be the Quad electrostatic
> designs - but these were rarely used as studio monitors.
Decca had a magnificientr pair of the black Quad ELS
(the prof version wiv 'andles on!) donated by Peter Walker.
They were OK in the listening room, but hopeless for control
room monitoring. The concensus was that the mids were
beautiful but the LF weak (comparted with Tannoy or JBL)
and, most important of all, the sweet spot was *far* too narrow.
Iain
Rob
I'd imagine it all got rather intimate in those studios that had ESLs
Eeyore
TonyL wrote:
> I sometimes read a magazine called Computer Music, aimed at wanabee and real
> music "producers" to use the current vernacular. In this mag I keep seeing
> references to monitor speakers being preferable to hi-fi speakers. The line
> they take is that hi-fi speakers are designed to "enhance the sound" while
> studio monitor speakers are designed so that you hear "what is really
> there".
>
> But there is more..they say "..even modestly priced monitors will give you a
> more accurate picture of what you are hearing,"
>
> I'm puzzled, I thought the whole idea of hi-fi was to reproduce accurately
> what was recorded.
WRONG ! It's intended to flatter the ear.
A good *monitor* will make a great mix shine and a crap mix sound crap.That's
its job.
Graham
Eeyore
TonyL wrote:
> So, is there anything fundamentally different about studio monitors ?
Yes, they're designed to be consistent and very accurate. You might HATE a
monitor.
Graham
Eeyore
Serge Auckland wrote:
> The term "monitor" can mean several things:- It can be a loudspeaker of
> extremely high quality on which you can make judgements about audio quality,
> equalisation, compression etc. It should be as accurate as possible, so that
> whatever decisions are made about changing the sound of a recording
> shouldn't reflect the character of the 'speaker. Main monitors of this sort
> tend to be large, whether floor standing or soffit mounted.
And will also typically be used for 5.1 mixes etc.
> The second use of the term, sometimes also called near-field monitors, are
> small, good quality loudspeakers, typical of what will be used by home
> listeners, and on which you can check that the mix you created on the main
> monitors will also sound reasonable on "real-world" loudspeakers. They are
> also often used in production areas, edit suites etc as convenient small but
> decent loudspeakers on which to work.
You may come across more than one set of near field monitors in a studio.
For example at Neve, the V Series consoles I used to work on had push-button
selection for top-quality main monitors, near-fields such as you mention above
and 'mini monitors'. Auratones were once popular for this. The objective being
to see what the mix would sound like on a pretty low-fi system.
http://singledriver.blogspot.com/2007/06/auratone-5c.html
< snip >
> To which somebody also added a fourth meaning, that of loudspeakers on stage
> so musicians can hear themselves.
Which are VERY different again. Sound quality takes distinctly 2nd place to
producing high SPL.
Graham
Eeyore
Brian Gaff wrote:
> Yeah, strange that the BBC seem to have a lot of Bose speakers then...
They do ? News to me.
Graham
Dave Plowman (News)
Iain Churches <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
> > The most accurate speakers by some margin would be the Quad
> > electrostatic designs - but these were rarely used as studio monitors.
> Decca had a magnificientr pair of the black Quad ELS (the prof version
> wiv 'andles on!) donated by Peter Walker.
> They were OK in the listening room, but hopeless for control
> room monitoring.
Indeed. You need something more robust for that. And usually capable of
much higher SPL.
> The concensus was that the mids were
> beautiful but the LF weak (comparted with Tannoy or JBL)
The LF isn't 'weak' - or at least not in a decent room - but not as
extended as would be the norm. They have a pretty sharp cutoff below 42 Hz.
> and, most important of all, the sweet spot was *far* too narrow.
That could be a problem in a control room with loads of people, I suppose.
But even the best monitors tend to have a sweet spot.
I believe ABC TV originally using them at Teddington Studios and actually
built them in to a 'baffle' along with the picture monitors. Thus reducing
the output even more and doing gawd knows what to the response. Quickly
replaced by BBC LS5/1.
--
*The most wasted day of all is one in which we have not laughed.*
Dave Plowman (News)
Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Yeah, strange that the BBC seem to have a lot of Bose speakers then...
> They do ? News to me.
I doubt they still have them, but they were popular for pop foldback etc
in the '70s. Not the domestic ones with rear firing speakers, though, but
ones designed for this sort of thing. They were very good in their day.
Electrovoice took over the torch from them. Dunno what the flavour of
the month is now.
--
*A chicken crossing the road is poultry in motion.*
Adrian C
Dunno what the flavour of
> the month is now.
PMC?
--
Adrian C
Dave Plowman (News)
Adrian C <em...@here.invalid> wrote:
> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> Dunno what the flavour of
> > the month is now.
> PMC?
> <http://www.pmc-speakers.com>
They wouldn't last 5 minutes for foldback use.
--
*We waste time, so you don't have to *
Adrian C
> In article <71j4t0F...@mid.individual.net>,
> Adrian C <em...@here.invalid> wrote:
>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>> Dunno what the flavour of
>>> the month is now.
>
>> PMC?
>
>> <http://www.pmc-speakers.com>
>
> They wouldn't last 5 minutes for foldback use.
>
Ahhhh... Opps ;-)
--
Adrian C
Eeyore
Adrian C wrote:
> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> Dunno what the flavour of
> > the month is now.
>
> PMC?
>
> <http://www.pmc-speakers.com>
Those are monitors, not foldback. Damn fine product too btw.
Graham
Iain Churches
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:49B42424...@hotmail.com...
> A good *monitor* will make a great mix shine and a crap mix sound
> crap.That's
> its job.
>
Yes. That's their strength. In addition, very few
domestic listening rooms have the acoustic treatment
found in a studo control or listening room. The
speaker/room interface is critical. And there
are not many homes where one can play at
studio levels (without your neighbour
beating on your door with a Purdey.
Iain
Iain Churches
> In article <1iUsl.899$9v4...@uutiset.elisa.fi>,
> Iain Churches <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>> > The most accurate speakers by some margin would be the Quad
>> > electrostatic designs - but these were rarely used as studio monitors.
>
>
>> Decca had a magnificientr pair of the black Quad ELS (the prof version
>> wiv 'andles on!) donated by Peter Walker.
>
>> They were OK in the listening room, but hopeless for control
>> room monitoring.
>
> Indeed. You need something more robust for that. And usually capable of
> much higher SPL.
Yes. I would have been afraid of breaking them just doing a drum check:-)
>> The concensus was that the mids were
>> beautiful but the LF weak (comparted with Tannoy or JBL)
>
> The LF isn't 'weak' - or at least not in a decent room - but not as
> extended as would be the norm. They have a pretty sharp cutoff below 42
> Hz.
When I was a 2E we carried the ELS down to studio III for some
tests. The general concensus was that the bass was weak, compared with
JBL, Tannoy, Lockwood etc etc. The bass drum sound was very odd,
no "thump" at all, just lots of "whack" as someone described it.
>> and, most important of all, the sweet spot was *far* too narrow.
Even with three at a large format console it was a problem. The
producer had to sit behind the engineer.
>
> That could be a problem in a control room with loads of people, I suppose.
> But even the best monitors tend to have a sweet spot.
Yes of course, but to nothing like the same extent.
Iain
Iain Churches
"Rob" <patchoulia...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:q4Vsl.4589$Lc7....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
Never saw a studio that had them:-) Many listenng rooms did though,
where the client sat alone or just with the engineer or producer. At Decca
there were two chairs in the listening room placed on behind the other.
Dave Plowman (News)
Iain Churches <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
> > The LF isn't 'weak' - or at least not in a decent room - but not as
> > extended as would be the norm. They have a pretty sharp cutoff below 42
> > Hz.
> When I was a 2E we carried the ELS down to studio III for some
> tests. The general concensus was that the bass was weak, compared with
> JBL, Tannoy, Lockwood etc etc. The bass drum sound was very odd,
> no "thump" at all, just lots of "whack" as someone described it.
I'm afraid that's because you were used to the sound from those cabinet
speakers where the boxes have a voice of their own. Good deep male speech
proves it - an ELS is far more natural.
Tannoys and Lockwoods - which used the same drivers - were never known for
their neutrality. Fine speakers though they were.
--
*Change is inevitable ... except from vending machines *
Dave Plowman (News)
Iain Churches <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:49B42424...@hotmail.com...
> > A good *monitor* will make a great mix shine and a crap mix sound
> > crap.That's its job.
> Yes. That's their strength. In addition, very few domestic listening
> rooms have the acoustic treatment found in a studo control or listening
> room. The speaker/room interface is critical.
It's something that can't be emphasised enough. Half decent speakers in a
good acoustic will sound many times better than the very best in a poor
one. And the current trend for bare wood floors does no favours to sound.
The best room I ever heard was the old chapel at BBC Wood Norton Hall -
shaped like a small church so few standing waves to start with then
heavily treated. The soundstage was positively amazing. Never heard
anything near as good in any control room which are usually too small.
> And there are not many homes where one can play at studio levels
> (without your neighbour beating on your door with a Purdey.
Although the levels some pop balancers use can damage your hearing...
--
*A bartender is just a pharmacist with a limited inventory *
Iain Churches
> In article <X64tl.1029$9v4...@uutiset.elisa.fi>,
> Iain Churches <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>> > The LF isn't 'weak' - or at least not in a decent room - but not as
>> > extended as would be the norm. They have a pretty sharp cutoff below 42
>> > Hz.
>
>> When I was a 2E we carried the ELS down to studio III for some
>> tests. The general concensus was that the bass was weak, compared with
>> JBL, Tannoy, Lockwood etc etc. The bass drum sound was very odd,
>> no "thump" at all, just lots of "whack" as someone described it.
>
> I'm afraid that's because you were used to the sound from those cabinet
> speakers where the boxes have a voice of their own. Good deep male speech
> proves it - an ELS is far more natural.
I did several spoken word albums for Argo with Richard Burton, and also
many sessions with Sir John Gielgud, and the wonderful Michael Hordern
- maybe the ELS would have been good for those!
But,. as mentioned above, they did not meet anyone' expectations
in pop recording, due probably as you say to the familiarity with
infinite baffled and ported enclosures. In addition, one gained the
impression that the ELS was much too fragile for a Ginger Baker
bass drum:-)
> Tannoys and Lockwoods - which used the same drivers - were never known for
> their neutrality. Fine speakers though they were.
They were used because they met the expectations of producer,
engineer, client and musician. You can't ask much more than
that, can you?
Iain
Eeyore
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
> Iain Churches <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
> > > The LF isn't 'weak' - or at least not in a decent room - but not as
> > > extended as would be the norm. They have a pretty sharp cutoff below 42
> > > Hz.
>
> > When I was a 2E we carried the ELS down to studio III for some
> > tests. The general concensus was that the bass was weak, compared with
> > JBL, Tannoy, Lockwood etc etc. The bass drum sound was very odd,
> > no "thump" at all, just lots of "whack" as someone described it.
>
> I'm afraid that's because you were used to the sound from those cabinet
> speakers where the boxes have a voice of their own. Good deep male speech
> proves it - an ELS is far more natural.
>
> Tannoys and Lockwoods - which used the same drivers - were never known for
> their neutrality. Fine speakers though they were.
You do know Lockwood started off as coffin makers ? Agreed about the lack of
neutrality. The Monitor Golds never sounded as clean as the older Reds to me. I
really didn't like the Golds at all.
Graham
TonyL
>>
>> I'm puzzled, I thought the whole idea of hi-fi was to reproduce
>> accurately what was recorded. Why should "modestly priced monitors"
>> be better ? Comments please ?
>>
>
> of extremely high quality on which you can make judgements about
> audio quality, equalisation, compression etc. It should be as
> accurate as possible, so that whatever decisions are made about
> changing the sound of a recording shouldn't reflect the character of
> the 'speaker. Main monitors of this sort tend to be large, whether
> floor standing or soffit mounted.
OK, I'm getting the idea now from yours and others comments.
Apart from saying they are extremely high quality, rugged, acoustically
transparent etc. What do the numbers say ? In other words...what would you
read in the specs. that would show that speaker A is best as a studio
monitor whereas speaker B is better in a real-world listening situation ?
Don Pearce
Unfortunately the bare numbers for speakers don't tell you a great
deal. Sure they will give you a rough idea of the frequency response
on axis, but that is probably ten percent of the story. It is the
off-axis response that reacts with the room generally and determines
things that have been talked about already - the size and nature of
the sweet spot, for example. It is the control of all the peripheral
details that sets the monitor apart from a run-of-the-mill speaker.
Choice of monitor depends on the size of the control room, the width
of the desk and in some cases personal choice. If the engineer knows
he has a tendency to mix too bright (yes, people will have told him),
he can choose a bright monitor, knowing that a mix to his taste on
this monitor will result in a well-balanced product. For organizations
like the BBC, where four or five engineers might use a room in a
single day, a good flat average is the thing to choose.
d
Eeyore
TonyL wrote:
To be honest as Don says, the numbers typically found tell very little.
Let's just say certain *brands* are known as monitors ( and you're unlikely to
see them in hi-fi shops as a rule ) and others aren't. A LOT of it is
reputation too.
Graham
Iain Churches
>
>
> "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
>
>> Iain Churches <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>> > > The LF isn't 'weak' - or at least not in a decent room - but not as
>> > > extended as would be the norm. They have a pretty sharp cutoff below
>> > > 42
>> > > Hz.
>>
>> > When I was a 2E we carried the ELS down to studio III for some
>> > tests. The general concensus was that the bass was weak, compared with
>> > JBL, Tannoy, Lockwood etc etc. The bass drum sound was very odd,
>> > no "thump" at all, just lots of "whack" as someone described it.
>>
>> I'm afraid that's because you were used to the sound from those cabinet
>> speakers where the boxes have a voice of their own. Good deep male speech
>> proves it - an ELS is far more natural.
>>
>> Tannoys and Lockwoods - which used the same drivers - were never known
>> for
>> their neutrality. Fine speakers though they were.
>
> You do know Lockwood started off as coffin makers ?
Yes:-) I went to their factory in Harrow a couple of times.
They used the same handles on the Lockwood Major cabs
as they had previously used on the coffins.
One of my pals at Island Studios used to knock on the top
of the cabinet and in a Pink Floyd voice say: "Is there anybody
IN there?"
Iain
Arny Krueger
"TonyL" <TonyLacyR...@Nu-Ware.com> wrote in message
> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>
>>> I'm puzzled, I thought the whole idea of hi-fi was to reproduce
>>> accurately what was recorded. Why should "modestly priced monitors"
>>> be better ? Comments please ?
>>
>> end up on the domestic market - the BBC designed ones being one
>> example. And some domestic designs end up as being a de facto
>> standard for pro use as 'average quality' monitoring.
>> The most accurate speakers by some margin would be the Quad
>> electrostatic designs - but these were rarely used as studio monitors.
Cost, size, placement requirements, limited dynamic range.
> So, is there anything fundamentally different about studio monitors ? Are
> they not just high spec. speakers...or sold as such ?
There are actually two markets for studio monitors. There are small monitors
designed to be used close up, and there are large monitors designed to fill
or even blast a good-sized control room.
There are a number of different uses for studio monitors being tracking,
mixing and mastering. Each usage might be ideally met by a different
speaker.
IME studio monitors tend to have more dynamic range and stronger response
above 2 KHz than similar home speakers.
Home speakers are often designed to sound good with a wide range of
recordings, while studio monitors are often designed to make problematic
recordings sound really problematical. They aren't so much for listening
enjoyment as technical analysis.
Small studio monitors are often designed to be listened to at close range,
so the accuracy of their on-axis frequency response may be a higher
priority, as opposed to their response in the reverberant field.
Speakers like the Quad electrostats have not been widely accepted as studio
monitors due to their size, cost, placement requirement, and perhaps
somewhat limited dynamic range. They are a little more widely accepted for
mastering.
Dave Plowman (News)
Iain Churches <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
> > I'm afraid that's because you were used to the sound from those
> > cabinet speakers where the boxes have a voice of their own. Good deep
> > male speech proves it - an ELS is far more natural.
> I did several spoken word albums for Argo with Richard Burton, and also
> many sessions with Sir John Gielgud, and the wonderful Michael Hordern
> - maybe the ELS would have been good for those!
It certainly would. I've been to several speaker comparisons where the
speakers are hidden and on speech no moving coil unit came close to the
ELS on a live versus recorded comparison. The same with most single
acoustic instruments too.
> But,. as mentioned above, they did not meet anyone' expectations
> in pop recording, due probably as you say to the familiarity with
> infinite baffled and ported enclosures. In addition, one gained the
> impression that the ELS was much too fragile for a Ginger Baker
> bass drum:-)
Absolutely - but it was really designed for domestic use. Provided it's
working within its maximum SPL it will sound good on near anything. Add a
sub and you could say everything.
> > Tannoys and Lockwoods - which used the same drivers - were never known
> > for their neutrality. Fine speakers though they were.
> They were used because they met the expectations of producer,
> engineer, client and musician. You can't ask much more than
> that, can you?
Yes - as with much the badge is the most important thing. I'm not much of
a Tannoy fan - despite having owned a couple of pairs. Autographs and
Yorks.
--
*The longest recorded flightof a chicken is thirteen seconds *
Dave Plowman (News)
TonyL <TonyLacyR...@Nu-Ware.com> wrote:
> Apart from saying they are extremely high quality, rugged, acoustically
> transparent etc. What do the numbers say ? In other words...what would
> you read in the specs. that would show that speaker A is best as a
> studio monitor whereas speaker B is better in a real-world listening
> situation ?
Often, the badge. Or pedigree if you prefer.
--
*Corduroy pillows are making headlines.
Dave Plowman (News)
Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Tannoys and Lockwoods - which used the same drivers - were never known
> > for their neutrality. Fine speakers though they were.
> You do know Lockwood started off as coffin makers ?
They also made cabinets for the BBC long before making speakers in their
own right.
> Agreed about the lack of neutrality. The Monitor Golds never sounded as
> clean as the older Reds to me. I really didn't like the Golds at all.
Yup - and Tannoy dropped the gold name going back to red.
--
*He who laughs last has just realised the joke.
Arny Krueger
"Brian Gaff" <Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:H3Msl.4302$Lc7...@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> Yeah, strange that the BBC seem to have a lot of Bose speakers then...
> Brian
I think you are referring to the fact that the LS3/5a had small drivers in a
small box.
The comparison fails on numerous grounds.
The LS3/5a had a dedicated tweeter - very un-Bose like.
If memory serves, the LS3/5a predated the Bose 901 by a number of years -
maybe 5 or 8.
The LS3/5a lacked active equalization. On balance, the LS3/5a passive
crossover was complex and performed some equalization functions.
The LS3/5a was designed for close-up listening, and did not depend on the
room to bounce sound around.
The LS3/5a was designed for accurate on-axis frequency response, despite
its lack of deep bass.
Iain Churches
> In article <vPidnf9WPbcjcSnU...@bt.com>,
> TonyL <TonyLacyR...@Nu-Ware.com> wrote:
>> Apart from saying they are extremely high quality, rugged, acoustically
>> transparent etc. What do the numbers say ? In other words...what would
>> you read in the specs. that would show that speaker A is best as a
>> studio monitor whereas speaker B is better in a real-world listening
>> situation ?
>
> Often, the badge. Or pedigree if you prefer.
Some clients I knew would not book a controlroom that
coulkd not offer Altecs or JBL's. These days, people often
*insist* on Genelec - it's what they know. And, as they are
paying the bill, I guess they have the right to insist:-)
Iain
Iain Churches
>
I'm not much of
> a Tannoy fan - despite having owned a couple of pairs. Autographs and
> Yorks.
Neither of those rate very highly in the Tannoy range IMO.
The old Lancaster was good, also the old (and new) Canterbury.
The Westminster is wonderful. But so was the Little Red Monitor.
albeit in a different class.
Iain
Dave Plowman (News)
Iain Churches <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
> "Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:50394b5...@davenoise.co.uk...
> >
> I'm not much of
> > a Tannoy fan - despite having owned a couple of pairs. Autographs and
> > Yorks.
> Neither of those rate very highly in the Tannoy range IMO.
Quite possibly.
> The old
> Lancaster was good,
Didn't much like those - in 15" form at least.
> also the old (and new) Canterbury. The Westminster
> is wonderful.
Haven't heard either.
> But so was the Little Red Monitor. albeit in a different
> class.
There we must differ. Absolutely hate the things, despite their
popularity. Perhaps I just dislike large speakers in small boxes.
--
*Always remember you're unique, just like everyone else.
tony sayer
>
>"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:50390cd...@davenoise.co.uk...
>> In article <1iUsl.899$9v4...@uutiset.elisa.fi>,
>> Iain Churches <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>>> > The most accurate speakers by some margin would be the Quad
>>> > electrostatic designs - but these were rarely used as studio monitors.
>>
>>
>>> Decca had a magnificientr pair of the black Quad ELS (the prof version
>>> wiv 'andles on!) donated by Peter Walker.
>>
>>> They were OK in the listening room, but hopeless for control
>>> room monitoring.
>>
>> Indeed. You need something more robust for that. And usually capable of
>> much higher SPL.
>
>Yes. I would have been afraid of breaking them just doing a drum check:-)
>
>>> The concensus was that the mids were
>>> beautiful but the LF weak (comparted with Tannoy or JBL)
>>
>> The LF isn't 'weak' - or at least not in a decent room - but not as
>> extended as would be the norm. They have a pretty sharp cutoff below 42
>> Hz.
>
>When I was a 2E we carried the ELS down to studio III for some
>tests. The general concensus was that the bass was weak,
Was that the 57 ELS?..
--
Tony Sayer
David Looser
news:NvednRbVN58PjCjU...@giganews.com...
>
>
> IME studio monitors tend to have more dynamic range
I wonder what you mean by "more dynamic range" in the context of
loudspeakers. Is this simply a euphemism for "can make a lot of noise"?
David.
Iain Churches
"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MI6wsFLm...@bancom.co.uk...
No. The later "pro" version intended for USA export IIRC.
Black with handles on the side.
Iain
Jim Lesurf
<Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
> "Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:5039408...@davenoise.co.uk...
> But,. as mentioned above, they did not meet anyone' expectations in pop
> recording, due probably as you say to the familiarity with infinite
> baffled and ported enclosures. In addition, one gained the impression
> that the ELS was much too fragile for a Ginger Baker bass drum:-)
They can be OK for that - but only at limited sound pressure levels in a
small enough room. So not a very 'safe' choice for such a task I guess in
pop studios. Hence suitable for careful home use, but probably not for use
at sound levels that try to match the orginal for such a source. :-)
> > Tannoys and Lockwoods - which used the same drivers - were never known
> > for their neutrality. Fine speakers though they were.
> They were used because they met the expectations of producer, engineer,
> client and musician. You can't ask much more than that, can you?
That seems fine given that the people using them have presumably gained
experience in 'calibrating' the change in sound between what they hear when
at work using these, and what the results then tend to be with domestic
systems.
Slainte,
Jim
--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Arny Krueger
"David Looser" <david....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:71kuc8F...@mid.individual.net...
>> IME studio monitors tend to have more dynamic range
> I wonder what you mean by "more dynamic range" in the context of
> loudspeakers.
Get loud, clean.
> Is this simply a euphemism for "can make a lot of noise"?
No, the sound needs to meet a purity standard.
Arny Krueger
"UnsteadyKen" <unstead...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.241f5e892...@news.btinternet.com...
> Iain Churches wrote...
>
>> When I was a 2E we carried the ELS down to studio III for some
>> tests. The general concensus was that the bass was weak, compared with
>> JBL, Tannoy, Lockwood etc etc. The bass drum sound was very odd,
>> no "thump" at all, just lots of "whack" as someone described it.
>
> produced then one could kick a cardboard box in time to the music.
>
Walker was a bit of a chauvinist about his own products. ;-)
David Looser
So yes, your caveat notwithstanding, you are just talking about "loud". So
really "dynamic range" is not the most appropriate phrase to use, because
dynamic range refers to the difference between loud and quiet, and you are
not talking about quiet.
As a rule I prefer to reserve the term "dynamic range" to programme
material, not equipment. And the sort of use you are have made of it is why.
David.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Arny Krueger
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:6P6dnbrHiu0X0CjU...@giganews.com...
>>
>> "David Looser" <david....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:71kuc8F...@mid.individual.net...
>>> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>>> news:NvednRbVN58PjCjU...@giganews.com...
>>
>>>> IME studio monitors tend to have more dynamic range
>>
>>> I wonder what you mean by "more dynamic range" in the context of
>>> loudspeakers.
>>
>> Get loud, clean.
>>
>>> Is this simply a euphemism for "can make a lot of noise"?
>> No, the sound needs to meet a purity standard.
> So yes, your caveat notwithstanding, you are just talking about "loud". So
> really "dynamic range" is not the most appropriate phrase to use, because
> dynamic range refers to the difference between loud and quiet, and you are
> not talking about quiet.
That's a point that I think is moderately well taken.
> As a rule I prefer to reserve the term "dynamic range" to programme
> material, not equipment. And the sort of use you are have made of it is
> why.
Dynamic range is clearly defined for audio equipment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range
"Dynamic range in analog audio is the difference between low-level thermal
noise in the electronic circuitry and high-level signal saturation resulting
in increased distortion and, if pushed higher, clipping.[2] "
In the case of speakers, the logical low level noise level would be set by
human hearing at 0 dB SPL, or the "room tone" of the room the speaker is
used in. Since both values are the same for all speakers being compared to
each other in a fair way, dynamic range in a given room could be a logical
means for comparison.
David Looser
That's SNR, it seems pointless to also call it "dynamic range". Programme
material doesn't have a SNR, but it *does* have a dynamic range (the ratio
of the quietest to the loudest wanted signal) and it just seems logical to
me to reserve one term for programme, and the other for equipment.
>
David.
Iain Churches
"Jim Lesurf" <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5039618...@audiomisc.co.uk...
> In article <2B5tl.1053$9v4...@uutiset.elisa.fi>, Iain Churches
> <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>
>> "Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:5039408...@davenoise.co.uk...
>
>
>> But,. as mentioned above, they did not meet anyone' expectations in pop
>> recording, due probably as you say to the familiarity with infinite
>> baffled and ported enclosures. In addition, one gained the impression
>> that the ELS was much too fragile for a Ginger Baker bass drum:-)
>
> They can be OK for that - but only at limited sound pressure levels in a
> small enough room. So not a very 'safe' choice for such a task I guess in
> pop studios.
Much depends on the recording engineer's routine and way of
working. Most have mics rigged and tested and the desk set up with
all routing established before the players arrive. We were taught to
place the faders at about unity gain, but turn the mic presets to minimum
to prevent "surprises"
I certainly would not take a chance with them, any more than I
would use a high-value condenser mic at the other end of the chain,
inside and within 2cms of the front head the bass drum:-)
> Hence suitable for careful home use, but probably not for use
> at sound levels that try to match the orginal for such a source. :-)
Agreed. I would be terrified of using ELS on anything but the most
gentile and dignified of Baroque sessions:-) But I can see they they
might/could have a place in mastering facilities or listening rooms.
Iain
Arny Krueger
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range
> That's SNR,
Pretty much.
> it seems pointless to also call it "dynamic range".
I didn't make up the lexicon of audio. ;-)
In audio interfaces, the portion of the dynamic range calculation referred
to above as "thermal noise" is increased by any nonlinear distortion created
by a -60 dB 1 KHz sine wave stimulus tone. Since loudspeakers are usually
very linear at such low levels, the stimulus won't add much.
Dynamic range and SNR are very closely related.
> Programme material doesn't have a SNR, but it *does* have a dynamic range
> (the ratio of the quietest to the loudest wanted signal) and it just seems
> logical to me to reserve one term for programme, and the other for
> equipment.
Your idea is certainly not illogical, but it is simply not how things have
evolved.
David Looser
>
>
> I didn't make up the lexicon of audio. ;-)
Maybe not, but you choose to use it. And I have never before met the term
"dynamic range" applied to loudspeakers, so as far as I am concerned in this
context you did make it up.
>
David.
Phil Allison
"David Looser"
> "Arny Krueger"
>
>>
>> IME studio monitors tend to have more dynamic range
>
> I wonder what you mean by "more dynamic range" in the context of
> loudspeakers. Is this simply a euphemism for "can make a lot of noise"?
** Not a "euphemism" exactly - but another irritating example of Arny's
addiction to meaningless "purple prose".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_prose
Arny is a self confessed compewter geek ( and born again Jesus freak ) - so
he does not inform.
He just manipulates the data.
..... Phil
Phil Allison
"Arny Krueger"
> "David Looser"
>> "Arny Krueger"
>
>>> IME studio monitors tend to have more dynamic range
>
>> I wonder what you mean by "more dynamic range" in the context of
>> loudspeakers.
>
> Get loud, clean.
>
>> Is this simply a euphemism for "can make a lot of noise"?
>
> No, the sound needs to meet a purity standard.
** By that definition, the Quad ESL57s and 63s etc have the largest "
dynamic range" of any speaker available.
Assuming that Arny's purple prose use of the word " purity " is not an
allusion to his pseudo-religious concepts.
.... Phil
Phil Allison
"David Looser"
"Arny Krueger"
>
>> Dynamic range is clearly defined for audio equipment:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range
>>
>> "Dynamic range in analog audio is the difference between low-level
>> thermal noise in the electronic circuitry and high-level signal
>> saturation resulting in increased distortion and, if pushed higher,
>> clipping.[2] "
>
> That's SNR,
** Nope.
The above wiki quote defines the POTENTIAL maximum range of signal levels
over which an item of CAN operate.
SNR is the actual range encountered in some particular real or defined
circumstance.
> Programme material doesn't have a SNR,
** It often does.
Recordings can have noisy or quiet backgrounds.
...... Phil
Phil Allison
"David Looser"
> "Arny Krueger"
>> I didn't make up the lexicon of audio. ;-)
** What Arny failed to mention is that HIS version of the lexicon derives
from forums full of audiophool fuckwits like " rec.audio opinion ".
> Maybe not, but you choose to use it.
** Straight from rubbish tip to you - delivered by Arny the compewter
geek.
> And I have never before met the term "dynamic range" applied to
> loudspeakers,
** It is a hot favourite among pompous Yank audiophools with chronic verbal
diarrhoea.
> so as far as I am concerned in this context you did make it up.
** Ridiculous false logic.
..... Phil
Dave Plowman (News)
Arny Krueger <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> IME studio monitors tend to have more dynamic range and stronger
> response above 2 KHz than similar home speakers.
Not any of those I like - perhaps that's why I so dislike the Little Red
Tannoys. I balance for what I hear - and having over bright speakers means
the end result would be dull. And having to listen to over bright speakers
is terribly tiring. But of course I'm referring to GP monitors rather than
pop ones. Indeed, early BBC designs had a deliberate mid range suck out to
counteract the results of close micing.
--
*I'm already visualizing the duct tape over your mouth
Arny Krueger
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:3sGdnbg3O__K7CjU...@giganews.com...
>>
>>
>> I didn't make up the lexicon of audio. ;-)
>
> Maybe not, but you choose to use it.
Just like I choose to primarily read/write English of the 6 languages that I
am fluent in! ;-)
> And I have never before met the term "dynamic range" applied to
> loudspeakers, so as far as I am concerned in this context you did make it
> up.
Thank whatever you will. I've used the term many times and never been
challenged until today. I'll probably keep on using it...
Phil Allison
"Arny Krueger"
"David Looser"
> "Arny Krueger"
>>>
>>
>> Maybe not, but you choose to use it.
>
> Just like I choose to primarily read/write English of the 6 languages that
> I am fluent in! ;-)
>
>> And I have never before met the term "dynamic range" applied to
>> loudspeakers, so as far as I am concerned in this context you did make it
>> up.
>
> Thank whatever you will. I've used the term many times and never been
> challenged until today.
** Since you have no valid case to justify such nonsensical use - it's
high time to quit.
I'll probably keep on using it...
** Like the smug, Septic shithead you are - naturally.
..... Phil
Eeyore
Iain Churches wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
> >> Iain Churches <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
> >> > > The LF isn't 'weak' - or at least not in a decent room - but not as
> >> > > extended as would be the norm. They have a pretty sharp cutoff below
> >> > > 42
> >> > > Hz.
> >>
> >> > When I was a 2E we carried the ELS down to studio III for some
> >> > tests. The general concensus was that the bass was weak, compared with
> >> > JBL, Tannoy, Lockwood etc etc. The bass drum sound was very odd,
> >> > no "thump" at all, just lots of "whack" as someone described it.
> >>
> >> I'm afraid that's because you were used to the sound from those cabinet
> >> speakers where the boxes have a voice of their own. Good deep male speech
> >> proves it - an ELS is far more natural.
> >>
> >> Tannoys and Lockwoods - which used the same drivers - were never known
> >> for
> >> their neutrality. Fine speakers though they were.
> >
> > You do know Lockwood started off as coffin makers ?
>
> Yes:-) I went to their factory in Harrow a couple of times.
> They used the same handles on the Lockwood Major cabs
> as they had previously used on the coffins.
>
> One of my pals at Island Studios used to knock on the top
> of the cabinet and in a Pink Floyd voice say: "Is there anybody
> IN there?"
That's classic ! :~)
Graham
Iain Churches
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:49B5F163...@hotmail.com...
>> > You do know Lockwood started off as coffin makers ?
>>
>> Yes:-) I went to their factory in Harrow a couple of times.
>> They used the same handles on the Lockwood Major cabs
>> as they had previously used on the coffins.
>>
>> One of my pals at Island Studios used to knock on the top
>> of the cabinet and in a Pink Floyd voice say: "Is there anybody
>> IN there?"
>
> That's classic ! :~)
>
> Graham
It alway got a laugh:-)
Iain
Adrian C
> You do know Lockwood started off as coffin makers ?
http://www.lockwoodaudio.co.uk
only sez...
"The original Lockwood Company was formed in 1929 in Harrow,
specialising in display cabinets for museums and embassies in many
countries"
Well, I s'pose a coffin is a type of display case ... :-)
--
Adrian C
Dave Plowman (News)
Adrian C <em...@here.invalid> wrote:
> > You do know Lockwood started off as coffin makers ?
> http://www.lockwoodaudio.co.uk
> only sez...
> "The original Lockwood Company was formed in 1929 in Harrow,
> specialising in display cabinets for museums and embassies in many
> countries"
I first heard of them as makers of studio furniture for the BBC - things
like the wood casing for control desks etc. They also made the cabinets
(or some of them) for the LSU10. It wasn't put about then they were coffin
makers.
--
*Always remember you're unique, just like everyone else.
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
Don Pearce
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <71nnhcF...@mid.individual.net>,
> Adrian C <em...@here.invalid> wrote:
>> > You do know Lockwood started off as coffin makers ?
>
>> http://www.lockwoodaudio.co.uk
>
>> only sez...
>
>> "The original Lockwood Company was formed in 1929 in Harrow,
>> specialising in display cabinets for museums and embassies in many
>> countries"
>
>I first heard of them as makers of studio furniture for the BBC - things
>like the wood casing for control desks etc. They also made the cabinets
>(or some of them) for the LSU10. It wasn't put about then they were coffin
>makers.
Nice steady work though - you can see why they would do it (and why
they wouldn't necessarily talk about it to other customers too).
d
Iain Churches
"Adrian C" <em...@here.invalid> wrote in message
news:71nnhcF...@mid.individual.net...
They also made very high quality broadcast and studio
furniture, console housings etc, so speaker cabinets were
probably a logical step for them, at a time before Tannoy
had a professional products division.
Iain
Iain Churches
"Don Pearce" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:49b8b0a5.897928093@localhost...
I wonder if they hired a skeleton staff.
Ouch!
Iain
Dave Plowman (News)
Iain Churches <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
> They also made very high quality broadcast and studio
> furniture, console housings etc, so speaker cabinets were
> probably a logical step for them, at a time before Tannoy
> had a professional products division.
Surely Tannoy started out as a pro manufacturer - making public address
equipment? Hence it being at one time a generic term?
Dunno where the famous dual concentric came from - I'd guess it was
originally made for some pro purpose like cinema use etc before ending up
in domestic speakers.
There's a bit of history here but doesn't cover non Hi-Fi stuff.
http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/hfw/oldeworldehtml/tannoyspeakers.html
--
*The e-mail of the species is more deadly than the mail *
Laurence Payne
<Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Yeah, strange that the BBC seem to have a lot of Bose speakers then...
>Brian
In what application? I've seen 802s pointing at the audience when
recording talk shows, a job those units are well suited for. What
else?