This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The second paragraph of this entry, beginning with "the goal of studio monitors..." is copied word for word from http://www.tweakheadz.com/studio_monitors.htm. The tweakheadz.com entry was written in 2002 according to the entry in a related forum. Word for word until the about the next to the last sentence. RSzoc 14:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I added this link http://directory.proaudioguide.com/directory/index.php?s1=1&s2=400&s3=50 which was deleted by Kmccoy as Spam. The link follows the external link guidelines and is meant as a useful addition to the subject, in fact it is directly related namely to studio monitors. Imho links directly to single manufacturers are more spam suspicious and less helpful. What do you think? I have also added a similar link for mixing consoles which was also deleted. If you look at the external link list there, it is hard for me to understand what is seen as relevant to a subject and what not. I am looking forward to your views on this.
Audioholic 17:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Macy's123 writes - "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. "
I added a paragraph: "To be fair, this is also the stated goal of many Hi-Fi speaker manufacturers and there may be no noticeable difference in sound between a well designed Hi-Fi speaker and a studio monitor or the Hi-Fi speaker may outperform the 'monitor'. It is worth noting that many of the larger studios use high-end domestic speakers as reference monitors."
How does this constitute vandalism? It is clear that the original paragraph was trying to make the claim that Hi-Fi speakers are not designed to provide accurate monitoring. That is un unqualified statement and certainly not true. Many of the higher end manufacturers Bowers & Wilkins for example design many of their speakers to reproduce flat frequency responses and are indeed used in studios ( http://www.abbeyroad.co.uk/studios/studio1/control-room/). The main differentiation that has been happening in the last decade, the shift to active over passive reflects marketing/packaging efforts rather than any real technical differences between the state of the art in both categories.
You can't tar the Hi-Fi category with the same brush, just as you can't guarantee that a speaker labeled as a monitor has a flat frequency response. The distinction as to what speaker works well as a studio monitor should be made on the merits of individual speakers not on the brand label.
Whoever altered the section on home-audio versus pro audio simply offers their personal opinions, citing only Phil Ward's 2002 article in "Sound On Sound" as some sort of "proof" of these opinions. Unnamed authorities are also alluded to to support the contention that active offers no benefits over passive. The statement that there is no objective difference between the passive and active versions of a loudspeaker is - to be honest - just made up. If any evidence or sources can be cited in support of this, please do so. Two articles on the subject that strongly argue the case for active can be found at
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_9_4/feature-article-active-speakers-12-2002.html http://www.tnt-audio.com/casse/active_speakers_intro1_e.html
As for the Ward article, far from being a scientific paper on the subject, it took a tiny sample of two home-audio and two pro audio speakers, subjected them to four measurements, and then concluded that there were differences in ability to monitor at higher levels. There were no listening tests involved, despite your assertion that the article shows "no noticeable difference in sound between a Hi-Fi speaker and a studio monitor". In fact, using the testing methodology, it could be concluded that the cheap B&W DM303's tested were far superior to Eggleston Andra's (to take just one example from high-end audiophilia) for monitoring purposes (check out the FR charts for the latter from the "Stereophile" archives online). The home-audio samples were also recent designs at the time while the pro samples were seven-year old designs and were passive as well, not active - as is almost universaly the case with modern monitors. The article also wasn't considering home-audio speakers for professional use but for "project" studio applications.
The assertion that professional studios frequently use hi-fi speakers as monitors is quite simply a falsehood. Only mastering studios use Eggleston's, Wilson's, and B&W while they are rarely, if ever, to be seen in the recording studio proper during the process of recording. This article is entitled "Studio Monitor", no?
The suggestion that home-audio speakers are indistinguishable from (or superior to) pro monitor can be countered with the opinion of "Stereophile" founder, J. Gordon Holt, who is scathing about trends in audiophile speaker design. He wrote in a review of the Westlake lc81 in "The Absolute Sound" that: "The laid-back midrange has so thoroughly pervaded audiophilia that makers of studio monitors, which are designed to be as accurate as possible, often flatly refuse to loan them for audiophile review, even when asked. Their response is: “No, you won’t like them.” And whenever a pro manufacturer decides to enter the consumer market, the company deliberately compromises its designs to tailor them to the audiophile’s “taste” in sound, and then cynically promotes them by citing the company’s “enviable reputation” in the industry a reputation earned not by its consumer products, but by its studio products. Audiophiles would be shocked to hear what the studio models from such stalwart companies as JBL, ATC, Westlake, and Tannoy sound like. They’re everything audiophiles are said to hate, yet they’re exactly what’s needed to reproduce music realistically in multiple channels." And I can cite many other instances of such talk: Brian Knave in "Emusician", for example, writes that "A common misconception among those new to music production is that home-stereo speakers are adequate for monitoring." ( http://emusician.com/speakers/emusic_good_references/)
And if "Sound On Sound" is authoritative, then why not cite their Head Monitor reviewer Paul White's frequent assertions that active is clearly superor to the equivalent passive design? So, unless this article can be objectified in the next few days I'll be editing it to reflect objective and verifiable data on the subject. LJSO ( talk) 04:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit-or-perish ( talk) 02:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Just a note, the monitoring for Abbey Rd Studio 1 is provided by three B&W Nautilus 800D Loudspeakers and five HTM1 rear speakers fully configured for surround monitoring up to 7.1 channels. These are definitely marketed as Hi-Fi speakers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.107.162 ( talk) 06:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the link to the Yamaha NS-10 website as it appears to the brainchild of one person writing without oversight. It's also about one studio monitor while this article is about all studio monitors. I think the link fails WP:EL. Perhaps it would work under the Yamaha page or the not-yet-written Yamaha NS-10 page. Binksternet ( talk) 13:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
It looks more like a plug for a product than anything relevance to the rest of the article. It is also covered in the "Studio Monitor Manufacurers" link just above it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.41.102 ( talk) 17:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
This article seems to shortchange the ubiquity of the Auratone in favor of devoting too much to the NS-10. In my experience, the Auratone was the original "squawk box" most popularly used as a lo-fi, real world reference LONG before the NS-10 was created. Referring to it as "crude" seems over the line. While very popular in the post production and broadcast worlds, the Auratone could be found in many music recording facilities in the 70's. Someone correct me, but I don't think that the NS-10, on the other hand, enjoyed much popularity in non-music mixing situations. Therefore, I think it could be asserted that the Auratone was more broadly used across industry lines as well as the first practical standard (made so by mass adoption) nearfield real world reference.
Note that vintage Auratones still sell on eBay and the design has been revived by Avantone. DISCLAIMER: I have no connection to Auratone or Avantone; merely an Auratone user for over 20 years in a professional context and still own them. MRJayMach ( talk) 14:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I've added some text and sources about the BBC's contributions to this field. I was aiming for the article to be more balanced from the global perspective (geographical as well as situational), but the material I added may not be wholly relevant at this time. Feel free to prune or add to what I've done. The BBC sources may be useful in further developing the article. -- Ohc ¡digame! 08:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I design studio monitors for a living and, in my opinion, much of this article needs rework. While I wish it were true, all these basic claims about studio monitors having flatter frequency and phase responses, as well as being more robust, have little or no evidence to support them. I have tried my best to find an AES Journal paper or other citation to support any of this. I can’t find a thing. Some papers discuss design goals and criteria for making good studio monitors. However, none show that speakers in the field, marketed as studio monitors, generally achieve these goals any better than any other speakers. The data doesn't appear to exist. I did find this article in Sound on Sound that compares studio monitors to hi-fi speakers:
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun02/articles/monitors.asp http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul02/articles/monitors2.asp
However, it suggests there might not be any general difference from a sonic performance perspective. Of course, the Sound on Sound article is far from a comprehensive survey. But it’s the only credible source I can find specifically relating to this issue. And it points to the near polar opposite conclusion of what the Studio Monitor article claims throughout. Nonetheless, I do think there are some characteristics, obvious to most everyone, that distinguish studio monitors from consumer hi-fi speakers:
For the most part these characteristics deal with form and functionality within a studio environment rather than sonic performance differences.
Can anyone point to research, or even a news article that, supports the studio monitor distinctions claimed here? If not, I propose that the focus of this article be shifted towards the more verifiable functionality aspects of studio monitors rather than the, so far, unvaried sonic performance differences. And with regard to the performance differences, they should be phrased and cited as goals rather than varied differences. I will appreciate all feedback before I head down this path. I'll post my changes here on the talk page for critique before making any updates to the article. Thomas Barefoot 21:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The second paragraph of this entry, beginning with "the goal of studio monitors..." is copied word for word from http://www.tweakheadz.com/studio_monitors.htm. The tweakheadz.com entry was written in 2002 according to the entry in a related forum. Word for word until the about the next to the last sentence. RSzoc 14:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I added this link http://directory.proaudioguide.com/directory/index.php?s1=1&s2=400&s3=50 which was deleted by Kmccoy as Spam. The link follows the external link guidelines and is meant as a useful addition to the subject, in fact it is directly related namely to studio monitors. Imho links directly to single manufacturers are more spam suspicious and less helpful. What do you think? I have also added a similar link for mixing consoles which was also deleted. If you look at the external link list there, it is hard for me to understand what is seen as relevant to a subject and what not. I am looking forward to your views on this.
Audioholic 17:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Macy's123 writes - "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. "
I added a paragraph: "To be fair, this is also the stated goal of many Hi-Fi speaker manufacturers and there may be no noticeable difference in sound between a well designed Hi-Fi speaker and a studio monitor or the Hi-Fi speaker may outperform the 'monitor'. It is worth noting that many of the larger studios use high-end domestic speakers as reference monitors."
How does this constitute vandalism? It is clear that the original paragraph was trying to make the claim that Hi-Fi speakers are not designed to provide accurate monitoring. That is un unqualified statement and certainly not true. Many of the higher end manufacturers Bowers & Wilkins for example design many of their speakers to reproduce flat frequency responses and are indeed used in studios ( http://www.abbeyroad.co.uk/studios/studio1/control-room/). The main differentiation that has been happening in the last decade, the shift to active over passive reflects marketing/packaging efforts rather than any real technical differences between the state of the art in both categories.
You can't tar the Hi-Fi category with the same brush, just as you can't guarantee that a speaker labeled as a monitor has a flat frequency response. The distinction as to what speaker works well as a studio monitor should be made on the merits of individual speakers not on the brand label.
Whoever altered the section on home-audio versus pro audio simply offers their personal opinions, citing only Phil Ward's 2002 article in "Sound On Sound" as some sort of "proof" of these opinions. Unnamed authorities are also alluded to to support the contention that active offers no benefits over passive. The statement that there is no objective difference between the passive and active versions of a loudspeaker is - to be honest - just made up. If any evidence or sources can be cited in support of this, please do so. Two articles on the subject that strongly argue the case for active can be found at
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_9_4/feature-article-active-speakers-12-2002.html http://www.tnt-audio.com/casse/active_speakers_intro1_e.html
As for the Ward article, far from being a scientific paper on the subject, it took a tiny sample of two home-audio and two pro audio speakers, subjected them to four measurements, and then concluded that there were differences in ability to monitor at higher levels. There were no listening tests involved, despite your assertion that the article shows "no noticeable difference in sound between a Hi-Fi speaker and a studio monitor". In fact, using the testing methodology, it could be concluded that the cheap B&W DM303's tested were far superior to Eggleston Andra's (to take just one example from high-end audiophilia) for monitoring purposes (check out the FR charts for the latter from the "Stereophile" archives online). The home-audio samples were also recent designs at the time while the pro samples were seven-year old designs and were passive as well, not active - as is almost universaly the case with modern monitors. The article also wasn't considering home-audio speakers for professional use but for "project" studio applications.
The assertion that professional studios frequently use hi-fi speakers as monitors is quite simply a falsehood. Only mastering studios use Eggleston's, Wilson's, and B&W while they are rarely, if ever, to be seen in the recording studio proper during the process of recording. This article is entitled "Studio Monitor", no?
The suggestion that home-audio speakers are indistinguishable from (or superior to) pro monitor can be countered with the opinion of "Stereophile" founder, J. Gordon Holt, who is scathing about trends in audiophile speaker design. He wrote in a review of the Westlake lc81 in "The Absolute Sound" that: "The laid-back midrange has so thoroughly pervaded audiophilia that makers of studio monitors, which are designed to be as accurate as possible, often flatly refuse to loan them for audiophile review, even when asked. Their response is: “No, you won’t like them.” And whenever a pro manufacturer decides to enter the consumer market, the company deliberately compromises its designs to tailor them to the audiophile’s “taste” in sound, and then cynically promotes them by citing the company’s “enviable reputation” in the industry a reputation earned not by its consumer products, but by its studio products. Audiophiles would be shocked to hear what the studio models from such stalwart companies as JBL, ATC, Westlake, and Tannoy sound like. They’re everything audiophiles are said to hate, yet they’re exactly what’s needed to reproduce music realistically in multiple channels." And I can cite many other instances of such talk: Brian Knave in "Emusician", for example, writes that "A common misconception among those new to music production is that home-stereo speakers are adequate for monitoring." ( http://emusician.com/speakers/emusic_good_references/)
And if "Sound On Sound" is authoritative, then why not cite their Head Monitor reviewer Paul White's frequent assertions that active is clearly superor to the equivalent passive design? So, unless this article can be objectified in the next few days I'll be editing it to reflect objective and verifiable data on the subject. LJSO ( talk) 04:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit-or-perish ( talk) 02:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Just a note, the monitoring for Abbey Rd Studio 1 is provided by three B&W Nautilus 800D Loudspeakers and five HTM1 rear speakers fully configured for surround monitoring up to 7.1 channels. These are definitely marketed as Hi-Fi speakers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.107.162 ( talk) 06:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the link to the Yamaha NS-10 website as it appears to the brainchild of one person writing without oversight. It's also about one studio monitor while this article is about all studio monitors. I think the link fails WP:EL. Perhaps it would work under the Yamaha page or the not-yet-written Yamaha NS-10 page. Binksternet ( talk) 13:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
It looks more like a plug for a product than anything relevance to the rest of the article. It is also covered in the "Studio Monitor Manufacurers" link just above it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.41.102 ( talk) 17:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
This article seems to shortchange the ubiquity of the Auratone in favor of devoting too much to the NS-10. In my experience, the Auratone was the original "squawk box" most popularly used as a lo-fi, real world reference LONG before the NS-10 was created. Referring to it as "crude" seems over the line. While very popular in the post production and broadcast worlds, the Auratone could be found in many music recording facilities in the 70's. Someone correct me, but I don't think that the NS-10, on the other hand, enjoyed much popularity in non-music mixing situations. Therefore, I think it could be asserted that the Auratone was more broadly used across industry lines as well as the first practical standard (made so by mass adoption) nearfield real world reference.
Note that vintage Auratones still sell on eBay and the design has been revived by Avantone. DISCLAIMER: I have no connection to Auratone or Avantone; merely an Auratone user for over 20 years in a professional context and still own them. MRJayMach ( talk) 14:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I've added some text and sources about the BBC's contributions to this field. I was aiming for the article to be more balanced from the global perspective (geographical as well as situational), but the material I added may not be wholly relevant at this time. Feel free to prune or add to what I've done. The BBC sources may be useful in further developing the article. -- Ohc ¡digame! 08:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I design studio monitors for a living and, in my opinion, much of this article needs rework. While I wish it were true, all these basic claims about studio monitors having flatter frequency and phase responses, as well as being more robust, have little or no evidence to support them. I have tried my best to find an AES Journal paper or other citation to support any of this. I can’t find a thing. Some papers discuss design goals and criteria for making good studio monitors. However, none show that speakers in the field, marketed as studio monitors, generally achieve these goals any better than any other speakers. The data doesn't appear to exist. I did find this article in Sound on Sound that compares studio monitors to hi-fi speakers:
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun02/articles/monitors.asp http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul02/articles/monitors2.asp
However, it suggests there might not be any general difference from a sonic performance perspective. Of course, the Sound on Sound article is far from a comprehensive survey. But it’s the only credible source I can find specifically relating to this issue. And it points to the near polar opposite conclusion of what the Studio Monitor article claims throughout. Nonetheless, I do think there are some characteristics, obvious to most everyone, that distinguish studio monitors from consumer hi-fi speakers:
For the most part these characteristics deal with form and functionality within a studio environment rather than sonic performance differences.
Can anyone point to research, or even a news article that, supports the studio monitor distinctions claimed here? If not, I propose that the focus of this article be shifted towards the more verifiable functionality aspects of studio monitors rather than the, so far, unvaried sonic performance differences. And with regard to the performance differences, they should be phrased and cited as goals rather than varied differences. I will appreciate all feedback before I head down this path. I'll post my changes here on the talk page for critique before making any updates to the article. Thomas Barefoot 21:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)