i've begun to compose posts on this thread twice before, only to resort to the "clear" button. here's the problem: damn near everyone who's stated an opinion here seems to have his/her(we can hope) own idea of what a "monitor" is. when i hear the term, i think of what i believe is the "classic" definition, a small speaker used in the playback of recordings or the "voicing" of components. usually these "monitors" are of a genus of the species called "nearfield." some of these nearfield monitors have made their way into the mainstream of highend. witness the wilson audio tiny tot, now the "watt" portion of the watt/puppy (version 6.1 most recently). others think of monitors as the equivalent of "satellites," as that term was understood bht (before home theatre). i think of satellites as small speakers specifically designed as limited range transducers that can be used with or without subs; generally, the cabinet size of these speakers contributes in large measure to thier superior imaging capabilities. the best of this genre i have heard (& owned) are ae-1 signatures; these are also among the most fabulously finished audio products of all time. yet another group appears to define "monitor" as any speaker with a small footprint. the best of this ilk i've auditioned recently is the avalon symbol, which can be placed in the near or far field effectively, depending on your listening enviroment's size and limitations. so, i'm still afloat in the sea of uncertainty. not sure what a "monitor" is. what'd you have in mind, rickeyjunior? -kelly
