Who is it that said there's no such thing as a stupid question? I want to meet him, and ask him how he came to that conclusion.
31 responses Add your response
I guess I was too harsh, but I just thought that your question was a bit silly. Anyone who tries to upgrade the internals of their home speaker is obviously not trying to make it sound worse or less listenable than before, even though that might be the unfortunate outcome in some cases.
What prompted you to ask the question? My apologies for the curt response.
Part of the reason that people don't use studio monitors for home listening is that nowadays, the majority of them (the monitors that is) are active and most people already have amplifiers and so are more interested in passive speakers.
Secondly, a large number of studio monitors - even some fairly full frequency ones - are designed for nearfield listening - which does not suit most home listening environments.
But off the top of my head ATC and PMC make speakers used for monitoring that are in many home systems. As a matter of fact the last speakers Gordon Holt, the founder of Stereophile paid for himself were active ATC 50A monitors and he considered them one of the few speakers that were truely accurate and Gordon along with Steve Stone had recorded many live concerts of the Boulder Symphony Orchestra so he had a real reference.
A very weird question...trying to think of some analogy...uh...what if you kept buying faster cars until you exploded into space? Nicer houses until you owned the entire country of Monaco...by the way, regarding reference sound, I was recently at a ballet in Boston with whatever orchestra that is (Boston Ballet Orchestra?) and we were in the second row center with an empty seat in front of us. The musicians were in my face sort of, and I realized that based on the fact that every instrument is its own sound source in its own spot with complicated phase relationships with every other instrument and pit reflections (!) etc. before the sound hit my earballs...I was again struck my the fact that NO speaker system or any rig however precious can ever accurately recreate that sound. I listen to classical stuff in my fabulous (I even have one silver cable!) system and enjoy every minute, but man...the real thing is amazingly unique.
Now to my initial question.
One ofen goes on improving the home system to give (for instance) better definition, impact, realism etc, etc. This seems a natural progression for audiophiles. ie heading towards everything that a monitor system has.
Is it possible to inadvertantly end up with a system that has the quality of a monitor system that one was trying to avoid in the first place and is therefore less enjoyable.
It seems you’re making the assumption that a monitor is inherently more "accurate." That’s not necessarily a safe assumption.
I disagree with the basic idea that studio monitors are not appropriate for home use. There are several well known audiophiles who use speakers that are considered "monitors" and there are countless studios that use speakers that are considered home audiophile speakers. As with everything in audio, it's a matter of personal taste. Recording engineers are just as diverse as audiophile listeners. The classification of speakers as "studio monitors" is really more of a marketing tactic to focus sales on a particular market.
As one upgrades their system the typical result is that it gets more resolving. It is entirely possible that at some point the extreme detail might become distracting or unpleasant. I heard a pair of big Wilsons with D' Agostino amplification at AXPONA a few years ago and I didn't like the sound. I would describe it as "etched" and it was like blowing up a beautiful digital picture until you could see each pixel. Some people I talked to felt like I did but others thought that room had the best sound at the show. This really showed me that it is a matter of taste.
So, if your asking whether or not you can upgrade your system to the point where it becomes too detailed and resolving my answer would be yes, depending on your personal taste.
I dont want to disagree with those listeners that like monitor systems. So can we sideline that discussion for another day in order not to distract from the question. Or you could start your own thread.
This is abut someone (me) who wants to avoid the monitor sound but ends up in just that situation.
I am starting to understand your original question (vaguely). I read it three times and just got more and more confused.
So you have studio monitors and you want to tweak them to produce a sound you like? Is that it?
This is how it usually becomes more productive:
you add more details such as what are those speakers, your amp, your source, room size, room treatment, preferred music, etc. audiogon members will be like bees on honey before you refresh the page.
Some studios use consumer based speakers for mixing, and certainly mastering labs do. Speakers like Yamaha NS10s sounded dreadful to my ears but became a standard used by a lot of studios...how anybody could stand these things remains a mystery to me but I get it. Standardization. JBLs in the 60s and 70s had a frequency map like a smile...all lows and highs...big Altec A7s are simply too big for most consumers so smaller furniture-like versions were made...I had a pair of A7s for many years and loved 'em but not in my house. If a system sounds good to you that's what counts, and wondering if so called "studio monitors" are somehow "special" is easily remedied by buying a pair. They might sound great...or not.
Sounds like you’re wanting a warmer sound, to me.
My experience is that an etched sound, which, to me, is difficult to describe, but I’ve experienced it before and the effect is that it left me feeling fatigued after I had listened.
What’s your take on tubes? Wonder if a tube preamp might be the ticket?
Sorry good people- been away for a couple of days.
I listen near field and over the years have improved my system by inprovements to almost everything including valve power amps and valve DAC. The result has been an undoubted improvement in sound quality. But, I have arrived at a system best described as etched (thanks tubefuldude).
Its so clear and lifelike, but imagine sitting 4ft from a soprano singing at full tilt. Wonderful realism but enough to take out your fillings - just like a monitor system in fact its almost totally unforgiving.
Where do I go for relaxation?
I don’t think there’s any doubt that this can occur!
However, as no two people hear the same or have the exact same tastes, the point at which any given system crosses over from "highly resolving" to "fatiguing" is subjective.
Reviewers (and forum members) often address this, whether they be discussing sources, amps or speakers but there is no substitute for direct experience for developing a sense of where you fall on the spectrum. One reason to not buy anything you cannot demo in your room with an option to return it!
If the goal is to be more musical, the term 'improvements' isn't appropriate in this situation. Changes were made.
"If you have valve amps and especially a valve DAC, I’m confused by your concerns about fatigue."
One complication is my tinnitus which is normally very quiet but triggered by any harsh system.
More often my listener fatgue is accompanied by this tinnitus and the whole experience makes me just want to turn it off. Not good.
So sorry to learn your listening is compromised by this issue. My wife suffers from it as well.
There are other forum participants with tinnitus. You might start a new thread asking whether any of them have discovered/developed workarounds.