Who says studio monitors are "cold and analytical"?

There are obviously many kinds of speakers out there that could be called studio monitors. There are nearfield midfield and main monitors. The far field monitors do use massive horns and 18 inch drivers. Look at any picture of a studio and you will see them soffit mounted. The smaller nearfield ones are used by musicians for producing or composing music. They are also used for mixing. Often they are active and thesedays its class D. Sound quality is not the priority. Nearfields also need to be tuned differently than for hifi since the listening distance and environment are different. All of this is generally true but there will be exceptions. 

The main priority of a speaker designer that is designing a studio monitor is to achieve a flat response. Whether this is achieved in practice or not that is the priority. On the other hand, a hifi speaker is designed purely for listening pleasure. 

That is why you are unlikely to enjoy using a studio monitor for pleasure. 

I have already listed a number of studio monitors which advertize how flat their response is. 

All the innovations in improving sound quality come from the hifi sector. The studio market has nothing to offer. Look at the cabinet work of hifi versus studio monitors. Studio monitors are just plain old wooden boxes. In the hifi world we have companies like Magico that push the envelope of the state of the art.

You have been warned. 

Coming up on two decades of designing, managing the development of, and marketing professional speakers for a variety or end markets including studio. Thank you @lonemountain ​​​​@fair for bringing some sense of reality to this dumpster fire.

• Present market is "studio" speakers are flat on axis and controlled dispersion and low distortion. Two reasons for that. One is we can do a pretty good job on those metrics at almost any cost now. Two is it allows a reference. Less guessing about the source of a sound when you are working.
• Home speakers can have intentional non flat response. Call it a house sound. Some are poor off axis by today's standards.
• "Studio" speakers can sound amazing in a home. Like all speakers the room is the variable.
• Many pro sound people don't talk about distortion, frequency response, etc. because for whatever training they may have they are still pretty illiterate about audio. 
• Audio is more illiterate and wild west than movies and TV where the concept of a reference is ingrained. That ingrained reference forces education.
• Software to simulate cheaper speakers, different environments, etc. is starting to be used. For that to work you need to start with a low distortion reference.

SERENITY NOW!  SERENITY NOW!  I'll sidestep the toxic vortex of the Castanza clan.  But thank you for the glimpse into a dysphoric existence.  I already feel better about myself, flawed as my life may be.

We all appreciate the positive constructive insights most contribute to this open forum.  I've gleaned knowledge about several subjects.  For that, thank you.

One last time kenjit

These far field monitors you see in photos are used to impress the talent, not to mix or track.  They were usually built in with the studio, which was often built 30-40 years ago.  In the rare case when the farfields are good enough, such as ATC or sometimes PMC, you will find some studios using them for mixing- but it's rare.  Blackbird, UMG, Spotify are a few that come to mind that have such far fields you can mix on.  

The near field is the way mixing is done 99% of the time now and has been since engineers had to travel to work in many different studios, not park themselves in just one.  The near field idea was simple, don't create so much energy that reflections dominate the sound, sit close to them and you can get a pretty consistent sound in many different rooms that way.   The purpose of a nearfield monitor is NOT to be flat, it's to achieve translation and to identify errors in balance and/or details.  It so happens that being flat, low distortion and consistent off axis is the best way to get that translation and identify errors.  

Nearfield are very similar to what people use at home and near field principles can can be quite useful to the home user.  The principle is to sit close, increase the ratio  of direct vs reflected sound.  It's easy to test this in any room- get yourself in a 3 foot triangle and see.   Most people complain about speaker sound are really complaining about what the room does to the speaker.   Its a room demo, not a speaker demo. 

Certain types of studio monitors (NS10s, Auratones) or older ones with big smiley curves in them (JBL 4311's, etc) are not suitable for home and aren't really a good example of what the modern studio "monitors" look like/sound like anymore, this is the past.  Most top level mixers have moved on long ago to ATC 25s or 45s or maybe barefoot or PMC - something that can accomplish dynamics and identify errors better.  These speakers sound very good to most of us and are suitable for home (ATC's home version of the 25 is the SCM40; PMC has their equivalents also).  In reverse, most hi fi speakers have too limited dynamics as drivers are not built for high heat.  Some of them sound okay but just cannot endure the studio world of long term all day and night loud use.  Reliability is a big deal when you are on the clock.   

Most German pro audio is driven by high end broadcast (by US standards) as defined by the government specification; so Neumann is primarily a speaker designed for the enormous European broadcast world, which often has digital inputs on speakers as a requirement.  Don't see them a lot in the US commercial studio market, but I know they sell well to the home studio market where SPL is not a big issue.  Yes they are good.  But we need dynamics here of over 100dB, maybe up to 106dB, and many broadcast oriented speakers cannot achieve that.  They don't need to in meeting their design goal (a guy mixing World Cup isn't about "rocking it out" for his client).  A speaker at average 92dB-95dB SPL for 12-15 hours can fry most OEM drivers, or at least send them into severe power compression rendering them useless.  This is why ATC builds their own drivers, so they can achieve this.  The is also what originally built JBL, they built their own voice coils that could endure very high heat. 

In Europe, ATC 's market is equally split between home and studio. In Asia and China, ATC is 95% home audio market.  A lot of folks like the idea of a hand made English hi fi system since almost all the old hand made companies are gone.  Here, its 95% studio because ATC had bad luck with US hi fi distributors so it was never built up.   The idea that ATC is a studio speaker is really more reflective of sales, not reality. 

Brad

I have ATC SCM7’s second generation, new ATC SCM40’s, and still have ATC SCM35’s. The latter replace biamped Dahlquist DQ10’s with double subwoofers. I have listened to numerous other ATC models, both in the professional and consumer lines, some amplified versions.

I have never heard them sound as Kenjit describes with good source material. Never. I have heard lots of speakers sound cold and hard, though I won’t name any to avoid flame wars.

I do understand what Kenjit is trying to get across as an idea, although it is based on misconception. 
I will also counter that the acoustic suspension of the consumer Entry series allows for easy room placement and avoids issues of room interaction with a ported design.