Gil, interesting reading and you may be on to something. My only exposure to studios is the studio at Morin Heights, just north of Montreal. Gold and platinum records all over the walls, quite impressive. Name a popular rock band and they've likely recorded there (The Police's "Synchronicity" and U2's "unforgettable Fire" come to mind as an example of some of the records made there). I spent some time with the tech guy there and was quite amazed with the gear used in the studio/mixing rooms. Yamaha monitors that were, ahem, poor. According to the tech, they mix down to these cheesy monitors cuz "the people buying the record have this kind of equipment". Damn. I noticed a single speaker sitting there, basically a bare driver that you'd find in an old cheap transistor radio. When I asked what that was for, well "that's how the record will sound like in most peoples car stereos and we need to take that into account". My only exposure to a studio made it obvious that fidelity is NOT a priority. I was disappointed and surprised, given the quality of gear found in many studios I've read about (Abbey Road, Electric Ladyland, Frank Zappa's own home studio, etc.). If Morin Heights is indicative of what studios value, you may very well be right and we're all wasting our money and time on quality audio systems.
Studio gear vs. Hi-Fi gear Is Hi-Fi a ripoff?
I'm relatively new to hi-fi (bought my first "hi-fi" system one year ago), but I've been an amateur musician for nearly 10 years now (blues guitar mainly). It recently occured to me that pro studio equipment should be at the same level of performance as "hi-fi" equipment. Yet, good studio equipment, while expensive, isn't expensive for the sake of being expensive, as I think many hi-fi items are. For example, Dynaudio makes both studio monitors and hi-fi speakers. Their studio monitors are made under the name Dynaudio Acoustics and they have their own website. They sell a mini-monitor called the BM-6. It has nearly identical specs to the 1.3MKII, except w/o the wood veneer. Yet BM-6's MSRP is less than HALF that of the 1.3. I don't know much about line conditioner's, but I know that decent studio line conditioners can be had for under $200, are made like tanks, and are easily taken apart if you like to tweak. How they compare to hi-fi line conditioner's I have no idea, but I bet they can hold their own. Quality all tube equipment (many of which are completely hand assembled w/ point to point soldering) of all different designs are availble at down to earth prices. Build quality on studio equipment is simply outstanding, far exceeding hi-fi equipment at the lower price levels (<$2000). My question is, is there really a substantial difference between studio equipment and hi-fi equipment? After all, it's studio equipment that captures all the nuances in the CDs/LPs that hi-fi equipment strives to reproduce. Yes, I know the fancier studio's have equipment tabs that run into the many millions, but not if all you want is a pair of quality monitors, amp, and CD player. My theory is, the people buying studio equipment are mainly gear heads with extensive knowledge on what sounds good and why, and they know what to look for, and they know how much it should cost, and are usually on a budget because there is so much more to buy than just monitors, amps, and sources. The typical buyer of home hi-fi equipment is probably not as knowledgable as a studio engineer, is probably much more susceptable to marketing and hype, and is therefore probably much more likely to dump a ton of money on a pair of speakers, amp, source, conditioner, cable, etc., especially since they only need one/few of each thing (vs. the hundreds of components a larger studio would need). I would also venture to say that typical hi-fi customers, especially the more affluent ones, are much more likely to fall for the "extremely expensive = extremely high quality" marketing strategy that any studio engineer w/ experience would never fall for. So, the manufacturer's price their equipment accordingly for the two demographics (studios and audiophiles). For example Dynaudio charging substantially less for their studio monitors than their home hi-fi monitors, and then tucking their studio monitors away under a different name and a different web-site so that us audiophiles don't easily take notice to them. Also telling are the desciptions of the studio monitors vs. the hi-fi monitors. The hi-fi descriptions have tons of "fluff" to them compared to the straight, to-the-point, studio monitor descriptions (Tannoy does something similar, but at least it's on the same webpage). Now all this is pure speculation, and I'm not accusing dynaudio or anyone else of being unethical, on the contrary, they are simply practicing good marketing tactics and charging as much as they think we are willing to pay based on demographic research (i.e. they know we are willing to pay more than the studios are). Hell, for all I know, I may just be rationalizing my inability to buy the hi-fi gear I want. But in my recent quest to upgrade my stuff, I can't help but ask if I can get a lot more bang for my buck by purchasing studio gear, or perhaps a combination of studio gear and hi-fi gear. The more I think about it, the more I really think good studio equipment has the nearly the same quality as good hi-fi equipment but at a substantially cheaper cost. I suppose the only way to find out is to do some testing (after I get my x-mas bonus). Yes, studio equipment can be butt ugly, but they're built to take a beating, literally. Again, being somewhat new to hi-fi, I may be totally misguided, and I'm not trying to make anybody look bad, I'm just sounding my observations off to the fellow members of this board.
Thanks for listening,
Gil
Thanks for listening,
Gil
- ...
- 15 posts total
- 15 posts total