Professional vs. Consumer speakers

i have a home theater with pa gear. on live dvds like riverdance and feet of flames it is awsome. i have seen feet of flames live, and i can tell you i have not heard a home speaker that will take me to the live performance like the pro gear i have. also for movies i love it as well.

People. Lets go a little lighter on the recording engineers shall we? Couple of broad generalizations made here, Engineers care more about what you hear than you give them credit for. Not only are there things like time constraints, artist who can't or haven't learned to perform in a studio, or who just never have before, studio's that you are called into that you have never used and you are told you have 3 days in which to record 6 tracks, accompanying artists who literally want to phone their part of the recording in, feature artist and producers that don't care if they do, the difficulties go on and on. Then there are producers who just want it done, labels who are the same way, artist that have tour dats, etc, etc, etc. I would suggest to you that most recording engineers would love to have all the time and all the help in the world in order to do it right, and they love being in a studio and with a label where they can. They are no different than most, they would like to work in the best studio, with the best artist, have freedom to do it as many times as it takes, use only the best sidemen and the best equipment. But business enters into it, and there are usually 100 people+ involved in the production of an recording, and a lot of them aren't going to slow it down while the engineering makes it an audiophile recording. On most big labels, about the only person that can really do that is the feature artist, and they usually don't know what it takes to make a
audiophile recording and are under so much pressure time wise that it can't always be done.
Now having that off my chest, don't go blaming all the monitors either, a lot of the time its the associated equipment as well. Good audio people know its not just the speakers, but the rest of the gear down the line, and a lot of it does not get matched, and even then differnet amps mikes guitars effects etc wind up getting used. Most studio's do not have Neumann mics, tube preamp stages etc, not cost effective and difficult to maintain. I have had and used KROK ROK monitors on my home system, and I consider them a steal in good small monitors, studio or home, home on a tube amp especially. Incredible how good they are, and there are others

I use pro monitors for HT and small project studio both with SS gear. For classical music I have a tube system with home speakers. Anything I produce in the project studio gets a first listen on the classical setup and then the HT and finally on my car CDP. The idea is to learn to translate what one is hearing in the studio to other environments. Many hits have been mixed near field on Yamaha NS-10Ms that have a serious dip in the midrange and produce world class ear fatique, but as an engineering tool can be useful.

I have always used professional studio monitors in preference to similarly priced domestic models. If I had to give one simple reason, it would be that dollar-for-dollar, real studio monitors blow domestic speakers away especially, but not only, in terms of dynamics and neutrality. Currently I use Tannoy, as I have for 25 years, but I have also heard exceptional monitors using JBL, TAD, Altec/Urei, Genelec and other drivers.

This is not to say there aren't domestic speakers of comparable or even better quality, but not, I would say, for the money.

In general, techniques and technologies developed for the pro market tend to filter down to domestic models, whether it be balanced circuitry (in components), cabinet design, biwiring/biamping, or actual drivers.

It's also useful to remember that there are two distinct categories of studio monitors. "Near field" monitors (e.g., Yamaha NS-10, Tannoy System 8, the smaller Genelecs, Montanas, etc.) are used to monitor the mixing process. These are the monitors you see sitting right on the mixing board.

The other type of studio monitor, the "main" monitors are used to audition and make a final decision on the completed recording. It is these through which the artist will be invited to listen to his or her song or piece. And it is really these main monitors that offer mind-blowing sound (and frequently, though not always, mind blowing prices). Here's where you find 300 litre/10 cu.ft. cabinets, 100 dB sensitivity, dual 15" woofers, etc. and a ruthless purity of sonic reproduction that makes a lot of sloppy mainstream commercial recordings sound terrible.

It is true that many recording engineers don't trouble themselves too much about the quality of their monitors (in this case, generally near field monitors). The fact is, though, that most copies of most recordings are destined to be played on car stereos, Walkmans and low- and mid-fi systems. As we all know, audio enthusiasts, not to mention audiophiles, are only a very tiny proportion of the music-buying public. And part of what a recording engineer is paid to do is to optimize the recording he's creating to sound the best (or most immediately impressive, anyway) on the widest variety of playback systems. And "sounding the most impressive" does not generally mean "being the most accurate." This often means filtering out deep bass, boosting mid-bass, and other "corruptions" of the original musical signal.

On the other hand, engineers who are deliberately setting out to create the best possible recording use the best possible equipment.

I know of one well-regarded series of audiophile LPs engineered by David Manley, a set of a dozen that sometimes comes up on eBay. Manley strove to eliminate distortion of any kind at every point in the recording, mastering and pressing process. This meant, to take but one example, having German specialists manufacture made-to-order record cutting lathes and then customizing these further. Expense of this kind makes even the most expensive studio monitors appear modest in price. In this cost-no-barrier project, Manley used his own (modified) high power tube amplifiers and standard Tannoy System 15 DMT studio monitors (though biamped with tube crossovers).

I am convinced that, like myself, many more music lovers and audiophiles would buy professional studio monitors for their home systems--if they knew about them. Hifi shops, including high end shops, do not sell professional monitors and it would be disastrous for their business if they did. You have to go to the shops that sell mixers, compressors and PA systems.

I don't pretend to have listened for more than a tiny fraction of pro monitors and domestic speakers that have been available over the last quarter-century. Nevertheless, from my own experience, at any particular price-point, be it $1K per pair, $5K or $15K, the true studio monitors will usually show up the domestic models.

And for this I am grateful. To get the quality of reproduction I have enjoyed and continue to enjoy with pro monitors (and pro cabling and connectors for that matter!) I would have to have spent probably twice as much.

My two cents' worth. A excellent forum. Thank you all for your contributions.

I visited Studio Morin Heights, just north of Montreal. This studio has had some of the biggest artists record there...U2, Bowie, the Police, on and on and on. Gold and Platinum albums grace the walls. Very nice setting visually, looks like the rooms used are well suited for music as well. The speakers on the console...the infamous Yamahas, the electronics used throughout even worse. The equipment isn't worthy of the worst wood-paneled rec-room. I walked away shaking my head, no wonder so much of what's released isn't worth listening to. Economics isn't an issue, the artists spend more on their catered food and accomodations than the gear in the studio. What a farce.