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.
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.