Studio Monitors

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

andy <andy19191@fsmail.net> wrote:
>What do recording engineers look for in studio monitor loudspeakers?
>Acoustic accuracy, a good representation of what would be heard in the
>home or something else? Are loudspeakers with the strengths and
>weaknesses of, say, Quad electrostatics a popular choice? If not, what
>are popular choices?

Different folks look for different things.

A lot of folks will have three or four different monitoring systems
set up... one that is intended to be accurate fullrange, one that is
designed to be very forward to impress the customers, one that is a
check mix monitor to see how it will sound on a cheap home system.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Thanks for the response but my enquiry is not really about particular
brands but determining what weighting low distortion is typically given
by studio engineers when purchasing loudspeakers. The Quad
electrostatics are a well known brand (at least in Europe) with low
distortion albeit with some other less attractive properties.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"andy" <andy19191@fsmail.net> wrote in message
news:1116360666.132033.107640@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Thanks for the response but my enquiry is not really about particular
> brands but determining what weighting low distortion is typically given
> by studio engineers when purchasing loudspeakers. The Quad
> electrostatics are a well known brand (at least in Europe) with low
> distortion albeit with some other less attractive properties.
>

Wghich Quad Electrostatics ? The originals or ESL-63s ?

I would say either are inappropriate fro studio monitors, as they are
relatively fragile when it comes to the like of bangs and thumps mine
moniotrs experience daily (Tannoy DMT12).

But certainly a stacked pair of old Quads (in series, to make them easier to
drive and boost the bass ouput capability), or better still a pair of
ESL-63s would be a valuable tool for critical listening in a mastering
environment.

geoff

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

andy <andy19191@fsmail.net> wrote:
>
>Low distortion is an imprecise term. Good "panel" speakers with
>symmetrical push-pull transducers and no rear enclosure typically mask
>less of the low level detail in the signal compared to "box" speakers
>with drive units in an enclosure. The original question I meant to ask
>was how important this attribute is to the studio engineer and whether
>it is sufficient to overcome the disadvantages of panel speakers.

It depends on the engineer. I know folks who mix on ESLs and on
Martin-Logans. I mix on Magnepans. On the other hand, I know folks
who insist on mixing on Auratones or NS-10s even though they could
afford far more accurate monitors, and who get good results from them.

For the most part, in spite of the ADAM popularity, low distortion
tweeter designs haven't been very popular in the studio monitor world.
Lots of manufacturers have something in their line, the way Genelec
has the S30, and some of them like SLS and Stage Accompany build their
whole studio monitor line around low distortion ribbon tweeters, but
they aren't all that popular.

In general, the folks that tend to be interested in these things tend
to be classical or jazz folks, who are trying to reproduce an existing
sound accurately rather than get music that sounds subjectively "good"
on consumer gear.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."