Talk:Studio monitor

Second paragraph of this entry

The second paragraph of this entry, beginning with "the goal of studio monitors..." is copied word for word from http://www.tweakheadz.com/studio_monitors.htm. The tweakheadz.com entry was written in 2002 according to the entry in a related forum. Word for word until the about the next to the last sentence. RSzoc 14:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

External directory link

Hello, I added this link http://directory.proaudioguide.com/directory/index.php?s1=1&s2=400&s3=50 which was deleted by Kmccoy as Spam. The link follows the external link guidelines and is meant as a useful addition to the subject, in fact it is directly related namely to studio monitors. Imho links directly to single manufacturers are more spam suspicious and less helpful. What do you think? I have also added a similar link for mixing consoles which was also deleted. If you look at the external link list there, it is hard for me to understand what is seen as relevant to a subject and what not. I am looking forward to your views on this.

Audioholic 17:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Since your only contributions upon joining the project were to add links to this directory, it gives a strong impression of your being involved with this directory and trying to drive traffic to your site. My suggestion to you is that you contribute to the project for a while and show that your interest is in improving the articles about sound equipment, then if you are unaffiliated with directory.proaudioguide.com, add the links back in a few months. If you are indeed affiliated with that site, you should not add the links back at all, but rather mention them on the talk page and allow other editors to decide if they merit inclusion in the article. Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you ever click on one of the four links I added? Should not the quality of an edit or addition count? Are you saying that one has to spend some months contributing to Wikipedia before he is allowed to add three highly relevant links and update another one? Do you really see enough reason to suspect me of being involved with that site from four links? If I know someone working for the publisher, am I involved? If I just think the site is very good and helpful, am I involved than? I really think that content quality should be the prime issue in Wikipedia. I ask you again to reconsider your reverts and would be happy to receive any comments from other editors. Thanks! Audioholic 17:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I clicked on at least one of the links before I reverted them, and I eventually looked at the others. I'm not saying there are any rules for what editing you must do before you may insert links, or even if you must do any at all. I'm just saying that it's easy to see your first four edits and think "spam". A way to avoid that perception would be to make contributions that are not simply additions of links, but rather contributions to articles. As you say, "content quality should be the prime issue in Wikipedia". I place a couple of other issues right up there as well, like making sure that our content is free, but I don't disagree with you. But Wikipedia isn't a collection of links, and I believe that the harm to the project by allowing links to remain when they appear to be spam added by someone whose only contribution is to add them is greater than the harm caused by not adding those links for a little while. I don't know if you're involved with that site or not. Are you? kmccoy (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Am I involved? I have already commented on this. You seem to refuse to have a discussion about the content quality of the edits I made. To me this appears to be the opposite of constructive, it is destructive. I do not have the time nor the will to have unfruitful debates like the one we are having, and it will cause me to stop contributing to Wikipedia if this is what I have to expect. This way you won't get experienced professionals to contribute valuable knowledge.
"A way to avoid that perception..." would be to be less paranoid. If you do not have the experience or knowledge to judge over content quality, than you should should not aggressively revert edits. If you have a suspect like in this case you can mention it on the talk page and get more opinions. This would be constructive. Audioholic 17:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This seems to have become very personal to you. I certainly don't mean any ill will towards you. If you don't have the time nor the will to discuss this matter, then I'd suggest making other contributions to the encyclopedia and letting other editors re-add those links if they're seen as important to the articles. I would very much like to see you continue contributing to Wikipedia, especially in the field of professional sound. However, I believe my reverts were entirely proper, considering that your only contributions were to add links to a commercial web site. Unfortunately, the amount of spam hitting the project is always on the increase, and reversion of edits like this from a new user isn't paranoia, it's a necessity. Check out this advice on why you set off my "radar." Discussion of every spam rollback on talk pages isn't practical. With regard to the "content quality", as you like to say, the links in this case are of medium value. Linking to a directory of manufacturers is sometimes a nice alternative to including such a list in the article, but linking to an open directory is nicer than linking to a commercial web site. The specific manufacturers that ProAudioGuide chooses to feature at the top of its lists seem odd -- my guess is that they're either chosen by which companies have submitted further info or have paid as sponsors. Either way, it makes the site feel a little odd to me. I look forward to seeing your contributions to articles in the audio field! kmccoy (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a place where this can be discussed with more people? I really would like to get more opinions from other Wikipedians. Audioholic 23:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I happened across this article and saw this discussion thread. I have no vested interest in any part of this article or the audio industry, other than to be informed. As I read this, it seems to me that Kmccoy has some valid concerns. ProAudioGuide is not an objective source, as it clearly gives prominence to certain vendors above others based on some kind of advertising methodology. Also, Audioholic seems to be avoiding the question as to whether he is involved with the site. When asked point-blank by Kmccoy if he is involved, he neither affirms nor denies his association, responding that he has already "commented" on that, which is not an answer. To me this is very suspicious. He also apparently is very angry at having his opinion questioned, another sign that Kmccoy has nailed the situation perfectly. But personal defensiveness isn't really relevant. What matters is whether the link is appropriate. In my opinion, ProAudioGuide is as objective as any advertising supported publication which sells prominence to those who pay for it. In other words, not very objective. (However, I do see why a person associated with the site would want it referenced by a Wikipedia article, as it would increase traffic to the site.) 70.88.254.65 01:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not associated with proaudioguide.com, other than I just know the publisher because I live in the same city. And I think the site is excellent! But I also think I am wasting my time here discussing constructive matters with people blinded by ideology. The fact that a site or a magazine lives from advertising does not automatically makes it less objective, especially if it is completely clear which content is advertising and which not. All companies can register free with proaudioguide.com. As with search engines, showing payed-for results first, that does not stop anyone from using them. Anyway, it seems that nobody really cares for quality here. This will be my last post. Audioholic

Vandalism?

Macy's123 writes - "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. "

I added a paragraph: "To be fair, this is also the stated goal of many Hi-Fi speaker manufacturers and there may be no noticeable difference in sound between a well designed Hi-Fi speaker and a studio monitor or the Hi-Fi speaker may outperform the 'monitor'. It is worth noting that many of the larger studios use high-end domestic speakers as reference monitors."

How does this constitute vandalism? It is clear that the original paragraph was trying to make the claim that Hi-Fi speakers are not designed to provide accurate monitoring. That is un unqualified statement and certainly not true. Many of the higher end manufacturers Bowers & Wilkins for example design many of their speakers to reproduce flat frequency responses and are indeed used in studios (http://www.abbeyroad.co.uk/studios/studio1/control-room/). The main differentiation that has been happening in the last decade, the shift to active over passive reflects marketing/packaging efforts rather than any real technical differences between the state of the art in both categories.

You can't tar the Hi-Fi category with the same brush, just as you can't guarantee that a speaker labeled as a monitor has a flat frequency response. The distinction as to what speaker works well as a studio monitor should be made on the merits of individual speakers not on the brand label.

I like your version better. A small change I'm considering is that there are performance benefits to self-powered professional studio monitors that go beyond reducing "clutter" in a crowded space. I happen to think having speaker cables (inside the enclosure) that are a couple of inches long is a good thing... Binksternet (talk) 06:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This could indeed be a potential benefit. However also consider also that the vibrations from the speaker may not be good for fidelity (microphonics for example) and negative effects on the longevity of electronic components.

I think the march to active has also been largely due to the explosion in home recording. Many people starting out building bedroom 'studios' find it far more convenient to buy a ready-packaged monitor solution, and so for reasons of convenience, the category has exploded. I have not seen any concrete evidence that passive or active monitors are superior. It is a matter of fashion as far as I can see.

I do think the original version of the wiki had a clear and unjustified bias against Hi-Fi speakers. The large majority of nearfields sold are in the USD$300-800 category and exhibit no more linearity than Hi-Fi speakers in the same price range (from respected manufacturers). There is no magic here, there is a lot of marketing however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edit-or-perish (talk • contribs) 08:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Article is getting less and less biased against Hi-Fi speakers, thanks to balanced editing from NPOV editors like yourself.

Regarding the march to self-powered; my POV is from the live sound/concert sound aspect of the biz. I see large-scale self-powered speakers in use at live events correcting the formerly widespread problem of unpredictable roll-your-own crossover settings changing what would have been a perfectly acceptable and familiar speaker system obtained locally or installed at a venue into a very bad-sounding and frustrating stop on your tour. Once you take away the ability of the consumer to tweak their crossover, bandpass EQ and speaker limiter settings, you reap the benefits of predictable loudspeaker performance everywhere you go. Also, having an amplifier married to a specific speaker driver means the designer can tweak it more precisely for optimum performance in that bandpass. In addition, they can more closely tailor limiting characteristics. When working with high concert SPLs, professionals are much less concerned with potential amplifier microphonics than you might think. At very high volumes, the soundwaves coming forward out of the low frequency drivers curl back around the front of the enclosure and modulate the mid and high frequency drivers quite a lot. It's a tough problem that few talk about. But I digress from this article's subject... Binksternet (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with your comments on FOH systems, but they are a completely different class of speaker to studio monitors, what we are mainly discussing here I believe is mainly Near Field monitors. Your comments about crossovers etc, raises an interesting issue that I believe may help to explain some of the loose talk associated with active vs passive monitor design. That is discussions in one area of the industry filter through to another. I have often seen people claim that the active monitors allow better amplifier to driver matching (damping etc) etc, however there little evidence that many monitor manufacturers actually do this or if they do, that their implementation is superior to a well designed external amplifier driving a passive speaker. It is true that the bi-amped active monitors still require crossover circuitry to split the signal to the amps BTW. The fact is that the external amplifier + spassive speaker route is a mature technology that is well understood. I just haven't seen any evidence from controlled listening tests that either approach is obviously superior, it all depends on the particular components in question. The same is true for the Hi-Fi vs Monitor debate. Indeed this article is a good one - http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/Jun02/articles/monitors.asp Edit-or-perish (talk) 05:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoever altered the section on home-audio versus pro audio simply offers their personal opinions, citing only Phil Ward's 2002 article in "Sound On Sound" as some sort of "proof" of these opinions. Unnamed authorities are also alluded to to support the contention that active offers no benefits over passive. The statement that there is no objective difference between the passive and active versions of a loudspeaker is - to be honest - just made up. If any evidence or sources can be cited in support of this, please do so. Two articles on the subject that strongly argue the case for active can be found at

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_9_4/feature-article-active-speakers-12-2002.html http://www.tnt-audio.com/casse/active_speakers_intro1_e.html

As for the Ward article, far from being a scientific paper on the subject, it took a tiny sample of two home-audio and two pro audio speakers, subjected them to four measurements, and then concluded that there were differences in ability to monitor at higher levels. There were no listening tests involved, despite your assertion that the article shows "no noticeable difference in sound between a Hi-Fi speaker and a studio monitor". In fact, using the testing methodology, it could be concluded that the cheap B&W DM303's tested were far superior to Eggleston Andra's (to take just one example from high-end audiophilia) for monitoring purposes (check out the FR charts for the latter from the "Stereophile" archives online). The home-audio samples were also recent designs at the time while the pro samples were seven-year old designs and were passive as well, not active - as is almost universaly the case with modern monitors. The article also wasn't considering home-audio speakers for professional use but for "project" studio applications.

The assertion that professional studios frequently use hi-fi speakers as monitors is quite simply a falsehood. Only mastering studios use Eggleston's, Wilson's, and B&W while they are rarely, if ever, to be seen in the recording studio proper during the process of recording. This article is entitled "Studio Monitor", no?

The suggestion that home-audio speakers are indistinguishable from (or superior to) pro monitor can be countered with the opinion of "Stereophile" founder, J. Gordon Holt, who is scathing about trends in audiophile speaker design. He wrote in a review of the Westlake lc81 in "The Absolute Sound" that: "The laid-back midrange has so thoroughly pervaded audiophilia that makers of studio monitors, which are designed to be as accurate as possible, often flatly refuse to loan them for audiophile review, even when asked. Their response is: “No, you won’t like them.” And whenever a pro manufacturer decides to enter the consumer market, the company deliberately compromises its designs to tailor them to the audiophile’s “taste” in sound, and then cynically promotes them by citing the company’s “enviable reputation” in the industry ­ a reputation earned not by its consumer products, but by its studio products. Audiophiles would be shocked to hear what the studio models from such stalwart companies as JBL, ATC, Westlake, and Tannoy sound like. They’re everything audiophiles are said to hate, yet they’re exactly what’s needed to reproduce music realistically in multiple channels." And I can cite many other instances of such talk: Brian Knave in "Emusician", for example, writes that "A common misconception among those new to music production is that home-stereo speakers are adequate for monitoring." (http://emusician.com/speakers/emusic_good_references/)

And if "Sound On Sound" is authoritative, then why not cite their Head Monitor reviewer Paul White's frequent assertions that active is clearly superor to the equivalent passive design? So, unless this article can be objectified in the next few days I'll be editing it to reflect objective and verifiable data on the subject.LJSO (talk) 04:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting points but none of those studies quoted come close to a double blind listening test and so are just more opinions. You seem to be pushing a barrow yourself. At the end of the day this issue of Hi-Fi vs studio monitor is mute, simply because the variability in the quality and design of monitor speakers is as variable as the hi-fi set. This discussion will always degenerate into opinion, which yours surely is just another example. There is no reason a well made hi-fi speaker will be any better or worse than a well made near field monitor for mixing music.

Edit-or-perish (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, the monitoring for Abbey Rd Studio 1 is provided by three B&W Nautilus 800D Loudspeakers and five HTM1 rear speakers fully configured for surround monitoring up to 7.1 channels. These are definitely marketed as Hi-Fi speakers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.107.162 (talk) 06:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yamaha NS-10 website

I deleted the link to the Yamaha NS-10 website as it appears to the brainchild of one person writing without oversight. It's also about one studio monitor while this article is about all studio monitors. I think the link fails WP:EL. Perhaps it would work under the Yamaha page or the not-yet-written Yamaha NS-10 page. Binksternet (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Behringer Truth Deleted

It looks more like a plug for a product than anything relevance to the rest of the article. It is also covered in the "Studio Monitor Manufacurers" link just above it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.41.102 (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no list of studio motitor manufacturers on Wikipedia, and certainly not "just above it", that link was included since it was the only monitor specific link on the site (at the time anyway) and the article was otherwise an orphan. How about you guys putting more info on the site and not less like this delete, for instance not keeping Behrigner Truths as the only monitors with a presence on Wikipedia, NS10 comes to mind as something notable for instance, the Fostex series especially the (now discontinued) ones with the "citrus fruit press" or some classic BBC/Rogers, Lansing or Quested models, or a list of studio monitor manufacturers if you all feel a little uninspired. So stop whining and deleting, and start writing something ..... reiknir (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Rereading the article I see there are plenty of external links to commercial entities on the page, so I am reinstating the internal link to the Behringer monitors

reiknir (talk) 09:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Behringer speakers don't need to be listed at "See also." Binksternet (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Auratone shortchanged?

This article seems to shortchange the ubiquity of the Auratone in favor of devoting too much to the NS-10. In my experience, the Auratone was the original "squawk box" most popularly used as a lo-fi, real world reference LONG before the NS-10 was created. Referring to it as "crude" seems over the line. While very popular in the post production and broadcast worlds, the Auratone could be found in many music recording facilities in the 70's. Someone correct me, but I don't think that the NS-10, on the other hand, enjoyed much popularity in non-music mixing situations. Therefore, I think it could be asserted that the Auratone was more broadly used across industry lines as well as the first practical standard (made so by mass adoption) nearfield real world reference.

Note that vintage Auratones still sell on eBay and the design has been revived by Avantone. DISCLAIMER: I have no connection to Auratone or Avantone; merely an Auratone user for over 20 years in a professional context and still own them. MRJayMach (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. I don't know enough about the Auratone's history to correct the problem. It would be good for the article if somebody steps up and writes a paragraph on the little cube... Binksternet (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Auratones were great (the moden ones are not the same) but they were not used as main monitors in any studio I know of and were not the first "comparison" product, while the NS10 was a breakthrough product, but Auratones should be on wikipedia, how abut a new page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reiknir (talk • contribs) 12:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Global view

I've added some text and sources about the BBC's contributions to this field. I was aiming for the article to be more balanced from the global perspective (geographical as well as situational), but the material I added may not be wholly relevant at this time. Feel free to prune or add to what I've done. The BBC sources may be useful in further developing the article. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

No Evidence to Support Primary Claims of this Article

I design studio monitors for a living and, in my opinion, much of this article needs rework. While I wish it were true, all these basic claims about studio monitors having flatter frequency and phase responses, as well as being more robust, have little or no evidence to support them. I have tried my best to find an AES Journal paper or other citation to support any of this. I can’t find a thing. Some papers discuss design goals and criteria for making good studio monitors. However, none show that speakers in the field, marketed as studio monitors, generally achieve these goals any better than any other speakers. The data doesn't appear to exist. I did find this article in Sound on Sound that compares studio monitors to hi-fi speakers:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun02/articles/monitors.asp http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul02/articles/monitors2.asp

However, it suggests there might not be any general difference from a sonic performance perspective. Of course, the Sound on Sound article is far from a comprehensive survey. But it’s the only credible source I can find specifically relating to this issue. And it points to the near polar opposite conclusion of what the Studio Monitor article claims throughout. Nonetheless, I do think there are some characteristics, obvious to most everyone, that distinguish studio monitors from consumer hi-fi speakers:

• Monitors are predominantly self-powered these days.
• Monitors have +4dBu balanced inputs rather than -10dBV single ended inputs.
• Monitors often have dynamic limiters. This may lend some credence to the “robustness” claim, but for a different reason than what the article suggests.
• Monitors often have front facing power and clip indicator lights.
• Monitors typically have more utilitarian cosmetics i.e. plain black boxes. Seriously!
• Monitors either tend to have book-shelf dimensions, which facilitates mounting on a console meter bridge, or they are designed for soffit mounting.

For the most part these characteristics deal with form and functionality within a studio environment rather than sonic performance differences.

Can anyone point to research, or even a news article that, supports the studio monitor distinctions claimed here? If not, I propose that the focus of this article be shifted towards the more verifiable functionality aspects of studio monitors rather than the, so far, unvaried sonic performance differences. And with regard to the performance differences, they should be phrased and cited as goals rather than varied differences. I will appreciate all feedback before I head down this path. I'll post my changes here on the talk page for critique before making any updates to the article. Thomas Barefoot 21:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)