In Reply to: And a monitor speaker is: posted by jnr on November 18, 2010 at 00:43:54:
may range in size from little shoeboxes like the LS3/5A to behemoths like the B&W 801 series. The latter are used in recording studios all over the world for monitoring purposes, particularly with symphonic music. Speakers used to monitor the mixing/mastering of recordings are generally expected to have very flat on-axis frequency response, good dynamics, and low distortion. The small ones are typically used to listen in the nearfield, right on top of the console, while the large ones (like the B&Ws) may be employed in larger spaces.
The trend toward calling small domestic speakers "monitors" began as a marketing thing sometime in the 1980s. Manufacturers used the term to suggest that their small speakers had the same sonic qualities as true studio monitors. This use of the term has now become generally accepted, even if it's not strictly accurate.
Semantics aside, the point of Jim Salk's article (and he is a knowledgeable speaker designer) was that narrow baffle/wide dispersion floorstanders can image every bit as well as small standmount speakers. This seems rather obvious, but raises another question: can wide-baffle speakers like the big Magicos and Focals also image well? Though perhaps only in a narrower listener "sweet spot?" What design factors besides baffle width contribute to good imaging?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- True "monitor" speakers, in the professional sense, - caspian@peak.org 09:52:21 11/20/10 (3)
- RE: True "monitor" speakers, in the professional sense, - das@soundstage.com 15:21:46 11/20/10 (1)
- If I remember correctly… - b.l.zeebub 16:06:53 11/20/10 (0)
- RE: True "monitor" speakers, in the professional sense, - b.l.zeebub 14:19:57 11/20/10 (0)