In Reply to: Why not studio monitors? posted by audiogremlin on June 28, 2014 at 09:32:45:
there are more sonic similarities among top quality speakers of both types than differences, at similar price points, but other factors are quite different.
They are designed for different purposes and environments. Money spent on designing a speaker that has very high undistorted output ability(and that is expensive), such as studios want, may be money wasted in a home environment where volume requirements are much lower. Also, the room is an important factor in the sound obtained in the end, and studios are very different environments than a typical home.
I recently compared my Event Opal studio monitors, a top rated monitor in the $3000 range, to my similarly priced Selah Audio ribbon monitors. The Opals are very good sounding. They will play much louder, go deeper in the bass and had useful EQ built in, but in ever other respect the Selahs are a more accurate reproducer. The RAAL tweeter is smoother and cleaner on top, and the midrange is more open, accurate and lifelike. However, the Selahs would never hold up for the rigors of commercial use. Both are excellent speakers, with different strengths and uses.
So, don't assume anything about the two types of speakers, at any price point.
There is equivalent quality available at all price points, IMO, but which is best fit for any user depends on the circumstances.
Needless to say, most studio monitors have different connectivity and switching requirements, and have very low WAF as well.
As mentioned, companies like PMC and ATC have home versions of some of their monitors, which are very good as well as expensive.
Edits: 06/28/14 06/28/14
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- I have owned lots of both... in general terms... - jonbee 23:18:31 06/28/14 (1)
- Nicely put. -t - jusbe 18:46:07 07/07/14 (0)