Speaker Asylum

Posted by Duke (D) on June 29, 2014 at 02:39:31

In Reply to: RE: Why not studio monitors? posted by audiogremlin on June 28, 2014 at 09:32:45

There are three different jobs that studio monitors perform, and correspondingly three different types, though sometimes more than one job is handled by a given pair (as in the photo above, which we'll come to in a minute).

The three jobs are: Tracking, mixing, and mastering.

Tracking monitors are what the engineer listens to as the musician(s) lay down a track, and they are also what the musician(s) listen to when they come back into the control room and say, "Dude, how'd we sound?" So the tracking monitors have to handle raw uncompressed dynamics, be revealing enough for the engineer to notice if something's not right, and perhaps most importantly, they need to impress the customer (in this case the band) with what a good job the engineer is doing of capturing their mojo.

Mixing monitors are what the engineer uses to edit (fix) any problems in the individual instrument tracks and then to "mix" those tracks, including setting the levels, stereo panning, and the application of EQ and/or other processing to the various tracks. So mixing is where the raw voice and instrument tracks are turned into songs.

Mastering is where the mix is globally fine-tuned via EQ and/or other processing, where the dynamics are optimized, and where a collection of songs are turned into an album. Mastering is also the last chance to catch anything that still needs to be fixed. And one final job of the mastering monitors is, once again, impressing the client.

In the photo above, tracking as well as mastering duties are handled by the pair of big MHM monitors. Mixing is handled by the two pairs of small monitors sitting on the console. Often engineers use multiple pairs of mixing monitors because different ones excel in different areas, and it's always a good idea to "check the mix" on somewhat dissimilar pairs of speakers because you want the mix to "translate" well to a wide variety of sound systems.

Notice that the tracking/mastering monitors in the photo are highly directional. This isn't always the case, but it often is, as engineers are looking to hear what's on the recording as vividly as possible (which is not the same thing as "recreating the experience of hearing a live performance as close as possible"), with minimal euphonic room reverberation to sweeten the sound, but still without the sound being fatiguing.

The mixing monitors aren't much concerned with radiation pattern control as they are used nearfield, so the direct sound is much much louder than the reverberant sound. They also tend to be a bit mid-forward, as the engineer really needs to hear what's going on in the mids, especially in the vocal region, to get the mix right. Finally, mixing monitors are usually designed with console placement in mind - without it, their tonal balance is no longer what the designer intended (though they may still work fine).

Studies have shown that audiophiles generally find a higher reverberant-to-direct ratio to sound more natural; in other words, audiophiles tend to prefer speakers with wider dispersion than do recording engineers. My best home audio designs differ significantly from my custom studio mastering monitors in that regard, putting out a great deal more (spectrally-correct) energy into the reverberant field.

So while it's certainly feasible to use tracking, mixing, or mastering monitors for home audio, those are all specialized tools that may or may not do what you are looking for.

And for the record, all of these are much more complex topics than I've made them out to be in this post, which is already quite long-winded.

Imo, ime, ymmv, etc.

Duke

Me being a dealer makes you leery?? It gets worse... I'm a manufacturer too.

Edits: 06/29/14   06/29/14   06/29/14