[
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2008, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]
196.3.50.254
In Reply to: RE: Studio vs high end posted by KlausR. on January 29, 2008 at 02:25:30
"but inaccurate high end speakers do"
You are creating a strawman here Klaus that high end speakers are inaccurate. This is not the case as I am sure a pair of Wilson X1s will measure MUCH lower in distortion and at higher levels than your studio monitors, for example.
You knockdown this strawman by saying how could they be better than your "accurate" monitors because they are so inaccurate. Which ones, Klaus? And under what conditions are your monitors accurate? Near-field? Most of us listen under far-field conditions. Many of us also equalize our systems for better FR so this is not a major issue regarding the sound quality. My loudspeakers have very low distortion at normal levels, have a very linear FR over a wide range (+-1.5db or so from 200Hz to about 10Khz...in-room!), almost no coloration (ie. no boxes or cone breakup), and are time coherent. They are high end speakers to be used in the far-field but work very well at nearly any distance.
"the audiophile who uses high end speakers which most of the time are blatantly inaccurate is screwing things up with great success.
"
Again with this misleading assumption! I can show you plenty of accurate loudspeakers. ARe you talking only about FR? If so this is so easily corrected as to be laughable as a defining criteria of accurate.
"Did YOU ever hear a top notch accurate studio speaker in a home (i.e. non-studio and far field) to say that they are not capable to deliver the real thing"
Yes many times and no they are not capable. It was not their design goal either. Near-field monitoring has a different purpose.
Follow Ups:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2008, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]