In Reply to: That's not really true posted by racerguy on February 16, 2007 at 09:15:50:
>> Studio monitoring equipment is designed to display gross errors and issues...That is a bit of an overstatement but still has a fair truth to it. Many production and manufacturing processes include certain steps for quality control that are not "real life" once the product leaves the plant.
A good non-audio example might be a product that receives a painted finish. The finish might be examined under extra bright or special spectrum lights (UV, etc.) in order to highlight flaws. It might be looked at through magnifying lenses. It might be compared to a standardized color sample. It might be wiped with a special cloth or other device to spot irregularities in the smoothness of the finish, and so on.
The vast majority of end users, on receiving this product, are never going to repeat those tests, nor would they wish to. They have no continuing relevance to the day-to-day use of the item.
The other flaw regarding the studio equipment argument is that studio equipment itself is all over the place. Spendor and Harbeth make wonderful studio monitors but they sound much different than B&W or any of a number of other brands. The logical conclusion of the original premise is that an end user would need a pair of every different brand of speakers that were ever used in a studio. T'ain't practical! And with that, we haven't even started discussing the wide range of room acoustics one encounters in recording studio monitor rooms.
In short, the "use studio equipment at home" admonition sounds good if you say it fast and don't think about it real hard.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: That's not really true - mls-stl 12:22:19 02/16/07 (2)
- Re: That's not really true - racerguy 12:37:26 02/16/07 (1)
- Re: That's not really true - kerr 13:22:55 02/16/07 (0)