 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.16.125.158
In Reply to: RE: Are these really myths... posted by chocolate_lover9999@yahoo.com on November 17, 2010 at 21:22:22
That jasper doesn't even seem to know what a monitor is; why believe anything he says?Now here's a monitor.
Edits: 11/17/10 11/17/10Follow Ups:
You can keep your interconnects your wrongly calling bookshelf designs monitors,Your changing of squaker to midrange damn audiophiles...
Monitor speakers are speakers that are used to check the quality of or keep track of the content of a transmission or a recording. They are different from other loudspeakers in their purposes—the distinction is in the function that the speaker carries out. There are several types of monitor speakers, including stage monitors, studio monitors, and in-ear monitors.
Beatnik's stuff http://web.me.com/jnr1/Site/Beatniks_Pictures.html
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?
What can contribute to good imaging? One of the least-talk-about things is pair matching. This isn't often considered, but getting both speakers to within 1dB of, say, a reference isn't something everyone does. We did some experiments on pair matching a few years back just for our own interest and found that some companies match the speakers very closely while others don't. It would be at all shocking to know that companies that don't believe much in measurements don't get their speakers matched too well. Obviously, this is a place where measurements truly matter.
DS @ SoundStageNetwork.com
… when Dynaudio still sold drivers for diy they claimed that every driver would be within 0.5dB of any driver of the same model which is quite a feat of manufacturing consistency.
While it is true that Abbey Road for instance uses B&Ws it is also true that Abbey Road is getting paid to use them.
Without that financial incentive they'd still use their Quested systems.
Btw 801 are tiny compared to proper, large main monitors like Quested HM415, Genelec 1036 or PMC BB5 XBD-A.
English is a living, evolving language, and I refudiate any suggestion that words should not change meaning over time. Tom, you seem to be living in the 1970's. While monitor might have meant something specific back then, like speakers used to monitor sound in a recording booth, things have moved on. Now, monitor speaker(as compared to full range) really means any smaller speaker with somewhat limited bass extension, no matter what it is used for. This is common useage, even used by this forum in it's Classified section to designate small and full range speakers. Audiogon also uses these terms. And, yet the confusion and arguments persist.I suggest we create a new word that is a combination of previously used words that will help us understand what speakers we are talking about.
Perhaps "Monishelf", "Bookitor" or "Limlowfreq" could be used to refer to all smallish speakers. Then any one wanting to be more specific can use their own favorite term, such as "Studio Monitor", "Small speaker on a stand", or "Speaker under 3.5 cubic feet with bass limited to 44 Hz".
Can't we all just get along?
Edits: 11/18/10
"Tom, you seem to be living in the 1970's. While monitor might have meant something specific back then, like speakers used to monitor sound in a recording booth, things have moved on."
Well no, they haven't moved on. People who record still use monitors and call them monitors. A monitor is a tool. The terminology of those who use tools for their living trumps that of hobbyists.Many audiophiles seem unaware of the real use of monitors and of the many large monitors out there and the many excellent hi-fi speakers derived from such monitors. Such people should be encouraged to learn a little more about what kind of gear is out there and how it can be used rather than have their ignorance reinforced.
Then we have the audiophiles who throw the term "bi-amping" around and wouldn't know an active crossover if one fell on their head.
Edits: 11/19/10
And yet, many knowledgeable manufacturers choose to call their standmounts "monitors". Why is this? Is it because studio monitors are not always placed on the floor, like "floorstanders" almost always are? Is that why the word has come to mean "Any speaker small enough to be easily hoisted."? Or, is it because the word "monitor" sounds so much cooler than "standmount"?
Well, it would be difficult to standmount them since they are 2.08m (6ft10) tall!
The BBC used the LS3/5 mini-monitor for small studio work. It saves space.
These kind of speakers have been called "mini-monitors", "bookshelf speakers", "stand mounted speakers", and I don't care what you want to call them. They're small speakers.
They were first noted for their strength in imaging compared to the larger monitors in the early days. But it stuck as a "rule" as the way to achieve better imaging. Floor standers can do better, but the design needs to be aware of longer baffles vertically as well. That does not help for imaging. So those stepped boxes from B&W and Vandersteen (uncovered) look like small speakers standing on larger speakers for minimal baffle area. The small baffle idea simply was demonstrated by those early small speakers.
-Kurt
I think the simple answer is that it has become fashionable for manufacturers and marketeers to call small, standmount speakers "monitors" because it sounds flashy and is one word instead of two words. Looking at the classified ads over at Audiogon (or even, here at Audio Asylum) and we see that any speaker that is not a "floorstander" is called a "monitor". Most of these so-called "monitors" would never be chosen by professionals for monitoring purposes, including my VMPS and Clements "ribbon monitors" (standmounts!). The word "monitor" just slides off the tongue easier and it sounds so much cooler than "standmount speaker", "bookself speaker", or even "small speaker".
Edits: 11/18/10
"Monitors" sounds cool; Reference monitors, so much more so. It's like you're getting this super-accurate speaker thingy they can charge an arm and a leg for and it will be the "studio reference", "state of the art", right in your modest living room! And they only cost... hmmm.
Freedom is the right to discipline yourself.
…oddly most speakers called 'monitor' by 'audiophile' manufacturers are not accurate or robust enough to be used in a decent studio.
A friend of mine tried using Linns in his studio once. They lasted nearly 45 minutes before they died. Since my friend does not monitor loudly it must have been the dynamics which did them in.
In the VMPS line the "RM" designation stands for Ribbon MONITOR.ALL the RM (RM1/RM2/RM30/RM40/RM50 Bipolar array/RM v60/RM/x) are all Floorstanding Monitors.
To us, a Monitor can be "stand mount" or "floor standing" which then more clearly designate their stature, NOT their function.
Edits: 11/19/10
Although consumers and reviewers sometimes refer the the QSO 626R as a "ribbon monitor", I'm curious as to why VMPS does not. Is it because the 626R is not quite a "full range" speaker?
Actually Brian Cheney names his speakers and usually keeps it rather simple.The QSO626 is a Standmount Monitor, but I doubt Brian even considered the need to designate it as such for any reason.
As I posted in another thread, the term "monitor" describes a FUNCTON, and terms like StandMount, or FloorStander describe a FORM.
Logically it would closely track the term "video monitor" as a function, and Flat Screen, Front Projection, Rear Projection, CRT, etc would describe a form.
A speaker monitors audio content. The form is what might determine the difference in performance in that monitoring function.
Quite often terms take on a "traditional" use which may not align with the more accurate use of a term.
FYI EDIT: QSO stands for Quasi-Second Order refering to the X-over
Edits: 11/19/10
p
Beatnik's stuff http://web.me.com/jnr1/Site/Beatniks_Pictures.html
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
