Studio or home loudspeakers?

If flat frequency response is the goal, why would audiophiles not choose studio monitors for their home systems?

[donaldmacdougall]

Being 71 music is the only thing I can list over now. She is like a woman. Sometimes beautiful and amazing other times annoying and hard to get along with. So I guess Paul you’re my new marriage consultant. Thanks so much for all your help and support ❤

[bayard]

For mixing one wants a setup that is brutally honest and revealing of things that have to be fixed. At home one doesn't really want a system that shines a light on all the flaws, one wants a system that sounds engaging and musical and emotional even when the recording has flaws.

[grumpy]

revealing flaws in the performance capture / recording / mixing process is a distinct function from that of delivering a pleasurable playback experience for consumers.

[rollingtroll]

I wonder if I really want a flat speaker. Your room isn't even flat, your ears aren't flat, music isn't flat. I think there's too much preference/taste here to say anyone should 'want' flat. I listen to a pair of Martin Logan Source speakers. They are NOT flat. Reason they work is my difficult space. It eats up all of the low end and makes the ML's sound remarkably balanced. With them being hybrid electrostatic speakers the highs and mids are beautifully defined and the sound stage is holographic. Looking at their measurements though, they have 10dB's of difference.
In my studio (which is mostly for digitising and remastering old recordings) I have a pair of Tannoy SRM10B's. I equalize them because they have very noticeable peaks and valleys. If I use them as a reference without the EQ, everything sounds very dull and very sub-bass heavy. Yet I never found a speaker that performed better in that space, that allows me to hear everything I need to hear, and that is still pleasant to listen to (as a nearfield, in a living room situation they sound very dull, they are just not made for that).
I heard the FR30's and they are among the best speakers I ever heard. Easily top 5. Are they my taste? Not really, they are a little too energetic and bright for me. Does that mean they are closer to a real life performance? Absolutely, but I don't want real drums and a real trumpet in my living room. I want to be able to enjoy the music even when it's playing quietly in the background. So flatness, it's great for designing and building speakers. But whether you should care about it as a buyer? I personally think you shouldn't.

[Pressure_]

As others have mentioned, monitors serve a different purpose. I’ve used Genelecs for 25 years for mixing, stereo replay and surround sound. I recently got a stereo hifi for music replay so I could relax into the music more. My fabulous Genelec 8331s are amazing but they are endlessly forensic. Now a Rega / Dali set up is so much better for enjoyment. And weirdly the Genelecs now sound better! Still use 8040s for surround sound and I think they are staying.

But if you like monitors, go for it. They’re good value and can be convenient.

[bitmanev]

Also a Studio Control Room is very different then most home listening rooms

[spacemissing]

Many studio monitors are far from "flat", and a lot of them are designed to be used at very close range ("near field").
Producers and engineers find ways of compensating for deficiencies in their equipment.

[tomoxfford]

Also, recordings and the equipment used to produce them, are usually optimised for the most common types of playback... phones via arbuds & Bluetooth.

[ozpopjazz]

Studio monitors used mostly in very controlled environments, but home systems should be more versatile to fit in very different home acoustics but still be listenable. This is not easy. Also, the users in studios are very well trained what to expect from the sound, but most home users expect primarily an enjoying sound. A home user easily fall in love with a very non-linear loudspeaker, but studio user has no chance. So, most of the home system producers' products are not very linear, but as much as linear with an enjoyable sound. Which is mostly shifted bass and highs with a little suppressed mids. And also making a big home speaker very linear is not an easy job, neither cheap 🤩.

[tristanjones]

The comment section is amazing. Use first principals guys. An idea speaker is as follows.

1: Infinitely small point source.
2: Massless
3: Can move an infinite amount of air instantaneously.

Such a speaker WILL be perfectly flat. There is no if, ands, or butts, about it. So why do studio speakers often suck? Because they generally sacrifice all 3 rules in order to force the speaker to have a flat response curve. Why do you think they all have super heavy cones and really thick surrounds? It's all damping so that they can hit their target response curve. There is no magic or mystery about it. All you need to do to make a world renowned speaker is design something that gets closer to achieving those three rules than the last guy. Trying to translate those rules into real life AND do it to a price point is exceedingly challenging which is why Paul covets Chris so much.

[ridetonight]

In the living room I use both (but not at the same time!) I have pretty good tower speakers and I have a pair of active monitor speakers (8" bass + tweeter). Both pairs sound different to each other, but I can very well enjoy both pairs of speakers for listening to music. Sometimes I get "boared" of the reproduced sound so I switch over to the other pair...

[tudorsomkereki]

With good placement, any speakers can dissapear. I bought a £20 tower set of speakers and placed them in my system and they disappeared instantly! The sound, obviously, was very different but they had depth because of the placement not because of design. Not to much sound stage but i could definitely hear the music coming from behind the speakers. All this with full BHK line of electronics.

[Rowuk]

Studio monitors generally have less dispersion than home speakers. The studio is also not really a "listening" room as during the recording the job is to get the microphone signal recorded. Mixing happens elsewhere, later and with different speakers (many times even headphones) than in the track room.

[jozno]

I think if people who enjoy music (especially audiophiles) were to ever hear monitors in a studio setting, used to mix music, they would get a better idea of the difference and even why there is a difference.

[kkrobertson]

4:34 well said Mr. McGowan; I concur :)

[BurtBartlow]

So...

It's all relative. And subjective.

[babubabu]

No doubt that Aspen Speakers are the best Speakers in this World, because PS AUDIO provide us quality of products 👌
Big thanks to PAUL Sir...🙏

[bobbybradford]

Studio monitors are made for smaller rooms. That's one reason it would not sound good in a big room in a house even in medium size room.

[RacingAnt]

I love the myth that studio monitors have a "flat" response. Many revered monitors are anythiny but flat.

Yes, some modern, active monitors using DSP are flat, but there are way more that have a distinctly uneven response.

[edd]

Ok so home systems need to be “musical”. Please define musical. And if musical is good, why not make studio monitors “musical” as well? Why does one need to be one one way and one the other way?