corElement
Well-Known Member
hyeah:hyeah:hyeah:lol'ed out hard irl
I cover my ears no matter what contemporary lata song I hear, her voice in youth didn't have that shrill it has in the past 15 years.
BS vs FS
- Thread starter Vishal
- Start date
hyeah:hyeah:hyeah:lol'ed out hard irl
I cover my ears no matter what contemporary lata song I hear, her voice in youth didn't have that shrill it has in the past 15 years.
Vishal, for purposes that you mention i.e. home theater/stereo, you can look for regular bookshelf speakers and you will be just fine.
Stands are used to mount bookshelf speakers ideally to listening height of the audience. So if you prefer to sit and listen to music at home, you measure the height where your ears are going to be and position the stands so that the tweeters are at the same height as your ears. That's the basic funda - you can then go into a lot of details on stand construction, etc. basically to reduce vibrations.
Home audio bookshelves are not generally considered "monitors". But they are good enough for practical listening which in a house/apartment is near field listening. I said this earlier as well, bookshelves are also easy to drive. This means a decent amp will suffice to get things started. By decent, I mean anything in the 30W - 100W range. This means something starting at 15K-40K will do for a stereo setup. For home theater look for something in the range of 45K - 90K. All depends on your budget. You can easily spend several lakhs as well but these are reasonable estimates.
not quite knowledgeable about cross-over points but at times, we are asked to keep the bigger driver at ear-level instead of the tweeter since woofer(full-fangers) play most of the frequencies! Correct me if im wrong!!
There is some much misinformation floating on the net, that it is mind boggling. The record needs to be put straight.
It is recommended that only tweeter needs to be at ear level and not Woofer. The simple reason is, the sound dispersion pattern would get proportionately narrower compared to driver size. Hence, the off axis response of a tweeter would be grossly lower when compared to that of a mid-woofer, even more if it is a woofer. The lower the frequency, the wider the dispersion pattern. That is why, LFE is perceived as non directional.
A lot has been said about right driver for right frequency. Though it is correct, theoretically speaking, difficult to design and implement. More the drivers, more the complications. At the end of the day, it is all about compromises. The lower the cost, the higher would be the compromises.
BTW FYI, there are quite a few floors tanders which are two way design.
Whether one should go for floor standers or monitors (not studio monitors) or for that matter book shelf speakers would be depend on room size for a major extent because, the prime difference between a BS and FS is the speaker's ability to play the extent of LF. However, one must also take into consideration, the room size because, the room would generously contribute towards the LF extension. The smaller the room size, the greater would be the boost, other things being equal.
corElement
Well-Known Member
It depends on the speaker, no hard and fast rule.
There is too much mis-information here about studio monitors. I think most of it is coming from Google and not first hand listening.
Studio Monitor is a term used for speakers used in Studios, for mixing. The no 1 specification for these speakers is to sound natural, without coloration, distortion and flat frequency response. The next spec is that these should take extended hours without problem. That means robust drivers and solid electronics. Since these are used in Industrial setup, the cabinets will not be very attractive.
Now, the recording engineers use these speakers to tweak the sound and come to the right quality. Now, if these are sounding screeching or real bad, how do you think the audio engineers come to the conclusion that the recording is adequately tweaked? The fact is - these speakers will output the source as it is. You feed it crappy, distorted source, it will sound that way. Feed it good signal, all is good. If you want reference quality speakers, then its the studio monitors because these are the ones that are used in studios and against which all the audio is tested. That's the way the recording engineer intended the music/movie to be sounded. Period.
About extended listening: These speakers are indeed used for longer hrs per day. so they are designed to have longer life of drivers and other electronics and are built to very tight quality norms. They are supposed to sound the same all the time. Another example of speakers designed for extended hrs is Cinema hall speakers. do they sound screeching? Do we get fatigued by extended listening? Perhaps is the loudness is too much. But then every speaker will sound fatiguing if ran at high decibels anyway.
As for near field vs mid-field. There is truth to that. Some monitors are near field and are meant to be used nearby. But there are mid field studio monitors as well. I have JBL monitors and I use those at 15 ft away without problem. The ones that I have are mid field.
I have listened to both active vs passive studio monitors. They are very high quality speakers for the money. They easily outperform the consumer speakers which cost few times over. If possible, go to musician store and listen to these speakers. That's the only way to get the right idea about these.
Studio Monitor is a term used for speakers used in Studios, for mixing. The no 1 specification for these speakers is to sound natural, without coloration, distortion and flat frequency response. The next spec is that these should take extended hours without problem. That means robust drivers and solid electronics. Since these are used in Industrial setup, the cabinets will not be very attractive.
Now, the recording engineers use these speakers to tweak the sound and come to the right quality. Now, if these are sounding screeching or real bad, how do you think the audio engineers come to the conclusion that the recording is adequately tweaked? The fact is - these speakers will output the source as it is. You feed it crappy, distorted source, it will sound that way. Feed it good signal, all is good. If you want reference quality speakers, then its the studio monitors because these are the ones that are used in studios and against which all the audio is tested. That's the way the recording engineer intended the music/movie to be sounded. Period.
About extended listening: These speakers are indeed used for longer hrs per day. so they are designed to have longer life of drivers and other electronics and are built to very tight quality norms. They are supposed to sound the same all the time. Another example of speakers designed for extended hrs is Cinema hall speakers. do they sound screeching? Do we get fatigued by extended listening? Perhaps is the loudness is too much. But then every speaker will sound fatiguing if ran at high decibels anyway.
As for near field vs mid-field. There is truth to that. Some monitors are near field and are meant to be used nearby. But there are mid field studio monitors as well. I have JBL monitors and I use those at 15 ft away without problem. The ones that I have are mid field.
I have listened to both active vs passive studio monitors. They are very high quality speakers for the money. They easily outperform the consumer speakers which cost few times over. If possible, go to musician store and listen to these speakers. That's the only way to get the right idea about these.
Original Poster VISHAL:
To wipe the slate clean, and answer your question specifically -
I have Quad "bookshelf" speakers. And on the box cover it is clearly written Monitors.
I don't care about whatever definitions this society has put on hi-fi speakers and monitors and studio monitors.
I like their sound. Whether I sit close (1-2 feet) or far (5-10 feet)
The same goes for JBLs, Mackies and KRKs that I have come across.
The only difference being that Quads have more emphasis on mid range (more 500 - 900 Hz).
Whereas the Mackies & JBLs (whenever I listen) sound sharper (more 2000 - 4000 Hz).
This is the characteristic sound of the speaker.
It has nothing to do with whether its labelled as hi-fi or monitor or what not.
The goal of a hi-fi (which incidentally means hi fidelity) and monitors is same.
Reproduce sound with as little distortion and coloration as possible.
Again the marketing departments working overtime have somehow made it a law that hi-speakers = the one with emphasized frequency response, to sound better to your ears. the funny thing is - how do they know what "sounds" better to my ears.
This is BS. If your speaker colors the sound - its a lo-fi speaker.
Same goes for monitors - studio ones or home ones.
What actually DOES demarcates a studio monitor from others is the ease of operations.
Like XLR inputs. Bass compensation switches. Built-in amplifier, vertical / horizontal orientation etc
To wipe the slate clean, and answer your question specifically -
I have Quad "bookshelf" speakers. And on the box cover it is clearly written Monitors.
I don't care about whatever definitions this society has put on hi-fi speakers and monitors and studio monitors.
I like their sound. Whether I sit close (1-2 feet) or far (5-10 feet)
The same goes for JBLs, Mackies and KRKs that I have come across.
The only difference being that Quads have more emphasis on mid range (more 500 - 900 Hz).
Whereas the Mackies & JBLs (whenever I listen) sound sharper (more 2000 - 4000 Hz).
This is the characteristic sound of the speaker.
It has nothing to do with whether its labelled as hi-fi or monitor or what not.
The goal of a hi-fi (which incidentally means hi fidelity) and monitors is same.
Reproduce sound with as little distortion and coloration as possible.
Again the marketing departments working overtime have somehow made it a law that hi-speakers = the one with emphasized frequency response, to sound better to your ears. the funny thing is - how do they know what "sounds" better to my ears.
This is BS. If your speaker colors the sound - its a lo-fi speaker.
Same goes for monitors - studio ones or home ones.
What actually DOES demarcates a studio monitor from others is the ease of operations.
Like XLR inputs. Bass compensation switches. Built-in amplifier, vertical / horizontal orientation etc
GeorgeO
Well-Known Member
I think Vishal's house is not a studio, is it? If indeed it is, then I have missed something. So talking about studio monitors on this thread is akin to talking about pro sound (auditorium or outdoors ) gear for his house.
Also the generally accepted wisdom is tweeter at ear level. If indeed it depends on the speakers and there is no hard and fast rule, please point me to where this is specified-I would like to learn a little more.
I thought I wouldn't post any more on this thread, but had to get this off! No more. Peace...
Also the generally accepted wisdom is tweeter at ear level. If indeed it depends on the speakers and there is no hard and fast rule, please point me to where this is specified-I would like to learn a little more.
I thought I wouldn't post any more on this thread, but had to get this off! No more. Peace...
George,
The question is not whether we are talking about Studio vs home. The whole issue is whether to reject the speakers just because those are called monitors or studio monitors. As alpha1 said, a speaker is a speaker. A good quality speaker will shine everywhere, no matter what. Its just that studio monitors are better built, adhere to tight quality standards and frequency response. Why would anyone reject usage od such a nice speaker at home is beyond me.
As for the tweeter to be at ear height is almost universal truth. Woofers dont play much role in it. If the speaker is 3 way, then the tweeter and mid-range driver should be aligned vertically and mid point between these two should be at ear level.
Also, forgot to contribute to the original debate of BS vs FS. Most of it depends upon the situation and room. Some rooms are better suited for BS and some for FS. If the room is symmetrical, rectangle shape and does not pose much acoustic problems, then floorstandar is a better option. If the room poses acoustic problems, then BS is a better choice simply because it can be made work with subwoofer. Its usually the lower frequencies which are problematic. If one combines BS + sub, then we have the option of placing the subwoofer where it sounds absolutely best. If needed, we can add more subs to remove peaks & dips by cancelling each other. This is a big advantage over FS because we cannot place the FS anywhere in the room.
The question is not whether we are talking about Studio vs home. The whole issue is whether to reject the speakers just because those are called monitors or studio monitors. As alpha1 said, a speaker is a speaker. A good quality speaker will shine everywhere, no matter what. Its just that studio monitors are better built, adhere to tight quality standards and frequency response. Why would anyone reject usage od such a nice speaker at home is beyond me.
As for the tweeter to be at ear height is almost universal truth. Woofers dont play much role in it. If the speaker is 3 way, then the tweeter and mid-range driver should be aligned vertically and mid point between these two should be at ear level.
Also, forgot to contribute to the original debate of BS vs FS. Most of it depends upon the situation and room. Some rooms are better suited for BS and some for FS. If the room is symmetrical, rectangle shape and does not pose much acoustic problems, then floorstandar is a better option. If the room poses acoustic problems, then BS is a better choice simply because it can be made work with subwoofer. Its usually the lower frequencies which are problematic. If one combines BS + sub, then we have the option of placing the subwoofer where it sounds absolutely best. If needed, we can add more subs to remove peaks & dips by cancelling each other. This is a big advantage over FS because we cannot place the FS anywhere in the room.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2010
- Messages
- 3,129
- Points
- 0
These back & forth posts have been going on for quite some time & felt that we must get some clarity on the matter on hand, covering some issues which have been not getting accurate replies, hence have been in touch with a person in the loud speaker manufacturing industry & am writing verbatim from his response to the posts.
Internal cabinet air volume mainly determines the low frequency cutoff frequency and plays no part at all in the soundstage at all. Soundstage is mainly dependent on the dispersion pattern control of the drivers, minimum cabinet diffractions, accuracy of transient response of the drivers, accurate time & phase coherence between the drivers, accuracy of frequency response of the drivers, proper crossover design and implementation of its filters and not to miss as George O says, the synergy, or optimization of the amp-speaker relationship.
The near field of a speaker is the region close to a speaker cone where the sound pressure and acoustic particle velocity are not in phase. In this region the sound field does not decrease by 6 dB each time the distance from the source is increased (as it does in the far field). The near field is limited to a distance from the source equal to about 4 times the radius of the piston (speaker cone). So the smaller the speaker driver, the shorter the Near Field and likewise the larger the speaker driver, the longer the Near Field. Since the pressure fluctuates wildly in a complicated manner in the Near Field, it is forbidden to listen to any speaker in the Near Field.
The far field of a source begins where the near field ends and extends to infinity. Note that the transition from near to far field is gradual in the transition region. In the far field, the direct field radiated by most speakers will decay at the rate of 6 dB each time the distance from the source is doubled. It is always important to listen to a speaker well into the Far Field.
The above is only explained to clarify that the terms Near Field & Far Field are physics terms and not marketing terms invented by salesmen to classify small, medium or large speaker monitors. Since small speakers have small drivers thus a very short Near Field, it is possible to listen to them in the far field which is actually pretty close to the speaker. Whilst a speaker with an 18 inch driver will have a Near Field of almost 3 feet. The closest you can get to it is atleast more than 4 or 5 feet away to be in the Far Field.
A studio monitor is without a doubt exactly like a well designed & constructed short throw hifi home audio speaker that tries to have all stages highly optimized for extremely accurate performance. It most certainly can be used at home for all practical purposes if one can afford it and does not cause ear fatigue if setup and calibrated properly. Short throw speakers sound perfectly fine even upto approximately 4m away if they are powerful enough to put out enough SPL at that distance. There are also specially designed low distortion horn loaded long throw active studio monitors that are used in film mix rooms where the distance from the speakers to the film mix engineer is normally between 6m to 12m depending on the size of the film mix room. These too can be used for all other purposes in any large rooms.
If Latas screeches at a certain frequency, if Ashas tears at another frequency, if Ilaiyaraaja squeaks at some other frequency and Zakirs bayan booms at a certain frequency, all these have to be adjusted in the recording and mixing process and not in the speaker design. Imagine if speaker designers started knocking out the unpleasantness of every famous voice and instrument, what would be left to reproduce? Aim of every normal speaker designer is to get his speaker performance as close to a reference monitor as his price can afford. The ones that dont manage this, conjure up all kind of weird explanations to make it look intentional to the buyer.
If you take any kind of acoustic condition and attempt to test and compare in it the performance of any kind of hifi speaker versus a good studio monitor in the same room, the studio monitor will emerge the winner due to its extreme design, performance and ability to be calibrated for any acoustic condition. Car audio systems are simply not designed for home, whilst studio monitors are designed for rooms like homes as more than 90% of the words studios these days are in normal residential buildings. Just because studios are scattered with equipment between the speakers and listener causing huge reflections, the studio environment is tougher and cannot work with great hifi speakers.
Internal cabinet air volume mainly determines the low frequency cutoff frequency and plays no part at all in the soundstage at all. Soundstage is mainly dependent on the dispersion pattern control of the drivers, minimum cabinet diffractions, accuracy of transient response of the drivers, accurate time & phase coherence between the drivers, accuracy of frequency response of the drivers, proper crossover design and implementation of its filters and not to miss as George O says, the synergy, or optimization of the amp-speaker relationship.
The near field of a speaker is the region close to a speaker cone where the sound pressure and acoustic particle velocity are not in phase. In this region the sound field does not decrease by 6 dB each time the distance from the source is increased (as it does in the far field). The near field is limited to a distance from the source equal to about 4 times the radius of the piston (speaker cone). So the smaller the speaker driver, the shorter the Near Field and likewise the larger the speaker driver, the longer the Near Field. Since the pressure fluctuates wildly in a complicated manner in the Near Field, it is forbidden to listen to any speaker in the Near Field.
The far field of a source begins where the near field ends and extends to infinity. Note that the transition from near to far field is gradual in the transition region. In the far field, the direct field radiated by most speakers will decay at the rate of 6 dB each time the distance from the source is doubled. It is always important to listen to a speaker well into the Far Field.
The above is only explained to clarify that the terms Near Field & Far Field are physics terms and not marketing terms invented by salesmen to classify small, medium or large speaker monitors. Since small speakers have small drivers thus a very short Near Field, it is possible to listen to them in the far field which is actually pretty close to the speaker. Whilst a speaker with an 18 inch driver will have a Near Field of almost 3 feet. The closest you can get to it is atleast more than 4 or 5 feet away to be in the Far Field.
A studio monitor is without a doubt exactly like a well designed & constructed short throw hifi home audio speaker that tries to have all stages highly optimized for extremely accurate performance. It most certainly can be used at home for all practical purposes if one can afford it and does not cause ear fatigue if setup and calibrated properly. Short throw speakers sound perfectly fine even upto approximately 4m away if they are powerful enough to put out enough SPL at that distance. There are also specially designed low distortion horn loaded long throw active studio monitors that are used in film mix rooms where the distance from the speakers to the film mix engineer is normally between 6m to 12m depending on the size of the film mix room. These too can be used for all other purposes in any large rooms.
If Latas screeches at a certain frequency, if Ashas tears at another frequency, if Ilaiyaraaja squeaks at some other frequency and Zakirs bayan booms at a certain frequency, all these have to be adjusted in the recording and mixing process and not in the speaker design. Imagine if speaker designers started knocking out the unpleasantness of every famous voice and instrument, what would be left to reproduce? Aim of every normal speaker designer is to get his speaker performance as close to a reference monitor as his price can afford. The ones that dont manage this, conjure up all kind of weird explanations to make it look intentional to the buyer.
If you take any kind of acoustic condition and attempt to test and compare in it the performance of any kind of hifi speaker versus a good studio monitor in the same room, the studio monitor will emerge the winner due to its extreme design, performance and ability to be calibrated for any acoustic condition. Car audio systems are simply not designed for home, whilst studio monitors are designed for rooms like homes as more than 90% of the words studios these days are in normal residential buildings. Just because studios are scattered with equipment between the speakers and listener causing huge reflections, the studio environment is tougher and cannot work with great hifi speakers.
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2010
- Messages
- 3,129
- Points
- 0
In continuation to post no.50
This monitor of yours sounds like a strange concept. Never heard of any monitor like thing you are trying to describe that is neither a studio monitor, hifi speaker or any other normally classified speaker. The word MONITOR is a term used to usually describe an electronic device used to record, regulate, or control a process or system. Studio Loudspeaker Monitors fall under this definition, but its hard to find any monitor product like you are trying to describe
monitor - definition of monitor by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
This monitor of yours sounds like a strange concept. Never heard of any monitor like thing you are trying to describe that is neither a studio monitor, hifi speaker or any other normally classified speaker. The word MONITOR is a term used to usually describe an electronic device used to record, regulate, or control a process or system. Studio Loudspeaker Monitors fall under this definition, but its hard to find any monitor product like you are trying to describe
monitor - definition of monitor by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
GeorgeO
Well-Known Member
Okay, the term "monitor" needs some explanation. It was first used in recording industry. They called the speakers in the recording room as monitors, to observe the "sound". This was reminiscent from video where they used to watch the picture while it was being recorded. They just used the same term with speakers. So, by default or traditionally, monitor speakers meant studio monitors for long time. JBL and others were making the monitor speakers and they also made the domestic versions of those. Like in 1970's, 4413 monitor had the domestic version as L100.
Later on speaker manufacturer's jumped on the marketing term and started using it for branding there speakers as Monitors to illustrate how accurate these speakers are (whether or not they supplied these to studios did not matter). Essentially, they want to communicate that these are reference quality speakers.
What I find it amusing is - its okay to have a "consumer" monitor at home but not a studio monitor. Whereas in truthfully, the "consumer" monitor" is trying to come closer to "studio" monitor performance!
Later on speaker manufacturer's jumped on the marketing term and started using it for branding there speakers as Monitors to illustrate how accurate these speakers are (whether or not they supplied these to studios did not matter). Essentially, they want to communicate that these are reference quality speakers.
What I find it amusing is - its okay to have a "consumer" monitor at home but not a studio monitor. Whereas in truthfully, the "consumer" monitor" is trying to come closer to "studio" monitor performance!
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2010
- Messages
- 3,129
- Points
- 0
SAN MOTORS
San Motors also calls that San Storm a sports car. Even a humble Toyota Corolla that is designed for taxi drivers in most parts of the third world can outperform that San Storm. Many manufacturers happily used fancy highly rated terms to elevate the image of their products even if they dont fit the term definition. Was trying to find the detailed spec sheet of those Bambergs on their website. Its strange that there isnt any. If their product was a monitor, the spec sheet would elaborately show off all its fancy specifications in all detail. An enclosure design like Bambergs is conventional and does not take care of cabinet edge diffraction at all leading to a different on-axis and off-axis frequency response. Minimum diffraction is indeed a basic requirement of a monitor and is specified by the ITU.
Abbey Road is an iconic Beatles studio and is famous enough to endorse and promote certain products. But if you download their equipment list, they can provide a large range of speakers of choice listed below. There are all sorts of customers renting Abby Road studios and its fine to provide the customer whatever he wants if its possible
Acoustic Energy AE2 (2)
Adams SA-3 (5.0)
Auratone (2)
B&W 805N (5.1)
B&W DM1200 (2)
Genelec 1031A (2)
HHB Circle 5 (2)
KRK 7000B (2)
KRK 9000 (2)
KRK E8 (5.1)
Yamaha NS10M (6)
corElement
Well-Known Member
how did a discussion about floorstanders vs bookshelf speakers end up becoming a debate on the definition of a monitor 
Everyone is trying to prove their point.
For Movie BS and Sub is enough for stereo music FS will give you more depth.
So in simple words Buy FS if you want plenty of bass & depth.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2010
- Messages
- 3,129
- Points
- 0
how did a discussion about floorstanders vs bookshelf speakers end up becoming a debate on the definition of a monitor
Question is not about thread becoming a debate, its about having the right info rather than a case where the blind are leading the blind, hope now you get it.
Would you rather have a forum which shares wrong info or right info???
Flash
Well-Known Member
Vishal,
Here is my take on the situation and this is from someone who owns a Pair of BS as well as FS.
I
FS - if you have the room and willing to spend on amplification then it is a safer bet.
When i mean room - a 175sq or more . anything smaller and a FS would create a lot of problems.
They need room to breathe, so they need space at the rear and side walls to sound good. ( 1 to 2 feet from rear wall and 2-4 feet from side walls )
They need a amplifier with a lot of grunt to bring out the best in them. a 40 - 70 watt integrated may just not cut it
II
BS - A little less demanding on amplification, however there are exceptions to this norm.
They are little less forgiving with placement as compared to a FS. Since a FS has additional drivers for Bass frequencies. placement too close to side walls and rear wall can cause excessive boom and reflections
A BS should also be placed a foot or 2 from the rear wal to get the best soundstage. too close to the rear walls causes the soundstage to collapse.
A BS is ideal for a 150 - 175sq feet room or smaller
III
Now a interesting proposition. a BS with a very good Sub can cream a FS from the same stable .
Example a KEF Q300 + a good sub integrated very well can sound better than a Q700...
Again it boils down to the sub used plus how it is integrated
(Again talking through experience )
MY B&W 685 + Rythmik sub sounds way better than the 684 or 683 standalone.
A BS in general has less sound coloration as compared to FS.... Speaker Cabinets play a very vital role in coloration.
Again there are exceptions to this as well.
Everything boils down to a Budget .... However at the end of the day a 50k BS does sound better than a 50k FS,,
Last edited:
Purchase the Audiolab 6000A Integrated Amplifier at a special offer price.
