Studio Monitors that are less expensive than audiophile systems, with correct treatment and positioning, are found in every studio I've seen in the last ten years. Even old studios, where most music was recorded, contain one set of far field monitors for mastering, one set of close field monitors for mixing, and a "cube" that simulates low-quality systems.

So why spend so much money on high-end audio systems if the music is made on cheaper speakers?

https://router-address.uno/

 

Last edited: Jan 28, 2022

because monitoring is only creating a representation of whatever is being recorded to the medium.
there is no direct relationship between what is playing on a set of monitors and what is actually being recorded. For example, setup a band with mics in a nice room, going through a Neve or SSL console mixer that is recorded into any computer DAW. But all you can listen with is a budget pair of monitors. What do you end up with? unpredictable mix decisions, but still on a good recording.

just because you can't hear it, does not mean it isn't there. turn on and off a subwoofer while you are tracking something. same thing.

 

Last edited: Dec 15, 2021

I mean audiophile market is quite small compared to the rest of the people who will listen on anything else (such as AirPods, bass heavy speakers etc). But studio monitors can be expensive too ( Genelec The Ones 8341A are over 6k a pair). Do you need those monitors to make great music/hits? No. Do you need very expensive audiophile gear to listen to music? Also, no.

 

Well as a "recording, mixing mastering listening and I do know know what else engineer" I have to ask what tells you they're "high-end"? Marketing, design and quality or at least expensive materials. I'am not saying they're bad but they could be under some circumstances and some really do perform badly.

There are well made independent measurements out there. Someone could say that these very well performing monitors do not fit in their listening environment but if someone states that he has listened to his speakers in a different environment then in his studio and these speakers are "the best I've ever heard" this argument is not valid anymore and therefore not professional.

I do not know what audiophile shall mean. But I certainly know what high-fidelity means.
And High-fidelity has to be measured to get verified.

 

Last edited: Dec 15, 2021

The price of a speaker doesn't determine how "good" it is. It's more about what the purpose is. Reference monitors are used by mixing and mastering engineers in acoustically treated studios to achieve the flattest possible frequency response, which average listener is likely to find dull in comparison to a colored HiFi speaker's sound.
The point of using reference monitors is that if the track sounds good on it, it is going to translate well to pretty much any sound system (portable mono speakers, phone speakers, consumer-grade average 2+1 speakers, car speakers, club speakers and so on...)
HiFi speakers "color" the sound with their custom non-flat frequency responses (by boosting or attenuating certain frequencies depending on the brand and the model), which average consumer and the "audiophile" finds more enjoyable than a reference monitor's flat sound (of course this is completely subjective)

 

You should first make sure to know what high-fidelity means. This does per definition have nothing to do with "coloring the sound".
DIN EN 61305.

 

Last edited: Dec 15, 2021

Because placebo effect. Honestly, audiophilia is laughable.

 

"High fidelity (often shortened to Hi-Fi or HiFi) is the high-quality reproduction of sound." Source: High fidelity - Wikipedia
This is just laughable... What does it even mean? The rest of the document doesn't elaborate this statement. They are upscaling the sample rate of a 44.1k 16bit track to produce frequencies higher than 20k which nobody can hear anyway? turning it into 96k 32bit or something? Besides, how do they produce these frequencies if the frequencies don't exist in first place?? Moreover, resampling 16bit sound into 32bit is the equivalent of adding water to milk and claiming to have achieved more milk. "high quality reproduction of a sound" is the dumbest thing i have ever heard. There is no such thing as using a magic speaker to enhance the "quality" of the sound.

HiFi speakers are just fancy expensive speakers with colored sound, simple as that

 

Last edited: Dec 15, 2021

Well, "high-quality reproduction of sound" is not "enhancing the quality of the sound".
I do not have inserted the norm for nothing.

And you should really read and inform yourself properly before making false statements.

 

"Sound Reproduction" refers to the digital to analog conversion of sound resulting in creation of physical sound waves. The created sound waves depend entirely on the digital data (ones and zeroes). The term "quality" is extremely vague here, as sound quality technically refers to sample rate, bit depth and the loudness of the noise floor but "audiophiles" love to misuse this term to express their opinionated judgements.

 

Mixing and mastering has to be made with the flattest sounding speakers possible so the recording would translate well to all the systems from earbuds to the most expensive audiophile systems. Audiophile audio systems are always made to sound hyped on the low and high end [smiley curve]. Simple. I'd heard lots of different speakers and ones catered to the audiophiles, no matter the price, usually just make me cringe because most of my life I've been listening to studio monitors that sound detailed and flat. I usually get surprised by the amount of low end on audiophile speakers. That makes your mixing decisions quite wrong. I would end up with a mix that would have much less low end than on my Dynaudios.

Price doesn't matter that much - an audiophile speaker is an audiophile speaker, even lower end PMCs or ATCs, for example. I would say a good sounding pair of studio monitors will cost you at least about $1000. What's that in comparison to your computer's price and it's the most important part of your studio aside from the audio card and microphones.

Cheers!

 

U, sir, are absolutely correct. The difference is mainly in the usage of reproduction equipment. Consumer-grade equipment is a completely different usage criterion than pro-level monitors. People need to understand the distinction.
I am a junior grade audiophile (I say that because I refuse to invest in audio equipment under the guise that more $$ equals better sound) AND a homebrew bedroom producer, I know that I need monitors that are clear and tasteless like water. I know that my room HAS to be treated, it's not an option. These are absolutes because if my monitors or headphones are boosted or diminished artificially in any way, my mixes will suffer. This is just a plain out fact. U cannot mix on colored equipment. And on consumer equipment, the rules are quite different. U CAN have speakers that "sound good to your ears", because hey, u might like the taste of cherry in your Sprite or Coke or Dr. Pepper, or hell even green tea. That's YOUR prerogative. But others might not like the addition of cherry flavoring. They're not wrong either. Consumer-grade equipment has "exciting (colored)" sounding speakers and headphones, meant to appease your ears in ways only u like as compared to bland and lifeless monitors, which are quite dull, especially in an untreated room. Not to mention, sound treatment is generally an afterthought in consumer listening rooms. The best it usually gets is heavily stuffed couches and some carpet with maybe paintings on the wall that act as pseudo diffusers.
But to the Ops query, having multiple monitors just shows inadequacies in multiple systems, so the mixer and engineer can trickle things down to get the best sound that translates on a wide variety of systems. Not all of us have $20k Legacy towers in our listening rooms, many of us have $700 Best Buy Onkyo all in one home theater specials, or even some Bose (ew) desktop clock radio. But we all want to hear the best sound. Also, contrary to popular belief, quality audio rarely has anything to do with big $. There are a LOT of factors to consider to get incredible sound in your home.

 

Audiophile marketing is highly reliant on hope and our personal relationship with music. We have music we like that hits us on such a personal level, we want to preserve the glory in every way, and that reproduction should not be limited. So we spend a shit ton of money on high-priced systems that in reality do not make anything better but the feeling we are doing our best to preserve the emotional feeling music gives us. It's not right nor wrong, it's just us as humans, I'd guess.
At the same time, most of us are insecure monkey brains (me included) that have more money than brains and spend will-nilly to satisfy any need to create a false sense of security, lol. And when faced with the fatality of our decision-making, we become highly defensive, lol, and fight tooth and nail to prove the validity of our decision. That's just the psychological side of it.
It's a long-standing myth that u need to spend big money to get great sound, but don't tell that to someone who spends 30k on some Sonus Faber's, now they have to justify why they did what they did.

 

Sure: it is correct to spend dozens of thousand dollars in esoteric hifi gear…
but still you are a nobody without these silk & golden cables for your speakers:






US$22,000 (for a 2-meter length)
https://www.skograndcables.com/

 

Last edited by a moderator: Dec 15, 2021

well besides the money grabbing businesses, which cannot illegitimize hi end monitoring per se, its convenient to grasp the entire frequency idea of what is happening on say barefoots to sort of reveal whats really going on, for long term mixing at quiet volumes it does make sense to close the microphone of the hiends and enjoy listening to music on nearfields again

 

Monitors has nothing to do with the quality of sound you hear. Monitors do not capture a sound neither affect the recording process. Their job is to find the sweet spot so your music is listened well on most or all the music systems. So a hi fi audiophile system comes to represent those captured sounds the best way with emphasis to some hz.
But keep in mind that almost 50% of the sound quality either on monitoring mastering but also when the final product comes to you is affected by the room treatment. I mean if I have a super hi fi system but my room is like a corridor the sound is affected and probably will be heard awful. The same happens when mixing if I mix with mofu monitors in a glass room. Hope I helped

 

Whether or not the high end madness makes sense for any of us, in the following video at around 08:07 the guy explains why those insane priced speakers (Infinity IRS Reference) are worth their money for him. I remember that when they were built and featured in an issue of a German audio mag (called Audio, I think), I wondered why someone would pay the equivalent of a normal flat (then) for them, i.e. $90k (DM 160k) in 1996, and today about €40-60k, I hope for a pair and not only one of them...
Sorry, German only but maybe the CC translation helps a bit.

 

Everybody those days is a composer, arranger, recording engineer, mixing and mastering engineer!
Audio is not a bakery, at some point, additive actions cause consequences to tracks.

First of all, neutrality and integrity do make a good engineer and knowing when to step back from somebody's work is the key.
"Audiophile" has ALWAYS been bs theories and commercial arguments about things no one can hear. Have you ever worked in a great room with great speakers and great engineers ? Trust me, no one wants to hear about your "I-do-it-all cuz i can and have the skills".

Mind you, even if you were a trained mastering engineer and had years of work could you hear differences between dithering algorithms ? Let me know if you do.
Oh and remember about EGNET: Enough Gear Not Enough Talent ; there are countless of engineers who could buy a nice mansion in LA selling all their studio gear but no one heard about them or their work.

End of rant. Know when to step down if you value your work.
If you're a hobbyist, it's all good but do not assume you will compete with the golden ears who know how a great record should sound.

 

Reads like the manual of a sect, promise of salvation and delusional belief, you just bend reality as you like it. You use terms and professions that you will never achieve, but you pretend to be an engineer. What you are writing here is psychologically very questionable and unrealistic.

 

Due to their sheer size near field studio monitors are low grade. In Hi-Fi language they are named 'bookshelf speakers', which indeed they are.
High quality speakers must have certain air volume (starting from 80 liters up) to supply the needed air capacitance (giving the elastic force to membranes, which improves the transient response), have a certain mass (in order that the loudspeakers do not move due to energy they transduce). The size of the enclosure is also vital for reducing the standing waves, and to accommodate for the space damping materials take up. The thickness of the enclosure walls also adds to reducing of resonances, and serves to minimize the amount of sound that penetrates through the enclosure.
'Active speakers' are contrary to any audio engineering sense, since you put the amplifier into the place where the greatest electro-acoustic feedback possible happens.
The price (money) just can not compensate for the lack of size (physics).