Studio Monitors vs Home Speakers
 

Colleagues,
As you know, a speaker discussion can polarize a room full of audiophooles However I will brave the waters and ask a general question;

Which is better, a speaker designed to be used as a studio monitor, or a speaker designed for a home audio system, and does the kind of music played on them make a difference?

Inquiring minds etc.

Technically, no. It depends on your setup as many (but not all) studio monitors are intended for near-field listening but, on the other hand, many home listeners choose near-field listening. Fundamentally, I think the major differences are cosmetic and the real issue is whether one speaker (of either type) is better for your application than another (of either type).

This opens up the whole accurate and faithful to colored and romantic debate. Let’s just say while my own speakers are from the school of thought that no other studio speaker could nail the human voice for broadcasting properly, at that time and some decades ago, they are far from analytical or something I would use to mix and record an album on. As a listener, I’d rather listen to the less than accurate bottom/top octaves overall but give me that midrange that is spot on. That’s my personal preference. I don’t need an antiseptic, stringent, accurate response. Typical studio monitors of reasonable cost are not very forgiving to boot.

Of course some studios have a different speaker in mind when they mix and master. Like the Abbey Road with B&W speakers and some others with TAD and the likes of serious audiophile grade. Who is right? Hard to say. Do you want accuracy or pleasure? Are all your recordings of excellent quality and audiophile grade?

There is no gauge or standard as to accurate sound. It is an interpretation. No orchestra or performer will ever sound the same in a different studio or a different hall. What we listen to is an interpretation or the taste of the recording engineer, not what the musicians put out into the universe with the vibration of the strings or their vocal cords at that moment in space and time.

Yes, I have intentionally avoided those issues.

I think Kal correctly asserts the primary difference is in setup. They are designed to be listened to near field... so you listen to direct radiated sound not stuff bouncing around the room. You want to know exactly what is on the recording. Then there is the fact there is a huge control panel in front of them for mixing... this effectively eliminates many audiophile speakers designed to place two huge speaker cabinets in an open space.

This opens up the question of fidelity to the “original sound” I have been rather fascinated with for a long time. I have religiously attended our symphony, 7th row center for many years. So it has been easy to make sure my gear accurately reproduced the music... volume also. That gives me a ruler. That can be done with acoustic performances. But when it comes to rock and electronic, that gets hard. I have concluded that to reproduce those... well, have to find out what they were mastered on. I find some rock really missing the mark... I think they were mastered on some monitors that were a bit hot and so the treble was softened... anyway, an interesting topic.

While there are many near field monitors, there are still monitors that are designed and built for mid and even far field. Some are even available to the consumer, or at least readily available. I have 3.

There are so many variables in the recording chain that listener is totally at the mercy of the recording / balance engineer, mics, technique and company philosophy. So even if choosing your speakers after much listening and evaluation , sometimes you get recordings that are not what you thought you were going to get. I have found that there are some recordings even by major companies that are unlistenable.
As far as rock or pop is concerned, the way that it is recorded I don't think it matters.

The best sounding recordings are those with the least amount of "Processing", and the fewest mics.

The Trinity Session would support that ...

Kal, any reason why an audiophile would not want 'accurate and faithful', i.e., the sound of live music.

None at all and that's why I see no need to engage the "accurate and faithful to colored and romantic debate."