The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Speakers or Monitors for room EQ measurements? Effects Pedals, Units & Accessories
Old 4 weeks ago
  #1
Gear Nut
 
NoobInAudio's Avatar
 

Speakers or Monitors for room EQ measurements?

As my name says I am a noob.

When I measure my room acousticd EQ wizard should I use monitors or speakers?


I found a video by some dude who had a beef with Ethan, and he was very vague with his definitions. He said Monitors add some life to the sound... really? I listened to this guy through his entire video and that is all he said about this difference between the two. I mean can't he be more of an engineer and tell us the actual difference instead of making life philosophy out of such a simple question.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #2
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

The biggest difference is monitors tend to be black and speakers are wood finish.

Andre
Old 4 weeks ago
  #3
Gear Nut
 
NoobInAudio's Avatar
 

[MENTION=206159]Avare thank you for having a character that matches your photo. Now go troll somewhere else.

For anyone who wants to know, I've got it figured out

Speakers are there to benefit listeners and they provide enhanced sound. Studio monitors is for recording engineers since it gives us unadulterated sound for accurate music mixing.


The purpose of speakers is to provide listening enjoyment. The purpose of studio monitor is to provide a what it really sounds like so we can spot mistakes more easily for the creation and building of music mixes.

Peace out everyone...
Old 4 weeks ago
  #4
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoobInAudio View Post
[MENTION=206159]Avare thank you for having a character that matches your photo. Now go troll somewhere else.

For anyone who wants to know, I've got it figured out

Speakers are there to benefit listeners and they provide enhanced sound. Studio monitors is for recording engineers since it gives us unadulterated sound for accurate music mixing.


The purpose of speakers is to provide listening enjoyment. The purpose of studio monitor is to provide a what it really sounds like so we can spot mistakes more easily for the creation and building of music mixes.


Peace out everyone...
A speaker and a monitor are the same thing but they are not sold in the same dealer circuit.

No brand can and know build a monitor or a speaker (hifi i suppose) they design, build and sell a speaker called monitor or strawberry...

A little knowledge in speaker design, you could have avoid this topic and your answer to Andre.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #5
Lives for gear
 
MarcB's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoobInAudio View Post
[MENTION=206159]Avare thank you for having a character that matches your photo. Now go troll somewhere else.
But, he was correct.

The difference is marketing. One is sold in a hifi shop with nice glossed finishes, the other is sold in a pro audio shop , usually with an added amp for convenience.

Quote:
For anyone who wants to know, I've got it figured out

Speakers are there to benefit listeners and they provide enhanced sound. Studio monitors is for recording engineers since it gives us unadulterated sound for accurate music mixing.
Nope. They're their marketed uses. People tend to use Proac, B&W, ATC, PMC, Dynaudio etc hifi speakers as monitors. I use studio monitors for hifi use.

Quote:
The purpose of speakers is to provide listening enjoyment. The purpose of studio monitor is to provide a what it really sounds like so we can spot mistakes more easily for the creation and building of music mixes.

Peace out everyone...
The purpose of a speaker is to produce sound waves. The purpose of a monitor is to produce sound waves. Each different speaker will sound different. Each different monitor will sound different. Some hifi speakers will be more accurate in your room than some monitors and vice versa.

Good to see you have it all figured out and ready to educate the masses, and all within an hour.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #6
Lives for gear
 
bgood's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoobInAudio View Post
[MENTION=206159]Avare thank you for having a character that matches your photo. Now go troll somewhere else.

For anyone who wants to know, I've got it figured out

Speakers are there to benefit listeners and they provide enhanced sound. Studio monitors is for recording engineers since it gives us unadulterated sound for accurate music mixing.


The purpose of speakers is to provide listening enjoyment. The purpose of studio monitor is to provide a what it really sounds like so we can spot mistakes more easily for the creation and building of music mixes.

Peace out everyone...
It’s weird when a dude who literally has the word “noob” as his screen name snaps at Avare

What isn’t unusual at all is having a noob post a question and then argue with everybody’s response
Old 4 weeks ago
  #7
Gear Nut
 
NoobInAudio's Avatar
 

YouTube

Yo I dislike this guy because of the fact that he took on a beef with The All Mighty Ethan Winer. Yow, when he dissed Ethan, I was sure I will dislike his every video on his channel and so I did. But... still... he says your logic is completely "flawed".

-- He says that the difference is more than obvious. Let us not get all judgmental here brothers and diss his video right back.
I extend my apology hand to Andre. Let us make peace before we make beef I really thought he was a troll.

But let us engage this Ethan enemy guy with some logic then.

Isn't it logical that speakers will have some modification to the sound, the way vocal microphones have some modifications compared to the instrumental or measurement microphones?

Some basic logic tells me, despite how annoying that guy was, what he said and what I read in articles, makes complete sense.

Now once again, apology to Andre, from what I see now on this forum, he is just as a legend as Ethan around here. Respect bro Peace

_______________________________
"Some things will never change" Tupac
Old 4 weeks ago
  #8
Lives for gear
 
Jason Foi's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoobInAudio View Post
YouTube

Yo I dislike this guy because of the fact that he took on a beef with The All Mighty Ethan Winer. Yow, when he dissed Ethan, I was sure I will dislike his every video on his channel and so I did. But... still... he says your logic is completely "flawed".

-- He says that the difference is more than obvious. Let us not get all judgmental here brothers and diss his video right back.
I extend my apology hand to Andre. Let us make peace before we make beef I really thought he was a troll.

But let us engage this Ethan enemy guy with some logic then.

Isn't it logical that speakers will have some modification to the sound, the way vocal microphones have some modifications compared to the instrumental or measurement microphones?

Some basic logic tells me, despite how annoying that guy was, what he said and what I read in articles, makes complete sense.

Now once again, apology to Andre, from what I see now on this forum, he is just as a legend as Ethan around here. Respect bro Peace

_______________________________
"Some things will never change" Tupac
There are just as many misleading half truths and flat out lies located on this forum and elsewhere on the internet as there are truths. When starting out it is extremely difficult to tell them apart. Andre (Avare) is without a doubt one of very few experts in acoustics on this forum. As someone who is appearing to be excited about learning acoustics on this forum, you would do well to listen to what that man has to say. He is incredibly generous with his time and knowledge.

In regards to your hi-fi vs monitor question, everyone is correct. A speaker is a speaker. The person in your youtube video appears to be a salesman. A salesman always wants to add value to what they are selling. They are not always the best people to get your information from. Acoustics is a science, treat it as such. Ignore marketing, follow truth. What seperates a critical listening room from a audiophile listening room is the way the room alters the sound coming out of the speakers, not the speakers themselves. A critical listening environment should be neutral. The room should not add or subtract from what the speaker is reproducing. This is extremely difficult to acheive without extensive knowledge in acoustics. If you have a well treated properly calibrated room, it doesnt matter if your speaker cost $10k or $1000, accurate is accurate.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #9
Gear Nut
 
NoobInAudio's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Foi View Post
There are just as many misleading half truths and flat out lies located on this forum and elsewhere on the internet as there are truths. When starting out it is extremely difficult to tell them apart. Andre (Avare) is without a doubt one of very few experts in acoustics on this forum. As someone who is appearing to be excited about learning acoustics on this forum, you would do well to listen to what that man has to say. He is incredibly generous with his time and knowledge.

In regards to your hi-fi vs monitor question, everyone is correct. A speaker is a speaker. The person in your youtube video appears to be a salesman. A salesman always wants to add value to what they are selling. They are not always the best people to get your information from. Acoustics is a science, treat it as such. Ignore marketing, follow truth. What seperates a critical listening room from a audiophile listening room is the way the room alters the sound coming out of the speakers, not the speakers themselves. A critical listening environment should be neutral. The room should not add or subtract from what the speaker is reproducing. This is extremely difficult to acheive without extensive knowledge in acoustics. If you have a well treated properly calibrated room, it doesnt matter if your speaker cost $10k or $1000, accurate is accurate.
Thank you Jason... yes you are right, I see it now. Andre was right and no troll. I feel ashamed.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #10
Here for the gear
 

The question in point exactly is... which boxes are more accurate across the frequency range, and most equal in response as well? Whether these are your "speakers", or your "monitors" is where your choice lies. Which set is most accurate, natural, and most level in frequency response across the audible spectrum? Your "speakers", or your "monitors"?

There are speakers in people's homes that would perform fantastic as studio monitors. There are also "studio monitors" that are not worthy of the designation, and are inferior in accuracy and balance to a well designed speaker system for home use.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #11
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

There is no difference between speakers and monitors. Let it go.

Andre
Old 4 weeks ago
  #12
Gear Nut
 
NoobInAudio's Avatar
 

That is it, she left me because I turned the whole apartment upside down.

I guess that is also a price to pay for making a studio besides all the money I spent on this gear and selling my motorbike to afford it.


But I realized now... For almost 7 days I can't stop thinking about them great sounds

Gonna be ordering more stuff

I won't stop until I get them perfect sounds oh and I apologize to Andre one more time. I was dumb to believe a salesman instead of Andre


What do you guys suggest I play first once it is done and I'm broke and without my love?

Shostakovich - Piano Concerto No. 2: II. Andante
or
just as great and perfect >> DMX - Ruff Ryders' Anthem

?
Attached Thumbnails
Speakers or Monitors for room EQ measurements?-1.jpg   Speakers or Monitors for room EQ measurements?-2.jpg   Speakers or Monitors for room EQ measurements?-3.jpg   Speakers or Monitors for room EQ measurements?-4.jpg   Speakers or Monitors for room EQ measurements?-5.jpg  

Old 4 weeks ago
  #13
Here for the gear
 

Hey Andre,

I guess that my Klipshorns, Yamaha NS1000M's, Allison Ones, EV Sentry IV's, and Dalhquist DQ10's are all identical then, eh? Why then do I prefer to use Yamaha HS8's most of the time for monitoring? Actually, the old Yamaha NS100M is a pretty damn good monitor, but a bit large for a control room.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #14
Gear Nut
 
NoobInAudio's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by avare View Post
There is no difference between speakers and monitors. Let it go.

Andre
Oh hello Andre, I want to apologize personally. I am a little bit silly but it was disrespectful and naive what I did.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #15
Gear Nut
 
NoobInAudio's Avatar
 

A sales man tricked me
Old 4 weeks ago
  #16
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purphormer View Post
Hey Andre,

I guess that my Klipshorns, Yamaha NS1000M's, Allison Ones, EV Sentry IV's, and Dalhquist DQ10's are all identical then, eh? Why then do I prefer to use Yamaha HS8's most of the time for monitoring? Actually, the old Yamaha NS100M is a pretty damn good monitor, but a bit large for a control room.
Do not diverge the discussion. The discussion is about "monitors" versus "speakers." I have used and gained great recordings and mixes with models and or makes Allison Ones, Klipsch LaScalas, Dalhquists and Yamaha NS10s of the models you listed. If you want to compare speakers then at least keep to the same price range.

Andre
Old 4 weeks ago
  #17
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoobInAudio View Post
Oh hello Andre, I want to apologize personally. I am a little bit silly but it was disrespectful and naive what I did.
Apology accepted. Btw Ethan is a friend of mine.

Andre
Old 4 weeks ago
  #18
Here for the gear
 

Dear Andre,

A monitor speaker is just a loudspeaker, and I have no issue with that statement. There are many differences in how successful any loudspeaker reproduces, or represents the music, or program material that it is being fed.

The price point of various loudspeaker systems is hardly an accurate baseline to categorize the accuracy of their sonic reproduction. I used Advents quite a bit in the mid 70's, and they were quite a bargain for the natural sound reproduction. Cost about one quarter of the Yamaha NS1000M's, and worked as monitors quite well.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #19
Lives for gear
 
Jeff Hayat's Avatar
 

Is it just me, or am I the only one who understands, at least in terms of what the op is getting at in this particular case, is that speakers are for home audio enjoyment with a home stereo, while monitors are for studio use?

In any event, to the op - when you measure your room, you should use the same monitors/speakers that you use in that room.

Cheers.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #20
Here for the gear
 

Studio monitor loudspeakers "should" provide a proper spectral balance, and accurate representation of live and recorded sounds. But labels are just labels, and there is no guarantee that any loudspeaker labelled as a "studio monitor" will serve up a more accurate representation than a well engineered loudspeaker without the designation.

To serious audiophiles, the most neutral, natural, articulate representation of audio is the "holy grail". Is that not what most studio engineers, mixers, and mastering people want to work with as well? There are plenty of "home loudspeakers" that can provide perfectly capable studio monitoring, as there are plenty of "studio monitors" that may not live up to their labels in accuracy of sonic reproduction.

However, in terms of the OP... You really should tailor, and build your sound around whatever loudspeaker you will be using to monitor with in the room. Make it the best it can be with your chosen source.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #21
Lives for gear
 
MarcB's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Hayat View Post
Is it just me, or am I the only one who understands, at least in terms of what the op is getting at in this particular case, is that speakers are for home audio enjoyment with a home stereo, while monitors are for studio use?
Take say £500 pair of speakers and a similar price/spec pair of passive monitors. Say they both have 6.5" plastic bass/mid cones and 1" metal tweeters and are packaged in a sealed 15 litre enclosure.

What differences do you believe they have between them?

Is one voiced more accurate than the other? Different brands and designs of monitors are voiced as varied as hifi speakers. Dynaudio monitors don't sound the same as Fostex monitors, the same as Monitor Audio hifi speakers don't sound the same as Castle Acoustics speakers, so which voicing is the correct one for studio monitoring?

Let's take it up a notch..

Say we have a pair of £3000 active monitors and a pair of £2000 passive hifi speakers + £1000 power amplifier.
Both use similar spec high quality speaker drivers and solid enclosures.
The active monitors have 2x small chip amps inside to keep the price/heat/weight down, while the hifi amp is a large 25kg box with a high quality power supply, large efficient heatsink and lots of large over-spec'd capacitors for big powerful dynamics. Which one is more suited to studio vs hifi?
Old 4 weeks ago
  #22
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcB View Post
Is one voiced more accurate than the other? Different brands and designs of monitors are voiced as varied as hifi speakers. Dynaudio monitors don't sound the same as Fostex monitors, the same as Monitor Audio hifi speakers don't sound the same as Castle Acoustics speakers, so which voicing is the correct one for studio monitoring?
/heat/weight down, while the hifi amp is a large 25kg box with a high quality power supply, large efficient heatsink and lots of large over-spec'd ca
Great points

Andre
Old 4 weeks ago
  #23
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purphormer View Post
The price point of various loudspeaker systems is hardly an accurate baseline to categorize the accuracy of their sonic reproduction. I used Advents quite a bit in the mid 70's, and they were quite a bargain for the natural sound reproduction. Cost about one quarter of the Yamaha NS1000M's, and worked as monitors quite well.
The price point my not be the only parameter to judge speakers by. What do you suggest instead or in addition?

The Advents were great. In a similar vein I used Dynaco A25s and A35s. The model numbers may wrong. They were value leaders. Continuing with Dynaco, why did people 50 to 100 watt Mcintoshes when the 60 watt was a fraction of the price? One of the problems with price is name appeal, or at least implied premium name.


Thanks for the memories.

Enjoy.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #24
Here for the gear
 

Hey Andre,

Your reference to Dynaco loudspeakers and electronics in the 70's is a perfect example of how "price points" can be meaningless when looking for good gear. In the case of Dynaco, almost all their products successfully defied, equalled, and at times surpassed the performance and build quality of gear that cost 2 to 5 times more. I also still have one surviving pair of Dynaco A25XL loudspeakers that help provide music for my workshop along with an old Hartley subwoofer. They still sound great, and better than much of the consumer, and prosumer gear available today.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #25
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purphormer View Post
Hey Andre,

Your reference to Dynaco loudspeakers and electronics in the 70's is a perfect example of how "price points" can be meaningless when looking for good gear.
Maybe you missed it. I asked you for other metrics.

Andre
Old 4 weeks ago
  #26
Here for the gear
 

Hello Andre,

My most important metrics, or qualities that make certain loudspeakers good monitors are...

- An even frequency response across the audible spectrum, least amount of equalization required, at any output SPL desired.
- Clarity of all sonic details and transients, I want to hear everything that is in the mix without distortion.
- Phase coherency, minimal crossover points, well designed crossover circuits.
- Cabinet designs that minimize diffraction possibilities.
- Wide, even dispersion characteristics to make the listening "sweet spot" as spacious as possible.
- Simple, non finicky room loading/coupling characteristics.

That's about it really. On a spec sheet I pay attention to frequency response numbers if they are qualified +/- dB to a specified range in an anechoic environment. I pay some attention to distortion specs, and power response specs if they are available. But the real test is listening to a known source mix, in the room that the monitors will be used within. I correlate RTA data as well, but mostly to diagnose perceived issues.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #27
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purphormer View Post
Hello Andre,

My most important metrics...
Thank you for the list.

Andre
Old 4 weeks ago
  #28
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by avare View Post
Thank you for the list.

Andre
Your very welcome, Andre.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
ColoRodney / Low End Theory
2
metrix / Electronic Music Instruments and Electronic Music Production
16
tronicman / Rap + Hip Hop engineering and production
3

Forum Jump
Forum Jump