SOME sound engineers and recording studios use comparatively inexpensive monitors to determine what gets on to the cd.
Not in my experience. The last studio I was in (a very modest one) had some Augspurgers in the wall that looked as if they cost about 20k and an £8k Avid interface, IIRC. Also, take a look at this:
My point is, that some people are apt to say "pro audio is cheaper" when actually professional audio equipment is very, very expensive, just as professional hammers and drill bits and cameras and scalpels and musical instruments are very expensive - why risk your livelihood on 'cheap'? It just so happens that some kit sold in so-called "pro audio" shops happens to be quite good value for money, as well it might with all the functionality they have crammed into a cheap plastic box. "Pro" they are most certainly not.
Cambridge Audio StreamMagic 6 | 751BD | 651A | Diamond 9.1 | Minx Xi | Sonos Play:3
Moderator. mail: john.duncan.whf at the mail of g dot com
Not in my experience.
Nor in mine, they want to produce the best sound possible. What the end user does with it isn't their problem.
ZP90 > SIA2-150 > SCM40
A little bit disengenuous don't you think?
Pro audio is equipment used to capture, reproduce and generally tinker with sounds, for the benefit of an audience, be it live or recorded. Just like in hifi (and any other industry) there are sliding scales, only the hifi sliding scale seems to carry on where 'pro audio' equipment tops out in monetary terms. So pro audio might be a cheap sub £100 audio interface and a pair of £200 monitors (or less I suppose), it doesn't mean that that sort of equipment is going to be used in a bespoke, high budget, multi room studio. That said, the BBC make extensive use of Dynaudio monitors, the AIR series in particular I believe, but they may be the BM series as well. Whatever, they are not the megabucks that have been suggested are used in all top studios. The last studio I was in, used Quested monitors, unsure of the model, but they were not multi thousand pound beasts either. Monitors can get expensive though, particularly the farfield monitors. The ATC300 actives are around £30k, but that's a lot cheaper than a lot of high end statement speakers that cost in the hundreds of thousands and not mere tens.
So yes, pro audio is generally cheaper and arguably offers more bang for buck in terms of performance. The aesthetics however....
If you are in any doubt as to what monitors are used in any given studio, just look for the equipment listing for each studio (any studio worth their salt will have one). Try Abbey Rd Studio 2 for example.
Mac mini > AVI ADM9Ts
pro audio might be a cheap sub £100 audio interface and a pair of £200 monitors
Which because it's "pro audio" must by definition be really good value and sound great, right?
It's only my assertion that generally pro audio is better value than hifi. For comparisons you would need to match similarly priced equipment.
Will somebody please think of the Mac Minis!
Paul's system thread
(where the photos live) Paul's Flickr page
If your point is that pro audio isn't if it's cheap, then what price point constitues 'pro' and using the same rationale, when does hifi become lofi because of cost?
My point is that statements like
Not true at all, pro monitors are nothing like the cost of 'hifi' kit and yet they are happily used in the music production process before it ever gets to cd etc., etc.
This thread is going waaaay off topic now.
My Home Cinema Pioneer KRP 500A, Yamaha RX-V1900, MA Radius R225HD LCR, R90HD rears, AW12 sub, Panasonic BD60, PS3, Boxee Box, Sky HD, Boxee Box, Logitech Harmony One, Logitech PS3 Adapter, Sonos ZP90
Bedroom Samsung UE32C6510, PS3 slim white, Apple TV, Sonos S5, Sonos ZP90, Audioengine 2, Oppo OPDV971H
Miscellaneous: Synology DS212J + 2 X WD Red 2TB drives, WD 1TB NAS, Sonos ZoneBridge, BT HH3 as modem & AirPort Extreme router
Well that does depend on what sort of costs are in mind, but many studios use sub £1K monitors, even well respected studios, but between say, £300 and £1k, that's very much budget/mid range hifi, at a guess.
I never thought of the Mac Mini as a music server before. Makes sense though. Its compact size also helps. I do not expect it to be any inferior to other options, although there are products offering better value for money in the market.
Bit late for that!
I think the OP has all he needs in terms of Mac mini info though, the poor little underperforming things.
One of the guys who hosts the podcast (the ht guys) set up a media server using mac minis, I think he did a talk about it at some mac confrance,I'm sure he did a podcast on it,could be worth a listen on iTunes.
Well (back in time) my point was:-
that for the price of a 4GB macmini with 750GB drive, you could get a Synology DS412+ with 8TB of storage.
Given they would both probably end up running plex,xmbc or whatever - the DS is a better option. Thats probably more true when u look at it as mediaserver not just a musicserver - but thats the next logical step.
Yes you need a player - most people would just use their existing tv/receiver. If not, a 1080p mediaplayer would be around £70
Then people starting arguing about the quality of a computer as a music player....
Server Synology 12Bay DS2413+, Synology 8Bay DS1812+, Sky+HD
Lounge Samsung UE55D9000, Denon DBT-3313, Onkyo TX-NR5009, Tannoy Arena Highline 500 LCR, ACRyan playon!HD mini2
Reception Samsung UE46C8000, Panasonic BDP310, Sony STR-DA5400ES, KEF2005.3, ACRyan playon!HD mini2
© 2014 Haymarket Publishing