I can't agree. A musical instrument has a certain tone. Yamaha guitars, for example, have a warm or sweeter tone than others, which is why people pick them. To have that removed in the studio by analytical speakers in the studio isn't lending realism, just the reverse.
How can speakers do that?
Er - they're designed that way?
Frankly, I found them unlistenable. If music is meant to sound like that then time to sell up.. Seriously, a speaker that makes the acoustic guitar such as the one used by Neil Young on his live album sound like a cheap Chinese one that hadn't been played for years has problems, and I hate to say what it did to female vocals.
If that is how you like your music to sound, rather than real and natural, then that's your decision, and you shouldn't go round bad mouthing people who happen to disagree.
If that is what you heard then I would have to question the demonstration/system you were listening too. Do you really think musicians would buy these speakers if this was the case?
It is a pretty long time since studio speakers sounded the way you describe, you would have to go back to the old NS 10s to get such a sound.
Had you said that the HS series lacked detail resolution leading to a somewhat vague and two dimensional soundstage I would have agreed with you, after all no speakers are perfect especially at the price level of the new Yamahas.
in reality they are a budget product, probably the cheapest range of active monitors from a major manufacturer, the HS5 is just £270, barely enough to by a budget amp and a pair of Diamonds from a normal hi-fi dealer.
These are budget products and should be treated as such, properly set up, equalised and played at levels consistent with a home environment they offer a very different set of virtues from the usual hi-fi fare, clear, fast and very dynamic, a very real alternative to the boom and tizz of most conventional budget hi-fi.
Ah, now I understand, a disciple! All active speakers sound better than passive, repeat three times an hour until convinced, huh?
A long time - there has been a revolution in a fortnight?? Come on! I repeat, the Yamahas are hard and forward in the treble, making listening a chore not a pleasure. They sounded much better when the sound was turned right down, as in off. The Adam audios and the Dynaudios were also a bit forward, but at least their treble was easy to listen to, and I thought the Adams not bad, in fact.
You need to get down to your local hi fi store and your local professional shop and do some serious listening. Also take a Martin or similar along, and do some strumming so you know what a real musical instrument sounds like . That way lies enlightenment.
I do wish that if you are going to take the time to respond to my post, you at least respond to what I said rather than what you think I said.
I made it absolutely clear that the Yamahas are a budget product with all the limitations that implies, I gave a short critique of the HS5 after having them in my home for a few days when I decided that their overall performance, given the limitations of my setup, was not a sufficient enough improvement over my much cheaper Seiwins to warrant the outlay.
That said I still maintain that when used correctly they, the HS 5s, are a very decent alternative to conventional hi-fi components at a comparable price, I even went as far as to say that they are rather different and need some adjustment by the listener.
As for your opening sentence, you really are just making that up, makes it quite difficult to take what you say seriously!
Just added. I spent 20 years in the music/pro-audio business, working with musicians both live and in the studio. That is all.
We do so many shows in a row,
And these towns all look the same,
We just pass the time in our hotel room
And wander 'round backstage,
Till the lights come up, and we hear that crowd,
And we remember why we came.
So everything would sound the same then?
BigH, Interesting point. There seem to be those who think that all speakers do sound the same, only active ones, of course, and others who think it is the boom and tizz that someone (incorrectly) mentioned that applies to all passive speakers in greater and lesser degrees, which is why they sound different.
Practically, if all speakers could portray all the instruments they attempt to reproduce accurately, then all speakers would sound the same. For me the Maggies and electrostatics get the closest to reality, especially with some types of music. Standard boxes all suffer the limitations of electromechanical designs, obviously to a greater or larger degree. In the end there is no such thing, yet, as a perfect loudspeaker, and, while there isn't, there'll be argument about which gets closest.
To my mind the Yamahas aren't even close, but, as evidenced here, there are those who think they do.
I have not heard the Yams so I won't comment.
Maggies maybe alright if you have the right size room but some complain they are over bright.
But studio monitors should be accurate so the sound engineers can hear the differences, they should not be stripping out any sounds.
Speakers are surpose to play the music as it is recorded without adding anything to the sound, so aren't active studio monitors in general better then active hifi speakers? (more accurate)
Active hifi speakers or active studio monitors, what would you choose and why?
I would say the sound should be similar although some of the small studio ones will not have so much bass.
I would go for the hifi ones on looks, some of those studios ones would not look good in the living room.
Then surely all studio monitors must sound the same.
Studio monitors are normally near field and normally end up close to a wall or other surface.
Hi Fi speakers are designed for larger rooms with the user sitting quite a distance away.
Use a Hi Fi speaker in a studio environment and it will sound unnatural.
Use a Studio Monitor in a larger room and it too will sound unnatural.
Use a speaker outside its natural environment and it doesn’t matter whether it is active or passive, it will always sound rubbish.
I use passives for my Audio/Cinema system as it cuts down on cables; however for my Music and my PC, I use actives as they are more suited to the job.
As to the active/passive debate in the same type of speakers, then both have advantages and disadvantages and you just pick the one that suits you best.
Hope this helps to clear up the confusion that Hi Fi buffs seem to get into when actives and passives are mentioned. (Professional users just use the speakers (Active or Passive) best for the job they need to do)
They should be similar but due to size and budget considerations they won't. Also some are designed for small rooms or close listening.
To my mind the Yamahas aren't even close, but, as evidenced here, there are those who think they do..
Yet again another post attempting to knock down arguments that were never made.
The term 'boom and tizz' was not applied to all passive loudspeakers but quite specifically to budget designs and in a following post the point was clarified further.
Such obvious misrepresentation makes your arguments nonsensical and casts a doubt on pretty much anything that you say.
Out of interest, I have stated quite clearly a fondness for dipoles in other threads along with a totally unambiguous statement that the best system I have ever heard in a domestic environment included a pair of Martin Logan Statements, a system of large passive electrostatic panels combined with active subwoofer towers. In fact I was so knocked out that some ten years later I spent an awful lot of money on a 'budget' version of that system, my SME/Koetsu front end, ARC amplification with ML CLS IIIz and paired REL subs came close, but, as they say, no cigar.
Furthermore, if you are going to champion the cause of dipolar panels, it would be better if you explained the advantages rather more clearly, your implication that 'Magneplanar and Electrostatic' speakers are somehow not 'electromechanical designs' is total nonsense.
i think you're right, but it means the accuracy of studio monitors is a bit of a myth. Certainly the speakers I heard sounded as different as the ones in the Hi Fi shops.
Sorry Bill, I kind of see what you are getting at but sadly you are quite wrong.
The main monitors in a professional studio are usually built in and some distance from the mixing position, the kind of small 'near field' monitors you are describing are rarely used for recording in a professional environment, when they are used it is usually during mix down or mastering to give an indication (rather ironically) of what the mix will sound like in a domestic environment.
Most of the small monitors you find in music shops or pro-audio dealers are aimed at the home studio or small time production unit and are worlds away from a proper main monitor.
Hi-fi speakers are sometimes used in the control room and usually work fine unless they are the more fragile type in which case they are quickly blown up. Treated rooms tend to encourage higher playback levels than hi-fi speakers can comfortably manage which is why even such thoroughly competent designs by companies such as Harbeth and PMC are rarely used as main monitors though they can be a delight to mix on in a suitable setting.
Can I just say, davedotco, that I'm very much enjoying your contributions here. Thanks.
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
This is quite true though the important differences, ie not presentational ones, get smaller as the monitors get better.
Good recording monitors have to be accurate in many different ways, not just tonally but in terms of dynamics and transient response. Studio engineers very quickly get to know what works and what does not, as they have the enviable advantage of being able to move from the studio floor with the sound of live instruments to the control with same instruments playing through the monitors.
if you ever get the chance to visit a professional studio and experience this it can be very enlightening.
© 2013 Haymarket Publishing