There were some odd speakers that in some surroundings sounded better than
they should have, such as those Toshiba spheres things in the 70s. They
could sound awful though and needed a quite dampened room and a bass bin to
really sound sweet. Bloody heavy to fix to ceiling supports though, Not want
to drop one of those on my foot.
For those who like the spacial type sound.

Worst speakers? Hmm sadly some of the goodmans attempts ast high end
speakers all seemed to honk, even their cheap ones did. Maybe their
engineers were deaf?
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...
Ian McCall wrote:



** No, it refers to *monitoring" real sounds - ie live mic signals.

It defines a purpose and the speaker must be suitable for that job.


Hadn't really thought of it purely for live but yes - that's what I was
trying to imply in the other post I made. It's not there to sound good,
it's there to be accurate and let you monitor levels.


** Accuracy is an ideal that few so called monitors achieve and NONE of
the famous ones - like JBL's.

Other qualities matter far more, the most important one being that studio
engineers must be familiar with them. This last fact has made it near
impossible to develop studio monitors beyond 1960s standards.

The thing I hate most is the ABSURD and snobbish idea that "monitor" class
speakers are inherently BETTER than home hi-fi speakers.

JBL used this fallacy as a marketing ploy to sell huge numbers of their
awful L100s to a gullible public.

One speaker I know well is equally suitable for home or studio use - the
Yamaha NS1000. Justifiably very famous and very expensive today.

If you have never heard a pair, you need to.

Their accuracy on all sorts of music and speech rivals Quad's
electrostatics.


.... Phil