On 2017-07-23 08:27:59 +0000, Phil Allison said:

** 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.


Cheers,
Ian

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

On Sun, 23 Jul 2017 09:30:41 +0100, Ian McCall wrote:

On 2017-07-23 07:53:31 +0000, "Brian Gaff" said:

I always thought that the generic term of monitor speaker was one that
sounded like it was the real sounds. It certainly seems to have meant that
in studios. However speakers that on paper are flat can often sound awful
and speakers with lumpy responses can sound nice.

That's the point though. Nipping in from my music writing side (i don't
have the audio experience people on this group have), the purpose of a
monitor speaker is exactly that - to monitor the sound levels and mix.
It's not to sound nice, it's to get the flattest and most neutral
response.

I've no doubt it's developed into marketing speak and there are plenty
of 'monitor' speakers about that are just ordinary speakers, but the
idea is to get the truest reflection of what you're actually doing so
that you're not fooled that you've e.g. put plenty of bass in the mix
just because your speaker overemphasises bass.


Cheers,
Ian


I thought a monitor was a speaker that was pointed at the performer
rather than the audience. What's the correct name for that?

--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%

In article , Graham.
writes:

I thought a monitor was a speaker that was pointed at the performer
rather than the audience. What's the correct name for that?

Stage, floor, or wedge monitor (you do get some that perch atop mic
stands, like the Mackie SRM150 and Behringer clone thereof). It's
largely down to context, you encounter one type of monitor in live
sound and the other in studios.

--
Mike Fleming

Graham. wrote:

-----------------


I thought a monitor was a speaker that was pointed at the performer
rather than the audience. What's the correct name for that?



** Correctly called an "on stage monitor" or "foldback wedge."

The boxes are typically wedge shaped to sit on a stage with the front baffle at 45 degrees to the horizontal.



..... Phil

I think really most monitors have to be almost indestructible and that tends
to not make them accurate.
However, I think there is some mileage in my comment about rock music and
jbls.



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
...
Brian Gaff wrote:

------------------------

I always thought that the generic term of monitor speaker was one that
sounded like it was the real sounds.



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

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


It certainly seems to have meant that
in studios.


** Favourite studio monitors are mostly highly inaccurate.

JBL being among the worst, thick and coloured like tomato soup.


As for the Addams family of speakers, do you need to feed those with
Monster
cables perhaps?


** Shakes head, emits long, low groan...



..... Phil

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

It does seem though that in the 70s we had mixes for some recordings with a
definite middle to top emphasis. I suspect this might well have been added
by the cutting engineer to overcome some of the problems of analogue systems
perceived at the time. This was why CDs made from the vinyl masters sounded
so toppy and bass light.
Brian

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

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Ian McCall" wrote in message
...
On 2017-07-23 07:53:31 +0000, "Brian Gaff"
said:

I always thought that the generic term of monitor speaker was one that
sounded like it was the real sounds. It certainly seems to have meant
that
in studios. However speakers that on paper are flat can often sound awful
and speakers with lumpy responses can sound nice.

That's the point though. Nipping in from my music writing side (i don't
have the audio experience people on this group have), the purpose of a
monitor speaker is exactly that - to monitor the sound levels and mix.
It's not to sound nice, it's to get the flattest and most neutral
response.

I've no doubt it's developed into marketing speak and there are plenty of
'monitor' speakers about that are just ordinary speakers, but the idea is
to get the truest reflection of what you're actually doing so that you're
not fooled that you've e.g. put plenty of bass in the mix just because
your speaker overemphasises bass.


Cheers,
Ian

Those are foldback monitors surely? Brian

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

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Graham." wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Jul 2017 09:30:41 +0100, Ian McCall wrote:

On 2017-07-23 07:53:31 +0000, "Brian Gaff"
said:

I always thought that the generic term of monitor speaker was one that
sounded like it was the real sounds. It certainly seems to have meant
that
in studios. However speakers that on paper are flat can often sound
awful
and speakers with lumpy responses can sound nice.

That's the point though. Nipping in from my music writing side (i don't
have the audio experience people on this group have), the purpose of a
monitor speaker is exactly that - to monitor the sound levels and mix.
It's not to sound nice, it's to get the flattest and most neutral
response.

I've no doubt it's developed into marketing speak and there are plenty
of 'monitor' speakers about that are just ordinary speakers, but the
idea is to get the truest reflection of what you're actually doing so
that you're not fooled that you've e.g. put plenty of bass in the mix
just because your speaker overemphasises bass.


Cheers,
Ian


I thought a monitor was a speaker that was pointed at the performer
rather than the audience. What's the correct name for that?

--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%

So my Monitor Gold IIlz speakers, are they monitors or just a marketing mans
idea of how to move more tannoy dual concentric speakers?
Brian

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

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Mike Fleming" wrote in message
news
In article , Graham.
writes:

I thought a monitor was a speaker that was pointed at the performer
rather than the audience. What's the correct name for that?

Stage, floor, or wedge monitor (you do get some that perch atop mic
stands, like the Mackie SRM150 and Behringer clone thereof). It's
largely down to context, you encounter one type of monitor in live
sound and the other in studios.

--
Mike Fleming