What do recording engineers look for in studio monitor loudspeakers?
Acoustic accuracy, a good representation of what would be heard in the
home or something else? Are loudspeakers with the strengths and
weaknesses of, say, Quad electrostatics a popular choice? If not, what
are popular choices?

andy wrote:
What do recording engineers look for in studio monitor loudspeakers?
Acoustic accuracy, a good representation of what would be heard in the
home or something else? Are loudspeakers with the strengths and
weaknesses of, say, Quad electrostatics a popular choice? If not, what
are popular choices?

Different folks look for different things.

A lot of folks will have three or four different monitoring systems
set up... one that is intended to be accurate fullrange, one that is
designed to be very forward to impress the customers, one that is a
check mix monitor to see how it will sound on a cheap home system.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Hi,
There's so many choices, as long as you like listening to them go for
it. If you spend a day in front of a pair of monitors it's important
you like how they sound. If in doubt listen to some cd's you like
the sound of and if you A/B your mix with the cd, it can get you into
the ball park.
A bit of detail is good for the recording bit so accuracy sould be
important then.

I've never seen Quad speakers in a studio, robustness is pretty
important.
I like Meyer HD-1's .

Kindest Regards.
D.Slevin

Thanks for the response but my enquiry is not really about particular
brands but determining what weighting low distortion is typically given
by studio engineers when purchasing loudspeakers. The Quad
electrostatics are a well known brand (at least in Europe) with low
distortion albeit with some other less attractive properties.

andy wrote:
Thanks for the response but my enquiry is not really about particular
brands but determining what weighting low distortion is typically given
by studio engineers when purchasing loudspeakers. The Quad
electrostatics are a well known brand (at least in Europe) with low
distortion albeit with some other less attractive properties.

What _is_ low distortion? Low THD on bass notes? Low THD on midrange
notes? Low overhang on a 1 KHz square wave?

By all standards, the loudspeaker has more distortion than anything else
in the signal path. This is part of what makes monitors such a personal
choice.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"andy" wrote in message
oups.com...
Thanks for the response but my enquiry is not really about particular
brands but determining what weighting low distortion is typically given
by studio engineers when purchasing loudspeakers. The Quad
electrostatics are a well known brand (at least in Europe) with low
distortion albeit with some other less attractive properties.


Wghich Quad Electrostatics ? The originals or ESL-63s ?

I would say either are inappropriate fro studio monitors, as they are
relatively fragile when it comes to the like of bangs and thumps mine
moniotrs experience daily (Tannoy DMT12).

But certainly a stacked pair of old Quads (in series, to make them easier to
drive and boost the bass ouput capability), or better still a pair of
ESL-63s would be a valuable tool for critical listening in a mastering
environment.

geoff

I believe the ESL-63 was available in a studio version which was
stronger and with kick plates and handles compared to the home version
(not sure of the actual details). Do not know about the current
ESL-988/989.

Low distortion is an imprecise term. Good "panel" speakers with
symmetrical push-pull transducers and no rear enclosure typically mask
less of the low level detail in the signal compared to "box" speakers
with drive units in an enclosure. The original question I meant to ask
was how important this attribute is to the studio engineer and whether
it is sufficient to overcome the disadvantages of panel speakers.

andy wrote:

Low distortion is an imprecise term. Good "panel" speakers with
symmetrical push-pull transducers and no rear enclosure typically mask
less of the low level detail in the signal compared to "box" speakers
with drive units in an enclosure. The original question I meant to ask
was how important this attribute is to the studio engineer and whether
it is sufficient to overcome the disadvantages of panel speakers.

It depends on the engineer. I know folks who mix on ESLs and on
Martin-Logans. I mix on Magnepans. On the other hand, I know folks
who insist on mixing on Auratones or NS-10s even though they could
afford far more accurate monitors, and who get good results from them.

For the most part, in spite of the ADAM popularity, low distortion
tweeter designs haven't been very popular in the studio monitor world.
Lots of manufacturers have something in their line, the way Genelec
has the S30, and some of them like SLS and Stage Accompany build their
whole studio monitor line around low distortion ribbon tweeters, but
they aren't all that popular.

In general, the folks that tend to be interested in these things tend
to be classical or jazz folks, who are trying to reproduce an existing
sound accurately rather than get music that sounds subjectively "good"
on consumer gear.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"andy" wrote in message
oups.com...
I believe the ESL-63 was available in a studio version which was
stronger and with kick plates and handles compared to the home version
(not sure of the actual details). Do not know about the current
ESL-988/989.

Low distortion is an imprecise term. Good "panel" speakers with
symmetrical push-pull transducers and no rear enclosure typically mask
less of the low level detail in the signal compared to "box" speakers
with drive units in an enclosure. The original question I meant to ask
was how important this attribute is to the studio engineer and whether
it is sufficient to overcome the disadvantages of panel speakers.


That's odd. I always find the ESLs to reveal more detail, and colour it
less.

geoff