Audiophiles and our prejudices

[MylesBAstor]

Frantz, the limitation of pro audio speakers is that most people think of them as, and stop at, near field monitors. A good pair of active near field monitors will not only compete with "mini monitors" from the audiophile side of the fence, in most cases they will easily beat them on all fronts. The advantages of active architecture and design engineer integration make this an unfair competition. The typical audiophile, seeking synergy through trial and error, brings a rock to a rocket fight. But to compare pro audio to big audiophile systems, you have to compare apples to apples and get into midfield and mains monitors, and sometimes they're not powered, though they are designed to be used with active crossover systems and an amp for each driver. Such systems are far from inexpensive, but I'm confident that with the right choices, and the same budget, pro equipment could exceed the capabilities of TOTL audiophile systems by every objective measure. Subjective is another matter altogether. What you like is what you like.

Tim

Please give us examples of which audiophile mini monitors you've actually heard, under what conditions and are referring to.

AFAIK, studio monitors are unlistenable. If you like that peaky, ear bleed treble, fine. Basically studio monitors are built for hyper detail and kinda dynamics, nothing else. And then you wonder why the recordings we listen to sound so bad? After hearing studio speakers, one can only come to the conclusion that it's a mistake when a recording actually sounds good nowadays.

 

[MEM]

Hi Frantz, et al.

Maybe audio shops should follow the audition process for most major orchestras. The performer auditioning for, say, an available position in the violin section, plays for the judges ananamously from behind a screen. That way the usual biases regarding gender, ethnicity, age, etc. simply must be taken out of the equation and one is left alone with the music. Audio shops could use an acoustically-transparent screen, like a speaker grill, to divide the listening room and the prospective customer would arrange in advance the components which he or she would like to hear. The shop would not reveal the identity of each component until after the initial audition. Sounds thoroughly ridiculous, I know, but maybe we need something to 'blind' the listener somehow. The basis for any legitimate medical drug trial is to 'blind' both investigator and participants. Neither the investigators nor participants know if they are dispensing or taking an active medication or a placebo, respectively (or medication A or B). Only in the end are the codes broken and the results revealed. The FDA generally requires this type of study before approving new medications.

So I wholeheartedly agree, Frantz, that we need a big dose of objectivity in our approach to assessing music reproduction.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Please give us examples of which audiophile mini monitors you've actually heard, under what conditions and are referring to.

AFAIK, studio monitors are unlistenable. If you like that peaky, ear bleed treble, fine. Basically studio monitors are built for hyper detail and kinda dynamics, nothing else. And then you wonder why the recordings we listen to sound so bad? After hearing studio speakers, one can only come to the conclusion that it's a mistake when a recording actually sounds good nowadays.

Please give me examples of

which

active studio monitors you've actually heard, and under what conditions. Nah, it's really not necessary. Your response tells me you've heard nothing but bad monitors.

Tim

 

[mep]

Frantz, the limitation of pro audio speakers is that most people think of them as, and stop at, near field monitors. A good pair of active near field monitors will not only compete with "mini monitors" from the audiophile side of the fence, in most cases they will easily beat them on all fronts. The advantages of active architecture and design engineer integration make this an unfair competition. The typical audiophile, seeking synergy through trial and error, brings a rock to a rocket fight. But to compare pro audio to big audiophile systems, you have to compare apples to apples and get into midfield and mains monitors, and sometimes they're not powered, though they are designed to be used with active crossover systems and an amp for each driver. Such systems are far from inexpensive, but I'm confident that with the right choices, and the same budget, pro equipment could exceed the capabilities of TOTL audiophile systems by every objective measure. Subjective is another matter altogether. What you like is what you like.

Tim

Please tell me what pair of active mini-monitors will easily beat the Magico Q-1 mini-monitors. Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Steve williams]

Not to be pugilistic but I am interested as well. The Q1 is an amazing speaker however I also rave about Jonathan Tinn's Evolution mini monitor MM1 which has an MSRP of $2500 vs MSRP of the Q1 at over $20K

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

Please tell me what pair of active mini-monitors will easily beat the Magico Q-1 mini-monitors. Inquiring minds want to know.

I call OFF-SIDE, as this sounds like an invitation for a pissing match!

 

[MylesBAstor]

Please tell me what pair of active mini-monitors will easily beat the Magico Q-1 mini-monitors. Inquiring minds want to know.

Or Sonus Faber. Or the Adriannas that NOLA used to make. Or the Raidho. Or the Evolution MM1s as Steve pointed out, probably one of the steals when it comes to high end audio speakers.

And while I haven't heard them, what about Gary's Genesis minis?

http://www.genesisloudspeakers.com/g7series.html

 

[FrantzM]

Hi
I wil address some of what I consider good Pro mini-monitors later still the last posts are textbook argumentation fallacies ... I, talking , for myself never said that Pro monitor will surpass all audiophile mini-monitors. I actually stressed that my preferences was toward audiophiles monitos rather than Pro. I continue to maintain that there are studio monitor out there that surpass their audiophile competition at near or a lesser price. Especially when one considers that several of these studio monitors are active .. So fewer cable and no amps are needed for a complete system. It is my current opinion based on a relatively small sampling that the better audiophile monitors I have heard seem to be more to my liking that those from the Pro that i have heard... .

Another point. This statement by Myles illustrate the title of the thread:

AFAIK, studio monitors are unlistenable. If you like that peaky, ear bleed treble, fine. Basically studio monitors are built for hyper detail and kinda dynamics, nothing else. And then you wonder why the recordings we listen to sound so bad? After hearing studio speakers, one can only come to the conclusion that it's a mistake when a recording actually sounds good nowadays.

 

[mep]

I call OFF-SIDE, as this sounds like an invitation for a pissing match!

Tim threw down the gauntlet with his never-ending praise of active speakers and said they would easily beat audiophile mini-monitors. I have heard the Q-1 speakers and I want to know what in the active monitor world is going to easily beat them and at what price.

 

[mep]

Not to be pugilistic but I am interested as well. The Q1 is an amazing speaker however I also rave about Jonathan Tinn's Evolution mini monitor MM1 which has an MSRP of $2500 vs MSRP of the Q1 at over $20K

I don't think it's fair to compare the MM1 to the Q-1 as we are talking a price differential of almost 10x. The MM1s sound damn good, but I didn't think they were in the same league as the Q-1s when I heard both at the RMAF.

 

[JackD201]

Small enclosure, a tweeter and a woofer a side and yet the comparison remains apples and oranges. What we have to remember is that monitors of both kinds are optimized for their likely placement and their likely listening distances. This is true even within passive and active lines of products. In other words the foundation of the engineering is the intended utility of the unit in question. Now why on earth would someone use a studio near field monitor further than four feet away and why on earth would someone listen to something like the Q1s from four feet in even if tweeter and woofer diameters were the same?

If we really want a dog fight, let's go for professional mid field monitors with the same driver sizes as domestic units. Problem is........who can think of any? Conversely who can think enough 8" woofered domestic monitors made in the last 10 years to count on one hand?

Bye the way Frantz, back in the day I had the good fortune to use many professional amplifiers. The Crown Macrotech Reference was a doozy but to my ears the big Crests were more composed and had better drive. These days I'm not too happy with professional amplifiers since many just exploit class D efficiency for light weight and brute force. I'm not bigoted against Class D, it's just that I have not seen professional implementation that comes close to the audiophile ones or their linear amp forebears. I don't really blame them though. One group is designed to entertain throngs of concert or club goers and the other for solitary OC listeners like us. LOL.

 

[mep]

Now why on earth would someone use a studio near field monitor further than four feet away and why on earth would someone listen to something like the Q1s from four feet in even if tweeter and woofer diameters were the same?

Good point Jack. I guess you need to ask Tim. I certainly never suggested that active mini-monitors would easily beat audiophile mini-monitors in sound quality. And if my stereo system was confined to the top of a computer desk and even if I had the cash to buy a pair of Q-1 speakers, that wouldn't be the place for them as so you clearly pointed out. Tim has the right speakers for his setup, but his speakers wouldn't be the right speakers for people who don't listen from 3' away.

 

[JackD201]

Don't have to Mark, IIRC Tim's iterated in the past that he tried his actives in free space but prefers them where they are. It's no surprise. I did forget to mention that if we're talking about professional midfield monitors the usual form factor is a 3 way with a large woofer from 8 to 12 inches. Now it's Apples and Watermelons.

 

[Steve williams]

I don't think it's fair to compare the MM1 to the Q-1 as we are talking a price differential of almost 10x. The MM1s sound damn good, but I didn't think they were in the same league as the Q-1s when I heard both at the RMAF.

they weren't however at 1/10 the price one could be very happy with the MM1

 

[mep]

Don't have to Mark, IIRC Tim's iterated in the past that he tried his actives in free space but prefers them where they are. It's no surprise.

Right, it's no surprise because Tim's speakers were designed for near-field listening and not being placed in a "normal" listening room for non-near field listening.

 

[Old Listener]

Right, it's no surprise because Tim's speakers were designed for near-field listening and not being placed in a "normal" listening room for non-near field listening.

I presume that you are referring to AVI ADM 9.1 speakers that Tim has mentioned. Do you have any evidence that they are designed for near field listening and not for non-near field listening?

http://www.avihifi.com/

Another example of audiophile prejudice?

Bill

 

[mep]

I presume that you are referring to AVI ADM 9.1 speakers that Tim has mentioned. Do you have any evidence that they are designed for near field listening and not for non-near field listening?

http://www.avihifi.com/

Another example of audiophile prejudice?

Bill

Could it be because most of the reviews come from computer magazines or studio magazines or because of quotes like this one from a review: ”This could be nice for people looking for some very high performance desktop speakers. There's nothing worse than extremely forward speakers on a desktop.”

 

[Old Listener]

Could it be because most of the reviews come from computer magazines or studio magazines or because of quotes like this one from a review: ”This could be nice for people looking for some very high performance desktop speakers. There's nothing worse than extremely forward speakers on a desktop.”

Your "evidence" doesn't show that the ADM 9.1s are not designed for listening at distances greater than near field.

So you don't actually know anything about what the speakers were designed for. Sounds like audiophile prejudice to me.

Bill

 

[amirm]

Tim threw down the gauntlet with his never-ending praise of active speakers and said they would easily beat audiophile mini-monitors. I have heard the Q-1 speakers and I want to know what in the active monitor world is going to easily beat them and at what price.

Are there some measurements for the Q-1 we can look at?

 

[mep]

Amir-I don't have any measurements for the Q-1 speakers.