Pro Gear vs Audiophile Gear

[es347]

Recording studios are businesses and are run as such. Pesky things like ROI enter the picture, assuming the owner is trying to make a profit. If audiophiles had to run their listening rooms like businesses where bang-for-the-buck must be more of a consideration, the msrp of "audiophile" grade components would seek lower, more realistic levels.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Recording studios are businesses and are run as such. Pesky things like ROI enter the picture, assuming the owner is trying to make a profit. If audiophiles had to run their listening rooms like businesses where bang-for-the-buck must be more of a consideration, the msrp of "audiophile" grade components would seek lower, more realistic levels.

As would the assessment of their effects.

P

 

[naturephoto1]

Oswald's Mill Audio, who is building my large horn speakers, uses very expensive Professional drivers rather than "audiophile" drivers in their speakers. In fact the drivers in my OMA New Yorker speakers are being used by 2 Professional speaker manufacturers, but OMA is the only High End speaker maker that is using these very expensive Professional drivers.

Rich

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Oswald's Mill Audio, who is building my large horn speakers, uses very expensive Professional drivers rather than "audiophile" drivers in their speakers. In fact the drivers in my OMA New Yorker speakers are being used by 2 Professional speaker manufacturers, but OMA is the only High End speaker maker that is using these very expensive Professional drivers.

Rich

Yes. Pro drivers tend to be very expensive and very robust. Pro amps in integrated active systems tend to be matched to the aforementioned drivers and, therefore, don't often need to be as expensive or robust as high-end amps, even to out-perform them. Pro components and wire tend to be very heavy-duty and extremely robust, but the esoteric materials, claims and prices seem to barely exist in the pro world. Some engineers and studio owners do believe in them, of course, but they have to cross over to the audiophile world to get them.

p

 

[es347]

Oswald's Mill Audio, who is building my large horn speakers, uses very expensive Professional drivers rather than "audiophile" drivers in their speakers. In fact the drivers in my OMA New Yorker speakers are being used by 2 Professional speaker manufacturers, but OMA is the only High End speaker maker that is using these very expensive Professional drivers.

Rich

Rich, please forgive my nosiness but which model speaker are you having built and what is the cost?

 

[naturephoto1]

Rich, please forgive my nosiness but which model speaker are you having built and what is the cost?

I am having the prototypes of the OMA New Yorker speakers built. It is taking longer than expected and we now hope that they will be completed around August 23. We are having some issues with the re-powder coating of the horns and the potting material to set the crossover parts in.

In any case, these are not on the OMA website and Jonathan Weiss has suggested that he may not post photos about the speakers because the OMA New Yorkers will look nothing like the other speakers in the line. Jonathan will be relying largely on my postings here and elsewhere for interest as well as demoing them at the Mill, his location in NYC, and at shows.

My speakers are a one of a kind built built for me to my wants of Baltic Birch Plywood with Cherry Veneer. The horns are to be a 16" black crinkle powder coating and there is a black phaser between the 2 15" woofers. My speaker horns will sit on special feet, we expect that the production speakers will have the horns attached and because of the extreme cost to build the phasers the procuction speakers will probably have a grill.

The New Yorkers are compression horn design about 38" wide, 57" tall, and about 20" deep. They will be a 2 way system consisting of a tweeter/midrange speaker for the horns and 2 15" wooofers per cabinet. Due to the design not only is the tweeter/midrange driver a horn, but the woofers are also horn loaded by design. As to the price, I do not know what the official price will be, but it will be well above $30,000 for the pair. Jonathan has asked that I request that interested parties contact him for orders, auditioning, and for the pricing.

Once I have the speakers in hand, Jonathan has given me permission to post photos as long as I do not get too close for some of the photos so that some information in the design can be seen. So, I hope to post photos of the speakers in my system gallery as well as in the horn thread once I have them.

By the way, I have already auditioned the speakers at the Mill and have agreed to the purchase. They are spectacular performers and I can not wait to take delivery.

Rich

 

[Ethan Winer]

refinement is a nebulous term for a combination of aspects of the sound that results in listenability.

Nebulous indeed. Not to pick on you because a lot of people use nebulous words. Calling a speaker or other device "musical" comes to mind. I prefer using the standard definitions we already have to define audio fidelity. For speakers that would be frequency response on-axis and at various angles, distortion versus output level at various frequencies, and ringing.

--Ethan

 

[es347]

Well they sound like they will be something pretty special. Regarding photos, do you know of a good photographer?

 

[naturephoto1]

Well they sound like they will be something pretty special. Regarding photos, do you know a good photographer?

I'll see what I can do. But, I will keep it simple using some of my Point and Shoot digital cameras with the available light in the room, but I may consider using some reflectors.

Rich

 

[jtinn]

The drivers and cabinetry of quality pro monitors are absolutely up to audiophile standards in every regard except cosmetics.
P

Sorry to disagree, but in the majority of cases, they absolutely are not.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Nebulous indeed. Not to pick on you because a lot of people use nebulous words. Calling a speaker or other device "musical" comes to mind. I prefer using the standard definitions we already have to define audio fidelity. For speakers that would be frequency response on-axis and at various angles, distortion versus output level at various frequencies, and ringing.

--Ethan

I don't think it's just semantics, Ethan. The next comment finishes the thought:

these speakers are only concerned with information. they are tools. presentation is a secondary thing. they tell you what is on the recording and don't bother with style too much.

It says that "refinement" is something other than fidelity. Enjoy, Mike, but for my part, I have some very good recordings, some very bad ones and many at a nearly infinite range between the extremes. I'll choose not to paint them all with the same brush, no matter how stylish the color. I'll choose to seek the information, what's on the recording, using the best tools I can afford in that endeavor. YMMV.

P

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Sorry to disagree, but in the majority of cases, they absolutely are not.

Let me clarify, what I'm talking about are not cheap project studio monitors but 6"-ish 2-ways with street prices approaching and exceeding $1000 each. But maybe I'm missing something. What do you find lacking in driver and cabinet quality in Genelec 8040As, JBL 4326ps, Dynaudio BM5As, AVi ADM 9.1s, Event Opals, etc?

P

 

[mep]

So now that we've established that there is no reason in the world why a pair of smallish monitors and subs cannot be definitively high end, all we have to do is open up our minds and find more examples. The pro audio world is full of them.

P

How was it "established"? Because you said so? This strikes me as another debate that has no clear winners just as tubes vs. solid state, analog vs. digital, and now passive vs. active speakers superiority arguments. If your idea of a good music listening session is to sit in front of a small pair of active speakers with steep crossovers, a pair of some cheap subs, all being fed by a computer-good for you. Enjoy. There are going to be no winners in this debate. I would love to hear what Dave Wilson would say about your comments with regards to "messy, distortion-inducing imprecision of passive crossovers."

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

How was it "established"? Because you said so? This strikes me as another debate that has no clear winners just as tubes vs. solid state, analog vs. digital, and now passive vs. active speakers superiority arguments. If your idea of a good music listening session is to sit in front of a small pair of active speakers with steep crossovers, a pair of some cheap subs, all being fed by a computer-good for you. Enjoy. There are going to be no winners in this debate. I would love to hear what Dave Wilson would say about your comments with regards to "messy, distortion-inducing imprecision of passive crossovers."

Take the active/passive monitor question out of it then, mep: Dave Wilson said it, not me. His flagship speaker is, by design, a small 2-way monitor and a subwoofer, without the flexibility of an active, detached subwoofer. The question is, then, why couldn't the same "high-end" quality be accomplished with a small 2-way monitor and a subwoofer? Why is the standard audiophile assumption that such a combination is inferior to a "high-end" floor-standing system. Is there a difference between a floor-stander like the Watt Puppy and a small two-way monitor and a a sub? What is it?

P

 

[Bruce B]

Why is the standard audiophile assumption that such a combination is inferior to a "high-end" floor-standing system. Is there a difference between a floor-stander like the Watt Puppy and a small two-way monitor and a a sub? What is it?
P

The WATT initially was a pro monitor for Dave's recording. The Puppy didn't come into play until people wanted to use the WATT as a full-range speaker.

 

[RUR]

Seems to me that Mr. P has multiple arguments in play. In summary:

1) Good-sounding 2-ways + sub(s) can present what's in the recording at least as accurately as floor-standers
2) Pro studio 2-way monitors perform as well as "audiophile" 2-way monitors
3) Cabinet and driver quality of better pro monitors is equal to "audiophile"
4) Active crossovers are inherently superior to passive

Did I misstate any of that, P?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Nebulous indeed. Not to pick on you because a lot of people use nebulous words. Calling a speaker or other device "musical" comes to mind. I prefer using the standard definitions we already have to define audio fidelity. For speakers that would be frequency response on-axis and at various angles, distortion versus output level at various frequencies, and ringing.

--Ethan

Ethan,

while i concur about the basics of speaker design (frequency response measurements, distortion, cabinet design-ringing, etc.) are important that's not all that is important. i'm not using the word musical; which infers distortion in the name of beautiful. when i use the word refinement i'm speaking about a higher degree of coherence and lack of edgyness, i'm speaking about lots of inner detail and texture and shades of color, i'm speaking about a microdynamic life, i'm speaking about a top end extended but not sterile. and the damn numbers cannot tell you everything you need to know to impart these qualities to a speaker.

a deaf person could not design a really refined speaker; or rather the odds of it happening would be like winning the lottery.

pro-audio speakers don't buy into refinement typically in my experience. some are better than others. and likely those that start out as somewhat refined end up closer after being modified to be active.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Seems to me that Mr. P has multiple arguments in play. In summary:

1) Good-sounding 2-ways + sub(s) can present what's in the recording at least as accurately as floor-standers
2) Pro studio 2-way monitors perform as well as "audiophile" 2-way monitors
3) Cabinet and driver quality of better pro monitors is equal to "audiophile"
4) Active crossovers are inherently superior to passive

Did I misstate any of that, P?

No, I don't think you missed anything except the qualifier "can" on all points. And it's not so much a series of arguments as questions.

Of course there are weak 2-way monitors - both active and passive. And bad subs. And there are exceptional passive floor-standers. And "pro" monitors with audible compromises in cabinet design and driver choices. It's not that any of these conditions cannot and do not exist. It's that they don't have to and often don't. And if you took an excellent quality 2-way monitor...let's keep it audiophile for the time being as it will be easier to discuss that way...say an Usher, or a B&W, or a Vienna, and you sat it on top of a stand that was also a 2x8" subwoofer, what would distinguish it from, and make it inherently inferior to a beloved audiophile design like the Watt Puppy? Well, other than the fact that the former's sub would probably be active, making it possible to adjust its position to accommodate room modes and adjust it's volume, phase, and much narrower crossover point, preventing the doubling of midrange that often booms, blurs and smears the image? The real question is do we assume that audiophile floor-standers are superior because they really are, or because that has always been the assumption?

I'm not trying to offend anyone or call anyone out. If my style implies that, I apologize. I just think it's a valid question worthy of discussion.

P

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

The WATT initially was a pro monitor for Dave's recording. The Puppy didn't come into play until people wanted to use the WATT as a full-range speaker.

Exactly.

P

 

[vinylphilemag]

Take the active/passive monitor question out of it then, mep: Dave Wilson said it, not me. His flagship speaker is, by design, a small 2-way monitor and a subwoofer, without the flexibility of an active, detached subwoofer.

The WATT/Puppy has never been Wilson's "flagship speaker". At the time the WATT (sans Puppy) was introduced, that privilege was with the WAMM; these days it's the Alexandria X2. And when it was first introduced, the WATT/Puppy was indeed two separate boxes (connected by so-called Puppy Tails). I forget exactly what iteration did away with the two enclosures per side.