Pro Audio for Home hi fi?

For years I have used Mackie active studio monitors in my home hi fi. I have been very pleased with them and wouldn't hesitate to go with pro audio monitors again. I don't see much discussion of pro gear in home hi fi use. I'm curious about pro CD players for example. How do they compare to non pro/home gear?

 

I had a friend who worked for Meyer Sound in Berkeley in the 90's. He saved up and bought himself a pair of active HD-1's. Super loud. Super clean. Super 2d, uninvolving and fatiguing. Bleh. He listened to his LS35A's, and sold them a month later. I've only ever heard Dynaudio, Adam, PMC, Harbeth monitors that I could listen to all day, and they still wouldn't be my choice for home listening for the most part.

 

Mackie, Genelec, Yamaha - yep, count me in as a fan of pro-audio gear. A pair of active monitors can be a superb option for the home setting. Right up there. The bass on some of those Mackie's is incredible, the musicality of the Genelec range is astoundingly good.

 

Pro sound is so different from consumer audio. The requirements are totally opposite. Reliability and portability are major needs in pro gear while sound quality, appearance and flexibility are important in consumer electronics. Pro gear generally has to do one thing really well and without fail. Consumer gear has to be more flexible and not take up too much space. You fill large rooms with sound using pro gear while homes and apartments have small rooms. The two fields just don't match.

Now if you were talking multi-room sound or maybe surprisingly to some, even car stereo, I find much more in common there with pro sound. In car stereo and multi-room whole house audio, you have multi-amp systems where gain matching becomes crucial. Equalization and crossovers are involved. Long cable runs are standard with electrical interference an issue. Things I have learned in pro sound have applied to both car and multi-room systems and visa versa. I first learned to use electronic crossovers setting up car subwoofers in the early 1980s, knowledge I later applied to working in clubs.

 

Sorry, I just don't see that at all - Many of Genelec's lower sub-£2000 speakers are home friendly in size and construction. See also Yamaha and their HS50 or HS80 speakers or Tannoy's Reveal range of actives. The only thing that prevents the two fields not matching is the assumption that the home audio consumer wouldn't be interested or doesn't have the wherewithal to work it out. Yet pro-audio actives are ideal for contemporary audio solutions - well designed, good sound quality, compact compared to some bulky hifi gear. Lots of appeal for the domestic user that doesn't want their home to be dominated by a stereo system, but wants good sound nonetheless.

 

I agree; I find Focal monitors to best the Genelecs and the Genelec better than the Mackie. I have used the Focal for home audio in some situations but it still isn't as flexible or ultimately pleasing in betetr systems, despite the Focal being at the top of the list. That said, the OP isn't even talking about speakers or monitors, he is asking about CD players. Not even about DACs, but rather CD players. Pro CD players are typically very average sounding at best and have a more durable set of controls. I would avoid them for hi-fi use, period.
-Bill

 

In my experience, most audiophiles are not actually after a neutral sound, but instead prefer some specific set of colorations that they happen to like. And that's completely okay. But for those people, studio monitors will not be the right choice. However, if you really do prefer a neutral, truthful sound, a high quality studio monitor can be a very good option.

But just as in the consumer market, there are good and bad pro speakers. A $300 pair of 'studio monitors' is unlikely to provide very good sound. But a quality pro monitor can sound incredible.

Of course, 'pro' visual aesthetics are quite different, and may simply be unacceptable in your living room.

 

Some find pro gear, be it speakers, amps, CDP's accecptable for home use. However, most don't.

 

On the other hand, DCS started out as pro-audio only gradually moving into high-end audio. The best a/d converters are pro and the best d/a I've owned was pro audio, built into the t.c. audio M 2000, something of a Swiss-Army Knife for digital. I bought it in the mid 1990s as I needed good sounding reverb and Jack Vad, Grammy award winning engineer/producer told me that t.c. electronics made the best sounding digital reverb. Mind you, it was the best digital I could get in 1995. Still, don't write off pro audio, particularly digital pro audio. I'm not saying go out and grab a reliable and boring sounding Tascam CD player. But do check out DCS and t.c. electronics, they may be the best in their particular categories.

 

There's also the matter of installation. Some speakers made for very nearfield studio monitoring and backed up against a room boundary are going to sound bad moved out 1/3 of the way into a more reverberant home listening environment and listened to from 10 or more feet away.

A well designed speaker -- or a well designed piece of any gear -- used appropriately will probably sound good, whether it's being marketed for the home or the pro market. I thought this piece from Sound on Sound a decade ago -- which compared some popular project studio monitors and some similar home speakers, at least on the basis of frequency response, was pretty interesting, and certainly the home speakers fared at least as well and in some ways better than the pro gear: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/Jun02/articles/monitors.asp

While euphonic coloration is certainly popular among some home audio enthusiasts, I think one can't just presume that stuff made for the pro market is necessarily neutral and truthful and stuff made for the home market isn't. There's great and not so great sounding stuff of both types, as you say, and there are installation circumstances that may make design elements of one or the other type of gear more appropriate for the application.

 

Studio monitors are there to highlight sonic anomalies and for pin-pointing problems. They are brutally honest if they are doing their job. Almost all affordable ones are made for nearfield listening. Mid-field and larger are gonna cost more than most "hey I listen on studio monitors! types are willing to spend. They are a terrible choice for home listening!

The thought of working all day in a recording studio only to come home and be faced with listening to more studio monitors sounds like the definition of hell to me.

There's a reason that mastering houses (where the final musical product is tweaked) uses audiophile speakers.

 

I know someone who recently bought a pair of PMC IB2S actives for his home system. Brutally honest? Perhaps....Brutal ? Absolutely. Also hugely expensive. He is absolutely miserable and he is also a long-time PMC user. Like Ziggy, he took it all too far. A veritable how-to manual for rendering your music collection largely unlistenable in one easy step. I have owned and currently own a fair bit of gear from companies with a pro-audio heritage like PMC, Manley and Bryston. It's not for everyone.

D.D.

 

The only pro audio I would want in my house is some massive monitor speakers from years back, I forget the brand and model, but they were huge and sounded great, but you need a big room.

 

Not in my world, or many many others I know.
How do they pin point problems exactly? They are built to reveal what makes up the source, they dont highlight anything at all, the decent ones. So they dont add to whats there, or pin point anything at all, thats just nonsense. If anything, Hi Fi speakers are what you want to be careful about, asthey will often be voiced to "sound good.
I mix on Quested H108's, and I listen for pleasure with them as well. Sounds phenominal in my purpose built room. Your going to have to pony up some serious coin to beat that combination with anything marketed as audiophile or Hi-Fi. On top of that I trust the companies I deal with in the Pro Audio market, I am certainly wary of the Audiophile Hi-Fi voodoo snake oil Merchants. With apologies to the decent ones amongst them.

 

Might have been Quested, Westlake or Tannoys.

In fact, if you really have to have studio monitors for home use, I would recommend staying in the British family of monitors like Tannoy, Harbeth and Spendor. A much nicer listen than most pro audio gear offers. I'm definitely in the "British sound" camp when it comes to studio monitors.

Back in the mid 90's I got 4k worth of Genelecs for my studio. On the way out of the Pro Audio store I saw a pair of Tannoy PBM 6.5s and picked them up as an "impulse buy". I planned on using them for my bedroom system, which I did. I no longer have the Genelecs, but I still have those cheap ($400 a pair) Tannoys! I would definitely recommend those (you can find them pretty cheap used) to someone looking for a cheap nearfield speaker that can be used for home listening. Beats the hell out of those terrible sounding KRKs and Yamaha NS10s.

The Genelecs were very good for studio work. Good for tracking and mixing. The mixes done on them translated very well to many systems, but I never loved them. Cold and exact, they were not very "fun" for music listening. They were for work. The Tannoys, on the other hand, were pretty decent for tracking and mixing (provided you powered them with quality amplification) and I loved the way they sound! Not as revealing or as detailed as the Genelec, but much, much more musical.

Studio monitors are a necessary evil. For the money you would spend on a decent pair of powered monitors you could have a really nice audiophile speaker. Sure, you would still need an amp, but I'm not convinced powered monitors are that great, audio-wise, anyway. In theory they should be, but if you are spending 1k on powered speakers do you really think the amp is were most of the money goes? I find powered monitors (with a few exceptions) to be aggressive and shouty. You turn them up and they get blare-y and painful. Good for nearfield listening, but terrible for energizing a room with big sound.

 

How many audio professionals do you know? How many audiophiles? All one needs to do is look to the mastering world for why studio monitors are not great for full range, home listening. Almost all mastering studios of note use very high-end audiophile speakers. Just look at what Mr. Hoffman uses for work. They are most definitely from the audiophile world, not the pro audio world.

By being viciously revealing. By not flattering anything. By presenting a utilitarian perspective on sound. Flat to a fault and set up to reduce room reflections. Flat and business-like. Some can sound good, but again, we are talking about in the limited nearfield position. You can't do full range sound with a nearfield.

I assume you know about Yamaha NS10s, right? Well, they sound like crap. They're just awful sounding speakers. You have to fight with them to get them to sound halfway decent. They are also one of the most ubiquitous studio staples of the 20th century. Why? Because if you can make something sound decent on them, they will sound really good on great speakers. They highlight problem areas in the midrange. I hate 'em but they do work. Oddly enough, they were originally made for home use!

Those Quested you have are very good speakers. I like them a lot. But they are for listening to in the nearfield. You really have to keep you head in a vice-like grip to stay in the sweet spot. For the money you spend on them, you could have a much more satisfying listening speaker. For about $400 cheaper you could get a pair of Tekton Lores and a decent amp that would destroy those Quested monitors in every metric that you would judge good sound by.

If I was tracking drums or vocals, I would choose the Quested H108. If I wanted to listen to a finished track, I would listen on the Lores. I like big, full range sound, not a small soundstage with limited bass and compression at loud levels.

Studio monitors = apples
Audiophile speakers = oranges

 

There are many niches in "pro sound" such as for tracking monitoring, mixdown and mastering, broadcast monitoring, etc., etc. Some of this stuff works great in the domestic situation (but costs a bunch) and some does not.

Most large active monitors designed for non-nearfield work cost a great deal of money and also are set up for +4 dBm, balanced feed.

That said there are a number of "pro sound" products that work very well and are affordable for home use.

As far as CD players go I'm not sure there IS such a thing as a true pro CD player any more. The good pro CD players like the Harris CD2001 and Denon DN 950/960 are long out of production since most broadcast facilities rip down everything to a hard drive today. They had ruggedized, repairable transport mechanisms, but even before the automation days stations figured out a cheap CD player cost less than a laser kit for a pro player.

 

Yes I am awareof NS10's. They are hugely dependant on the amp they are paired with. Most people don't have Bryston amps etc so they pair it with something sub par, and there is your Crap sound. Better amp better sound, but I agree they sound crap generally speaking anyway. I see plenty of mastering studios using studio monitors for mastering. Many don't, I'll give you that.

I don't know Lore speakers , maybe they would sound better I wouldn't know. I'd be surprised if the difference would be as great as you suggest ! That seems a little strong to me. I'm not down with the head in a vice like grip thing either.That syndrome is not really about speakers but all about the room they are in. Speakers/room are a system working together, you can't have one without effecting the other. In a untreated room, or if you add stupid high end EQ, then yes..head in a vice syndrome. I listen in a purpose built room fully treated, no head in a vice required here.

At the end of the day, I mix and track in here and it's my only space. So, it's also my listening for enjoyment set up as well.

 

The pro gear is obviously the tools of the trade. Only until the last decade have the studio monitors stepped up to audiophile performance, or nearly so. The idea of mixing is to get everything right as presented through the average system, and cheaper radios as well as higher quality audio systems. The engineer has on hand the house speakers for more bass extension, to simulate a better sounding home stereo system. Then there is (or was) the "bitch box" a small full range speaker that simulated the average television set, or boom box. The mix should blend to mono without phase or azimuth error.

I have heard the new Dynaudio monitors and Adam ribbons, and very impressed! (not as much with the Focals) I once owned a pair of Mackie HR-824 powered monitors, which sounded very, very good but not anything like the Acoustat 1+1 electrostatic, nor my large cabinet speaker project. The Mackies were moved briefly to the living area, a larger room, since I was curious. They received numerous compliments from friends and friends of the roommate (house share situation at that time) A compliment isn't just a compliment, I could see by their expression and involvement in the music it was genuine, and since virtually all had never experienced midrange and top end other than the harsh sizzle of car systems.

The reactions to the Acoustats and my own project speaker are another story! The listeners responded emotionally, sometimes hyperventilation (true) or an impulsive exclamation "holy s**t".

As pro monitors approach and meet audiophile speakers, it may become more difficult for an engineer to create a stable mix suitable for all listening situations, such as over the radio, or low end mass produced home theater system, or iPhone headset. Audiophile sound in the mix stage does not always translate into a better mix. I am sure some may argue this point, and to a point I may agree.

 

And like an audiophile, you bring audiophile thinking to the debate. In other words, creating a problem where none exists. Even my phone with its' Onkyo HF player app lets me fine tune the sound. So a simple EQ adjustment is hardly out of the question (or pre-amp treble/bass if they're decent, or your digital music payer on a computer).

Problem? None without solutions and pro audio monitors offer less problems than some passive monitors do.

 

I use a pair of Yamaha YDP 2006 Parametric Eq's in my home system, one for the mains the other for the subs. I couldn't live without them, they have made a huge difference in my setup.

 

I use ATCs, with the possible exception of high end B & Ws I can't think of anything I'd be tempted to replace them with, other than better ATCs, yes pro monitors aren't for everyone, but there is even more variation in domestic speakers so like everything it's a matter of taste. I'm well aware of the strengths and weaknesses of my approach, it's an informed choice and as I need to be able to listen to music critically for work it's convenient that I like a "pro sound".

I always absolutely hated the Yamaha NS 10s, but to damn all cheaper monitors with the same brush is unfair, there's plenty of lower end pro gear that sounds pretty good and some of the active packages offer really good value, as with all Hi Fi, listen before you buy, speakers in particular are a very personal choice.

When Philips and Marantz were together a lot of their CD/CD recorder units including some pro gear were basically the same models with minor tweaks and different cases, Tascam/Teac did the same, and I believe that some HHB units were rebadged products from Japanese brands, these days it's hard to find good affordable CD players full stop so unless rack ears and ruggedness are a requirement I'd go for a Hi Fi unit.

All those dismissing pro gear should remember the market many of those sought after vintage record decks were designed for, along with speakers like the Rogers LS3/5A, there's always been crossover between pro and home use, good sound is good sound.

 

I have a lot of experience with studio monitors and I would never want to use them for home listening. I have them in my home studio, but would never put them in my living room. Look at the rooms they are used in- all extensively treated. While there are some good sounding monitors, they are designed to be neutral in a room that has proper sound treatment. If you put them in a room that is not treated they can sound very harsh and fatiguing (as T'mershi said they are designed to reveal faults). I say they can sound harsh because, obviously, I have not heard all monitors in a non-treated environment.

Having said that, if you find a pair that sound good to you in your room, more power to you- these generalizations don't matter (all generalizations have their exceptions).

As for the infamous NS-10s many most studios use them because they are so ubiquitous and almost any engineer is familiar with them and compensates for their faults.

 

Pro gear is like cooking in the kitchen, tasting the meal as you go, coming up with an excellent dish.

Home audio is eating the food at the table, enjoying its taste, texture and appearance.

Yes, in both cases you use knives, spoons, salt and pepper. Bowls are essential in the kitchen and at the table. Yet they are two separate experiences, requiring different tools and skills.

Expanding the analogy, a wine connoisseur doesn't need to know how to grow grapes or ferment them. And I certainly don't want a vintner with grape stained hands, smelling of yeast, pouring my wine in a fancy restaurant.