Pro Studio Monitors vs Ascend Speakers

[sonicboom]

Hi there Ascend family.

It is often said that pro studio monitors are what music and movie-makers use to produce the finished material that comes out to the consuming public.

Having that as a premise, wouldn't studio monitors be better speakers for consumers to use when listening at home?

What is a good reason to choose Ascend over a same-priced studio monitor?

[FirstReflect]

This is a totally logical train of thought, and something I dug into a few years ago when I was pondering the same thing. If certain equipment is used to make the recordings, wouldn't the ideal be to use that exact same equipment again to play it back?

In video, that's actually more or less the case. There are very strict and well defined standards and targets for calibration in video. And the ideal is to have the very same calibration of your display at home. But that extends to more than just having the correct colour, greyscale, and gamma coming out of the display itself. It also means having a neutral Munsell Gray room in a matte finish, if you want to get really technical. And any bias lighting must also be perfectly neutral by casting perfectly accurate D65 white light. But at least in video, we know exactly what to aim for, and budget allowing, we can hit it every time if we want to.

But in audio, there are no strict industry standards. No well-defined calibration targets. The simple fact is that if you go to any recording or mixing studio, they have a whole bunch of different speakers. They might do the bulk of their work using a particular set of speakers. But before the mix gets sent off for mastering, they listen to it through many different speakers with a wide range in reproduction quality. Recording engineers and mixers are all obsessed with the concept of "translatability". They fully realize that their recordings are going to be heard through car stereos, crappy ear buds, built-in TV speakers, clock radios, the tiny speaker in your smartphone, as well as high end headphones, Hi-Fi stereos, and home theatres. And they want for the most important elements of the recording - typically voices most of all - to be audible and intelligible through all of them! Obviously, it's not meant to sound "the same" through all of these diverse playback systems. But it is meant to always be recognizable, and hopefully enjoyable. So the bottom line is, in audio, there really is no well-defined "right" or "wrong".

That said, any sound playback system that alters the signal from the recoding in any way is - in the strictest sense of the word - distorting it. So the closer we can get to a total absence of distortion, the closer we get to hearing the recording exactly as it is.

But here's the thing: we don't hear only what comes out of the speakers! A great deal of what we end up hearing is due to whatever room we're in. And it also changes depending on where the speakers are placed within that room, and where the listening position is placed within the room AND relative to the speakers. So there's much, much more in play here. There are many, many variables.

So, "shouldn't I just use the same equipment as what was used to make the recording?" ends up also including having the exact same room, and positing the speakers and the listening position in the exact same spots as when the recoding was being made! And that's simply never going to happen, because there are many, many recording, mixing, mastering, and dubbing studios in the world, and they are most definitely not all identical! So you'd need to change your room, your speakers, and where everything is placed every time you listen to a new recording! And that's just never going to happen.

So, can you use professional studio monitors in your home theatre or Hi-Fi? Sure! They're just speakers. And they often have very linear on axis frequency response, which we generally consider desirable. But there's more than just on axis frequency response when it comes to a speaker's output.

Studio monitors are typically designed for what's called "nearfield placement". That basically means they are within 1-3 feet of the listener's ears. Mixers and engineers typically have their primary monitors set up on a "bridge" that is elevated at the rear of their desk or mixing station, and they have those monitors aimed straight at their face. As a result, the sound is more similar to headphones, or a computer desktop setup, at the very least.

Since studio monitors are often intended to be used nearfield, they often have very narrow dispersion. You'll see things like a relatively large 8 or 10 inch woofer mated to a tweeter that's mounted in a horn or a waveguide. Or maybe a ribbon or folded ribbon tweeter. Such designs tend to be more highly directional.

If you combine highly directional speakers with nearfield placement, and what is typically a very "dead" and well-damped room (all that foam you normally see on studio walls), what you end up hearing at the mixing position is extemely direct sound from the speakers, with exceptionally few reflections from the room's acoustics. Again, it's more similar to headphones.

But what it's really like is a microscope for sound. And this makes sense; the mixer or sound engineer is using the studio monitors as tools, not for listening pleasure and enjoyment. It's a bit like asking, "wouldn't it be better to watch TV through binoculars, since you'd see more detail?" Well, I don't think that's what most viewers would prefer, and I don't think that's what any director intended The same goes for the audio. When you're putting the recording together, you want to be able to pick out very specific details, and minute changes. But once it's all done, you're meant to take a big step back, relax, and enjoy it.

So what happens when you sit farther away (as you almost certainly will), and have studio monitors playing in a larger, much more reflective room (as it almost certainly will be)? Well, for one thing, you end up hearing a much different sound because now you're hearing much more of the room's acoustics than you would in a studio. And with the change in distance comes a need for louder output levels and higher power handling. Many studio monitors are self-powered - they have amplifiers built right into their cabinets - and they are sometimes rather limited in their maximum output capabilities because they were only intended for nearfield placement. You'll also find a lot of studio monitors that have been adjusted to account for their typical placement on a bridge, with some boundary compensation built in to their frequency response to account for that one, early reflection off of the desk below.

Another common trait of many studio monitors is very different off-axis dispersion from the tweeters vs. the woofers. This is perhaps the single greatest reason to choose well-designed "home" speakers over studio monitors for your playback system. In a nearfield placement, in a very reflection-free room, with only a single listening position that never changes, and the speaker aimed right at that listener's head, having uniform off-axis dispersion from all of the drivers just isn't very important. In that studio-type setup, it's really just the on-axis response that is of concern. But it's a completely different situation in a home theatre or Hi-Fi setup. There, you've got plenty of reflections, often several listening positions, and an endless number of possible locations where the speakers are placed and aimed. The off-axis response becomes extemely important! And this is an area where Ascend has spent a great deal of time and effort in the design of their speakers: making sure that the off-axis as well as the on-axis response is even and uniform from the highest frequency to the lowest that the speaker plays.

So, how do Ascend's speakers differ from your typical studio monitor? They handle more power, can play louder, have wider dispersion, and have more even and uniform off-axis dispersion. All of these things make them more suitable for use in a "normal" room that your find in a home, as opposed to a studio. But Ascend's speakers still have very flat, linear, and accurate on-axis response, which means there's no reason they couldn't be used in a studio themselves! And that's exactly the case, in fact. There are many studios that use Ascend speakers as their studio monitors as their primary "tools".

So what you'd be getting from Ascend is a speaker that is very accurate, and distorts the original signal as minimally as possible. That's the case on-axis, just like it would be with a good studio monitor. But Ascend's speakers are also designed to account for the characteristics of a "normal" room in a home, whereas many studio monitors are solely concerned with just their on-axis response, and only having suitable output for a nearfield, single mixing position.

I hope that's of some help

[GirgleMirt]

Looks like an in-depth response from Jonathan! Here's what my search on the subject summed up to, which might very well be the same as Jonathan just said...

Basically, many studio monitors are designed to be listened to in a studio environment, in what they call 'near field' listening, basically means you're sitting rather close to the speakers, with speakers pointing right at you. They're not really designed/optimized to be put on stands in a room like your Ascend speakers, and they'll effectively behave differently; studio environment has lots of room treatment, while average home doesn't, so the dispersion, off-axis response, etc., differ, making them possibly not optimal in a home environment. Also, they're 'voiced' differently than your typical hifi speaker, which to me doesn't mean much as that basically means to me flat response, which Ascend also strives for.

Well that seems to be the popular answer. For a desk, no reason they wouldn't work great. For a Home Theater, they likely won't be best suited as they're not really made to be SPL monsters, but if you have a good room with some room treatment, and use them within their specifications, no reason they shouldn't sound great.

So, a plus for them, they're powered, so you don't require an amp, and so price-wise they can compare favorably to many hifi alternatives. For say computer speakers, I think they'd likely beat many audio brands. It all depends on your application. But yeah, generally, definitely worth to consider them. But vs Ascend, it's a bit of an apples vs oranges comparison... For the price you're likely to get an 'ugly' plastic cabinet with lights, so right there, might be a killer for someone considering hifi speakers for their living room...

I've heard some quite expensive ($5k) studio monitors and they sounded exquisite. Them coupled with room correction, really a fantastic system, anyway, if some do some direct comparisons of studio monitors vs Ascends I'd be interested to see the results

[FirstReflect]

Yup! Looks like we're in total agreement, GirgleMirt!

I was just far more verbose, and unnecessarily wordy -- haha

[GirgleMirt]

Hehe yeah I saw that after, I was lazy at first, but definitely worth reading!! a+ would read again, and I just did

[sonicboom]

Very educational, Jonathan and GM.

I almost got tempted to get a pair of powered Yamaha HS80 to replace my CMT 340SE as mains. My receiver has pre-outs for the mains so I thought I can go ahead and do it. The Yamahas are touted to be very accurate and flat across the range. But after reading your posts I'm now dissuaded from going this route.

[FirstReflect]

There's certainly no harm in auditioning and comparing any speakers that interest you. Nothing can replace the firsthand experience of hearing various sound reproduction systems for yourself.

But I most certainly wouldn't go replacing the Ascend CMT-340SE with those Yamaha studio monitors without a lengthy comparison! I don't say that to imply that you'll for sure prefer the CMT-340SE in every situation. There's a chance you'd end up liking the HS80 better. But just looking at the specs and parts used in those Yamaha monitors, I'd honestly be rather surprised if you did. Nothing about those particular monitors looks like any sort of upgrade over the CMT-340SE to me. Quite the opposite, really

But I've not heard the Yamahas. Maybe they're the pure hotness - haha. But, yes, I definitely wouldn't swap out your CMTs just on the notion that studio monitors would be superior because they're the type of speakers that are often used in mixing studios. I'm not saying to avoid trying them. Auditioning them and hearing the comparison for yourself would be very valuable! So that part is very much worthwhile. But I get the sense you were maybe thinking that the Yamahas would guarantee that you'd be hearing the "right" sound. And I can totally understand where that line of thinking comes from because I went along that same line myself. But due to all the things we've talked about above, the Yamahas won't be any more "right" in your home theater. They'll have their characteristics. Maybe they'll happen to be beneficial in your room. Maybe you'll happen to prefer them. But it's definitely not a case where the studio monitors will be "right", and any other sound will be "wrong". And just going by specs and parts and design, if you have anything resembling a "normal" room as your home theater, the CMT-340SE will be producing a sound that is very much in line with any recording engineer's intent, already. If what you really want most is accurate, undistorted sound, then it's a matter of considering the entire sound system, and not just the speakers. And the system includes the room

[sonicboom]

Jonathan, I think you can read my mind.

Yes, I honestly imagined that the Yamaha HS80 will be an upgrade to my CMT 340SE mains. Actually the rest of my set-up is all Ascend speakers (CMT 340SE center, CBM 170SE surrounds) and dual 12-inch Emotiva subs. Amplification comes from a 50wpc Marantz NR1403 5.1 AVR, and the sound of the whole system is very clean, accurate and powerful. The listening area is my living room (approx. 14ftW x 20ftL) with a 55-inch flat sreen TV situated along the 14ft side. Listening distance is 11 feet. Listening preference is 60% music - 40% movies. Music mostly comes from Pandora or iTunes.

Maybe it's just the upgrade bug that plagues every audio enthusiast that bit me. If you were to upgrade from what I have, what route will you take?

[davef]

Very educational, Jonathan and GM.

I almost got tempted to get a pair of powered Yamaha HS80 to replace my CMT 340SE as mains. My receiver has pre-outs for the mains so I thought I can go ahead and do it. The Yamahas are touted to be very accurate and flat across the range. But after reading your posts I'm now dissuaded from going this route.

Hey Sonicboom,

Having designed the crossovers for an entire line of high performance "studio monitors", I can tell you that there is honestly little difference between the design of a so called "studio monitor" and any Ascend monitor, other than the actual terminology used for marketing and the possibility of one being self powered. However, while all Ascend loudspeakers are designed for accuracy, overall in-room response and dynamics are just as important... We have many engineers and colleges using our monitors for mixing and research.

That said, some of the most popular studio monitors actually make very poor loudspeakers for home usage. Traditionally, studio monitors are used in the near field, often within 1 meter distance and therefore the need for dynamic capabilities and off-axis linearity and dispersion needed to fill a room with sound are not taken into account. It is also important to understand that many recording engineers prefer monitors that if the engineer is capable of getting the mix to sound good on, it will sound great on most other speakers

Perhaps the most popular studio monitor of all time, the Yamaha NS-10 was an utterly unremarkable loudspeaker in all regards. Engineers flocked to these for the reason I mentioned above, if they were able to get a good mix using these, it would typically sound great on other loudspeakers...

Going from 340's to the HS80 would be a step down in performance...

[sonicboom]

Hey Sonicboom,

Going from 340's to the HS80 would be a step down in performance...

This route I definitely do not want to take.

BTW, if I upgrade to the Sierra-1 from my CMT mains, how perceptible is the step-up in sound quality?