Not that wikipedia is the ultimate source, but I found this citation relevant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studio_monitor There are a number of reasons for this: * Domestic speakers are generally less rugged and unable to cope with the often extreme conditions encountered in the recording studio; * pro monitors are generally designed to be listened to from much shorter distances than home speakers; * pro monitors are generally powered while domestic speakers are almost always passive; * pro monitors are voiced to be less flattering to the source than domestic speakers are. An illuminating indication of the difference between the two markets is the fact that the observation that “it makes everything sound great” is seen as a criticism in the studio monitor world! Monitors are selected because they ostensibly don’t flatter the material played through them and offer a “warts and all” presentation that makes it less likely for producers/engineers to approve unsatisfactory productions. Monitors are intended to err, if at all, on the side of harshness and aggressiveness rather than on papering over recording flaws whereas domestic speakers are often designed to make even mediocre material sound palatable. For some reason, domestic speakers haven’t followed the professional move towards the active and powered. In audiophile circles, this is probably due to the fact that powered speakers tend to emphasize sonic qualities they find uncongenial, as well as a desire to select separate components rather than simplify the audio chain. For this reason, the seemingly inevitable move to domestic powered speakers is more likely to come at the lower end of the consumer market. _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
