Talk:Studio monitor

message: The second paragraph of this entry, beginning with "the goal of studio monitors..." is copied word for word from http://www.tweakheadz.com/studio_monitors.htm. The tweakheadz.com entry was written in 2002 according to the entry in a related forum. Word for word until the about the next to the last sentence. 
RSzoc 14:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second paragraph of this entry 

message: I deleted the link to the Yamaha NS-10 website as it appears to the brainchild of one person writing without oversight. It's also about one studio monitor while this article is about all studio monitors. I think the link fails WP:EL. Perhaps it would work under the Yamaha page or the not-yet-written Yamaha NS-10 page. Binksternet (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Yamaha NS-10 website

message: This article seems to shortchange the ubiquity of the Auratone in favor of devoting too much to the NS-10. In my experience, the Auratone was the original "squawk box" most popularly used as a lo-fi, real world reference LONG before the NS-10 was created. Referring to it as "crude" seems over the line. While very popular in the post production and broadcast worlds, the Auratone could be found in many music recording facilities in the 70's. Someone correct me, but I don't think that the NS-10, on the other hand, enjoyed much popularity in non-music mixing situations. Therefore, I think it could be asserted that the Auratone was more broadly used across industry lines as well as the first practical standard (made so by mass adoption) nearfield real world reference.
Note that vintage Auratones still sell on eBay and the design has been revived by Avantone. DISCLAIMER: I have no connection to Auratone or Avantone; merely an Auratone user for over 20 years in a professional context and still own them.
MRJayMach (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your assessment. I don't know enough about the Auratone's history to correct the problem. It would be good for the article if somebody steps up and writes a paragraph on the little cube... Binksternet (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Auratones were great (the moden ones are not the same) but they were not used as main monitors in any studio I know of and were not the first "comparison" product,  while the NS10 was a breakthrough product, but Auratones should be on wikipedia, how abut a new page?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reiknir (talk • contribs) 12:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auratone shortchanged? 

message: I've added some text and sources about the BBC's contributions to this field. I was aiming for the article to be more balanced from the global perspective (geographical as well as situational), but the material I added may not be wholly relevant at this time. Feel free to prune or add to what I've done. The BBC sources may be useful in further developing the article. -- Ohc ¡digame! 08:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global view 

message: I design studio monitors for a living and, in my opinion, much of this article needs rework.   While I wish it were true, all these basic claims about studio monitors having flatter frequency and phase responses, as well as being more robust, have little or no evidence to support them.   I have tried my best to find an AES Journal paper or other citation to support any of this. I can’t find a thing.  Some papers discuss design goals and criteria for making good studio monitors.   However, none show that speakers in the field, marketed as studio monitors, generally achieve these goals any better than any other speakers.  The data doesn't appear to exist.  I did find this article in Sound on Sound that compares studio monitors to hi-fi speakers: 
 
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun02/articles/monitors.asp
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul02/articles/monitors2.asp 
However, it suggests there might not be any general difference from a sonic performance perspective.  Of course, the Sound on Sound article is far from a comprehensive survey.  But it’s the only credible source I can find specifically relating to this issue.  And it points to the near polar opposite conclusion of what the Studio Monitor article claims throughout.  Nonetheless, I do think there are some characteristics, obvious to most everyone, that distinguish studio monitors from consumer hi-fi speakers:
 
*Monitors are predominantly self-powered these days.
*Monitors have +4dBu balanced inputs rather than -10dBV single ended inputs. 
*Monitors often have dynamic limiters.   This may lend some credence to the “robustness” claim, but for a different reason than what the article suggests.   
*Monitors often have front facing power and clip indicator lights.   
*Monitors typically have more utilitarian cosmetics i.e. plain black boxes.  Seriously!  
*Monitors either tend to have book-shelf dimensions, which facilitates mounting on a console meter bridge, or they are designed for soffit mounting.
  
For the most part these characteristics deal with form and functionality within a studio environment rather than sonic performance differences.  
Can anyone point to research, or even a news article that, supports the studio monitor distinctions claimed here?   If not, I propose that the focus of this article be shifted towards the more verifiable functionality aspects of studio monitors rather than the, so far, unvaried sonic performance differences.   And with regard to the performance differences, they should be phrased and cited as goals rather than varied differences. I will appreciate all feedback before I head down this path.   I'll post my changes here on the talk page for critique before making any updates to the article. Thomas Barefoot 21:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Evidence to Support Primary Claims of this Article