Posted: Nov 21, 2016 5:57 pm
by Macdoc
And those studio monitors are near field like LS35a's or the current equivalent and small - no flapping shirts from these

Image

http://www.wirerealm.com/guides/top-10- ... r-speakers

This is one of our clients....he bought some RAM today for his home studio but thats our 12 core MacPro lurking under the desk they just upgraded.

Image

One thing you cannot get adequatelyfrom headphones is a 3d sound field compared to studio speakers tho the open back cans do a decent job of that...I just prefer the ambient sound attenuation from closed.

This is a very balanced article on the subject.
http://www.recordingmag.com/resources/r ... l/131.html

He makes the case for Headphones ( also for monitors as well _

But this sums my reasoning - from the article - and I am listening not mixing.

The case for headphones as monitors

There are many situations where headphones have the potential to offer a higher quality of sound than loudspeakers:

• They are not dependent on room acoustics, which can vary tremendously. As a sound reference that is consistent from venue to venue, headphones are a uniquely practical solution.

• Most practical high-quality loudspeakers use more than one driver for each channel and need a crossover network of some sort. The potential for sonic problems with this arrangement has always been a challenge for speaker designers. Headphones can bypass such problems entirely by using a single driver for each channel.

• There is no agreement as to the ideal polar radiation pattern for a loudspeaker. A variety of approaches are found in both consumer and professional settings, and they all interact with the listening room in different ways. With headphones this is not a consideration, let alone a problem.

• The very characteristic that makes the most difference in the way headphones sound—the lack of interaural crosstalk—makes them revealing of details in a recording to a degree that no conventional loudspeaker setup can match. This is one reason why many classical music engineers use them: if you need to catch things like that smudged entrance in the second violins or a fluffed note by the bassoonist, headphones will tell you about it much quicker than loudspeakers will.

• This same precision in rendering detail makes headphones superior for editing stereo program material. They reveal what is really going on at the splice point much more readily than loudspeakers—most of the time. (I’ll let Jerry Bruck tell you about the exceptions in just a bit.)

There are many practical advantages to using headphones as well:

• They are lightweight and portable.

• Dynamic-element phones have no need for large, powerful, expensive amplifiers. Suitable headphone amps are already built into a lot of recording equipment, and separate headphone amps are usually small and cheap compared to speaker amplifiers.

• Closed-back headphones provide some isolation from your surroundings, making it possible to monitor where it would otherwise be difficult or impossible.

• Some headphones are capable of deep bass response normally found only in very large full-range loudspeakers or in subwoofers. If you record pipe organs for a living, you may find this useful.

• Did I mention that they are lightweight and portable?

Even the more expensive top quality headphones offer more “bang for the buck” than loudspeakers. For example, the Sennheiser HD 580 has a street price of about $250. This gets you dynamic element headphones that are considered to be near-equivalent to the most esoteric electrostatic models. Loudspeakers with equivalent sonic performance could easily cost five times as much, or more.

and I use 580s