What Defines a "Reference" Loudspeaker?
 by Alan Lofft, (bio), Axiom Audio Audiophiles and home theater enthusiasts regularly use the word "reference" to describe the qualities of a loudspeaker or an A/V component without thinking too much about the term. In certain contexts, "reference" may even be attached to an entire audio or home theater system, the implication being that "reference" equipment is about as good as it's possible to get, or that the sound quality cannot be bettered with existing technology. But it's also a term that's become somewhat debased through casual usage. What may be a "reference" to one person may not be to someone else. One record label and more than a few brands of speakers and electronics have made the word part of their company names, the connotation being that their products may be used as a benchmark of sound quality. But what exactly is a reference? Should it not reference the sound of live music? Historically, in audio circles, the word has its roots in recording studios. The term "reference monitor" usually applied to a large bass-reflex speaker commonly found in lots of studios, often wall-mounted and facing the recording console. In bygone days in North American studios, those were often big JBLs like the L112. Such speakers were not the most tonally accurate, but they could withstand the rigors of 24-hour mixing sessions at extremely loud levels without damage, one of the standards that any studio monitor has to meet. In U.K. or European recording studios, the "reference" was more often than not a speaker from Tannoy, Spendor, Rogers or Kef. There are also some brands of studio monitor speakers like Urei that are unknown to consumers because the company never built speakers aimed at the hi-fi audiophile market. For example, I remember the first time I saw a tiny speaker called an Auratone, perched on either side of a recording console in a big Toronto studio. The Auratone was, and is, used to simulate the playback quality of a typical boombox or mediocre car radio. Engineers use it to check the mix of a pop or rock recording to see how it will sound on a truly low-fidelity speaker. For the engineer who used an Auratone, it was his "reference." (To me, it just sounded lousy). Studio monitoring references seem to go in and out of fashion. For some time in the 1980s the Yamaha NS-10, a small two-way bookshelf speaker, was a common sight in many studios, usually with a piece of Kleenex scotch-taped to its tweeters to lessen its elevated treble output. Occasionally, a high-quality speaker designed for consumer audio actually makes its way into a recording studio and becomes a reference. That's been true of several Axiom speakers as well as a couple of models from other Canadian speaker manufacturers. About 20 years ago, the CBC (the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the federally subsidized state radio/TV broadcasting system in Canada ) made a concerted effort to use scientifically controlled testing to find a tonally accurate speaker for control-room monitoring of live concert and music broadcasts. Using the NRC listening and measuring facilities in Ottawa, various listening panels of CBC music producers and broadcast recording engineers did many rounds of listening tests, all supervised by Dr. Floyd Toole, the resident NRC scientist and psycho-acoustician in charge of the Acoustics division. These tests included many of the "pro" monitors popular at the time (some of which did poorly in the double-blind listening tests) as well as domestic speakers from Canada, England, the US and Japan. At the end of the many rounds of tests, several Canadian speakers, an American one, and a few British models did well. The CBC recording engineers could then choose from a refined group of accurate "reference" loudspeakers. In most enthusiasts' homes, however, a "reference" loudspeaker is simply the speaker they purchase and are happiest with for an extended period -- and that may include some old and flawed speakers. They become devoted to the sound they've heard for years and consider it their reference, even though that sound may be wildly colored and inaccurate (I won't mention brand names so no feelings will be hurt). However, once they hear truly linear and musically more accurate speakers like the Axiom M60ti's, M22ti's or M80ti's, etc., it's often a revelatory experience because they realize how much speaker design has progressed since the '50s, '60s and '70s. They may be astonished at the degree of realism and sonic nuance provided by well-designed modern speakers and of how much detail and spatial information they were missing listening to their muddled old "reference" sound. Of course a reference speaker must be one that naturally and convincingly reproduces the sounds of musical instruments and voices. If you already own Axioms, you already know what speaker attributes like "transparent," "neutral" and "detailed" mean as they describe sound quality. You've likely spent hours and hours listening to your favorite recordings on those particular speakers and they have become your standard of fidelity, the benchmark against which you'd measure the sound of any new speaker. It's the neutral quality of the speakers that let you sort out good from bad recordings, an ability that defines true reference sound quality. A great speaker is one that becomes a transparent window to the quality of the original source recording-good or bad. It shouldn't add or subtract any timbral or tonal traits of its own to the playback sound. It should not function as a quasi tone control, covering up flaws in a recording. Nor should it artificially emphasize bass content, unless the recording itself has heavily mixed bass (plenty do). Looking at the progress of speaker design over decades, it has been a gradual process of refinement towards a goal of transparency and neutrality, and this trend will undoubtedly continue. When the speaker stops getting "in the way of," or impeding, the music, then it has attained true reference status. Does a Reference Recording Exist? The issue of "reference" becomes especially thorny when you refer to a particular disc or recording. Apart from advocating a few albums by some famous artists of wide general appeal (Norah Jones, Alison Krauss and Union Station, James Taylor and Diana Krall, to cite a few examples), I tend to be wary of suggesting specific CDs because there is such wide variance in musical taste. Those artists are fairly safe territory because they are unlikely to offend and the recordings are, by general consensus, well engineered. But what may be a "reference" for you just may not work for me. During many years of double-blind speaker tests, various rock, pop, jazz, and classical recordings were tried out to see which material was more useful in spotting typical loudspeaker coloration and distortion. It turned out that the classical recordings were more reliable for quickly differentiating good from bad speakers, partly because a large orchestra with chorus covers such a wide range of musical frequencies and harmonics. With a few exceptions, I don't generally use rock music to test speakers, partly because I grew up mostly listening to classical, jazz and acoustic music and vocals. I have never accommodated the distorted electric guitar sound (I never understood the reverence for Jimmy Hendrix's playing). But if you grow up listening to a lot of rock 'n' roll, you may know that sound really well and it may be useful for you to make accurate judgments of speaker sound quality. If you've played or listened to a Stratocaster, then I figure you likely know and appreciate when a good speaker accurately reproduces it.  |
||||
| Relevant Product Info | ||||
| Author | Comments | |||
     Unregistered guest |
Hi Alan: Enjoyed your article - monitoring is a near-science, for sure. Was GM at Manta Electronics Group, in Toronto from 1986 to 1990. This was the studio equipment supply distributor that evolved out of the building of Manta Sound Studios in Toronto in the early 70's. We distributed AMS, Amek, Tac, Bryston, Studer, Auratone (the '5' cubes you mention and the superior nearfield T-5 and T-6 two-way used instead of the infamous Yamaha NS-10's - Manta also had the NS-10's set up in each room for the stubborn). We built in-house the MEG (Manta Electronics Group) monitors, based on a California studio* 3 way custom design, and these were a fixture in the 5 Manta control rooms. All Manta product was mixed on these 'mains': The Bruce Cockburn entire True North catalog, Anne Murray, Rough Trade, Guess Who, and most of Jack Richardson's pre Nimbus Nine product (Jack even had 2 pairs of the MEG Junior monitors installed as references at Fanshawe College in London, Ontario - Canada's leading studio training college - where he still teaches). Before we commenced marketing of the MEG Juniors we asked Manta room users what they thought of the 'mains' monitors? Invariably the comment was: they did not have an opinion on the monitors as they were 'transparent' - did not produce any sound coloration whatsoever. Still have a pair of the MEG Juniors and a Bryston 4B that I set up from time to time, and pairs of Auratone T-5 and T-6 do regular service in a surround setup. * Pacific Sound Studios, I think, were the source of the MEG design and we used Steely Dan's 'Babylon Sisters' (for control room sonic balance checking) and Bruce Cockburn's 'Hills of Morning' to hear control room 'rattles' during our studio assessment/upgrade work. |
|||
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondon U.K. Post Number: 3307 Registered: Dec-03 |
"But what exactly is a reference? Should it not reference the sound of live music? Historically, in audio circles, the word has its roots in recording studios." In any recording or broadcast, there are the following:- 1. The performer(s) and their instruments and/or voices 2. Microphones 3. The sound engineers/recorders/recordists and their recording and/or broadcasting apparatus If we want to hear a real performance, 1. is enough. But we have to be there. We would like to be able to listen somewhere else, and/or at another time. So, 3. picks up the feed from 2., the microphones, which are transducing the sound of 1., the performance. If possible, 3. does not interfere in any way with 1. You should not be able to hear sound engineers in the recording/broadcast, and the performers should be able to concentrate on their performance, not be distracted or made self-conscious by guys whose task is to capture the event without being part of it. So you put the engineers in a separate, soundproofed room, somewhere near the place where the performance is. Ideally the total extent of their input to the performance should be something like switching on a green light for "live", or maybe a thumbs-up from behind a glass panel. To be able to monitor what they are recording, adjust microphone levels, and mix tracks, the engineers need "reference" or "studio monitor" speakers. These speakers take the amplified microphone feeds and turn them into sound, but do as little as possible to the raw sound of the performance. This set-up gives the engineers something which is as close as possible to what they would hear if they were allowed into the performance room. There might be speakers in the performance room, too, for replay, but these will be "off" during performance, otherwise they will introduce feedback. The engineers, in their separate room, may then decide to use headphones to hear the results of their own efforts, or they may be able to switch the input to the reference amplifier between the signal before and after they have done their mixing and processing, In either case, they need "reference" loudspeakers. These can also be called "monitors" or "studio monitors", because they monitor the performance. Recording and broadcasting organisations at various times have drawn up specifications for the speakers they need. The British Broadcasting Corporation ("BBC"), for example, once had an research and development department which designed reference speakers as monitors for different sorts of venues and studios, and commissioned companies to manufacture what they wanted, according to their specifications. The BBC needed a lot of speakers; this was an economic proposition; and their charter prevented them from going into business themselves. However, the companies who supplied them were able to sell these reference speakers commercially, under licence. Therefore there were a number of difference makes of, for example, "BBC LS3/5a" studio monitors, which had been produced initially by companies which had tendered successfully for the BBC contract, being able to meet their specification. That's about it: A "Reference" Loudspeaker is one which can be used as a reference, for comparison, thereby to "Monitor" the performance, and the process of recording or broadcasting it. Such a speaker needs to be able to render the sound of the original performance as accurately as possible. It is a simple concept, really. "Reference monitor" in the article is already getting confused, in my opinion - it is the same thing. Whether a "reference" or "monitor" speaker is what one wants in one's living room is another question. A "purist" might say "yes". But different people have different objectives for home audio, and people's listening rooms are often not much like the monitoring rooms of recording or broadcasting studios. |
|||
|
New member Username: RaybalconisPost Number: 2 Registered: Mar-05 |
"At the end of the many rounds of tests, several Canadian speakers, an American one, and a few British models did well. " Er ... is there some reason why we're not allowed to know which speakers those were? |
|||
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondon U.K. Post Number: 3316 Registered: Dec-03 |
ray, Alan Lofft has an interest in Axiom speakers, so those are the only ones named. That's clear from the article, so it's OK by me. He would have a conflict of interest, and undoubtedly get into problems, recommending other makers. He already listed some of the UK names. Even that is not a complete list. |
|||
|
Bronze Member Username: KenmurPost Number: 30 Registered: Nov-04 |
I have a pair of 1970ish Celestion Ditton 15's. They were a 'monitor speaker' in their day (if I recall correctly). I use them to this day and they are a very responsive and friendly speaker. I understand that they were bought out by KEF and they are still producing speaks today branded 'Celestion'. I am thinking about buying them for use in a home theatre set-up. They have a close look and similar sound and spec to the lower end KEF's. |
|||
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondon U.K. Post Number: 3360 Registered: Dec-03 |
kenmur, KEF made the drivers for many "reference" or "studio monitor" speakers, including the legendary LS3/5a. If you are interested, let me point you to the thread KEF. A short tale of value, service, customer satisfaction |
|||
|
Chris Allinson Unregistered guest |
Was very interested in comments by studio engineers at several AES shows I attended in New York and Los Angeles (they alternated the city with the SMPTE so that paths would not cross) regarding monitors and to summarize: monitoring accuracy was all about phase alignment of driver voice coils, underpowering drivers to avoid coil heating effects, and tightly specified back-emf performance of driver voice coils (measured with waterfall plots). Sound on Sound did a couple of articles on 'Nearfield Monitors' in their June 1995 and July 1996 issues, two more titled 'Monitors Demystified' in their October 2000 and November 2000 issues and really got into it with 'Monitors vs Hi Fi Speakers' in their June and July 2002 issues: http://www.sospubs.co.uk/sos/jun02/articles/monitors.asp At my residence have pairs of Energy 22.2's, 3.1e's and Pro 2.5's as don't want to be bothered with the three way driver phase issue - the Energy tweeter, developed at the National Research Council facilities in Ottawa as a CBC control room monitor reference, performs very well in the highly reflective typical living room set up. Run the Energy's well below their rated output to keep the voice coils cool, and power with Bryston 2B & 4B amplifiers, turned down. |
|||
|
Chris Allinson Unregistered guest |
Note that in Canada, Bryston ( http://www.bryston.ca/ ) represents the PMC, UK speaker line ( http://www.bryston.ca/pmc_rev/ailb1.html ), that seems to have made inroads at studios everywhere! Did some engineering in RF products in the 90's: 5 to 1000Mhz bandwidth was a challenge (8 octaves) and we came up with a patent for a transmission line transformer that provided an almost flat (+/- 0.25bB from 5 to 1000Mhz). Wonder if this is the secret to the PMC's as they are touted as performing very well down to the 20/30 Hz range (the problem area for bass reflex ported speakers). At the end of the day, monitoring is a question of having a speaker that you trust as you make "mix decisions", the reason we think the Manta MEG's were so successful - engineers trusted decisions made on these neutral monitors. (John A touched on this in post 3307.) The home audiophile should be attempting to reproduce exactly what was recorded in the studio. Have a reference myself as mentioned before, Bruce Cockburn's "Hills of Morning", as heard this often where it was recorded, at Manta Sound, and now simply set up my listening rooms from memory. And there were no fancy cables connecting the Brystons' to the MEGs' at Manta Sound! The mid/hi range dispersion is excellent on the Energy tweeter, but would never recommend for making mix-decisions - they sound too good. Remember this as a complaint of a noted mobile studio that did concerts in Toronto - who installed MEG's as the sound was so good from the standard HiFi monitors in the truck that they made few mix decisions, and got complaints! |
|||
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondon U.K. Post Number: 3473 Registered: Dec-03 |
Interesting posts, and links, Chris. The "Monitors vs Hi Fi Speakers" article you linked in "Sound on Sound" seems to define a near-field monitor as one that will emulate the sound chracteristics of the final playback loudspeaker, and cites the Auratone 5C and the Yamaha NS10M. I thought "near-field" simply meant "can be listened to from close by", as in a small monitoring room. I could well be wrong. Also, this idea of having a recording or broadcasting monitor that has the limitations of the end-of-the chain speaker seems just crazy, to me, on two counts: 1. How does the person using the monitor know what speakers will be used at the end of the chain ? Isn't he as likely to make the mix worse as to make it better? 2. Doen't the recorder/broadcaster still need that reference of how it REALLY sounds in the venue, so he can compare the sound before with the sound after? I do not know PMC speakers except for the very favourable reviews in HiFi News. It is interesting that they still make the distinction between "hifi loudspeakers" and "pro monitors" in their catalogue, even if some of their model are listed under both categories. I must state have no vested interest, but "Google" turns up a fascinating general PMC web site: http://www.pmcloudspeaker.com/ Just as a footnote to you, Axiom, and anyone interested - don't forget that not all speakers are electromagnetic, have phase problems, crossovers, and voice coils that may or may not heat up. Having recently replaced my cherished KEF speakers with Quad ESLs, I suspect that only size considerations disqualify the latter as monitors. Though some recording engineers use them as such, I know. |
|||
|
Chris Allinson Unregistered guest |
John, you are right in that 'nearfield' originated as 'close to the listener' and emulated the clock radio, initially (5c) and then the bookshelf home stereo speaker (NS-10). However, today's reality is that large studio control rooms are becoming extinct (midi and direct plug-in of instruments did this) and there is no physical room to set up the audio sound-stage so that mixes can emulate the 'live' experience where 3 dimensional 'positioning' can be accurately reproduced. When the ears flood* at 93 to 100 db spl from 'mains', real discrimination can be made in the mix (given that there are no room reflections fooling the ears). The home experience requires good sounding speakers as there are simply too many room variables to bother correcting - hence PMC would offer accurate control room monitors (that might sound harsh in a living room) and softer sounding home use speakers. Playback system tone controls, or even graphic eq's compensate for audio response problems in the average living room. * level needed to overcome the Fletcher-Munsen human ear frequency response curve - 'loudness control' does this in the home environment which exacerbates the 'bass reflex port' problem; corrected by PMC's transmission line approach? |
|||
|
Chris Allinson Unregistered guest |
An interesting 'sound stage' demo AAD CD is JJ Cale's 'Naturally' (play it loud!) - have been listening to these fabulous mixes (Magnolia especially) since release in the early 70's. Suggest do your own comparison between the Bradley's Barn and the Moss Rose studio tracks, instructive, and right up there with Muscle Shoals in the 70's! |
|||
|
Chris Allinson Unregistered guest |
On the Quad ESL's John - installed a mono setup with Quad ECC-83 preamp and Quad KT66 Tube power amp in a residence in the Midlands in 1957/59? Had never heard better pre that installation. In Canada, Bill Bessey (famed Toronto CBC type) had a Crown (Elkhart, Indiana) 4 track R-R and Quad ESL's as monitors in his respected basement studio, circa 1968. Crown introduced two electrostatics in 1970/71, both with separate box/panel stand for a 10" cone bass driver (Dual panel, twin woofers - Single panel, single woofer). Spent a lost weekend with a single panel stereo pair and a Crown DC-300 driver, together with Led Zeppelin 1 & 3! (Try "Babe" on Zep 1 for the original 'wall'!) No question that the ESL's are accurate mid/hi, and forgiving of room reflections as the area of emission is so large - but minimal Bass below 50Hz. The Dayton Wrights produced in Canada (early 70's) similarly got great reviews by 'Audiophile' (sic) mags but suffered as light on Bass (how do you move-air on electrostatic panels?). Last I heard most users had added a sub woofer to their electrostatic set-up; as have a number of reputable studios also to conventional control room monitor setups. |
|||
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondon U.K. Post Number: 3503 Registered: Dec-03 |
Chris, Good point about bass. Thanks. Some modern electrostatics (Martin Logan) are hybrids and have electromagnetic woofers, too. However, from the dates, and the comments about bass extension, you are referring to the original Quad ESL57. I have the later ESL63, which has all the bass my listening room can deal with. Probably more. From memory, it has a -6 dB point at 35 Hz. The current models are the 988, which is very similar to the ESL63, and the 989, which has additional panels, and goes even lower. With respect, I also meant to take issue with your comment "However, today's reality is that large studio control rooms are becoming extinct ". I don't think this is the case. Control rooms were never so large, and I very much doubt they are getting smaller. And, if they are, why are they adding subs...? We'd probably have to go to some recording studios to be sure about that. Repeating my original point: I can't see any way to avoid a "reference" that allows the sound engineer to hear exactly what's going on the studio or hall, even though he's someplace else. |
|||
|
Chris Allinson Unregistered guest |
Absolutely agree that the studio (and its reputation) hangs primarily on the sounds recorded - 'reference' is critical, always has been so 'accurate' is the yardstick - that said, most mastering for disc/cd in the 80's/90's was done by Bob Ludwig in NY, who established the-reference! : http://www.gatewaymastering.com/gwwelcome.asp The latest large control room setups that I saw were for 5.1/7.1 surround and movie surround tracks facilities. Studio control rooms look more like Video off-line editing facilities today. Subs, phase/time aligned take the bulk out of the plenum area and cut construction costs. Really miss being 30' (on the couch just in front of the Bass bins) from stereo twin JBL 15" drivers and feel the Bass build over the distance, resulting in some chest compression at 98 spl! Muscle Shoals, Tenn was for sale a couple of years ago, almost visited but spoke at length to one of the owners who indicated that the world had shifted to digital, re-mixing for video's and had passed them by: http://mssound.com/virtualtour.htm There was a bit of a resurgence in analog Neve (now owned by Siemens?) on the West Coast a couple of years ago - but the industry CD sales, impacted by internet file sharing, might not recover so big studio budgets are really down. And a shame that Electric Lady: http://www.electricladystudios.com/studioa.html settled for all SSL consoles - they had the first of three only ever built of the Rupert Neve: Focusrite automation 60 channel (I think) boards, circa 1990. The control rooms remain adequate. And Augsburger references still there. |
|||
|
New member Username: ElksLondon, ON Canada Post Number: 1 Registered: Dec-05 |
The monitors chosen back in 1982 by the CBC included the JBL L112, the PSB Avante and Passif II, the Energy 22 (front ported) and the KEF R105. There were others, like a bemamoth JBL for applications where ultimate SPL was necessary, but I don't remember their names off hand (though could look it up if anyone is interested). Steve. |
|||
|
New member Username: Chris_allinsonLondon, Ontario Canada Post Number: 1 Registered: Jul-06 |
Hi Stephen - Energy finally found a 22 brochure: http://www.energy-speakers.com/source/Pro%2022%20brochure.pdf that is posted on their classic-lines page: http://www.energy-speakers.com/v2/products/classic-lines.php See them listed all the time now on eBay: http://electronics.search.ebay.com/Energy-Speakers_Consumer-Electronics_W0QQfkrZ 1QQfromZR8QQsacatZ293 Would certainly like a pair of the 22 Reference Connoisseur. |
|||
