i have been wandering around for an article about acoustic measurements untill i found something challenging monitors vs hifi.
i dont care alot about monitor vs hifi comparsion. but ...
here is the link :
i bring the notes :
In the 2000s, there was a trend to focus on "translation". Engineers tended to choose monitors less for their accuracy than for their ability to “translate” – to make recordings sound good on a variety of playback systems, from primitive car radios to esoteric audiophile systems. As the mix engineer, Chris Lord-Alge, has noted:
- Ninety-five percent of people listen to music in their car or on a cheap home stereo; 5 percent may have better systems; and maybe 1 percent have a $20,000 stereo. So if it doesn’t sound good on something small, what’s the point? You can mix in front of these huge, beautiful, pristine, $10,000 powered monitors all you want. But no one else has these monitors, so you’re more likely to end up with a translation problem.”
quess for now on we have to switch to all in box sandwich sound ?
i think thats all about room response when it comes to comparison.
here is another worthy note outa wiki again :
While the very best modern speakers can produce a frequency response flat to ±1 dB from 40 Hz to 20 kHz in anechoic conditions, measurements at 2 m in a real listening room may be considered good if they are within ±12 dB, and efforts to produce anything like a flat response below 100 Hz are likely to provide endless scope for experimentation! This is where a real challenge to audio quality lies...