Studio Monitors Vs. Bookshelf Speakers: What's the difference?

As a person who works in a studio and he will pooh pooh a bookshelf...and the other way round too

manek.

Let me make a fool of myself here!
A studio monitor could be a book shelf speaker with a much flatter response curve and more natural sounding...?
Perhaps since this may be so, a studio monitor may not sound as 'musical' as an average bookshelf but slightly more clinical.
This has to be my most technical? post!

At the budget end of the market, really not much difference. For eg. companies like Pulz and Norge sell the same passive standmounts both to studios and the audiophile community. However, most studio monitors are active. Also there are various types of monitors for different activities. From my limited knowledge:
1. Near field
2. Full sized
3. Field

Different speakers are used to fulfill these various requirements. Active speakers can be easily tuned for a flatter response. I have listened to Tannoy passive monitors and they sound good. Worth considering monitors for home listening as well in my opinion. Their pricing often undercuts the more "hi-fi" and "lifestyle" brands, though looks are obviously industrial.

Incidentally amplifiers are also used both in studios and audiophile applications. Like the power amp I use. Build and clarity is good, but looks? Well, can't have everything, if you don't have the greenbacks.

I am just trying to answer because others are also trying

Apart from what others have said:
Studio Monitor should be a lot free from coloration than a commercial Bookshelf speaker. I mean the tolerance limit for coloration is very low. Apart from that they have to sound accurate and balanced, since they are being used by professionals for professional application, the margin for error is very less.
There is one more thing that many people say about them is they are designed for studios so its assumed that it will be used in a very very well treated and damped environment so sometimes they are not suitable for home audio since an average living hall has a hell lot of scope for reflections and other such room related nightmares.

An audio is to listen and not to see. If looks is the only difference then I'd rather save tha extra buck that I'd have to pay for "lifestyle facade".

Which do you think perform better? Active monitors or passive monitors mated to power amps or monoblocks?

If flat frequency response is the key feature of studio monitors, then isn't that what we are looking for? The fidelity in the HiFi !

Do music recordings expect us to listen to them through colored systems or neutral flat systems?

Regards

Sanjay

Abhi,

What you said sounds plausible.

What is meant by near field, etc. in relation to studio monitors?

Regards

Sanjay

SDhawan schrieb:

Abhi, What you said sounds plausible. What is meant by near field, etc. in relation to studio monitors? Regards Sanjay

Near field: Close to speaker, less than a metre

Full sized: Far from speaker, say 3m or more

Field: Portable, to be used in recording sessions away from the studio

Infact in studio near field can extend upto 2.5 mts.

abhi.pani schrieb:

Infact in studio near field can extend upto 2.5 mts.

Sorry! Those studios sure must be big. I listen at that distance (2m) at home. If I had used mid-field, I would be in my neighbour's house. LoL

I think that most of the members have given pretty good replies.
I'm waiting for "deaf" to show up here & add his 2 paisa 'cuz he certainly has more experience in this area that I do & most of us

I own a studio monitor myself - the Tannoy DMT10 Mk2 - & from my experience, studio monitors are:-
* very blah looking more often than not. Mine is battleship grey - very low WAF! But my wife knows that I'm a crackpot audiophile & is somewhat willing to put up with me as long as I don't cross her meandering line!
* the can sound very clinical 'cuz they are made to reproduce the sound of music & not music itself (if this makes any sense!). So, pair it up w/ something "musical" otherwise you might end up w/ too much of a good thing!
* mostly active i.e. have built-in amps tho there are several passive designs as my Tannoys are. These Tannoys are really excellent as they are not too clinical & not too forgiving - the best of both worlds. They really kick the butts of many higher priced speakers even today long after they've been discontinued.
* rated for hi power - mine can take 250W/ch RMS & 350W/ch peak. So, they are made for some abuse!

In relation to this, as you pointed out SDhavan, there is a "lifestyle" factor to bookshelves. However, I think, more than this, bookshelves are, generally, more forgiving. They are also rated for much less power & do not take abuse that well - in fact, they take "controlled abuse" quite well.
There are several excellent bookshelves in the market & then there are a lot of crappy ones! what's new here?? If you select the right bookshelf, you'll forget about studio vs bookshelves!

I think, more than this, bookshelves are, generally, more forgiving.

There you go Bombaywalla....thats another very prominent aspect of studio monitors. Put in a mediocre recording and all you get is a crappy "Dad's old Radio like" sound, then try putting in a good recording and you may be in a different world.
This huge spectrum of difference in Sound quality is very prominent in Studio Monitors and not in Bookshelves (unless they are designed not to forgive).

Simply put, you just cant listen to a bad/mediocre recording on a studio monitor (you can listen but thats like testing your patience ).

bombaywalla schrieb:

I think that most of the members have given pretty good replies. I'm waiting for "deaf" to show up here & add his 2 paisa 'cuz he certainly has more experience in this area that I do & most of us I own a studio monitor myself - the Tannoy DMT10 Mk2 - & from my experience, studio monitors are:- * very blah looking more often than not. Mine is battleship grey - very low WAF! But my wife knows that I'm a crackpot audiophile & is somewhat willing to put up with me as long as I don't cross her meandering line! * the can sound very clinical 'cuz they are made to reproduce the sound of music & not music itself (if this makes any sense!). So, pair it up w/ something "musical" otherwise you might end up w/ too much of a good thing! * mostly active i.e. have built-in amps tho there are several passive designs as my Tannoys are. These Tannoys are really excellent as they are not too clinical & not too forgiving - the best of both worlds. They really kick the butts of many higher priced speakers even today long after they've been discontinued. * rated for hi power - mine can take 250W/ch RMS & 350W/ch peak. So, they are made for some abuse! In relation to this, as you pointed out SDhavan, there is a "lifestyle" factor to bookshelves. However, I think, more than this, bookshelves are, generally, more forgiving. They are also rated for much less power & do not take abuse that well - in fact, they take "controlled abuse" quite well. There are several excellent bookshelves in the market & then there are a lot of crappy ones! what's new here?? If you select the right bookshelf, you'll forget about studio vs bookshelves!

As I said earlier, Tannoy studio monitors sound good. I almost purchased one, but it cost beyond my budget - Rs 25,000. Are your Tannoy DMT10 Mk2 standmounts or large flrs? 250W/ch RMS is a loony amount of power (mine will die at a 100W/ch). More pertinently, who is going to pay for an amp that delivers that amount of power. Even budget brands (Nad, Sonodyne, Yamaha etc) would cost a bomb. It would take a pre-power combo weighing well over 20kgs (if conventional technology) to deliver that power.

Yes, looks can't be great but they are budget beaters. I don't know about the clinical aspect. I find that good music: jazz, classical etc sounds excellent. Who forces us to listen to bazaar, auto-rickshaw, and hair-cutting salon songs anyway?

Yes, looks can't be great but they are budget beaters. I don't know about the clinical aspect. I find that good music: jazz, classical etc sounds excellent. Who forces us to listen to bazaar, auto-rickshaw, and hair-cutting salon songs anyway?

Hi !

At times those songs may sound great too Try "Bunty & Bubbly" - amazing dynamics

Anyways I'm planning to audition the Tannoy Reveal 6 studio monitors and I also plan to listen to Quad 12L. Let me see the outcome ...?

Regards

Sanjay

Quad is not studio monitor by any margin.
Look at a Dynaudio bookshelf instead.

Yes Abhi !

I know that, but I just want to compare a good Monitor with a good Bookshelf speaker and see (read hear) the difference.

Do you still suggest Dynaudio? Reason ??

Regards

Sanjay

Ok..if thats your purpose then fine...but still I would say avoid quad for such a comparision. Quads are good but with a lot of reservations. They can play vocals, classical very well but not other popular genres (Rock, Pop, Hindi commercial music, funk etc). So I would suggest you select a more generic bookshelf speaker which has better all round performance.
Monitor audio, Polk LSI, Energy, Epos....are better for this sort of a comparision IMO.

Neutral schrieb:

As I said earlier, Tannoy studio monitors sound good. I almost purchased one, but it cost beyond my budget - Rs 25,000. Are your Tannoy DMT10 Mk2 standmounts or large flrs? 250W/ch RMS is a loony amount of power (mine will die at a 100W/ch). More pertinently, who is going to pay for an amp that delivers that amount of power. Even budget brands (Nad, Sonodyne, Yamaha etc) would cost a bomb. It would take a pre-power combo weighing well over 20kgs (if conventional technology) to deliver that power. Yes, looks can't be great but they are budget beaters. I don't know about the clinical aspect. I find that good music: jazz, classical etc sounds excellent. Who forces us to listen to bazaar, auto-rickshaw, and hair-cutting salon songs anyway?

My Tannoys are stand-mount. They are little over 2' tall. I've put them 18" stands. The dual concentric driver has a 90 degree dispersion pattern & so it did not matter whether the speaker was on the floor or on stand-mounts EXCEPT the bass quality (much better on stands for well-known reasons).
Yes, like I wrote before, these are designed for some real abuse.
M-F kW amps, Pass 250, 350, 600, 1000 will put out that humongous power but at a pretty penny (like you wrote). Under "normal"/"sane" conditions, the speakers are well protected.

quad has a powered monitor version of the 12L as well.

abhi.pani schrieb:

Ok..if thats your purpose then fine...but still I would say avoid quad for such a comparision. Quads are good but with a lot of reservations. They can play vocals, classical very well but not other popular genres (Rock, Pop, Hindi commercial music, funk etc). So I would suggest you select a more generic bookshelf speaker which has better all round performance. Monitor audio, Polk LSI, Energy, Epos....are better for this sort of a comparision IMO.

Why do you say these are more generic than quads ? Do the speakers you listed do all kinds of music much better than the quads ? Have you done a group test of all these speakers ?

square_wave schrieb:

abhi.pani schrieb: Ok..if thats your purpose then fine...but still I would say avoid quad for such a comparision. Quads are good but with a lot of reservations. They can play vocals, classical very well but not other popular genres (Rock, Pop, Hindi commercial music, funk etc). So I would suggest you select a more generic bookshelf speaker which has better all round performance. Monitor audio, Polk LSI, Energy, Epos....are better for this sort of a comparision IMO. Why do you say these are more generic than quads ? Do the speakers you listed do all kinds of music much better than the quads ? Have you done a group test of all these speakers ? :)

Cmon, I am no reviewer who gets a stock of speakers to conduct a group test. Its my general observation after repeated listening to some of these speakers...especially Quad 11/12L.
They just cant do popular genres well IMO...I can swear by this statement. And yes, the other speakers that I have mentioned dont do EVERYTHING better (Quads do have a niche) but they are more generic towards genres. Quads have an absolute bias towards Vocals and Classical Music IMO.
If Doc happens to carry a DS or a PF CD with him he would be utterly disspointed by Quad hence my comment.
I just want him to consider a good bookshelf speaker which can perform well on MOST genres.

It all boils down to how you would want "your" music to be presented to "you"....so different strokes for different folks....I have heard pop and rock on quads with quad amps and they sounded good to me.

Manek.

Manek schrieb:

It all boils down to how you would want "your" music to be presented to "you"....so different strokes for different folks....I have heard pop and rock on quads with quad amps and they sounded good to me. Manek.

Was the presentation worth the price ?
Quads are supposed to be a mid-level bookshelf speaker...that too very well regarded...did they perform worth its reputation and price with Rock and Pop

I feel such blanket statements could be very misleading. I personally know a couple of guys who use quads (bookshelf / floorstanders) whose primary listening is classic rock and occasional hard rock (not heavy metal). One guy’s favorite artist is James Brown who is the king of funk and the other freaks out on Pink Floyd and they have a blast with the quads. They have been in this hobby for years and decided on quads after checking out plenty of stuff in that price range. I personally loved pink Floyd on quad 22L’s compared to most other branded speakers in the 60 to 70k range. I liked my AP’s better though…

Are they worth the price ? Which speaker is worth the price ? It all depends on what you are looking for. If it satisfies you, it is worth the price.

You ask people who listen to quads about the other speakers you listed and they will give you a list of deficiencies in those. So it is all a matter of taste and what is important to you. If those parameters are met, they suddenly become your “ all-rounder speaker”. This applies to everyone. I feel the only generic speaker is a studio monitor.

I feel such blanket statements could be very misleading. I personally know a couple of guys who use quads (bookshelf / floorstanders) whose primary listening is classic rock and occasional hard rock (not heavy metal). One guy’s favorite artist is James Brown who is the king of funk and the other freaks out on Pink Floyd and they have a blast with the quads. They have been in this hobby for years and decided on quads after checking out plenty of stuff in that price range. I personally loved pink Floyd on quad 22L’s compared to most other branded speakers in the 60 to 70k range. I liked my AP’s better though… Are they worth the price ? Which speaker is worth the price ? It all depends on what you are looking for. If it satisfies you, it is worth the price. You ask people who listen to quads about the other speakers you listed and they will give you a list of deficiencies in those. So it is all a matter of taste and what is important to you. If those parameters are met, they suddenly become your “ all-rounder speaker”. This applies to everyone. I feel the only generic speaker is a studio monitor.

Frankly, till date I havent heard a more biased speaker than the Quad 11/12L....even I have heard the 22L on a all quad setup....they sounded crap for Rock and Pop...the Wharfdale Evolution series speakers kept beside them sounded hell lot better. Initially I thought the quads are overrated until I heard some Jagjit Singh on them, they did it better than anything I had heard till that time. Many of my friends who had checked out Quad had similar views. I know this discussion wont lead to a conclusion...but the very point that we have such diverse opinions about the speaker should be a hint to Doc about what he can expect from the speaker and what he may not finally hear.

BTW I dont believe in giving such extreme statements, but this is something that I have been hearing re-assuringly again and again from Quads, hence my rigidity.

Infact after hearing the Quads I had quite a few reservations (even before hearing them) about speakers which are popular for Vocals and Classical kind of music. I even doubted Cadence to be similar. Thank God, Cadence came out much much better. They sounded much more like an all-rounder.
(BTW I know everyone have their own defination of all-rounders)

yep...
I have always liked the quad 12L/21L presentation especially with quad amps. Worth the price IMHO. I do like the quads Love their 909 and 99 amps. Good for their price.

Manek.

Even I like their CDP, dont know about 909, but I didnt quite like the Quad99 amp.

Hi !

Today I auditioned Tannoy Reveal 6 (Passive Studio Monitors) and Tannoy Mercury F2 (Bookshelves). The setup was Marantz CDP-5400, Onkyo Pre-amp (?model) & Cinepro Power Amp (?model 450 W RMS). I briefly listened to Mozart-symp 40 & 41, Karl Orff-Carmina Burana, Sting-Desert Rose & Madonna-Ray of Light. Here are my impressions (mind you I'm no expert in auditioning speakers):

Reveal 6 Studio Monitors:
Very good resolution, very good midrange & highs but a little low on bass. In fact when I heard them from about 2.5 m they sounded a bit bright but when I moved closer to about 1-1.5 m they were a different animal - they are supposed to be near field - not so bright & taut bass.

Mercury Fusion 2:
More "musical" than Reveal 6 & more bass but the resolution was not that great.

Conclusions:
I plan to have a home audition.
"Truth" does not all sound pleasant - but then THAT'S the truth.
If I were to make a choice right now - I would go for Reveal 6 (as I already have other speakers which sound like truth mixed with some lie).

I have no experience of Quads but will DEFENITELY like to hear them.

I would welcome your opinions.


Regards

Sanjay

Hi Doc,
So while you were away doing some pleasant auditioning we were busy discussing what you should audition

Anyway..whats the price of the two Tannoy speakers you have auditoned today ?

SDhawan schrieb:

Hi ! Today I auditioned Tannoy Reveal 6 (Passive Studio Monitors) and Tannoy Mercury F2 (Bookshelves).I briefly listened to Mozart-symp 40 & 41, Karl Orff-Carmina Burana, Sting-Desert Rose & Madonna-Ray of Light. Reveal 6 Studio Monitors: Very good resolution, very good midrange & highs but a little low on bass. In fact when I heard them from about 2.5 m they sounded a bit bright but when I moved closer to about 1-1.5 m they were a different animal - they are supposed to be near field - not so bright & taut bass. If I were to make a choice right now - I would go for Reveal 6 (as I already have other speakers which sound like truth mixed with some lie). Regards Sanjay

Hi Sanjay,
I have listened to a similar "Reveal" monitor at Oranges & Lemons. The reason I didn't take them (though I loved their sound) was the fact that they did not have speaker grilles. And I was dead scared that someone or something would ruin my precious drivers. Besides how does one protect against dust in a non-AC room.

I found the cabinet rigid and I liked the curvaceous front baffle (lesser refraction). They definitely sounded more neutral than the cheaper Sonodyne flrs. At the time, I was quoted Rs 25,000 for the Reveals (which unfortunately was my budget for the entire system).

In my opinion, Tannoy monitors are good VFM.

Dear Abhi,

The quoted prices are:

- Tannoy Reveal 6 Rs. 25,000 / pair
- Mercury Fusion 2 Rs. 18,000 / pair

At these prices they are great value for money.

Regards

Sanjay

Thats quite an attractive pricing Doc

abhi.pani schrieb:

Thats quite an attractive pricing Doc ;)

Hold your horses, Abhi. The Fusion is cheap but might not be that great a speaker. Maybe, a local monitor could beat it?
Yes, Reveal is VFM. Sound is controlled with less hype.

tannoy is the original studio speaker. Somehow seems to have gone down in brand value these days..but IMHO has one of the most reasonably priced and sounding stuff around.

They are very much VFM if you like polite sounding speakers and usually have a good enough sensitivity to go with any Amp.

I guess they make a wonderful speker along with Quads etc as an entry into Hifi (I feel they are a better choice than Wharfies)

My reaction to the whole deal is, go hear a Genelec(a modern state of the art monitor) versus a B&W 805S (a modern state of the art home loudspeaker), that should settle it for most of all.
Deaf.

deaf schrieb:

My reaction to the whole deal is, go hear a Genelec(a modern state of the art monitor) versus a B&W 805S (a modern state of the art home loudspeaker), that should settle it for most of all. Deaf.

Dear Deaf,
LOL! re. your comment! there would be a hands-down winner, no doubt.
Maybe we should pit the B&W 805 Signature against the Genelec to make the rivalry a bit more exciting?

bombaywalla schrieb:

deaf schrieb: My reaction to the whole deal is, go hear a Genelec(a modern state of the art monitor) versus a B&W 805S (a modern state of the art home loudspeaker), that should settle it for most of all. Deaf. Dear Deaf, LOL! re. your comment! there would be a hands-down winner, no doubt. Maybe we should pit the B&W 805 Signature against the Genelec to make the rivalry a bit more exciting? :D

Frankly I havent heard any of these speakers but it looks like you guys have heard them well...so please let us know about your observation in this case...who would be the winnner btw (listening in a average living hall)?

Hi
I have a pair of Quad 11Ls and they are sound simply wonderful when I listen to Jazz, Abida Parveen and mellow electronic/instrumental music. However they do not do justice to popular music as they cannot add extended highs and lows to the music. They are very musical for my kind of music but I would not recommend them for popular music. Pink Floyd sounds awesome but Metallica sounds etter on JBLs. Highly recomended for Jazz and vocals.
I have heard the Tannoy Fusion series and they are excellent when it comes to mids and highs. In fact I heard Sinatra and felt that he was standing just 3 feet in front of me. However the lows are extremely lacklustre even the F4 which has 2 woofers. The F2s are awesome in a small room lstening to vocals and jazz but not for the dhum dhum music. A sub with the F2s sounds fabulous for a budget <Rs 40,000.
Quads are a clear winner though.

panditr schrieb:

Hi I have a pair of Quad 11Ls and they are sound simply wonderful when I listen to Jazz, Abida Parveen and mellow electronic/instrumental music. However they do not do justice to popular music as they cannot add extended highs and lows to the music. They are very musical for my kind of music but I would not recommend them for popular music. Pink Floyd sounds awesome but Metallica sounds etter on JBLs. Highly recomended for Jazz and vocals. I have heard the Tannoy Fusion series and they are excellent when it comes to mids and highs. In fact I heard Sinatra and felt that he was standing just 3 feet in front of me. However the lows are extremely lacklustre even the F4 which has 2 woofers. The F2s are awesome in a small room lstening to vocals and jazz but not for the dhum dhum music. A sub with the F2s sounds fabulous for a budget <Rs 40,000. Quads are a clear winner though.

Extended lows ? and highs ? Do a Jbl bookshelf speaker in the same price range give you this ?

square_wave schrieb:

panditr schrieb: Hi I have a pair of Quad 11Ls and they are sound simply wonderful when I listen to Jazz, Abida Parveen and mellow electronic/instrumental music. However they do not do justice to popular music as they cannot add extended highs and lows to the music. They are very musical for my kind of music but I would not recommend them for popular music. Pink Floyd sounds awesome but Metallica sounds etter on JBLs. Highly recomended for Jazz and vocals. I have heard the Tannoy Fusion series and they are excellent when it comes to mids and highs. In fact I heard Sinatra and felt that he was standing just 3 feet in front of me. However the lows are extremely lacklustre even the F4 which has 2 woofers. The F2s are awesome in a small room lstening to vocals and jazz but not for the dhum dhum music. A sub with the F2s sounds fabulous for a budget <Rs 40,000. Quads are a clear winner though. Extended lows ? and highs ? Do a Jbl bookshelf speaker in the same price range give you this ?

Cadence and Dynaudio does it..

Yes, There are bookshelf speakers who does it better than quads. Most come at a higher price too. Dyns and proacs comes to mind.
But Jbl ???
And why is it that only metalica needs extended lows and highs ? Western Classical music and some Jazz extend in either regions much more than any metalica album I have ever heard.

Its not that "EXTENDED" thing buddy...its all about presentation. Metallica needs a bit more punchy presentation (I dont know how suitable is the word "punchy" here)...every speaker cant do Acoustic as well as Electronic instrument equally well (rather decently well)...Quads can do acoustic instruments really well but fails to do electronica as well...they are not meant for that music buddy. Thats the reason I said they are not all-rounders.
Dyns and Proacs are very decent all-rounders in this context.

Metallica needs a bit more punchy presentation (I dont know how suitable is the word "punchy" here).

it is very much suitable here.. Music is music in all and we cannot put aside these in favour of some classics which sound awful ( almost reminds me of shankar dayal sharma and his lame walk ) Talking of all rounders I suspect Proac can do that.. may be Dynaudio can. The best all rounders I have heard is Klispch RF's they do extremely well in metal, rock, soft, electronic and heck anyone who walked into my house with their kind of music went back with a big smile.. . Lets not get into genre specific carrpy speakers here.. I hate them as any speaker should considerably do good in any genre and if it ain't it's not worth any penny. I have seen many helpless folks who change their genre of music to suit their speakers and that's a big joke for me.

SUB_BOSS schrieb:

I have seen many helpless folks who change their genre of music to suit their speakers and that's a big joke for me.

thats very funny and true
Then that endless cycle of upgrading equipment begins !

SUB_BOSS schrieb:

Metallica needs a bit more punchy presentation (I dont know how suitable is the word "punchy" here). it is very much suitable here.. Music is music in all and we cannot put aside these in favour of some classics which sound awful ( almost reminds me of shankar dayal sharma and his lame walk ) Talking of all rounders I suspect Proac can do that.. may be Dynaudio can. The best all rounders I have heard is Klispch RF's they do extremely well in metal, rock, soft, electronic and heck anyone who walked into my house with their kind of music went back with a big smile.. . Lets not get into genre specific carrpy speakers here.. I hate them as any speaker should considerably do good in any genre and if it ain't it's not worth any penny. I have seen many helpless folks who change their genre of music to suit their speakers and that's a big joke for me.

We are specifically discussing all-rounder bookshelf and studio monitors.
Lets not bring in floorstander here. It would be a complete deviation from the topic.

We are specifically discussing all-rounder bookshelf and studio monitors. Lets not bring in floorstander here. It would be a complete deviation from the topic.

Did you read with respect to what I have posted.. wrt to punchy and doing justice to all genres and I couldn't resist to put my views.

SUB_BOSS schrieb:

We are specifically discussing all-rounder bookshelf and studio monitors. Lets not bring in floorstander here. It would be a complete deviation from the topic. Did you read with respect to what I have posted.. wrt to punchy and doing justice to all genres and I couldn't resist to put my views.

Ya I read...I understand your sentiments dude..
To me its quite obvious for many floorstanders do this "punchy" thing well...
But BS are rare.

Hi !

I believe that if a set of speakers plays a particular genre of music much better than some other, then the speaker is neither neutral nor capable enough of being called true hifi. I'd prefer the speakers that would reproduce sound excatly the way it was recorded - and all kinds of sounds & music.

Regards

Sanjay

SDhawan schrieb:

Hi ! I believe that if a set of speakers plays a particular genre of music much better than some other, then the speaker is neither neutral nor capable enough of being called true hifi. I'd prefer the speakers that would reproduce sound excatly the way it was recorded - and all kinds of sounds & music. Regards Sanjay

Worthy sentiments Doc! But a speaker is ultimately an electro-mechanical device. All speakers are designed with some plus points and minus points. No speaker can do everything equally well. So, in the end, it is really a matter of trade-offs in the design process.

Therefore, you need to choose the type of sound you want. This note is a bit of hardware tech-talk, but this is my understanding of speaker design. From a practical point of view, very few speakers (or other electronics) do equally well in all genres of music.

Examples of design trade-offs:
1. Size of speaker and speaker efficiency
2. Size of driver and bass extension
3. Size of driver and transient response
4. Crossover design and phase response
5. Crossover design and driver roll-off
6. High X-max of a driver and its efficiency (maybe)