Originally Posted by gregorio
A near-field manufacturer is going to concentrate their efforts on clarity, separation and imaging in the mid and high frequencies and not bother with the low frequencies. A consumer speaker is going to attempt to represent all the frequencies, with the likely trade off being less clarity and separation. So frequencies of say 60Hz or 70Hz, very important frequencies in just about every genre of music, are much more likely to be better represented on consumer speakers than with near-fields. So I would disagree that the design principles are the same.
Assuming that a speaker designer has really does have different design goals in studio monitors....
You stated "The objection I have is if the consumer is using near-fields because they think they're going to sound better than consumer speakers."
But let's talk about the people here
, many of which are audiophiles or at least very critical about their sound. I know I'm very critical about how well my headphones sound with vocals, how well they image and their linearity and clarity. Detail, separation, and imaging are qualities that many audiophiles value highly and that is exactly why people here (on this forum) would/should choose a studio monitor. Because to me, an accurate speaker *is* the better sounding speaker even if it is at the expense of a bit of low frequency extension. Too many consumer speakers attain bass extension at the expense of linearity (a humped up midbass) or high THD leading to fat and/or loose bass. This is why most "computer speaker" sets sound bad, their bass is literally all harmonics which sounds more impressive at first, but is really just muddying up the sound. I own a few sets of consumer bookshelf speakers. Quite a few of them are tipped up a few dB in the critical 50-70Hz range, and placed in a nearfield position, against the wall (most are rear ported), they sound very congested and boomy.
I was completely open to choosing either a passive speaker or active speaker. I went and heard a whole bunch of $200, $400, $600, $1000 monitors and passive speakers. I was pleasantly surprised how much value I got with the studio monitors. They also sounded better to my ears for the same money. Add to the idea that I don't need to clutter up my desk with an extra amp, and that I could use the trims to fine tune the sound better than any consumer speaker, I was won over.
Many people that compare pro monitors from companies like JBL, Dynaudio, Focal to their passive consumer counterparts find that the pro monitors offer exceptional value in features, technology and accuracy, and IMO are a better value than their own consumer line. Whereas JBL speakers are hit and miss, their pro monitors are excellent. Dynaudio monitors are highly recommended by many, and I actually sonically preferred the BM5A to their Audience line, and possibly even their much pricier Focus line. Focal Solo monitors are a much better value (offering the same technologies like their Be tweeter) at a lower price point
So I disagree with your recommendation that people here should not look for studio monitors. I recommend one compare both, with their own ears. And if you do so, one may come to the same conclusion I did, that studio monitors are a real and high value alternative to consumer speakers in sound quality. Their versatility is exactly what many people are looking for in the type of setup they have. Critical listening in a nearfield with restricted space and placement options.