Reading a lot elsewhere recently about using large professional monitors for home audio and also a comment about how music is mastered for distribution. From my own experience in a studio many years ago, the final production mix was checked to sound good on loudspeakers thought to be typical of those found in most homes. In the old days these were Auratones and of course the Yamaha NS10. However if a piece of work is, lets say 'adjusted' for good sound through such designs, it follows that they no longer sound optimal through a full-on, flat, wide-band monitor. Therefore, it is desirable to use large pro monitors for home use, and especially where there is no means of adjusting the sound balance? Could this be the reason many audiophiles (the real ones ;) ) tend to prefer something less full range and explicit when playing commercial material? Also, you'll often find that specialist audiophile masters sound better on the larger pro monitors, and is this because they've not been compromised for playback on smaller, more limited systems? I've often found that heavily compressed and processed music sounds better on a decent portable radio than it does through a hi-fi. Can we take that a stage further and say that for most commercial material out there, some limitation built into the home hi-fi might actually be a good thing? Think of a photo taken on a high-end digital camera but then subjected to massive lossy compression because it's intended to be viewed at 2"x2" on a mobile phone. Looks great on the phone, but now print it at A4..... I'm not arguing against the use of big pro monitors, but perhaps we at least need the means to manipulate the signal we feed them for 'best effect'. Lot's of questions and I've no firm views, just thoughts.