studio monitor / hi fi speaker

Hi,

MASTERING and RECORDING are two different kettle of fish.

A MASTERING monitor is meant to represent the "target" speaker well, hence for example the widespread use of the Yammie NS-10 at some time, as they represented a good indication of a "cheap stereo".

If you Master a recording aimed at people who own a variety of "common" high end speakers the B&W 801 is a good choice.

Neither speaker is a good choice however, for the quality control of the actual recording, where you want to really hear what you record. You can always "mess up" the recording afterwards, if it does not "fit" your target audience's speakers, but if the recording is garbage, there is no way to "fix it in the mix"....

So, never confuse "mastering" and "recording".

Ciao T

 

Hi,

Commercially speaking, practically speaking, it is.

In most current released recordings and probably for much of the last 20-30 years many recordings did not even pay lip service to quality, either in terms of the music or the recording. Therefore, "detrimental to quality" probably translates well into "good for sales".

Recorded music is a commodity made, marketed and sold according to the same principles applied by KFC, Burger King and McDonalds.

Ciao T

 

I am not comparing anything.

Obviously, there is no need for mastering, unless the system the recording is played on is not able to accurately reproduce what is on the recording.

 

Hey, I don't think you can quite be the cruel to modern recordings Thorsten!

There are still some good ones being made and there are still people to which good recording is a passion. Even Avril Lavigne is pretty well recorded I think, but ****ed up in the mastering by too much compression, as is the trend. Harmonic exciters seem to be overused as well at the moment IMHO.

 

Uh... yes there is. It is the final coat of polish on the tune/terd. It is not just to make it sound good on Hi-Fi, it is to make it sound better in the first place as well.

Night

 

It is true to say that the more you process the signal ,the more distortion is introduced.

Sound quality is subjective so it depends on what you mean by making it sound better.

Personally, by sounding good, I simply mean reproducing the recording according to the principles of stereophonic reproduction.

 

i would guess a monitor is constructed to give the flattest response possible - in a studio environment - usually this has some sort of room / accoustic treatment.

domestic speakers are 'tuned' to work in the average living room - i.e. not a friendly place accousticly in that it's basicly a hard surfaced box these days what with peoples love of laminate flooring and minimalistic design.

perhaps one of the flat earthers could tell us what the differences between a linn isobark pms and dms are (pms - professional monitor system, dms - domestic...) i suspect it's going to be connectors and some crossover tweaking.
cheers


julian

 

Are not most of your CDs or records reproduced in stereophonic sound?

If you are saying that not touching the recording at all and taking it all from a stereo pair will sound best. Well, this is a good way to record orchestral stuff or choir but not everything. Even then it is usually EQd and compressed just a bit. Sometimes things get an enhancer as well.

If you think it is the best way to record all music, then I suggest you try working in a recording studio for a while.

All the best

 

But few recordings are published commercially with the audiophile in mind. If they were they would sound poor when played on mini systems, in the car, etc. Final output for most publications to CD has been optimised for the most common playback systems. If you listen to them on a "hi-fi" system (whatever that is defined as), especially if it is a system with a very flat response (such as one where the loudspeakers used are monitors) you will simply hear the imbalance very clearly. Whilst said recordings would probably have been monitored on full range speakers at some stage, they would probably have been finally monitored on something small like Yamaha NS10's. I think it's important to recognise these factors when discussing the results as heard at home, whichever speakers are used.

Of course if you are specifically referring to music intended for audiophiles, then the steps and intentions would be quite different I think.

 

just what proportion of what market segments? OK, 'Congratulations' by Sir Cliff, or much that's aimed at the charts or easy listening market, but for 'good' labels for classical, folk, jazz?

 

greg, I don't see what you mean by flat response ? explain it carefully to me, so that it is clear.

 

I couldnt really say so I am basing my comments on personal (ie. imagined ) definitions and I may well be doing a diservice to many publications/studios.

I would expect there is considerably less of a problem in the case of folk and jazz and naturally classical music. Dub / roots / reggae is aimed at people with a bass orientated system and I cant imagine for one second that many tracks would be mastered with mini systems in mind, but the more commercial end (ragga/dancehall, etc) would (I imagine) be mastered with the radio in mind.

House/techno/trance IME is generally mixed with the club system in mind, but I couldnt say that is true for the more commercial euro "trance" rubbish.

Straight Pop music is the culprit I guess but then doesnt (I hope) represent the main area of interest for many audiophiles (or whatever you want to label people interested in hifi).

 

Johnny a flat response usually refers to the frequency response. I suppose flat in terms of speakers, is one that does not vary by more than, say, 4db. Thats +-2db. Of course the off-axis response usually has a treble roll off.

There is more to accurate monitors than frequency response though.

 

In my limited (I emphasise limited) understanding most monitor systems built for pro use are intended to present as flat a response as possible across the audible spectrum of frequencies at above 85 (or so) db's in order to prevent anomalies in the speaker design from affecting a studio engineer's analysis of music played through said monitors for the purpose of production.

In my Mickey Mouse world of uderstanding - that monitor l/s systems dont suit everyone in a domestic environment as they may not sound very engaging played quieter than 85 db's (or so) due to their "flat" response.

Similarly some people have in the past commented that whilst they may be ideal for hearing more as closely (all relative of course to many other factors - primarily room response, electronics, CABLES , etc,) what is on the disc, they may not for some people actually equate with enjoying the music at home.

For some people the enjoyment IS about hearing more closely to what is on the disc - but if you are listening through full range monitors to a recording where the final master is primed for a mini system are you really gaining anything?

 

I would add that I am increasingly drawn towards pro speaker systems, but havent as yet converted this into demo's of any gear. Another element of "hifi" speakers is their general orientation towards looking the part (wood finish, size, etc.) which for me is not particularly important.

 

Monitors are accurate - most hifi speakers are not. Many choices are made on room limitations plus matching with deficiencies further up the chain. Plus, some people just dont want the truth.

 

Whole can of worms there buddy. Please define accurate and its context...

 

I reckon I'm an accoustic music fan, meaning that I'm not blessed with interest in 'trance', though early reggae & R&B is in scope.

there was a rush of interest in (pro) monitors over on avtalk, and this also got the attention of stereo buffs over there as well. they tend to be ugly looking so I have not dared demo them in shared living room.

 

Hi,

Funny, I also noted it in the other threads you started recently. Your arguments cosist purely and soley of counterfactuals, but not qalified as such, but presented as facts. I think you better stop that if you want a meaningful discourse, dispute and dialogue.

To discuss anything with anyone who persistes in claiming black is white has little attraction to me and most others.

Ciao T

 

soundonsound magazine ran an interesting article about hifi speakers vs monitors.

They used some well known hifi speakers, and concluded that a well designed hifi speaker cannot be differentiated from a studio monitor just judging by frequency response.

The main difference they found was that monitors were designed to go louder before compressing due to thermal dynamics ie more robust voice coils and magnet designs

Its quite an arbitary term actually

I read a great quote lately, trying to infer the sound of a speaker by its frequency respone alone is like trying to hear the sound of a violin by its frequency response.

Some classical studios do favour b/w 801s