Top mastering engineers views on monitors

James always mentions mastering engineers to back up his assertion that hifi speakers are crap and studio monitors are better. OK I am a studio owner (I use active Dynaudios) and I have been in many studios but thought that I would track down one of the greats in the mastering world, John Vestman, because of his views which I thought would be interesting. This link covers hifi versus studio monitors, cables, pre amps and the affect of rooms.

http://johnvestman.com/studio_monitor_madness.htm

 

what about hifi speakers that use volt, atc, scanspeak. I think there is no cut and dry...studio and domestic thing. You get good and bad in both camps. ATC are good, perhaps not the be and end all, the top Genelecs are meant to be better, but I could live happily with scm100s.

 

Excellent Dominic, I really enjoyed that, gonna send it to a friend who is an engineer, says I'm mad as the stuff it's made on is pro stuff and thats all they use, wondered why some of his tracks sounded bass light, and very forward in the modrange, must be his setup, think I'm gonna suggest a few things.

Ps wish James wasn't on holiday.

 

You saying that ATC monitors are no good?

Quick! Tell Chandos, Pink Floyd, The Royal Opera House, and all the other prestigious people who choose them.

Alternatively, sit them on some bespoke Mana stands - if you want the best, buy the best. The rest is just balls.

 

I think studio monitors can sound worse than 'Hi-Fi' speakers in an average listening room, but get them in a properly acoustically treated room and they will start to kick some arse!

Having the speakers many bands or artist are mixed on is one thing, but having a fully treated room like they are mixed in is just as important.

 

Studio gear does tend to tell it as it is. Unbeatable on well mastered CD's. I'm currently enjoying some "domesticated" monitors

BTW, Adam loudspeaker impressed me a great deal, as of couse have JBL monitors, Harbeths, and Tannoys. So I guess studios must be getting something right.

 

Seems monitoring doesnt really matter anymore in mastering as all modern releases are pushed to the maximum limit and just sound flat and well...crap.

Is there anyone left who can properly master a CD?

 

Well said that man - one of my pet hates.

There was an article in Stereophile some time ago explaining that CD has the capability to reproduce everything we need provided the original signal is not compressed or eq'ed, at which point it loses information. Not sure I fully understand the reasoning for this, but given the uncompressed bootleg CD currently doing the rounds, maybe it is true that we will never get to hear the potential of CD.

And yes you're right, most modern engineers seem to be colour blind and unable to distinguish red from green

 

Agree on the over compression of a lot of music.

Some is still good though.. Dashboard Confessional come to mind as they are in my cd player right now or Jeff Buckly etc.. Some music it does sound better with heavy compression like a lot of metal stuff. Still even with that some go too far.

EQ though... I mean they want music not to be mixed at all now?

 

James you have missed the point and actually this thread was for everyone here who is chasing an impossible dream of getting close to the master tape! Many records are mastered poorly and when we hear them it is our hifi at fault! In the pro world - the world that I make a living in - things are quite different to the attitudes that prevail in forums like this and I thought that instead of putting my point of view across that I would let the top guys in the industry do the talking and that it would get some vivrant debate going!

My point of view is that if you are a fanatic then great and if you just want to listen tot he music on a modest system (which I do) then great as well.

The bottom line in the pro recording world is that monitors are chosen because engineers know what they sound like not because they are the best in the world. It is all about recording the sounds accurately so that they sound good on a wide range of media. There is a firm that I know who make samples, not by sampling but by recreating the sounds that they hear on the record. It is essential that they hear every nuance that is on the record so that they can recreate it perfectly. Obviously they need the very best speakers that money can buy, the most neutral, most accurate full range speakers - yes, you guessed right - they spent £200 on a pair of Tannoy Reveals! There are plenty of studios that have speakers that cost far less then those in this forum. Tony Visconti, who produced David Bowie's last two albums, as well as working on 12 others, uses Yamaha MSP10 active monitors that cost £1000!

There are many interviews with top mastering engineers who say that domestic hifi is used more and more in studios. Bob Ludwig also says that digital and not vinyl is closest to the source - of course he is wrong say many of you here - but Bob is one of the most respected engineers in the business. My view is that vinyl is more listenable but not better overall for me which is why I am selling my T/Ts.

All top studios have an analogue desk an if they use ProTools then they normally also record to tape - do not pay much attention tot he Digitally recorded, mixed and mastered logo on the CDs that you buy. On the last David Bowie LP they recroded to tape first to 'get that sound' and then to ProTools.

Finally, James, John W is one of the most experienced and best mastering engineers in the world. He supports many of the things that you, WM and others say but has a more relaxed approach in some respects. He suggests marbles to decouple speakers and you suggest mana. On the one hand you say "listen to the mastering engineers their careers depend on it" and when they say "buy marbles" you dismiss this - James you cannot have it both ways! Chill out a little and just accept that there is more than one way of getting the sound that you want. If you are going to quote the professionals make sure that first you know a little bit about their attitudes before you use them as a point of reference - a little humility would be nice!

Dominic

 

Is their a connection between the statement

"Many records are mastered poorly" and
"they spent £200 on a pair of Tannoy Reveals!"

I think we should be told.

The aim of hi-fi is high fidelity to the source, whether vinyl, CD or whatever. If you think that that is impossible or wrong, fair enough. I know that it is not impossible because of a live recording made in my living room.

 

What has long made me wonder, is that why bother to master on a £6000 pair of atc's, or even £35000 Genelecs, and then simply Joe Public to stick it in his Akai mini system. Bizarre.
I know some are going to be reproduced in Cinemas.
I don't think its the speakers problem with mastering, I would say its some guys differing idea of how the master ought to sound. I.e in the ears. Still some poor cd's do make me wonder about these top respected guys tho'.

Sadly, Bub, a lot of modern music now is not treated to be faithful to as it sounded, if that means anything, as its recorded, and then mixed, so it gets altered anyway.

Then eq'd and compressed in the mastering process, and goodness knows what else, there are even processors to add 2nd and 3rd harmonic distortion, and EVEN simulate transformer saturation and tape heads saturating(3rd harmonic again)

But its by and large mastered to get maximum punch, warmth, impact, think Mcdonalds, instantly satisfying, impressive, but ultimately tiresome. Same with cd's. We will become so conditioned to the pop sound that regular ones will sound flat and boring.

edited to add: hmm yes, if one considers it further, the usual reason spouted for ns10s, is that they sound similar to a domestic speaker. not very good, so if it sounds good on them, it will sound good at home.

So if it is mastered on a cheap speaker, does this translate that it will be poor on bub's speakers.

And vice versa, if mastered on ATC's, will it sound piss poor on say £400 or less speakers?

And if so, what can be done? different releases for different levels of speakers? impractical.

so what' s the solution?

 

Very interesting Dominic...

 

There is only one way to get the exact sound that the engineer intended to reproduce on his mastertape. That is to listen to the final mix in the exact same studio that it was produced in, passing it through the same modules etc as were originally used.

The only FACT in this whole argument is that every listening environment is different. There is no way you are going to hear what the mastering engineer wanted to put on the original master in a different acoustic environment to that which it was mastered in. You may get very close, but that will be pretty much luck. Why do you think that most "hi-fi" speakers are crap at reproducing reggae bass properly? well it's because you're not listening to it using the same flappy 12" paper mid bass units that the guys in studio 1 are using that's why.


Anyway, the whole argument of accuracy is moot for 99% of the music commited to CD or Vinyl etc. All the engineers are actually trying to achieve is a mix that sounds good on a range of replay equipment. They are NOT producing a definitive mix to be replayed on the very best systems. They are only attempting to make the music sound generically the same on a range of kit, so there is no ONE correct sound. There is by definition a range of sounds that the engineer is attempting to achieve. This is true for all but a very small number of specialist labels.


GTM

 

Now here's a thing for all those guys looking for that 'as per sound intented', ever wondered how good the electronics are inside the kit they (studio mixing engineers) work with?
I mean, after all that's the gear their doing the finshed master piece on isn't it? The software and control pc's as well
I could go on about a semi famous studio mastering guy, who recently had all his desk's upgraded with new psu's and custom built reg's, and has been stunned by the difference he wishes for the rest of the kit to treated in the same way. We were stunned by lack of care and attention paid to the main board layouts and supplies. Great super smashing, BUT...........................what about the rest of the chain?
If you want to be 'as per sound was intended', then you would have to start at the very beginning, as the sound left the mic and continue in the same vien until the sound departs the speakers, carefull selecting of all the right components, matching, modifying etc. It just won't happen cost & time are way off the scale the industry is prepared to pay. Hifi IS compremises
Besides you would really need a master tape player anyway

 

The whole discussion is a piece of nonsense because we don't have the master tapes, we only have the finished CD or record.

Accurate studio monitors will play back whatever is fed into them accurately, which, I would have thought, is the whole point of hi-fi. If you don't like the result, then your argument is with the studio which produced it.

FWIW, I don't agree that 'most' recordings are rubbish at all. I also don't agree that the aim of the engineer is to produce something that sounds OK when played on crappy hi-fi systems. How would they go about doing that? And wouldn't it defeat the whole purpose of good hi-fi?

 

Personally, Im not going to comment on the use of studio equipment (especially monitors) at home.

It just seems to be a 'flame' subject!.. I mean, there are those who like it, and there are those who dont. Never the twain shall meet!

I wish studio monitoring and hifi were better bedfellows though, I think the industries have so much to learn from each other.

There seems to be more emphasis on derision, and less on mutual understanding (still, whats new in the world about that?!).

Perhaps the most appropriate comment from the original link regarding the use of studio monitors at home involved the differing sonic characteristics of the listening environment. ie - he seemed to be asserting that the most appropriate thing to do is to pick the most appropriate monitor or speaker for the listening environment (in terms of room peaks/troughs, use of acoustic treatment, room size and general sonic signature).

This last point made perfect sense to me, and would make a particular make and model of studio monitor appropriate in a certain circumstance, and completely inappropriate in another. Similarly a certain make/model of hifi speaker would suit/not suit each listening environment.

What a sensible opinion!

 

I am with Bub on this, there are many good recordings out there, of course I mean good to be heard, I dont really care if they represent exactly what happened in the studio or hall...

Also agree, as I have repeated often, the speakers have to be adequated to the room, eq cannot solve every problem, and that is the single most important factor, if not the olny one, to get good sound at home...

 

What do you mean by accurate? Flat response overall?