Top mastering engineers views on monitors

I could recognise Coltrane on anything, even a wind-up gramophone.

Yes, we all hear differently, but there is no doubt a correlation between the frequency response and overall voicing of a loudspeaker and its ability to realistically portray the sound of, in this case, Trane's sax. Some speakers are simply better than others at this, regardless of the listener's hearing abilities or deficiencies. Having said that, there's plenty of ways to skin a cat, and even speakers that are accurate (for want of a better word) in this sense may differ radically in other ways, and therefore sound quite different to each other (some speakers offer huge scale, others don't, some speakers make you feel like you're in the front row, others are less up-front, etc etc). But good speakers have a basic "rightness" about them, regardless of the other differences. Hard to express that rightness in words, however.

But ultimately, yes, it's all down to taste.

-- Ian

 

Sorry but this isn't true.

Our hearing is comparative, ie we can only judge whether a sound is accurate by comparing it with the real live sound. Our hearing variation is always there for every individual, whether listening to a live instrument or a reproduction of one. For the system to reproduce the same percieved sound as the live instrument it has to reproduce exactly the same frequency content as the live instrument out of the speakers. IF you have a system that can do this, then the live and reproduced sound will be identical for every listener because the actual sound event being reproduced (either by the instrument or the speakers) is identical. Peoples individual hearing deficiencies make no difference with respect to accuracy of the system.

GTM

 

I have very little formal classical music training. In the early days when my friends bring me to classical concerts I always worry whether I will be able to distinguish and appreciate good performance or music. Quickly I realise speaking to the people around me most people seems to agree what is nice and interesting most of the time. In other words people taste and mine are actually remarkably similar.

I know what you are saying Analoguekid. However, in my humble opinion Ian and GTM way of expressing it makes more sense. It is probably true we all preceive sounds slightly differently but in many ways our senses and ability are probably remarkably more similar then we like to admit. We all like to think we are more gifted somehow.

When you try to measure peoples ability ranging from IQ to hearing acuteness the majority of us falls into the normal very average group. That does not really remarkable if you think about it since we are a made the same biologically. The remarkably gifted (or beautiful, talented) are very few as that is why we think they are either strange or special.

 

I dont' seek hifi, I don't seek accuracy, I agree there is no such thing as accuracy, flat frequency response is meant to give accuracy.

Very true, ATC accurate is different to genelec, harbeth, quested and jbl and tannoy, and.....

To me, I understand what bub is now saying..I have had a hard time attempting to do this..I do try to come from others view points in seeing their definitions of things.

He means accurate as in as recorded, tho this whole thing gets twisted and shaped by mixes and masterers, so I am not sure what is correct in that respect. Is there such a thing???

I have no doubt bub would say yes, his atc's sound just like the live performance.

with speakers, like I said, accurate means simply flat frequency. If there is ONE tiny little thing I have learned, it is not to go by measured frequency response in trying to say how something will sound.

I believe, then the only way for something to be accurate is compare the sound reproduced thorough them, with the sound heard live. that is THE only way. You cannot say ATC;s are accurate by that definition unless you have heard the sound live then thro the ATC's, but then, the colourations of the sources come thro'

arrggh its a minefield, and I am going mad...

anyway back to point, I don't seek accuracy, simply something enjoyable to listen to...stuff this academic nonsense about hifi and all that, just sit back and do you like it? if so that is absolutely all there is to it. Period.

and does your further outlay lead to increased enjoyability?
its that simple and we make it SOOOOO complicated, not complex, complicated.

Tho I do agree, it does make sense to seek a perfect reproduction of the recording as heard. In which case, then ,why do people use 'hifi' to get it? hifi isn't studio as in accurate, if people seek hifi accurate, they must by definition seek studio stuff, yet they don't, its all words, definitions, meanings, semantics. And marketing and mini systems..

 

Yes upon further reading I see what you mean, and stand corrected, I suppose I haven't really explained what I mean, most of us don't have the live sound as comparison, and can only perceive what it should sound like, therefore the accuracy of the system has little to do with our perception of right in the real world, eg bubs system has too much bass and a treble and midrange which seems further back and with less emphasis as to what I'm used to,
at the end of the day it matters not how accurate the system is, whats important for most people is does it allow us to enjoy our music more, if the answer to that is yes then it makes no odds how accurate the system is or isn't, one mans meet,.....

Just because James reckons his system is accurate, doesn't mean he is right, the ATC 100 may be the most accurate speakers in the world, but if thats the case then i don't like accuracy as much as I like my less accurate (in James' humnle opinion) setup, having said that I don't think the speakers are the reason for the defficiances I perceived to what I'm used to/looking for.

I hope this clears up what I mean, acuracy smacuracy, it's 110% subjective.

Edit: wrote this before reading last 2 posts, hope this puts accross better what I mean, I don't have the answers, I only know what floats my boat, and as such can only comment on my experiences, that is the reason, I don't preach.

Paul

 

The classic crappy near-field was the Auratone, a small 4 or 5†paper cone single driver in a little square wooden box. They really gave a good indication of how a mix would sound on a radio or car stereo. It is incredibly easy to get a great sounding mix on full range high quality monitors that quite simply doesn't have a bass line at all on Auratones! Today most sub 100 quid ghetto-blasters only have 3 or 4†bass units, so the same problem applies – it is interesting to hear stuff like drum n bass or dub reggae on this kind of kit as much is very obviously mixed full range purely with a club PA in mind - the ghetto-blaster owner is frequently left with some of the drums and no bass whatsoever. It is commercial suicide to mix pop and rock in this way.

Tony.

 

Accuracy seems an abstract concept to me,and I suspect most home HIFI users,in as much as we aren't musicians and don't listen to live music outside of rock concerts.In fact the term seems as abused as 'musical',and equally as confusing.

 

I don't think that you know what either source really sounds like, Alex. The CDS2 f'rinstance is a lot, lot better than you appear to think it is. I have carpet on my walls, you have a funny-sounding room.

And there is a lot more to accuracy than just a flat response.

 

for me accuracy, hi-fi, musicality pr&t etc. all belong in the same linguistic ghetto. if you like something then fine. if you don't then equally fine, sure express your opinions but don't act all surprised when someone has a different opinion to yours.
cheers


julian

 

It is a bit spooky. It seems very peaceful here at Zerogain.

Actually I have been wondering where is the original research that says having a flat frequency response it the ultimate aim. I have no idea what is the reference that loudspeaker manufacturers or recording engineers uses.

For me the most obvious benchmark is indeed live instruments or unrecorded music/sound. The one source of live music I could hear frequently is the RSNO in Glasgow Royal Concert Hall. I have a few CD where the recordings were suppose to be made by them in that hall.

Trying to put together a CD based system to reproduce the richness of that sound it a bit like chasing once tail. I have yet to have the opportunity to hear any system that could even reproduce a single instrument like the violin sounds the way is really does live. It is always still an approximation when compare closely.

Having said that I have no problem enjoying the essence of the music in any thing from any old radio, my personal tailored AV/hifi system or friends mega bucks system. So maybe it is true that is it not that important after all.

 

Being a musician doesn't help in the slightest - I can play bass, guitar and keyboards (to quite profound levels of incompetence). I can even produce records out of my record collection that I have played on and been involved in absolutely every aspect of production right through to the final product, plus a good few by others where I was in the control room when they were being recorded. It doesn't help at all, it just makes me even more confused. I don't even understand the question, but I at least have sufficient experience to realise this fact!

One thing you quickly learn about musos is that they tend not to want accuracy at all, lets take vocalists, who are often the worst offenders. The voice is the simplest of things in theory, but you would not believe the many things are done to disguise and change that raw material! Nice expensive valve mics and valve mic preamps put warmth and body into even quite feeble voices. Next add a bit of compression and limiting to fatten it up a bit more and ensure the muppet keeps within acceptable volume parameters (most are too stupid to move away from the mic when they yell, and even if they do they usually get it wrong). If the vocalist really can't hit a given note then you whack the vocal line through a harmoniser and bend the dud notes back on course digitally, either that or take 17 more takes / slow the tape down in the hope they will finally get it right. Now stick some nice reverb and / or delay on to finish the job. Accurate? Certainly not accurate to the raw material.

So the big question is: Accurate to what exactly? The sound coming out of the vocalist? The sound going into the mixer? The sound coming out of the Tannoy SRMs in the control room? The sound coming out of the NS10s? The sound I hear at home on my own stereo? So, it looks like I've finally got round to speakers…

The best performing speakers can manage to get somewhere near to +-3db from flat in a anechoic chamber over most of the audible frequency range. That means that two different high quality speakers can be as much as 6db away from each other at any given frequency, and this is before getting to phase errors, driver integration and other things that don't really show up well on measurements, and we wonder why they all sound different. Then we put the speaker on whatever stand we like (often not the one that the speaker manufacturer originally designed and measured them on) and then listen to them in a non-acoustically treated domestic living room with peaks and troughs all over the place… Great sounding maybe, but accurate my arse!

Tony.

 

It depends on the recording obviously. An accurate system will sound like the real thing with a good recording, and will show up the different tonal qualities of, say, different violins. But you do need a good room, this is as important as a good system.

 

As I said earlier, accuracy doesnt mean a thing these days. This is the scenario faced by many -

Scene - Mastering guy sitting at his desk mixing and fine tuning the mix getting it to sound sonically fantastic. He palys it back to the PR/Marketing guys from the record company and they shake their heads.

PR Guy " Thats great man, but this is no classical sh*t ok? we need that radio ready, its gotta be loud, read my lips baby L O U D!!! We cant have this goin' out like some ***** jazz record, its gotta make the listeners sit up. understand???

Mastering guy " Err but then it will sound flat and there will be no...

PR Guy "Listen buddy, if you dont wanna do it, we'll find someone who will right?

Mastering guy "sighs...Oh ok, you're the boss." (pushes the sliders to MAX)

PR Guy "Ohhh yeah now your talkin, this'll rock em on Stern's show! I love this business!"

 

Beautiful. I'll steal this phrase sometime.

 

I've not been around for the past few days. Some interesting posts here. There is no definitive right or wrong but what is true in studios is that:

1) engineers normally take their own speakers, sorry monitors, with them because they know what they sound like;
2) all professional accurate monitors sound very different which is why 1) applies
3) in rock/pop/call it what you will, the vibe that is created is the most important thing - not tonal accuracy or anything else
4) no matter how accurate your speaker at home it will never sound the same as in the mastering suite, even if the same monitor was used
5) el cheapo spreakers are always used as a reference point (for pop / rock etc) to make sure that it will sound good on the radio. They also listen in the car.
6) a violin or piano played live never sounds the same as a recorded violin played back through the most neutral and accurate monitors

I think that speakers are very important in the sound chain and as ever there are very valid and opposing views. I also think that judging from some of the comments here that not enough people actually know what goes on in a studio which is why I feel that some chase an impossible hifi dream.

Have a great week. Dominic

 

Just thought, do any of you guys remember the article way back in the early 80's when Max Townshend was trying to fine tune the Rock T/T and one of his friends (a reviewer I think) kept saying that the violins did not sound right. Max being very frustrated invited a classical violinist to his home and hid him behind a door. The 'reviewer' still said that the violins did not sound right as the violinist stepped out into the room!

 

That certainly reinforce the observation that our ears might be very sensitive but our memory and expectation start to play tricks after awhile.

 

Based on words used in his post - Dominic doesnt appear to say anything of the sort, and nor does anyone else. Dom's reference is simply saying is there are alternative ways to achieve music reproduction. This is just the same backup argument you feel the need to wheel out. Why?

Same post, different day. This smells like horsesh*t, it looks like horsesh*t. Guess what? It is horsesh*t. :zzzz:

 

Stated like a habitual absolutist.