Top mastering engineers views on monitors

So there is no such thing as right? And you've tried Mana stands? Oh well..

I think that most of you have no idea what can be achieved by a really good system.

Accuracy is easiest to assess in classical or acoustic pieces because we know what the instruments sound like live.

 

OK, I've not read the article(s) mentioned, but I use both studio monitors and hifi speakers (I write music, as well as listening to it). My requirements for studio monitors are hugely different to my requirements for hifi speakers ...

I look for the following:-

Studio Monitors
- Flat response
- Provide a good 'reference' compared to other speakers
- Highly revealing (but not harsh) sound
- Sound good and provide good imaging when sat < 2 metres away

Audiophile Speakers
- Flat response
- Provide a sound which I find pleasing over long periods of listening
- Look good (fit in with the room!)
- Sound great when sat > 4 metres away

Obviously that's just my specs, and individual taste may vary. But, I definately have different requirements for the different speakers.


Steve

 

Yep I think you have made this point. I implore you.. no, I actually beg you to please stop this sociopathic crusade. Please take pity on us.

 

Remastering Engineer Extraordinaire

Just received another ass-kicking SACD mastered by Steve Hoffman: Jimmy Reed at Carnegie Hall on Audio Fidelity - I just can't believe how good this sounds for a 1960s live recording. Apparently, Hoffman masters using 100 watt mono single-ended triodes: http://www.symposiumusa.com/RTI2002.html

 

Bub, to spare your worries, 1.5K's worth of RPG foam later, my room is now very accurate.

 

I thought that you had a suspended wooden floor!

 

Due to the weight of all that mana , it,s probably a sagging wooden floor

 

TBH, and as an "outsider", this reads like a litany of lame excuses for incompetence, lack of knowldege, lack of pride and inattention. I don't doubt it's difficult to get a mix that's right for many different environments, but that's what engineers and producers earn the $$$ for.
I'm with bub and Sideshow on this: A violin, even if imperfectly reproduced, should still sound like a violin (unless the aim is for soemthing else), this is not a question of vibe, listening environment or "toob compressors".
It seems to me that the attitude on the audio side is often far too "pragmatic" for it's own good. High standards are important if you have any self-respect as a professional, and require a high degree of absolutist intransigence .
No doubt my rant is off kilter and biased, but this lackadaisical pragmatism seems like nothing more than a mask for lazy incompetence. No offence intended, of course (I have no idea who has recorded what in your undoubtably esteemed studios).

 

Two things slightly worry me.

Firstly I agree with Bub about the CDS2

Secondly is that I have to disagree with him about the ATCs. I freely admit I've not heard them but from what I understand most serious studios use PMC not ATC so why doesn't he? and no one I know who has worked in a studio uses monitors for home use. Is there a reason for this?

On a personal note I am pleased that Bub has found their audio nirvana but I do wish he'd accept that his idea of perfection is not the same as everyone elses.

 

On a slight tangent, any DJ who plays extended, live mixes, requires a monitor (as decent as possible in a PA environment) in order to track the mix and the timing of the two, three or even four tracks being blended. However, few DJs would want the relative accuracy of the monitor sound to be conveyed to the dancefloor - the "sound" would be left lacking in terms of atmosphere and musicality (assuming the PA sys is good).

In some ways I would expect the same applies to Monitors in the professional context, vs their use in a domestic environment. Personally I like a pretty detailed presentation, but I dont listen in order to analyse too closely - analysis is surely one of the main purposes of many/most monitors?

 

Hi Tom,

You can find out who uses ATC from their website. It is then up to you to decide whether they are 'serious' or not! Dynaudio are the other good monitor company.

You ought to pop over for a listen, I promise not to discuss religion.

 

Definition of accuracy is important here. If we are talking about a violin sounding like a violin then most good monitors and consumer speakers speakers do this. If we are talking about the violin on a particular sounding like the violin as the engineer heard it in the studio then we are deluding ourselves.

 

To be honest ATC and especially Dynaudio are pretty mid-fi when it comes to monitors, the really serious stuff is tailor made and custom built into the walls as part of a whole acoustically designed control room. I went to Townhouse to cut an album many years ago and the monitoring was 2x15†bass drivers, various mids and a horn tweeter all built directly into the wall – ISTR it was a Westlake room using JBL drivers, but I may be wrong.

Tony.

(who personally finds Dynaudio way to bright and forward to mix on!)

 

But some quite evidently do it better than others. And I suspect a majority of speakers that are truly good in this respect are made by, or use drivers made by, companies who work in both the pro audio and domestic hifi markets.

Not if the engineer is competent (and allowed to do her job properly), and the domestic playback equipment is up to the job.

-- Ian

 

i would contend that a speaker that reproduced a violin perfectly would have trouble with banging dance or rawk music. if this is the case is the speaker still 'perfect'? again i would say not, and then we're back to personal preference and no 'right' answer.
cheers


julian

 

The handful of speakers I've heard that truly give the impression of being in the same room as the musicians seem to be able to play anything thrown at them, even extreme noise terror.

-- Ian

 

Why would you contend that? It's wrong.

ATC 'mid-fi', don't make me laugh!

 

ian,
most of the speakers (well systems) that i've heard that have been truly convincing with things like violins or orchestral music were unconvincing with the other types of music - for example the lumpley / hovland / audiomecca system i heard at jj's - orchestral music rendered beautifully whilst rock was overblown and uninteresting. perhaps you could let me know which speakers / systems you'd consider to be universally perfect?

bub,
there you go with the absolutes again. i'm only wrong in your opinion. in MY opinion i'm correct. therefore what you're saying is subjective and therefore i win :moony: :moony: :moony:
cheers


julian

 

When I find one that's universally perfect I'll let you know!

Lumleys, hmm. Heard a few models a few times, didn't like them at all with anything (don't think I've ever heard classical through them though).

OTOH, if someone only really listens to bangin' trance they probably don't need a hifi system, they'd be better off with a PA setup, a mirror ball, and a few lines of coke.

Have a listen to Merlin's Proacs before he flogs them, they seemed like pretty good all-rounders to me. Bit big though.

-- Ian

 

ian,
that's my point. it's the absolutism of the statements made that are getting my goat. as in 'such and such a brand do everythign well because some studio or rock band use them' i'm sure that they are very good speakers in the surroundings in question but to claim thay are the best for everyone and everything is naive. also the idea that because 2 people have different opinions about the sound of a piece of kit one of them is right and one wrong seems naive too.
cheers


julian