Top mastering engineers views on monitors

I thought it was physically impossible for a speaker cone to accuratley reproduce the sound of a string. It can vibrate at the same frequency, and follow the same waveform - but they're physically different - hence interact with the air differently.

Surely any speaker can only attempt to reproduce a sound as accurate as possible given the medium of reproduction?



Steve

 

To me it's piano's that are the hardest to reproduce, somehow they always sound either clanky or dull. I guess it's any natural instrument that shows up limitations, particularly when it's classical, somehow the limitations of my system seem greatest when I've just come back from the Bridgewater hall.

 

pete,
no, not a huge classical fan. but i did actually enjoy the classical pieces i heard on jj's system which nothing else had done before so it must have been doing somethign right (subjectively for me that is - wouldn't want to offend the absolutists would we?). as i don't have much of a reference point re live orchestras i couldn't tell if it was overblown for this type of music or not but it didn't sound unrealistic to me. deep purple playing after this (as i've sait before) definately weren't realistic.

lcd,
i think robbo was employing sarcasm.
cheers


julian

 

Well, yes. But some are better than others at this. Hence more accurate. Still don't know why some people seem to have a problem with this idea, perhaps they think all speakers sound basically the same.

-- Ian

 

No one will argue with that, but the problem comes with agreeing on which particular speakers are the more accurate. Take two pairs of decent and credible speakers, two different people, and you will probably get two different answers. This is a subjective choice, there is no current way to categorically prove things in a absolute sense. Take ATCs vs. Quad 57s as an example – James would probably pick the ATCs, I'd pick the Quads – both can claim to be a superbly accurate speaker, though which you prefer is purely subjective. Measurements are largely irrelevant as both will 'win' in totally different areas.

Tony.

 

Incidentally does anyone know whether panels/ribbons figure at all in the pro "scene"? If not why not?

 

Only on the fringes imho. I think Tony Faulkener (sp?) uses Quad ELS for his monitoring and Philips (classical label) used to and maybe still use specially modified "pro" Quads as well.

I guess they are not often used as they can't go loud enough for most studio engineers and needing lots of space around them can't help either. Most studios try to build the speakers into the walls to make the most of the available space ... not ideal for the rearward going energy.

Cheers

Jason

 

I've certainly heard of classical studios using the Pro version of the ESL63, and even techno pioneer Oliver Leib (LSG, Spicelab) has a pair and produces astoundingly good recordings with them.

The main problem that a full range studio monitor faces is accidental abuse – it is astoundingly easy to do something really, really stupid in a studio, i.e. forget a mixer channel still has the fader up and gain pot at max and plug what you think is a low output mic in only to find it is the time-code lead etc. A mistake like that will break a domestic audio speaker but probably only deafen you on something like James's ATCs.

Tony.

 

George Martins Air studios (www.airstudios.com) uses the following speakers :

Main monitors:

Full Range 5.1 Surround System
Dynaudio Custom M4 Main Monitors LCR
Dynaudio M2 Surround Monitors
Dynaudio Custom 2x18" Sub System

Near field :

Acoustic Research AR18 (1 pair)
ATC SCM 20 (1 pair)
Auratone C4 (2 pair)
B&W 801 (1 pair)
Dynaudio 5.1 System B15A with BX30 Sub (1 set)
Dynaudio M1 (1 pair)
Genelec S30 (1 pair)
HHB Circle 5 (1 pair)
KRK 9000B (1 pair)
Mackie HR 824 (1 pair)
ProAc 100 (1 pair)
Yamaha NS10M HiFi (4 pairs)
Yamaha NS10M Studio (3 pairs)

Abby Road (www.abbeyroad.co.uk) use the following:

Monitoring:

Quested Monitoring (www.quested.com/FProductA.html)
B&W Nautilus 801
B&W Nautilus 802
B&W Matrix 805
B&W 801 Matrix 3
B&W ASW 3000
B&W ASW 2000
HTM1 rear

Nearfields:

Meyer X10
Yamaha NS10 Nearfields
PMC TBI

You're not going to get more "top studio" than those two.

GTM

 

"Take ATCs vs. Quad 57s as an example"

I heard Quad ESL 63s recently, and I thought they sounded remarkably similar to the ATCs, tbh, allowing for different systems/rooms. They probably wouldn't go quite as loud, nor do the 'slam/impact thing' like the ATCs, but they went loud enough for most people I would think. The 57 I haven't heard. And yes one nice thing about the ATCs is that they are virtually indestructible, with tweeter protection for fast tape rewind for example.

Jason, the point about the Marantz was that it was very very good for the money (80 quid). I think of all hi-fi components, CD players sound most similar to one another.

 

<< A mistake like that will break a domestic audio speaker but probably only deafen you on something like James's ATCs. >>

At last, an explanation.

 

Tony I agree. Anyone who has listened to Harbeth, Dynaudio, Quested, ATC, Proac, Hafler etc in the same room with the same equipment will tell you that they are very different speakers. (I did this at the dealer and at my studio when I upgraded my monitors) My conclusion is that none of these manufacturers has the 'best' or 'most accurate' monitors. Monitors are chosen because the engineer likes them; the same as why we also chose domestic speakers, and they are just as evangelical.

Engineers also listen to monitors, in general, in ways that are very different to us. They use a meter bridge for nearfields, not speaker stands. They put their speakers in the wall - when they were not designed to be there (some exceptions though) and we...er...put them on stands. They screw their playback equipment into a 19" rack and we put our equipment on hifi shelving. I find the many differences in attitudes and approach fascinating and still wonder why we get more passionate about speakers then most other bits of kit when it's meant to be source first (although I recently declared my colopurs of speaker first, then amp then source).

Dominic

Dominic

 

quad 57s are a pain in the ass big style, you have to sit exactly in the middle, otherwise they are kak, and they can be troublesome. avoid.

James you shouldn't listen TOO loud, you ought to know better, good sir.

Can we talk about something different that bloody atc's and mana!!?? hasn't everything been said? AS long as bub likes them, that's his prerogative. We all have to find our own nirvana, good for him if he has....

 

I have heard Bub's sytem recently, and very nice it is to, however if the ATC's are sooooo good then the lack of world beating sound I heard must be down to the electronics, either that if ATC, the best in the world, then mine must be from another planet, coz they are better to my ears than bubs.

I've been away for a few days and reading this reminds me of argiung as a teen about who was best drummer etc.

THERE IS NO RIGHT IT IS ALL SUBJECTIVE. THE END

 

Yes Paul. You prefer clarinets to oboes!

;-)

 

TBH James I doubt I could tell the difference if they were playing live in front of me, so I just have to take your word for it.

I don't proffess to having all the answers, but no matter how many times you say it yer not correct, If your system is supposedly so accurate, then why do you need more Mana, you have already stated the physical imposibilities, of you system, when you recorded a live band, but NO amplification, is 100% transparent, the closest you'll get to live is LIVE, and if a singer is singing through the PA then that is not live it is actually a facsimilie, the only true live is unplugged.

James you have a nice system, be happy with that, the way you're going on you'd think you had all the answers, and an absolutely flawless sytem, you haven't, maybe in your opinion, but you have to remember that others have an opinion too, After listening to my setup, yours sounds a bit dull, but with a nice bottom end, top and mids were shut in and soundsage was small IMHO (before any of you jump to defenceand state you're own opinion as fact, this may be something other than the speakers which I have only heard in James' system)there are no absoulutes and it is all down to personal taste, if that means mines is innacurate then so what I couldn't care less, that's just how I like it.

 

maybe top mastering engineers just listen to music through their equipment,and audiophiles listen to their equipment through the music,and never the twain will meet.

 

Then I dont want to be an audiophile!

( he says listening to the music in another room to that which it is playing in, feeling no real urge to move, no soundstage, no seperation, muddy bass flapping through the celing to the room Im in.... mustnt be an audiophile anyway!!!) - anyone want my moderators badge? I am a fraud!

nb
listening to 'melon collie and the infinite sadness' - smashing pumpkins

one of my favourites.

Chris

 

TBH Chris I think your right I spend most time listening to music in the car, where some days I caan be driving for 6-7 hours, but do I enjoy the music any less, no, but when I get home and lsiten on the hifi it just seems right to me, couldn't care what others think, it's not their system, in fact mine might be the most innacurate system out there, but I love it.

 

A suggestion

Should be a cracker and an excellent introduction to what a live orchestra should sound like. £4 to stand, so cheaper than the pub!