Earlier I was asked why I believe recreating the sound in the mix room at home was impossible. Because every mix system/room is different. If you get an engineer to mix (or record for that matter) something on an old pair of Urei's the music will sound different then if he mixes them on a new pair of Genelecs. And the mix on Urei's will sound closer to the mix room, if that's what you listen to at home. That's why most engineers use multiple playback systems to review there mixes.
This is why I also believe most rock mixed in the 70s, early 80s sounds "best" on the the 15" woofer large horn speakers that where being used in mix rooms back then. (JBLs, Urei's, Altecs) Just my opinion.
This is why I also believe most rock mixed in the 70s, early 80s sounds "best" on the the 15" woofer large horn speakers that where being used in mix rooms back then. (JBLs, Urei's, Altecs) Just my opinion.
And compression is not the enemy. It's been indispensable in recording chains for 60 years. The enemy is using too much of it. And strictly speaking it's not compression but peak limiting that's the problem. Compression is supposed to be slow, letting peaks thru, leaving some sense of dynamics. Limiting squashes everything.
I wish this dream would go away. Please.
Even with the same speakers in your room and with the identical electric input to them, they would sound different. There is no way they can sound the same*. Anybody want to dispute that?
At the best, if the recording team wanted to make a recording just for you and your room. maybe they could make something tasty for you which may or may not be identically tasty in their studio. Otherwise, they are making something tasty for some target population of rooms (and cars, and vans, and table radios, and...).
Couple of times I've been in a studio, didn't like the sound at all. After all, this is the team's tool (or microscope). They can use the sound to make something that sounds great in the target population of rooms, even if it sounds grotesque in the studio. Likewise, I used to own the fabled Beyer DT48 headphones, which likewise made for grotesque but analytically useful listening.
Some sound parameters might be important to maximize but really aren't manipulated usually by the recording team - such as distortion. So they don't need studio speakers that are especially clean (unlike us ESL fans who put "clean" very high on our list of priorities).
Ben
*OK, maybe if you could re-build the two rooms identically and furnish them identically, and....
Last edited:
If you over build with the right drivers and horns you will have a speaker system that is better then any mixing monitors. Reproducing the recording as heard by the engineer is easy. Nearly all monitors are toys. That's the problem, maybe .oo1% of them have full range low compression speakers than you have the engineers and monitors that screw up the mix. 
You said the opposite.
You were pointing out that differences arise BECAUSE the set-ups are different. I said even with identical set-ups, the rooms are different. In fact, two speakers can't in theory or in practice reproduce the sound of any place else*. They can sound swell, but they aren't Carnegie Hall.
Before offensively "correcting" somebody, best to be right.
Ben
*unless that is a "place" consisting of two pin-hole openings through which sound is poured.
Very interesting thread. I wish I had read it earlier.
I have a quick question, though. How well do microphones (even really high end microphones) capture the original sound? I worked in music recording for a brief while, but am certainly no expert. During that time, I did notice that some very colored sounding mics were heavily favored over some very uncolored mics. For instance, all the vocalists wanted to sing into old Neumann U47 or U67, or AKG C12 mics for their "sexy" and "huge" sound, but would never record into an Earthworks omni. But the Earthworks mic's output is demonstrably more faithful to the original event.
I always wondered why drumsets are recorded with a separate mic for each drum (or cymbal), each mic practically on the skin, when we would never, ever listen to a drum that way. As has been pointed out (and rightly so), even classical symphonic recordings employ plenty of close miking of sections or individual instruments.
If that's standard practice, how can a recording possibly reproduce the acoustic event like we hear it in a real-life venue?
I think some of you nailed it when you said that the best we can do is reproduce exactly what is on the master tape or encoded in the master file. If that's a Telarc or Reference Recordings-style minimal-miked recording of acoustic music in a great sounding concert venue, then great. But if it's Dark Side Of The Moon or another studio overdub concoction, then that's great too.
I also liked the comments about 'suspending disbelief.' I absolutely agree with that. Is that what we mean when we say an audio system is 'musical'? It allows us to suspend disbelief and listen to the 'musical intent'?
Maybe it's all really, really subjective. Maybe everyone is looking to optimize the sound they get for the music they like, and not so much for the music (or other sound) they don't care about. SET's and full-range speakers for acoustic jazz and string quartets vs. near-PA systems for home theater. 100 watt-per-channel solid state amps and floorstanding 3-ways for the audio omnivores. Maybe?
I have a quick question, though. How well do microphones (even really high end microphones) capture the original sound? I worked in music recording for a brief while, but am certainly no expert. During that time, I did notice that some very colored sounding mics were heavily favored over some very uncolored mics. For instance, all the vocalists wanted to sing into old Neumann U47 or U67, or AKG C12 mics for their "sexy" and "huge" sound, but would never record into an Earthworks omni. But the Earthworks mic's output is demonstrably more faithful to the original event.
I always wondered why drumsets are recorded with a separate mic for each drum (or cymbal), each mic practically on the skin, when we would never, ever listen to a drum that way. As has been pointed out (and rightly so), even classical symphonic recordings employ plenty of close miking of sections or individual instruments.
If that's standard practice, how can a recording possibly reproduce the acoustic event like we hear it in a real-life venue?
I think some of you nailed it when you said that the best we can do is reproduce exactly what is on the master tape or encoded in the master file. If that's a Telarc or Reference Recordings-style minimal-miked recording of acoustic music in a great sounding concert venue, then great. But if it's Dark Side Of The Moon or another studio overdub concoction, then that's great too.
I also liked the comments about 'suspending disbelief.' I absolutely agree with that. Is that what we mean when we say an audio system is 'musical'? It allows us to suspend disbelief and listen to the 'musical intent'?
Maybe it's all really, really subjective. Maybe everyone is looking to optimize the sound they get for the music they like, and not so much for the music (or other sound) they don't care about. SET's and full-range speakers for acoustic jazz and string quartets vs. near-PA systems for home theater. 100 watt-per-channel solid state amps and floorstanding 3-ways for the audio omnivores. Maybe?
Personally, I find when a system is cookin' that I can listen to music styles and recordings that would have me running hard in the other direction, through normal playback - in part because I "get" what the creator of the musical sounds was trying to achieve, why he/she bothered doing it in the first place. If a system is not making the listener interested in wanting to hear more of whatever happens to be coming through the speakers, then it has failed ...
This is a subject most serious audiophiles fret over. There is a never ending list of things that will affect the way music is reproduced, then their are the individual users and their choice of audio gear, room size and décor we all know the list goes on forever.
We have two systems one in our living room that more than satisfies our listening pleasure, the system downstairs is much more powerful biamped Solid State with speakers to match. It is also the one that satisfies my curiosity by experimenting with new gear including building speakers.
We also have another system which is powered with tube amps yet another way to hear music.
Finally have learned that we all hear things differently and to truly hear a recording it needs to be done on gear that I have control over otherwise it will not be right.
We have two systems one in our living room that more than satisfies our listening pleasure, the system downstairs is much more powerful biamped Solid State with speakers to match. It is also the one that satisfies my curiosity by experimenting with new gear including building speakers.
We also have another system which is powered with tube amps yet another way to hear music.
Finally have learned that we all hear things differently and to truly hear a recording it needs to be done on gear that I have control over otherwise it will not be right.
It does seem to me that the speaker and room acoustic is the most important thing we play with in audio. Amps just seem to do what they do without complaint.
I was interested in something Troels Gravesen often says about a blip in the frequency response of a speaker. Over 3dB peak somewhere, and he corrects it. He says this is because such faults make a speaker announce itself and say "Here I am!"
Little faults we can live with. Glaring ones just ruin the illusion.
Incredibly interesting discussion of the horrors of the mixing process, compression and close or far microphone placement. Enjoying this. I have no idea what Diana Krall does on her recordings, but she seems to get a good balance, even when it's not live.
Diana Krall _ Dancing In The Dark - YouTube
I was interested in something Troels Gravesen often says about a blip in the frequency response of a speaker. Over 3dB peak somewhere, and he corrects it. He says this is because such faults make a speaker announce itself and say "Here I am!"
Little faults we can live with. Glaring ones just ruin the illusion.
Incredibly interesting discussion of the horrors of the mixing process, compression and close or far microphone placement. Enjoying this. I have no idea what Diana Krall does on her recordings, but she seems to get a good balance, even when it's not live.
Diana Krall _ Dancing In The Dark - YouTube
Well then, you'll be put into a coma by Melody Gardot!
I was listening to some so-so jazz compilation over the usual pub PA in a bar one afternoon, and then Melody Gardot just drew me in completely with "Our Love is Easy". The video is interesting, because it includes the recording process. This is how a recording should be made, IMO.
Is that on-topic? I hope so.
I started doing this nearly 20yrs ago, first returned cd was 'No Doubt - Tragic Kingdom' bought from HMV in Wolverhampton......
"It's a CD Sir" said the manager "It's PERFECT."
Luckily one of his staff, a full on vinyl loving metal head HiFi enthusiast, had a listen through some headphones and came to the same conclusion as myself.... that the first three tracks were fine but the rest sounded like they were recorded from the other side of the street through several tons of mud.
I got my £17.99 back.
I now listen to all cd's before spending.
One of things I have discovered over the years is that we really need a couple of different systems each with their owns strengths. Our tube gear does an incredible job reproducing music with a sound noticeably different from Solid State gear. Our Solid State gear is set up to play loud RR or Jazz the way we have always loved to hear and feel it. No doubt this is not for everyone but this is what makes it interesting.
I have never been afraid to try something different this site is full of interesting subjects I found a new home and am all ears.
Mike Ross
I have never been afraid to try something different this site is full of interesting subjects I found a new home and am all ears.
Mike Ross
Well then, you'll be put into a coma by Melody Gardot!
I was listening to some so-so jazz compilation over the usual pub PA in a bar one afternoon, and then Melody Gardot just drew me in completely with "Our Love is Easy". The video is interesting, because it includes the recording process. This is how a recording should be made, IMO.
Is that on-topic? I hope so.
You're right.
I tried and I was almost completely catatonic for the duration. ;-)
Jazz is practically the only musical genre that has never done anything for me though.
As far as pure enjoyment of music goes I prefer a half decent PA to excellent and super clean (within their range) mini monitors. It is a more visceral experience IMO.
The ideal situation is of course both: A speaker that can deliver the visceral experience while still being clean and analytical.
I agree totally, Charles Darwin, a PA type sound suits me much better too! 
I've been having much more fun with high efficiency designs than the regular inefficient HiFi boxes.
Troels Gravesen likes his 8" bass TQWT more than anything else. And it's surprising with a high 3kHz crossover that will upset the dispersion, it's a mere two way, and not much easy bass to be had.
TQWT-
You need very good drivers to get these things to work on simple crossovers. But then they work superbly.
I've been having much more fun with high efficiency designs than the regular inefficient HiFi boxes.
Troels Gravesen likes his 8" bass TQWT more than anything else. And it's surprising with a high 3kHz crossover that will upset the dispersion, it's a mere two way, and not much easy bass to be had.
TQWT-
You need very good drivers to get these things to work on simple crossovers. But then they work superbly.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.