Because in studio you have to treat the side wall to master ER. This is done, always.
Camplo, check your pm.
Camplo, check your pm.
I don't think these guys need them each others. They eventually share for our happyness has we are hungry about knoledge in our hobby, sometimes ar more than the device itselves.
And it means nothing has a speaker itself does need a source and an amplifier.
The only really clever project that could focus towards your wisch is imho projets like the Dutch & Dutch 8C that begann here before going to a business. Like it was for some dacs.
So you need to consider all : the rooms, the dac, the DRC correction, the amplifier to go the closer you can from your goals... well... 6 years maybe on diyaudio, one year for a pro team with a business plan.
6 years... maybe we change of hobby for diy chairs with wheels... or amplifiers for ears !
But personally, I like such challenge... so great ! Men are going eventually on Moon or find atomic bomb when they want to work together. But difficult here, don't forgett it is lurked by half of the audio industry or that ideas are not yours anymore when edited here.
And it means nothing has a speaker itself does need a source and an amplifier.
The only really clever project that could focus towards your wisch is imho projets like the Dutch & Dutch 8C that begann here before going to a business. Like it was for some dacs.
So you need to consider all : the rooms, the dac, the DRC correction, the amplifier to go the closer you can from your goals... well... 6 years maybe on diyaudio, one year for a pro team with a business plan.
6 years... maybe we change of hobby for diy chairs with wheels... or amplifiers for ears !
But personally, I like such challenge... so great ! Men are going eventually on Moon or find atomic bomb when they want to work together. But difficult here, don't forgett it is lurked by half of the audio industry or that ideas are not yours anymore when edited here.
some of my favorite recording engineers are past on so don't qualify as candidates for half of a power couple and i could think of several candidates on the design front like Dave Gunness or Roy Delgado and, and ... sorry i was responding from a place of instinctual fear....
Do you mean Diyaudio is a room for audio fanatics 😉
Add Le Cleach in the closed hearing and you have this horn that was made in Australia I don't remember the name that is a hybryd synergy-Le Cleach horn-with certainly a part of controlled directivity a la Gedles... not the best of each alone but at least something...
Some also mae K-401 from Klipsch with huge drivers for a synergy design directly on the horn...
It's an infinie talking imo, not saying there is ESL, ribbons and aslo mylar planars directly moved by motors (don't remember the name of this britanic guy who is also a musician and launched these planars maybe 20/25 years ago...
You need everyone to make a World 🙂
Last edited:
Ears and microphones are not the same and yet they are in some ways. The techniques that are used by people setting room eq, and the techniques I've seen say Earl G use to measure what the room is doing....in a proper mastering setting, wouldn't some of these techniques apply to how we should use our ears, in the mastering process? For mastering, is there a set standard for room size? Any changes in room resonance, size and transfer function, creates a completely unique experience. Without a standard set here, the confusion continues? Or does diversity continue? Or by voicing systems flat or flattish, and addressing room acoustics...have we already created this? This is important because a truly Echoic experience is not desired for mastering but at the same time, this type of experience is pure signal....If I'm not mistaken there are two camps of people, one who prefer a dead room (translate as dead as possible or deader than most) and those who do not...
Last edited:
campo, the short answer is no, and I don't think we need to create it. I also have been thinking and experimenting on this matter for a long time. I try to post long answer sometime today. 🙂
Well said.
Theoretical knowledge and practical knowledge are like the two wings of a bird....both are needed to fly, imo.
When you are near the forest, best to keep both wings out of the trees...
Each and every time I have crashed resulted from a disconnect between knowledge gained by experience versus the theoretical knowledge based on learning in class and through textbooks.
Fortunately, speaker design crashes aren't fatal !
Art
Attachments
To play devil's advocate in this thread though, I don't think it's necessary to involve a mastering engineer.
The whole point is that building "perfect" speakers doesn't depend on the listener, whether she/he's a mastering engineer or a bricklayer.
The task of the speaker designer / builder is to build the perfect speaker for the correct situation. The first and most important and maybe only important thing is that the speaker must be transparent - it may not add nor subtract anything from the input signal. This is a scientific area, and the mastering engineer isn't necessarily schooled in that - she/he is a mastering engineer, not a speaker builder. They might not now everything there is to know about dispersion and the effects in the room for example.
The next tricky part is "the situation" - the speaker may be transparent, but the environment may not be. That's the whole "room treatment" thing. And again, that's a complete science on its own that most mastering engineers wil not be experts on. Most will know about room modes / standing waves, but that's probably as far as their knowledge goes.
If the mastering engineer indeed wants the best sound possible, she/he may just have to submit to the fact that to get that she/he will have to let that job be done by experts in their respective fields.
As soon as the mastering engineer starts giving input like "no I think it sounds better *this* way", she/he is probably straying from the path of transparency and into the realm of personal preference.
The whole point is that building "perfect" speakers doesn't depend on the listener, whether she/he's a mastering engineer or a bricklayer.
The task of the speaker designer / builder is to build the perfect speaker for the correct situation. The first and most important and maybe only important thing is that the speaker must be transparent - it may not add nor subtract anything from the input signal. This is a scientific area, and the mastering engineer isn't necessarily schooled in that - she/he is a mastering engineer, not a speaker builder. They might not now everything there is to know about dispersion and the effects in the room for example.
The next tricky part is "the situation" - the speaker may be transparent, but the environment may not be. That's the whole "room treatment" thing. And again, that's a complete science on its own that most mastering engineers wil not be experts on. Most will know about room modes / standing waves, but that's probably as far as their knowledge goes.
If the mastering engineer indeed wants the best sound possible, she/he may just have to submit to the fact that to get that she/he will have to let that job be done by experts in their respective fields.
As soon as the mastering engineer starts giving input like "no I think it sounds better *this* way", she/he is probably straying from the path of transparency and into the realm of personal preference.
Last edited:
- Um excuses me, which mastering engineers do you talk to? You have no choice but to learn the scientific side in order to be a successful mastering engineer.
- A mastering engineer is supposed to be a master of sound design, which would imply a mastery of his gear (loudspeaker)...so guess again. You might be describing less then adequate Mastering engineers or wonna bes...Anyone can claim the title.
- I think plenty of mastering engineers are aware of this and this may reflect your lack of knowledge on the topic or even a lack of a basic understanding of what mastering is... Everything you claim a mastering engineer might not understand is an actual anchor in Mastering Technique. Your perspective is wrong on this issue and exactly why they are so important.
Thats the thing, once again, A mastering engineer knows what the speaker should do out of results...you are not getting it...a mastering engineers job is contingent on sound quality... While the rest of yous are just enjoying music we are working on it...you don't get it? The speakers are a limitation on Mastering engineers ability. The room is a limitation... Of course a Mastering engineer knows. Our work depends desperately on these aspects. We study all of this and the actually design of a loudspeaker is one thing that should be added to Mastering Engineers tool box not just whats needed to use them and how to setup a room.
The act of Mix/Mastering is a constant process that in a way a constant checking and proving of the quality of the loudspeaker + room by the way of desired results vs experience. We are constantly judging. If something isn't working or is, we are the ones to ask.
Backwards, The Mastering process, the process (not the person/engineer) is the true test, and the reason why transparency probably was pushed to the forefront in the first place! We crave transparency, proving you don't know what mastering even is or how its done. Loudspeaker tone neutrality has been apart of Master Monitors, evey one else is late to the show! - including Floyd?
Last edited:
Katz’s Corner Episode 12: Throwing Down the Gauntlet | InnerFidelity
Doesn't Mr Katz give you the need to buy a pair? 😉
That said it shows he knows a bit about some important points in loudspeaker design and acoustic.
Camplo, B. Katz is representative of one 'school' about mastering. Beside i agree with his vision there is others too, with engineers which impose a 'signature' sound ( through use of gear or process applied).
Which one is right? It depend largely from the client if he/she comes back for more work to be done.
Doesn't Mr Katz give you the need to buy a pair? 😉
That said it shows he knows a bit about some important points in loudspeaker design and acoustic.
Camplo, B. Katz is representative of one 'school' about mastering. Beside i agree with his vision there is others too, with engineers which impose a 'signature' sound ( through use of gear or process applied).
Which one is right? It depend largely from the client if he/she comes back for more work to be done.
Last edited: