Given the amount of costly hardware i wouldn't qualify them as home studio ( the last photo especially, gml, spl, dangerous music, probably a Crockwood console... yummy) .
The room are tiny but this is the trend for the last 10 years.
The room are tiny but this is the trend for the last 10 years.
Last edited:
I do not get your drift at all. And you do not seem to get the whole point of Floyd Toole, Sean Olive or Harman's research. The point was to find objective measurements that correspond with subjective viewpoints from double blind listening tests. Not of mastering engineers, golden ears or anybody in particular. Find something measured that can be correlated to what is preferred. When bass was accounted as a variable they were/are able to predict the results to a very high degree of accuracy.
This is the antithesis of voicing by a selected few.
This is the Cambridge Dictionary definition of arrogance
"unpleasantly proud and behaving as if you are more important than, or know more than, other people"
Maybe you don't see it, seems like a textbook case to me
- This. They used way more uneducated listeners than not.
Well for designing mastering monitors, you would want the input of strictly those who use them...did you not see the title? Mastering Engineer vs Loudspeaker Engineer = Mastering Monitors.
pres·tige
widespread respect and admiration felt for someone or something on the basis of a perception of their achievements or quality.
Honestly you aren't even making an argument against me. You are just claiming that my view of their importance is an arrogant one, which kinda doesn't make sense. I've been claiming that with mastering engineers in cahoots with loudspeaker engineers, or the combination of the two skills, we get magic....you are trying to denounce that. Judging by your attitude I feel I already know the answer but...
Fluid are you a mastering engineer too?
The Mastering Engineer is the ultimate user of loudspeaker. They have the best rooms and practices of all listeners (they should at least)...this isn't opinion, or arrogance... like lets compete. Its facts, based on the application of their job, they have to try and get the best performing system out of necessity of a desired product result, not a ******* match to show off who has the best IR. We can tell who is getting it right by the quality of their product, just like we have pointed out the trend of big money cinema having a consistent higher level of sound quality.
Last edited:
is this the part where unless you have a particular form of accreditation you can't participate in the discussion comes in?
Last edited:
so far it looks like two pictures of post prodution A/V control/editing suites but not music studios...?
These are pictures submitted from Mastering Engineers, with no specification what they were mastering.
I think Geddes, for example, would make an Excellent mastering engineer, so now I suppose I am arrogant of his abilities as well...
- Having experience in both sides of the fence is a huge plus on perspective.
I think Geddes, for example, would make an Excellent mastering engineer, so now I suppose I am arrogant of his abilities as well...
Last edited:
Those are typical mastering studio of the moment. Check the gear, those are typical units, Manley, Gml, Neve limiters,Elysia, Cranesong, Adl,...no Weiss unit nor M6000 though, i'm disapointed... all on two tracks. Focusrite seems to have disapear from racks as well as Millenia. Not much of R.Neve portico too...
Amphyon loudspeakers... you could see B&W. Really typical rooms since 10years. There is trends within mastering and those pictures are the one of the moment. Visually they all looks like Thomas JouanJouan's design of ten years ago but most doesn't have the distinctive points of his acoustic treatments *( he used CID to create RFZ. His latest design use inwall ATC. A guy i know got his room like that 2 or 3 years ago in Paris. I haven't heard it though. Must sound good).
Camplo this is a bit provocative no? I mean there is a lot to learn from everyone.
* maybe the last one is with the diffuser on front wall.
Last edited:
The consumer based products are becoming more revealing...mastering equipment should progress as well.
Last edited:
- I've made this connection between the "perfect speaker" and mastering monitors...is there no real connection? Do not mastering monitors represent the best a brand can do or of that quality?
Last edited:
this is starting to sound like a "circle of confusion" discussion i guess Toole is right about that...
in their application mastering monitors are steep pinnacles but to say they are "perfect speakers" in the average joe's living room is an ongoing story of things lost in translation,no?
in their application mastering monitors are steep pinnacles but to say they are "perfect speakers" in the average joe's living room is an ongoing story of things lost in translation,no?
I don't know but I agree with your statement. I want to give the focus a topic...but first we have to come to the agreement on the importance of each player. Loudspeaker designers affect the final product....Mastering engineers affect the final product....they must work together.
The Audience opinion does matter but thats another topic, and they have plenty of other coloration options.
The Audience opinion does matter but thats another topic, and they have plenty of other coloration options.
Last edited:
Anecdotal note: I worked ten years sitting in the recording/mixing (and sometimes mastering) chair at a variety of studios many years ago. I was lucky to be involved in the ground up build of two Chip's Davis designed LEDE control rooms:
These are specially designed rooms and were ground breaking at the time. The room is designed so that you heard the direct sound of the mic plus early reflections (i.e. coloration) in the studio room "before" you heard the sound of the mixing room.
While there are many design properties worth reading and discussing about LEDE, one property is the concept of a room within a room to deal with standing waves below Schroeder. The idea is below Schroeder, the waves would pass through the inner shell and based on geometry are reflected and trapped by the outer shell and would not reenter the inner shell.
I spent quite a bit of time in that room and it's bass response off the big JBL'a-fied UREI time aligns was tight and smooth with no external eq. However, the diffraction and HF beaming were awful for a studio monitor.
In most other control rooms, the large format control room monitors were almost always eq'd to EBU 3276 or equiv ITU standards. The idea is for translation, not only during mixing, but also tracking or mastering. So in the middle of a recording session, you pack up your tapes and head off to another studio. Feeding the mix back into another console with your settings, should sound similar over the in house calibrated monitors. And in most cases, it did reasonably well, especially the LEDE rooms had not only the best room to room consistency, but also produced the best mixes and translation.
The big variability is that below Schroeder the room is in control of the low frequency response response, not the loudspeakers. I wrote an article on it.
Because most folks could not afford LEDE studios or equiv, or how to properly deal with room resonances, folks started putting small monitors on the mixing bridge. First is was to mimic a car radio (e.g. Auratones) and then because of the bass issues, near field monitoring was born.
I have used countless "bridge" monitors from NS10 to JBL's to Hifi speakers to you name it. There are many Pro monitors like Genelec and others that are designed for accuracy both in the frequency and time domains. All using the latest design, engineering, manufacturing tools and DSP tech to produce the ideal on and off axis frequency response, smoothest directivity, extended frequency response, all within a tight tolerance. Just like the specs call for in the ITU and EBU standards, but even better.
Most audio engineers I know have their own preferences to which monitoring solution they like. I was (and still am) a JBL fan boy. Some like a more refined sound like a KEF or Tannoy or one of the zillion monitors available today. Heck on Sweetwater there are 209 active monitors from 25 manufacturers.
My viewpoint is not from a loudspeaker designer, but from an audio engineering perspective of whatever loudspeaker will give me the highest quality recordings, the best mixes and best possible translation to the widest possible range of playback systems. The studio industry guidelines calls out speaker specs to be met with respect to frequency response, directivity, distortion, transient response, etc.
Of course, it is all the things we already know, smooth on and off axis frequency response, extended frequency response, low distortion at monitoring level SPL, etc. It is simply really hard to do as we can see in some independent testing of loudspeakers against a modern standard. And this is not taking the room into consideration...
These are specially designed rooms and were ground breaking at the time. The room is designed so that you heard the direct sound of the mic plus early reflections (i.e. coloration) in the studio room "before" you heard the sound of the mixing room.
While there are many design properties worth reading and discussing about LEDE, one property is the concept of a room within a room to deal with standing waves below Schroeder. The idea is below Schroeder, the waves would pass through the inner shell and based on geometry are reflected and trapped by the outer shell and would not reenter the inner shell.
I spent quite a bit of time in that room and it's bass response off the big JBL'a-fied UREI time aligns was tight and smooth with no external eq. However, the diffraction and HF beaming were awful for a studio monitor.
In most other control rooms, the large format control room monitors were almost always eq'd to EBU 3276 or equiv ITU standards. The idea is for translation, not only during mixing, but also tracking or mastering. So in the middle of a recording session, you pack up your tapes and head off to another studio. Feeding the mix back into another console with your settings, should sound similar over the in house calibrated monitors. And in most cases, it did reasonably well, especially the LEDE rooms had not only the best room to room consistency, but also produced the best mixes and translation.
The big variability is that below Schroeder the room is in control of the low frequency response response, not the loudspeakers. I wrote an article on it.
Because most folks could not afford LEDE studios or equiv, or how to properly deal with room resonances, folks started putting small monitors on the mixing bridge. First is was to mimic a car radio (e.g. Auratones) and then because of the bass issues, near field monitoring was born.
I have used countless "bridge" monitors from NS10 to JBL's to Hifi speakers to you name it. There are many Pro monitors like Genelec and others that are designed for accuracy both in the frequency and time domains. All using the latest design, engineering, manufacturing tools and DSP tech to produce the ideal on and off axis frequency response, smoothest directivity, extended frequency response, all within a tight tolerance. Just like the specs call for in the ITU and EBU standards, but even better.
Most audio engineers I know have their own preferences to which monitoring solution they like. I was (and still am) a JBL fan boy. Some like a more refined sound like a KEF or Tannoy or one of the zillion monitors available today. Heck on Sweetwater there are 209 active monitors from 25 manufacturers.
My viewpoint is not from a loudspeaker designer, but from an audio engineering perspective of whatever loudspeaker will give me the highest quality recordings, the best mixes and best possible translation to the widest possible range of playback systems. The studio industry guidelines calls out speaker specs to be met with respect to frequency response, directivity, distortion, transient response, etc.
Of course, it is all the things we already know, smooth on and off axis frequency response, extended frequency response, low distortion at monitoring level SPL, etc. It is simply really hard to do as we can see in some independent testing of loudspeakers against a modern standard. And this is not taking the room into consideration...
Attachments
I find the situation to be a bit less black and white.
It implies preferences and like for all, once it is involved there is nuances.
There is always compromise: i don't like ATC speakers but they are used everywhere. They favor a kind of presentation. I didn't find Kinoshita Rm-4 to be this good but they have been the benchmark in the 80's t ( i liked rm7 though). If i have choice i prefer Tannoy Dmt15mk2. Neither are perfect, all are top notch of what you could buy... those are tools.
I mispelled the name of the acoustician it is Thomas Jouanjean.
Mitchba: it was a Neve? I don't recognize the model ( but flying faders!).
It implies preferences and like for all, once it is involved there is nuances.
There is always compromise: i don't like ATC speakers but they are used everywhere. They favor a kind of presentation. I didn't find Kinoshita Rm-4 to be this good but they have been the benchmark in the 80's t ( i liked rm7 though). If i have choice i prefer Tannoy Dmt15mk2. Neither are perfect, all are top notch of what you could buy... those are tools.
I mispelled the name of the acoustician it is Thomas Jouanjean.
Mitchba: it was a Neve? I don't recognize the model ( but flying faders!).
Last edited:
Thank you for the awesome post Mitchba!
is this where the Dutch and Dutch and Kii come in? Are they actively manipulating room acoustics on a deeper level than FR at listener point?
Last edited:
Seems like you have not really read or understood the conclusions. The results are the same regardless of who is involved in the testing, what changes is how long it takes for them to make their mind up and how easily they can describe what they are hearing. So from a practical perspective "trained listeners" as they are described make the work of the researchers easier they do not change the results.
It appears that in controlled double blind testing most humans with normal hearing converge on the same preferences.
So someone with a keen ear for audio issues would be very useful to have around when designing and testing speakers if a manufacturer is unable to conduct their own double blind tests, the point is they have not been shown to come to different conclusions that ordinary people over time.
Not quite, I am trying to point out that generalising any group of professionals is likely to be problematic due to variation. Trying to rank professionals in order of importance is also futile, everyone has their role to play.
No just trying to point out that much of the science of improved audio is available to anyone no magic required.
Because you think I am being arrogant or because you think I have unsurpassed knowledge and skill? Sorry no I am not.
I see none of that in the rooms you show, I see cosmetic room treatment, a huge reflective surface in front of the speakers I see no ultimate listening environment. Why is that? Because the desk has to be there to work and most are aiming to listen in a room that is somewhat representative of where the work will be heard by consumers. Probably why you see auratones on the desk too.
The movie industry has greater consistency because they have more widespread standards.
Theres nothing new? The Speakers I mentioned above are more of the same? Have we already reached the point of diminishing returns?
I'm on your team lol, but these aren't the top dollar studios so.
- Not at all! I just think you might see better where I'm coming from if you were. I keep reiterating the two disciplines are intertwined. To be good at one is too be good at the other, not literally but still, yes. If you personally would get your feet wet, you will see what I am talking about!
Last edited:
Both are targeting a somewhat cardioid radiation pattern, Dutch and Dutch to be placed closer to the front wall for the rear firing woofers to do their job.
Kii active radiation control through multiple speakers. Additional Bass Array to extend that further.
Trying to work with the natural acoustics of the room rather than fight it.