Isn't that how the public is supposed to use REW?
Take flat speakers, create flat room and then add your preferred EQ.
sorry this is likely the result of one too many scotch's today but assuming it will be used correctly is likely false...mankind will never misuse nuclear power! or "if we give 'em guns they won't shoot themselves in the foot,will they?"
Not a mastering engineer but have done enough mixing. The impossible job is to make it sound good on everything. Many engineers change studios with different projects so engineers listen to there mixes on a few different speakers. From very large to typical home speakers (NS-10s where almost standard back in the day) to a mono $30 3" speaker. Then maybe out to the car, earbuds for sure these days. The magic piece of gear is the brain. You usually start in a new room by listening to very familiar music to hear the signature of the speakers/room. This gives you a reference point.
I can't say supposed too....but I feel like this is a very good approach. The difference is between making it sound good to you, versus millions....we all are human so general things apply, yet...The best Mastering engineers stand out from the rest. As Floyde said, "whos wrong?" the room? the speaker? the mastering engineer? Everyones situation may vary.
Last edited:
how? thus far it only exists in very few places in the world so where does that leave the unwashed masses?
i feel it should be more of a thing but that does little to turn it into reality.
i understand the construct of feeling like you could release a better brand of magic if only you had a better wand!
i understand the construct of feeling like you could release a better brand of magic if only you had a better wand!
No, I didnt subtlely tell you to jump off a cliff. The cliff part came from a teenage experience, when my father hired me to re-shingle the roof on his house. I chucked my speakers up at the edge of the low sloping part over the back porch...
I was stunned and remember thinking "so this is how the recording is actually supposed to sound". No walls, back wall, ceiling just a shingle paved floor extending in front of the speakers. They sounded holographic, vs what they were doing in my teenage bedroom.
I just wonder if anyone's tried it - make it sound good in completely free-space, outdoor conditions, versus as neutral_an_enclosed_room_as_you_can_possibly_make_one_be.
Impractical, certainly - but maybe worth a try.
I was stunned and remember thinking "so this is how the recording is actually supposed to sound". No walls, back wall, ceiling just a shingle paved floor extending in front of the speakers. They sounded holographic, vs what they were doing in my teenage bedroom.
I just wonder if anyone's tried it - make it sound good in completely free-space, outdoor conditions, versus as neutral_an_enclosed_room_as_you_can_possibly_make_one_be.
Impractical, certainly - but maybe worth a try.
Last edited:
AMEN !!! All my truly critical listening, and deepest enjoyment, occurs when I set up outdoors.
It soooooooooooo blows away anything i can achieve indoors, it makes room tuning laughable. And I've done alot of good faith room tuning, down to specifically designing rooms and treating them just for sound...
No! Neutral monitoring hasn't fixed anything permanently because the result is dependent on the final output stage.
Neutral monitoring gives a neutral mix for *the mastering engineer*, it doesn't fix the speakers or listening situation of the actual output.
It can't, because some people listen on earbuds, some people listen in a car, some people listen in a treated room with 30k speakers.
Let's take it step by step, okay?
The single most important thing is the actual audio we want to reproduce.
This used to be a band, and nowadays it can also be a completely digitally created signal.
In the case of recording a live (acoustic) performance, it's already complex.
Are we talking about a recording of a live band using a single microphone?
Are we talking about a multi-mic setup - a mic for the drums, one for the guitar, one for the vocalist?
Or are we talking about a multi-track recording, where the drums and guitars and vocals are recorded separately and mixed together later?
Completely different situations.
Then, for all these situations - a very important t factor is the microphone being used, because the mic has it's own frequency response.
Imagine using different mics for each instrument...
Still following?
Now, we have an either pure or mixed input, but it's already affected by the mic(s) being used.
In the case of electronic production its simpler, we're only working with the direct DAW output.
Okay, so we have out "original" audio source that we want to reproduce (which in the acoustic case already might be a mix of different tracks and mix types)...
That "original input" needs to be conveyed using speakers.
To do that faithfully, we need completely transparent speakers.
The speakers need to reproduce that input signal without adding or subtracting anything.
Because for the mixing engineer / mastering engineer to be able to do his work correctly, he needs to work on the purest signal possible.
So - the mixing / mastering engineer needs a faithful input signal, and speakers that will convey that exact input signal as presented to them.
This means - a completely flat frequency response; what goes in comes out exactly the same.
Right?
Ergo, the *mastering* speakers need to measure completely flat.
But these ideal speakers are put into a room, and that room adds it's own reflections to the sound.
So we need to treat that room to counter that - add bass traps, add diffusion panels, etc. - so the mastering engineer still hears a flat response, without those reflections.
If we do that correctly, the mastering engineer now (finally 🙂) actually hears the input signal through a setup that conveys flat frequency response - nothing is boosted, no frequencies are cut.
Once we have achieved that, the mastering engineer hears the input signal hopefully as faithfully as possible to the original input signal.
Now the mastering engineer hears the best, faithful original signal he can get in his room,
He can start making adjustments needed for the final recording.
The mastering engineer can then listen to that signal on earbuds, in a car, or on shitty speakers, and decide what to boost or cut where - resulting in output that might sound better in these specific situations, but will absolutely sound worse when listened to in a perfect room with perfect speakers like was the case for the mastering engineer himself.
Or the mastering engineer can decide to master the signal to sound best in his/her own perfect setup, resulting in perfect reproduction for people with a setup just like that, but probably less than ideal quality for people listening on earbuds or in a car or at home with nice speakers that are positioned in the wrong place.
Whatever the intended final mix is aimed at- radio, earbuds,a perfect listening room....
It's of utmost importance that the original audio is kept transparent throughout the whole audio chain up to where it meets the mastering engineers ears.
So no, the mastering engineer should not have a say in the speaker design.
The speakers should be designed transparent by speaker designers to get anechoic flat response,
The room should be treated by professionals who measure and adjust to keep the flat response,
And THEN the mastering engineer gets a true, faithful signal to work with...
And THAT is where the mastering engineer gets to say "now we need a boost here" or "I'll do a cut there".
The mastering engineer can only be a master at engineering once the speaker builders have done their job right, and once the room treatment people have done their job right.
That's the proper order in which to do things, and all professional studio builders know that.
Not all speaker builders know that, and certainly not all mastering engineers know that.
Last edited:
Unfortunately, this isn't going to happen.
-we can get an averaged "flat" response under anechoic conditions. But even then, it's averaged.
Moreover, what is the dispersion pattern like? Is it to completely "flat" at all angles?
To "echo" jjasniew's post on listening out-doors: ever hear the difference with different dispersion pattern loudspeakers at different distances from the loudspeakers?
It too is enlightening.
Last edited:
indeed, outdoor removes all acoustic problems.
but ive achieved a very deecnt measuring room with room treatment. went from meh to wow
I was attending an AES meeting that took place at PSI where two different active bass traps were introduced. One of them was a prototype of the PSI one. I can confirm that they are very effective. I guess the reason for the high price of PSI's variant is due to a part that needs a big effort to manufacture: An aluminum screen that is acting as a flow resistance, whose laser-cut mesh is so fine that you wouldn't even recognise it as such from a first glance.
And yes, there is some DSP involved as well.
Regards
Charles
Off topic:
Ahah! Fair enough! But debatable ( 😉 ): most of the painters worked as team with assistants, junior, senior and the Master.
The works was divided in a chain supervised by the Master. Usually the team was in charge of the background and then the Master took the lead to finish the paint.
In case of Da Vinci it was probably a bit different though, and in 'la joconde' in particularly ( the effect of strange blur or fog the painting exibit is the result of a zillion 'points' of paint... i found this fascinating.
Iow the Master 'mastered' his work.
I should have used Jeromious Bosch as an example it would had been much more true ( there is a lot of debate among expert about many painting which are attributed to him as in some cases there is evident some came from his workshop but doesn't show an hint he was involved in them...
However i'm not far from Camplo and sometimes a bit of exageration make the point defended appear to have great contrast. 😀
Charles,
Thank you for further informations on the PSI bass traps. The brand is very good, i liked their 'big 3 way' a lot ( i'm biased i listen to something like that for a long time and theirs doesn't exhibit the cons of mine but still had the same strength).
Nice there is brands to follow on Studer legacy of quality from Switzerland.
Back to bass trap, there is interesting things at the moment regarding the technology: this one seems to be interesting and they probably follow a common principle with PSI ones but done differently: carbon to increase resistance ( same materials used in water filters):
ACDA-12 Activated Carbon Diaphragmatic Absorber
Ahah! Fair enough! But debatable ( 😉 ): most of the painters worked as team with assistants, junior, senior and the Master.
The works was divided in a chain supervised by the Master. Usually the team was in charge of the background and then the Master took the lead to finish the paint.
In case of Da Vinci it was probably a bit different though, and in 'la joconde' in particularly ( the effect of strange blur or fog the painting exibit is the result of a zillion 'points' of paint... i found this fascinating.
Iow the Master 'mastered' his work.
I should have used Jeromious Bosch as an example it would had been much more true ( there is a lot of debate among expert about many painting which are attributed to him as in some cases there is evident some came from his workshop but doesn't show an hint he was involved in them...
However i'm not far from Camplo and sometimes a bit of exageration make the point defended appear to have great contrast. 😀
Charles,
Thank you for further informations on the PSI bass traps. The brand is very good, i liked their 'big 3 way' a lot ( i'm biased i listen to something like that for a long time and theirs doesn't exhibit the cons of mine but still had the same strength).
Nice there is brands to follow on Studer legacy of quality from Switzerland.
Back to bass trap, there is interesting things at the moment regarding the technology: this one seems to be interesting and they probably follow a common principle with PSI ones but done differently: carbon to increase resistance ( same materials used in water filters):
ACDA-12 Activated Carbon Diaphragmatic Absorber
_ A skill I learned long ago.
The reflected energy tone needs to be as flat as possible and they are suggesting that spectral decay should be as even as possible, as well,. This is literally the real formula for anyone for sound quality, yet I find myself arguing about vent resonance....crazy.
If a person decided to do all 3 whos going to stop them? A person who can do all 3 will have insight that 3 separate people cannot achieve separated from each other. You will not defeat this concept.
Are you denying that learning loudspeaker design did not make you a better mastering engineer?
The last epiphany I had was that a room is just a fricken big bass speaker enclosure. I've been studying box attributes by studying transmission line design....the fricken room can be a damn transmission line. An enlongated room with "acoustic treatment"...thats just fine tuned dampening material....Now I'm trying to figure out who building rooms like a folding transmission line lol. Its all connected.
Room within a room...a speaker enclosure within another enclosure....But the loudspeaker designer has nothing in common with the studio room builder, nothing to add, nothing to advise. Riiight
Last edited:
There is no “master engineer” that would deny that knowledge of speaker designs and their limitations, room design and acoustical treatment are all useful in making one “better” at their job.
That said, a “Jack of all trades” often is a master of none.
Around the year you were born, at the 1983 Minnesota Music Awards Prince won first place in 5 separate categories, and I received a “Technical Achievement Award” primarily for speaker design work. You can see Prince humping my 1981 era speakers in the movie Purple Rain, released in 1984.
Having worked, communicated and learned from hundreds of engineers with major achievements in recording, room and speaker design increased my knowledge base.
Even reading this thread has increased my knowledge base- I’ve learned bass traps are now available that are slightly more effective for their size for a far greater cost than technology available 50 years ago
. A good mastering engineer will choose the right tools for the job, and not try to reinvent the wheel. If you decide to use tools you build yourself, it won’t bother engineers that have already sorted out what you haven’t learned 🙂.
Your implications that there is some bit of information or insight to speaker design that mastering engineers know, yet has been hidden, not communicated or ignored by speaker designers does bother me, as it is simply not true.
Also not true that “one group decided they didn't need the other”, loudspeaker designer companies still use master engineers to pimp their products ;^).
Art