I have been listening to my favorite music on different 'systems': Bluetooth speakers, a vintage receiver and speakers, car stereo, and in the past the lowly TEA 2025 amp, the PAM 8403, and my very own TIP41A amplifier. The enjoyment of music has very little to do with the price and complexity of the equipment used. In fact, I am very disappointed in my car stereo: the speakers must be decaying where they are in the door panels, and the Bluetooth speakers reproduce the music very well, with the vocals clear and smooth.
If I, or anyone for that matter can enjoy music through very basic equipment, then did the artist and the recording engineer intend it that way? A brief look at a recording studio control room will show that a wide variety of speakers are used, from the studio monitors to bookshelf and sub micro speakers. Maybe they did, and there is an article that talks specifically about playing your mix through PC speakers. Your valuable mix.
As an alternative to reproducing the 'live' music of the recording studio we can experience the music production as the artist intended by listening on many different systems, I think.
Recording Studio picture ( I am sure many members are familiar with the real thing in detail )
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/AugustRecordingSonJarochoWikiLearning020.jpg
Thelmadatter, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons
I started a similar thread earlier, however I do not think this particular line of thought was discussed. ( I read through the entire thread yesterday)
Music Reproduction Systems - what are we trying to achieve?
If I, or anyone for that matter can enjoy music through very basic equipment, then did the artist and the recording engineer intend it that way? A brief look at a recording studio control room will show that a wide variety of speakers are used, from the studio monitors to bookshelf and sub micro speakers. Maybe they did, and there is an article that talks specifically about playing your mix through PC speakers. Your valuable mix.
As an alternative to reproducing the 'live' music of the recording studio we can experience the music production as the artist intended by listening on many different systems, I think.
Recording Studio picture ( I am sure many members are familiar with the real thing in detail )
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/AugustRecordingSonJarochoWikiLearning020.jpg
Thelmadatter, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons
I started a similar thread earlier, however I do not think this particular line of thought was discussed. ( I read through the entire thread yesterday)
Music Reproduction Systems - what are we trying to achieve?
Last edited:
Well of course they did. The recording studio masters the content to sound good through good systems, but all the studios also have smaller bookshelf speakers to make sure it also sounds OK on something closer to a home stereo. How many zillions of NS10Ms did Yamaha sell? And plenty of commercial studios will also have a pair of crappy 8 inch speakers to hear what their mix sounds like through the cheap radio speakers that are all over.
This article elaborates the view - one view - on music reproduction.
Musical value and its reproduction | Inner Magazines
To quote:
(My emphasis). So what we are looking at here,or hearing, are different experiences of the same effect. For smaller speakers, I liken it to Picasso on a postage stamp, one can still experience and even enjoy the aspects of the painting in a small, non-hi-fidelity version of the painting.
I arrived at this state of mind after listening to different systems and ending up with a Bluetooth speaker. My question was, did the recording engineer and artist ever envision this? This was new information to me, they did, and they actually test their mixes out on lower systems. From personal experience I can say that some of these music generation apps do generate music but they sound very different when played over laptop speakers as opposed to the earphones that they were created using. The task is to mix for all systems.
This article actually recommends it.
Musical value and its reproduction | Inner Magazines
To quote:
(My emphasis). So what we are looking at here,or hearing, are different experiences of the same effect. For smaller speakers, I liken it to Picasso on a postage stamp, one can still experience and even enjoy the aspects of the painting in a small, non-hi-fidelity version of the painting.
I arrived at this state of mind after listening to different systems and ending up with a Bluetooth speaker. My question was, did the recording engineer and artist ever envision this? This was new information to me, they did, and they actually test their mixes out on lower systems. From personal experience I can say that some of these music generation apps do generate music but they sound very different when played over laptop speakers as opposed to the earphones that they were created using. The task is to mix for all systems.
This article actually recommends it.
Auratones are still valued. Someone has copycat plans (because the originals were beat to death decades ago).
Ah, there are "new Auratones" but the ones from the 70s are the good ones. They say.
Ah, there are "new Auratones" but the ones from the 70s are the good ones. They say.
Last edited:
It's Tragedy
In a way, I think that is tragic. To quote the article:
Laptop? Have you heard a good laptop recently? Their phone????
The article quotes another article:
All devices really produce the mid-range in an acceptable form. Sometimes I mistake my flat screen TV in another room for real voices, for a few seconds. Apart from the emotion and fine detail, voices come across pretty well and listenable.
Again, quite unfortunate. To be sure the older "radiograms" and tube systems had quite decent large speakers and decent sound.
When the miniaturized the gain device, the transistor, they miniaturized the speaker as well and diminished everything. I have personally experienced the sound from a small transistor radio output to a large speaker and the sound range is much much better than the smaller speakers will allow. One exception are the PC speakers with sub woofers, which produce good low end frequencies, again, these could easily be incorporated into bigger wooden enclosures with a small increase in price. As I recall there are a few on the market.
Whats left really is a postage stamp of a painting with the top and bottom cut off.
Aside from mandating a minimum standard for speaker quality, mandating the manufacturer to display a frequency response curve on the speaker somewhere might encourage consumer audio to improve the quality of their plasticity offerings. There is hope, however, the newer, brand name portable speakers are very impressive, but then again the switch is back to mono sound.
For most of recorded history we had live, unrecorded, high quality acoustic music only. We have come this far to make all music smaller and weaker.
Radiogram image: Musik- och teatermuseet, CC BY-SA 3.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0>, via Wikimedia Commons
In a way, I think that is tragic. To quote the article:
Laptop? Have you heard a good laptop recently? Their phone????
The article quotes another article:
All devices really produce the mid-range in an acceptable form. Sometimes I mistake my flat screen TV in another room for real voices, for a few seconds. Apart from the emotion and fine detail, voices come across pretty well and listenable.
Again, quite unfortunate. To be sure the older "radiograms" and tube systems had quite decent large speakers and decent sound.
When the miniaturized the gain device, the transistor, they miniaturized the speaker as well and diminished everything. I have personally experienced the sound from a small transistor radio output to a large speaker and the sound range is much much better than the smaller speakers will allow. One exception are the PC speakers with sub woofers, which produce good low end frequencies, again, these could easily be incorporated into bigger wooden enclosures with a small increase in price. As I recall there are a few on the market.
Whats left really is a postage stamp of a painting with the top and bottom cut off.
Aside from mandating a minimum standard for speaker quality, mandating the manufacturer to display a frequency response curve on the speaker somewhere might encourage consumer audio to improve the quality of their plasticity offerings. There is hope, however, the newer, brand name portable speakers are very impressive, but then again the switch is back to mono sound.
For most of recorded history we had live, unrecorded, high quality acoustic music only. We have come this far to make all music smaller and weaker.
Radiogram image: Musik- och teatermuseet, CC BY-SA 3.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0>, via Wikimedia Commons
Attachments
Last edited:
Between autotune, a tendency to compress everything and a general lack of sonic exploration ( at least in ‘ mainstream commercial music’) the idea of what sounds good can be misleading.
Now this discussion can go many ways but starting with autotune as influencing our sonic reference.
See David Bowie vs. Auto Tune - Can you auto tune such artistry? - YouTube
And Fixing Led Zeppelin with Autotune - YouTube
If all we are saying is my sound system can reproduce more or less exactly what is feed, well that again may be true.
If some future technology appears that radically changes the why we hear recorded music ( whether via our ears or neural implant), then current claims of fidelity are relative.
And while I don’t know for a fact it is likely that the Bluetooth speaker is at least impart designed to play back current music well.
Now this discussion can go many ways but starting with autotune as influencing our sonic reference.
See David Bowie vs. Auto Tune - Can you auto tune such artistry? - YouTube
And Fixing Led Zeppelin with Autotune - YouTube
If all we are saying is my sound system can reproduce more or less exactly what is feed, well that again may be true.
If some future technology appears that radically changes the why we hear recorded music ( whether via our ears or neural implant), then current claims of fidelity are relative.
And while I don’t know for a fact it is likely that the Bluetooth speaker is at least impart designed to play back current music well.
Compression has been used for a long time.
Including tube compression, tube soft and hard limiting.
Even without compression, you could get away with saturating the master tapes.
Big peaks didnt have to be limited as much.
With digital the big peaks will crackle and distort.
You cant get away with big dynamics and just let the tape saturate.
Software based limiters and compression is rather advanced and much cleaner
than some older rack units that some swear by.
Having worked with older tape machines then 24 bit then 32 bit float then 64 bit.
Its rather amazing what you can do now. Which would have required thousands and thousands of dollars of hardware back in the day.
There is more than one Genre of music, pop music has always focused on vocals.
60 years ago synthesizers and electric pianos were the new technologies that " ruined"
music. And countless artist have since then proved them all wrong.
Heck the fretted electric Bass was the devil at one time. And those darn disgusting
Jazz guys used their fingers to play the double bass. Horrible....
Including tube compression, tube soft and hard limiting.
Even without compression, you could get away with saturating the master tapes.
Big peaks didnt have to be limited as much.
With digital the big peaks will crackle and distort.
You cant get away with big dynamics and just let the tape saturate.
Software based limiters and compression is rather advanced and much cleaner
than some older rack units that some swear by.
Having worked with older tape machines then 24 bit then 32 bit float then 64 bit.
Its rather amazing what you can do now. Which would have required thousands and thousands of dollars of hardware back in the day.
There is more than one Genre of music, pop music has always focused on vocals.
60 years ago synthesizers and electric pianos were the new technologies that " ruined"
music. And countless artist have since then proved them all wrong.
Heck the fretted electric Bass was the devil at one time. And those darn disgusting
Jazz guys used their fingers to play the double bass. Horrible....
Yes, what we think sounds good has been influenced but the tech back in the old days and now.
Not saying either is better, just saying it’s worth knowing what factors are influencing our personal perceptions.
The way compression is used, to what extent and with what technology makes a difference.
Same goes for Negative Feedback….. and a raft of other factors that go largely ‘unnoticed’ by the listener.
Think of the modernist art that evolved from a focus on the brush strokes, rather than the subject of image.
Eventually this lead to abstract art.
Good or bad whatever your view, I’m not sure there is a ‘mainstream’ equivalent in sound reproduction ( rather than music creation).
Not saying either is better, just saying it’s worth knowing what factors are influencing our personal perceptions.
The way compression is used, to what extent and with what technology makes a difference.
Same goes for Negative Feedback….. and a raft of other factors that go largely ‘unnoticed’ by the listener.
Think of the modernist art that evolved from a focus on the brush strokes, rather than the subject of image.
Eventually this lead to abstract art.
Good or bad whatever your view, I’m not sure there is a ‘mainstream’ equivalent in sound reproduction ( rather than music creation).
JS Bach got reprimands for "making many curious variations in the chorale, and mingling many strange tones in it..." I'm sure he was not the first.
Limiting goes far before 'tape'. RCA's optic film-sound heads would 'clang' if driven to 101%, the ribbons actually hit. RCA was avoiding WE's patents on a different scheme which overloaded a little more gracefully. RCA had to develop not only limiting but instant response neon-lamp level meters.
Of course acoustic cutting was heavily level controlled, by moving players around the studio, using horns on violins, coaching soloists to lean in and lean out.
Funny you should mention: there is an article in CNET about the future music:
What will recorded music sound like in 2050? - CNET
Reality? Which reality are we talking about?
Once again, missing the point on which version of the recording will be the final recording issued by the artist/record label? Or will music be (God forbid) DIY with the end user choosing from not only the equipment emulated but the voices and instruments supplied by the record label - mix your own?
Again, it is what the artist intended, or more correctly, the acoustic permutations (room effects etc) that the artist has allowed or enabled, that is what is important here.
Re-creating the studio environment live, even for acoustic say guitar + vocal songs, seems to be a moot point. To put it another way, if James Taylor sang and played guitar in my living room would I want to record that and DSP the recording so that we revert to what he would sound like in the studio?
How about a "studio-true" system offered with the actual monitors and comparable electronics certified to sound exactly like the studio recording - with the open reel tapes - or digital thrown in?
So maybe this future 2040+ will have some value we yet don’t recognise.
The way the internet has changed and also the accuracy of the information it provides.
Yes why not have James Taylor in your lounge room or any virtual studio setting you like.
Would a 90s rave in the Forrest be valid as a virtual experience…. I don’t know.
I have a focusrite VRM box, a usb head phone amp that has virtual room and speaker modelling. It’s meant to assist in listing to your mix in different setups.
While I don’t know if it is accurate, realistic or otherwise for the monitors / speakers it models, it does make listening to mp3s at work much more enjoyable even if it does mess with instrument positioning the mix.
The way the internet has changed and also the accuracy of the information it provides.
Yes why not have James Taylor in your lounge room or any virtual studio setting you like.
Would a 90s rave in the Forrest be valid as a virtual experience…. I don’t know.
I have a focusrite VRM box, a usb head phone amp that has virtual room and speaker modelling. It’s meant to assist in listing to your mix in different setups.
While I don’t know if it is accurate, realistic or otherwise for the monitors / speakers it models, it does make listening to mp3s at work much more enjoyable even if it does mess with instrument positioning the mix.
So the technology exists! Well that sounds very interesting,
So it models various speakers: nice.
Focusrite VRM Box | Sound On Sound
To continue quoting: (Very very interesting)
Last edited:
Watching this video: the true to life studio vocals are not what we want here:
singers recording in studio VS. final album version - YouTube
So in this case the reality resides on the digital bits and pieces on the studio storage devices. The artist basically OKs the stuff coming out from any range of speakers as long as the mix is alright.
singers recording in studio VS. final album version - YouTube
So in this case the reality resides on the digital bits and pieces on the studio storage devices. The artist basically OKs the stuff coming out from any range of speakers as long as the mix is alright.
Maybe we do want the true to life vocals….. so people can stop listening to it or overrating the singer ;-)
How do the artists react?
It would be interesting to know what was the reaction of the recording artists was to the mix after they heard it from different speakers, especially small one and BT speakers? Were they OK with it? Were they frustrated?
BTW there is a typo in the title.
Music artists (and sound engineers) intend for their music for YOUR speakers.
Music artists (and sound engineers) intend their music for YOUR speakers.
It would be interesting to know what was the reaction of the recording artists was to the mix after they heard it from different speakers, especially small one and BT speakers? Were they OK with it? Were they frustrated?
BTW there is a typo in the title.
Music artists (and sound engineers) intend for their music for YOUR speakers.
Music artists (and sound engineers) intend their music for YOUR speakers.