I wonder if you recording/mixing/mastering experts could comment on what is different when recording orchestral music, such as for movie soundtracks and classical music. Different equipment, different microphone strategies, etc...?
Hi Jim, i hope your fine.
Well i do not see myself as an expert and especially not in the field you talk about. But... as i've been part of some session i can tell you what i've seen from people seen as experts in this field in my country.
I have done some classical recording too for short movie so can explain how i did it and why.
But it's way off topic in there.
Maybe start a thread if you want the discussion to be public or contact me by pm if interested in private communication both are fine to me.
I just ended my 10 days rotation at work and it's 6 am so i'm much to tired to start atm. After some hours of sleeps it will be fine. 😉
Well i do not see myself as an expert and especially not in the field you talk about. But... as i've been part of some session i can tell you what i've seen from people seen as experts in this field in my country.
I have done some classical recording too for short movie so can explain how i did it and why.
But it's way off topic in there.
Maybe start a thread if you want the discussion to be public or contact me by pm if interested in private communication both are fine to me.
I just ended my 10 days rotation at work and it's 6 am so i'm much to tired to start atm. After some hours of sleeps it will be fine. 😉
He discusses Directivity Index, low distortion, physical movement of the speaker, phase coherence, and other items that define a speakers performance. None of it seems like snake oil and unicorn dust.
What is it that he says that makes you think he “doesn’t have a clue”?
I should have specified. The 60 degree vertical dispersion claim in the website I was referring to for his NF-3 speakers
For what it's worth, the OP hasn't logged in in almost a year, since last posting here last July. This is the only thread he has posted in.
I recall threads in which a poster wants to make commercial speakers, but isn't aware of the background and knowledge it takes. I only know partly from having read threads like this, and having read Loudspeaker Design Cookbook, High Performance Loudspeakers, and several other "minor" books such as Weems'. I just got Testing Loudspeakers and am reading through it. I'm trying to decide if I want really want to do this "for fun" in retirement. I made a couple pair decades ago, then got some JBL Decade 10s cheap, had the woofers refoamed, and was shocked at how bad my speakers were.
If its for enjoyment of music that is a different matter, but the OP wanted top end studio monitors that have a professional role to fulfill.
I’m not in the mood spending another 10 minutes on it, sorry. He obviously has quite a few believers and I’m not that stupid that I want to convince them. But anyone at home in speaker engineering could tell.
Main issue is the man tells a lot, but doesn’t show. No single measurement. I can tell you a lot, would you believe me?
I must tell i gave up around 10 mn when he started to talk about time alignement and group delay... after the no 'masses' mobile part into woofer for 'revolutionary whole new experience' i got fed up.
Like Markbakk, lots of blabla ego satisfying and no proof of concept, mention of 'inventors' of principle or search, no data to backup and typical guru brain manipulation techniques ( bias people by telling them what to hear/listen and then 'it's up to you to know if it's worth or not', reference to one 'pro facility' using gear without knowing if it is endorsement or not)... iow what is known as 'infomercial'.
I've been exposed to such thing in the past and... no thank you. This presentation was done in an audio engineering school, with an audience of future possible customers. I've been part of that as audience and organisator in same kind of school, and i know what is at play backstage.
I don't doubt the guy know what he talks about but there is way too much smoke curtains in the way he depict his work.
If he does the same at an AES convention then ok. But he'll have to give proof and forget about the ego driven part ( name search and study on which he based his conclusion, etc,etc,...).
There is no denying from my part it's difficult for people behind a brand to discuss publicly their work: there is always a smart .ss trying to ambush you, some 'secrets' to hide,...
But if you want to be taken seriously ( which should be the case when talking to users of tools in professional context) then it have to be accurate and honest in the presentation.
I've been critical about Genelec's white papers about 'one' serie introduction in the past but at least you had references to study and a way to criticise the work done.
Like Markbakk, lots of blabla ego satisfying and no proof of concept, mention of 'inventors' of principle or search, no data to backup and typical guru brain manipulation techniques ( bias people by telling them what to hear/listen and then 'it's up to you to know if it's worth or not', reference to one 'pro facility' using gear without knowing if it is endorsement or not)... iow what is known as 'infomercial'.
I've been exposed to such thing in the past and... no thank you. This presentation was done in an audio engineering school, with an audience of future possible customers. I've been part of that as audience and organisator in same kind of school, and i know what is at play backstage.
I don't doubt the guy know what he talks about but there is way too much smoke curtains in the way he depict his work.
If he does the same at an AES convention then ok. But he'll have to give proof and forget about the ego driven part ( name search and study on which he based his conclusion, etc,etc,...).
There is no denying from my part it's difficult for people behind a brand to discuss publicly their work: there is always a smart .ss trying to ambush you, some 'secrets' to hide,...
But if you want to be taken seriously ( which should be the case when talking to users of tools in professional context) then it have to be accurate and honest in the presentation.
I've been critical about Genelec's white papers about 'one' serie introduction in the past but at least you had references to study and a way to criticise the work done.
Last edited:
Yes a white paper would be better in my view too. Not even a scientific publication, just a white paper!
But i fear: we have a background on scientific approach and as such... can be seen as old school!
So boring to not have instant access to knowledge and no image moving... 🙁
But i fear: we have a background on scientific approach and as such... can be seen as old school!
So boring to not have instant access to knowledge and no image moving... 🙁
I agree, absolutely. That’s the issue I have. No measurements but a lot of references to them.