YouTube
My perspective is based on my feelings, after seeing this video. Loudspeaker design and Mastering go hand in hand. If we take Earl G and lock him in a room with Bob Katz, for a year, though they represent decades of research, both would potentially "master" each others material quickly, because its so closely related.
Mastering has made me a better loudspeaker designer and loudspeaker design has made me a better mastering engineer.
I hope this turns into a discussion about what needs to be done to advance both sides of the fence and how, in 2020. Also mentions of Standout products or Practices.
I named the post as I did because that is the formula, in my mind to move forward....The audience (general public) is less important than is being treated in this video, The audience is "uneducated and incorrect" and we are educated and way more correct. Floyd said it, and I am witnessing, the consumer products move closer to mastering monitors and not visa versa which to me is a slow showing trend of the audiences (general public) audio intelligence increasing causing their expectations to become more like the Mastering engineer. FLoyd shows how they did their double blind test and I see a larger portion of casual listeners than critical listeners ...that can only makes sense because one group has a much bigger pocket book.
I thought.....I thought.....I thought we were moving away from the smiley face voicings and "max bass boost" type systems. The General public will lead you to more non sense if left unchecked....just kick them out of the picture so early in the game. Loudspeaker design, mainly, should be left up to Mastering engineers and Loudspeaker engineers until the later stages, like we have 10 models that we screened out, we'll use the general public to figure out what they like out of what we find acceptable.
So why, why do I say this? Mastering Engineers are the Ultimate Critical Listener! We have the ears! Our job consist of creating the most neutral playback, listening, and adjusting, to create an emotional, dynamic, tonally balanced presentation from scratch. This process is almost identical to the objectives of loudspeaker design but a mastering engineer repeats this process, from scratch, many many times over in a week. How many loudspeakers can a designer create from scratch and go through the hoops to completion in a week? So at the end of the day, Mastering engineers have the experience advantage. If a speaker is perceived well, is a question that should only be answered by mastering engineers since we have the ears. Loudspeaker designers seem to need a group of people, to make decisions. Making these types of decisions are what Mastering engineers do on a daily basis, by their lonesome , and whether they are right or not, is feedback that can be discovered within a short time frame. So not only do we constantly listen and manipulate the signal, several times over, more times in a week, than the loudspeaker designer can be challenged...we are also obsessive with being right, so we are constantly checking our work, within the week, to see if we are "right"......if we are right about our choices voices versus what we hear....we have successful mixes that translate from system to system and successful careers in the field....if the loudspeaker designer is "wrong"....only the mastering engineers and other niches of high critical listening care!!!! How is this possible!? A good production sounds fine on un-perfect speakers! Creating these types of mixes that sound good on every additional system post the studio...cannot be done on consumer level speakers...so not only do Mastering Engineers have the ear training, they have it based on systems that are an attempt at perfection, designed by loudspeaker engineers.
So the advancement of the field of Perfect Speakers should only be pushed forward by the people who are the main consumer of perfect loudspeakers who conveniently happened to be the same people who design the signal in the first place, and thus need perfect speakers regardless of preference, Mastering Engineers....
Go
My perspective is based on my feelings, after seeing this video. Loudspeaker design and Mastering go hand in hand. If we take Earl G and lock him in a room with Bob Katz, for a year, though they represent decades of research, both would potentially "master" each others material quickly, because its so closely related.
Mastering has made me a better loudspeaker designer and loudspeaker design has made me a better mastering engineer.
I hope this turns into a discussion about what needs to be done to advance both sides of the fence and how, in 2020. Also mentions of Standout products or Practices.
I named the post as I did because that is the formula, in my mind to move forward....The audience (general public) is less important than is being treated in this video, The audience is "uneducated and incorrect" and we are educated and way more correct. Floyd said it, and I am witnessing, the consumer products move closer to mastering monitors and not visa versa which to me is a slow showing trend of the audiences (general public) audio intelligence increasing causing their expectations to become more like the Mastering engineer. FLoyd shows how they did their double blind test and I see a larger portion of casual listeners than critical listeners ...that can only makes sense because one group has a much bigger pocket book.
I thought.....I thought.....I thought we were moving away from the smiley face voicings and "max bass boost" type systems. The General public will lead you to more non sense if left unchecked....just kick them out of the picture so early in the game. Loudspeaker design, mainly, should be left up to Mastering engineers and Loudspeaker engineers until the later stages, like we have 10 models that we screened out, we'll use the general public to figure out what they like out of what we find acceptable.
So why, why do I say this? Mastering Engineers are the Ultimate Critical Listener! We have the ears! Our job consist of creating the most neutral playback, listening, and adjusting, to create an emotional, dynamic, tonally balanced presentation from scratch. This process is almost identical to the objectives of loudspeaker design but a mastering engineer repeats this process, from scratch, many many times over in a week. How many loudspeakers can a designer create from scratch and go through the hoops to completion in a week? So at the end of the day, Mastering engineers have the experience advantage. If a speaker is perceived well, is a question that should only be answered by mastering engineers since we have the ears. Loudspeaker designers seem to need a group of people, to make decisions. Making these types of decisions are what Mastering engineers do on a daily basis, by their lonesome , and whether they are right or not, is feedback that can be discovered within a short time frame. So not only do we constantly listen and manipulate the signal, several times over, more times in a week, than the loudspeaker designer can be challenged...we are also obsessive with being right, so we are constantly checking our work, within the week, to see if we are "right"......if we are right about our choices voices versus what we hear....we have successful mixes that translate from system to system and successful careers in the field....if the loudspeaker designer is "wrong"....only the mastering engineers and other niches of high critical listening care!!!! How is this possible!? A good production sounds fine on un-perfect speakers! Creating these types of mixes that sound good on every additional system post the studio...cannot be done on consumer level speakers...so not only do Mastering Engineers have the ear training, they have it based on systems that are an attempt at perfection, designed by loudspeaker engineers.
So the advancement of the field of Perfect Speakers should only be pushed forward by the people who are the main consumer of perfect loudspeakers who conveniently happened to be the same people who design the signal in the first place, and thus need perfect speakers regardless of preference, Mastering Engineers....
Go
A mastering monitor has different requirements than a speaker for normal living room use though.
Mastering speakers can be positioned perfectly, and since the master engineer is always in the sweet spot, you'd like the mastering speakers to have a very narrow beam (low dispersion) so that the engineer hears it perfectly, but not too much sound bounces around in the room.
In casual environments though, people usually prefer speakers with more dispersion so that the high frequencies aren't only there in a specific listening position.
Mastering speakers can be positioned perfectly, and since the master engineer is always in the sweet spot, you'd like the mastering speakers to have a very narrow beam (low dispersion) so that the engineer hears it perfectly, but not too much sound bounces around in the room.
In casual environments though, people usually prefer speakers with more dispersion so that the high frequencies aren't only there in a specific listening position.
I surmise the choice would go towards a straight line at listening position to justify the mixing work of mastering guys in studios. If the mastering folk had straight line head-can and studios speakers as straight . Does it exist ? If yes the simpliest will be to purchase the studios speakers, asking those studios to mix in NOT treated rooms ...
Alas these days, some mix for in-ear headphones for smartphones, others for 2 ways monitors or cars... Hifi guys like us are a collasing species... People nowadays just want purple LPs ... resistance is futile !
Alas these days, some mix for in-ear headphones for smartphones, others for 2 ways monitors or cars... Hifi guys like us are a collasing species... People nowadays just want purple LPs ... resistance is futile !
True, Perfect Speaker is the goal, because it hasn't been reached. Perfect Speaker can also represent "the best we have currently" in application result or theoretical. I take it to the next extreme and view it as an never ending task, perfection is an infinite movement
- I'm not certain Geddes and Floyd agrees....Geddes told me personally of his dislike of my choice of beaming horns. In the Video Floyd describes his belief that reflective energy must be neutral not narrow, to be perceived as neutral at listener position. I can speak more to Geddes since we actually had communication, I think he knows that I intended on creating mastering monitors and was quite fervent that neutral reflective energy was no less important than direct energy. Personally I agree with you until I prove to myself otherwise which is what will happen as I go through the motions with my system. Narrow is not exactly achievable full spectrum btw. Also, FLoyd nor Geddes, have not been responsible for signal design, to the best of my knowledge. If true, that is to their disadvantage. Now if Bob Katz said it, thats another story, actually, wtf does Bob katz have to say on the story?
Last edited:
Also, keep in mind that some people can be very knowledgeable in some areas, and less in others. I have utmost respect for Dr. Toole (I'm happily reading "Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms" at the moment 🙂), but I know a few other smartypants in the industry do not agree with him on everything.
So as usual - learn from as many different people as you can, and when you have conflicting input - go with what feels right for you, or even better - experiment 🙂
So as usual - learn from as many different people as you can, and when you have conflicting input - go with what feels right for you, or even better - experiment 🙂
YES!!!!!! This is why this interaction is needed! I've sent an invite to Bob Katz and other Mastering Engineers to join this discussion, it would be historic to see some of these guys who are genius of these two fields, go at it! If I can be the one to make it happen...I'll tell you my real name lol!
But I'm not interested in your real name!
I'm interested in finishing my new amplifiers and then starting on my new speakers 🙂
Lol! I could careless I just want my name to be in the history as one who caused positive influential change in the community =)
Specialization in one area does not make one an expert in all areas. Over the years, I have met and conversed with many audio greats, Jim Hunter, Roy Delgado, Tom Nousaine, Mark Blanchard, Deon Bearden, Earl Geddes, and a handful of others.
I echo what Pygmy says, learn from as many people as you can. What was previously known may or may not be relevant to today, but the underlying physics are still valid.
Obtaining good measurements is much easier and cheaper today than it has ever been.
One loudspeaker engineer that I met told me it took him 2 weeks to track down a cancellation from a simple front to back cancellation in a large commercial subwoofer cabinet he had designed. I was able to tell him what the frequency was based on the distance with a calculator in a short time.
There is a disconnect between knowledge gained by experience and doing versus the theoretical knowledge based on learning in class and through textbooks. Those that have done both bridge theoretical and practical knowledge.
I echo what Pygmy says, learn from as many people as you can. What was previously known may or may not be relevant to today, but the underlying physics are still valid.
Obtaining good measurements is much easier and cheaper today than it has ever been.
One loudspeaker engineer that I met told me it took him 2 weeks to track down a cancellation from a simple front to back cancellation in a large commercial subwoofer cabinet he had designed. I was able to tell him what the frequency was based on the distance with a calculator in a short time.
There is a disconnect between knowledge gained by experience and doing versus the theoretical knowledge based on learning in class and through textbooks. Those that have done both bridge theoretical and practical knowledge.
Between mastering and loudspeaker engineers there is a special relationship of chicken and egg.
I imagine that the stage I'm trying to set has already been done within focus groups designing their studio products. In DIY world we move uninhibited, instead of lucrative scenarios where making money is the goals, which also requires secrecy.
I imagine that the stage I'm trying to set has already been done within focus groups designing their studio products. In DIY world we move uninhibited, instead of lucrative scenarios where making money is the goals, which also requires secrecy.
If MTM is widely accepted, being very narrow in dispersion on vertical plane seems to not be a problem for perception at listening point....doesn't this prove that wide dispersion on the horizontal plane is more so a concept of audience size, and this idea that it affects perception of the tonal balance is a fallace for window size? Or are we less perceptive of tonal changes on this plane?
Why can we neglect the vertical off axis performance but horizontal off axis is so much more important? If its only a matter of window size, its not important at all, as long as the window is big enough.
An idea that, flat tonal room energy, fuels constant directivity, as desirable, but that (linear room response) isn't achievable with speakers of any type of directivity unless the source of the signal that dominated the room is flat, in combination with room acoustic treatment, specific to individual rooms. I guess constant directivity is a step towards this? increasing room energy increases the need for room treatment, that needs to be noted as the some listeners are only going to go so far to fix the room, only so much fixing can be done sometimes, and with a more room energy, comes more room problems...If room energy begs to be neutral and just to gain 20 more degrees of flat response makes that much of a difference of tonal perception at the sweet spot....I wonder.
If everything above the Schroeder freq was Anechoic.... it would not be perceived as normal... but would it still be a clearer picture of tonal balance of signal, is maybe a better question?
Why can we neglect the vertical off axis performance but horizontal off axis is so much more important? If its only a matter of window size, its not important at all, as long as the window is big enough.
An idea that, flat tonal room energy, fuels constant directivity, as desirable, but that (linear room response) isn't achievable with speakers of any type of directivity unless the source of the signal that dominated the room is flat, in combination with room acoustic treatment, specific to individual rooms. I guess constant directivity is a step towards this? increasing room energy increases the need for room treatment, that needs to be noted as the some listeners are only going to go so far to fix the room, only so much fixing can be done sometimes, and with a more room energy, comes more room problems...If room energy begs to be neutral and just to gain 20 more degrees of flat response makes that much of a difference of tonal perception at the sweet spot....I wonder.
If everything above the Schroeder freq was Anechoic.... it would not be perceived as normal... but would it still be a clearer picture of tonal balance of signal, is maybe a better question?
Last edited:
BTW, this is the speaker that Bob Katz uses (used?, I don't know what he is using now). I owned them for a short period, but I didn't like them because they sound too soft for monitoring. Typical consumer 2K dip and 10k boost as you can see.
Lipinski Sound L-707 loudspeaker Measurements | Stereophile.com
Lipinski Sound L-707 loudspeaker Measurements | Stereophile.com
it seems to me there are many loudspeaker designer that make great sounding loudspeakers without having an engineering background or any real deep knowledge in the field of hearing, acoustics, mechanical or electronics.
it seems you can come a long way with a good pair of ears and some sound ideas
it seems you can come a long way with a good pair of ears and some sound ideas
i think that speakers measures very flat, look at fig. 9
the lack of tweeter dispersion seen in fig. 5 may be the resons why it sounded soft, i would guess it will sound dull and lifeless unless sitting in the nearfiled
I cant argue that, first thing comes to my mind is the difference between a great sounding speaker and a truthful speaker and whether or not that means the same thing to you....because the truthful speaker is more desirable for mastering, and a great sounding speaker, that lies, is good for my party. For me the truthful speaker is the only great sounding speaker.
Last edited:
Used.. now he is on Revel salon iirc.
Camplo B Katz a genius? Hmmm.
He is certainly a very very good engineer, a great populizer and explainer ( this can be discussed though) and probably a genius in the way he can sell himself ( to the world of audio but not only... the brands that use his name and which change very regularly).
Iow he is very great at placing himself at the apex of the chain (of industry) of our capitalist world. In that he his very probably a genius.
Mtm are used in studio because once you are seated at the desk you don't really listen outside of the window they create on the height axis, and garantee you an homogeneous reproduction on the horizontal axis where this is of importance on a 60/72chanel SSL or Ams/Neve ( try to eq the kick -usually on chanel one- with a pair of nearfield or very directive loudspeakers ( or other loudspeaker with weird behavior off axis): those desk are in the 4/5meters width...).
They also help with acoustic treatment (of ceiling).
Last edited: