Follow the links in post 120 and the references in this post: NORMS AND STANDARDS FOR DISCOURSE ON ASR | Page 19 | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum
No, I have been trying to solve the mystery of the circle of confusion here. There is no confusion. I wish you can understand the dilemma that today's mastering engineers have. They have to follow the standard whatever it is, 44.1K, MP3, loudness war, etc. Recessed high mid is just one of them.
Let me simplify it for mastering engineers - do it as it should be done, on accurate mixing and mastering monitors. Then apply what ever shitty demand any prick ask for - to be able to sound good on JBL pill etc. Make both versions available: good and shitty. Call it lowQ and
highQ or whatever. Hell, even charge a bit more for the right one. If i like the music, i'll pay.
Last edited:
Zvu assumes there is a Platonic "correct" sound out there. No such thing can be defined (even following a kunstkopf logic, not even with matched headphones). It is all cooked, right from the moment the engineer decides how close to the guitar the mic will be stationed.
There is no stopping the circle of confusion. My chair and the studio can not be feasibly correlated... assuming my chair is not in a studio*. But I can set up my system to sound pretty good to me on the typical studio recording, varying with the music genre so I don't have to put my fingers in my ears when Diana Krall does sibilants.
B.
* to say nothing of the personal hearing losses likely in many recording engineers and in members of this forum too; recordings should be documented, "It is certified that the recording engineer had their hearing tested within the past 12 months"
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.