I spent a lot of time as a newbie with stereo wasting my money in cables and components. The biggest improvement I succeed were : my stands, playing with speaker placement and adding a sub. Those are essential. But it takes a lot of commitment. I was easily persuaded to buy a 170 euro power cable but move some furniture to have the best speakers placement took me 1 year. it was the best sound improvement I ever had and Free.
Years ago (mid 80s) when I lived in a small apartment I had just some ordinary sound equipment that I didn't play loudly. I had a new inexpensive Sony CD changer that could load up to six CDs. I had just joined a CD club that I think was called BMG. If I bought one I could get four or five free, or something like that if I joined. I listened to four CDs by various artists then it started to play the 5th. This was a CD by Stan Getz that included Joao Gilberto & wife Astrud, and composer Carlos Jobim. I didn't have a lot of jazz then so I thought I would add a few since it was free anyway. The CD was from a box set called (I think) "The Bossa Nova Years." The CD of course included the very famous track "Girl From Ipanema," but it also included a live Carnegie Hall remake version of the same track. When I heard this track, it was WOW! I thought Astrud was in the SAME room as me! I could feel her breath! Never heard so much clarity and presence in my humble equipment. This recording made my CHEAP equipment sound so real and alive. From that day on as far as I was concerned (I'm non technical) it was 90% about the recording and a lot less than I would have thought about the equipment. Get the recording right, and you're almost home. It seems the most expensive equipment except for adding more dynamics at louder levels is more about cleaning up poor recording techniques. That's what the above recording told me. I remember looking up the sound engineer, assuming he was behind the magic and gave this dude a big bravo. I stored my CDs away years ago so I don't know his name right away. I would imagine that if I heard this version in 5.1 I would probably have to buy a ticket to get in! Even the very lossy mp3 at 192 Kbps sounded impressive under the circumstances. Again, it's all about GETTING THE RECORDING RIGHT in the first place as far as I'm concerned. That's my $2 worth!
Yep some sound engineers are true masters at their jobs. This is why a lot of people have a set of tracks they use to set up or test a system. And can find lots of suggestions of what tracks to listen to. I tend to use a lot of Tori Amos and Diana Krall to test and set up because most of it is well done. And other stuff to test low bass and what not. I like Will Smith's Big Willy CD for testing bass.
The circle has caused more confusion than most other misconceptions in audio. You do not need monitor speakers to make a recording, and most studios do not have in any way great speakers to do either mixing or mastering. All we need to do in the mixing is place the tracks, level them, and select which ones to use in the final mix. We have the Telarc recordings that are made with simple miking and not messed with afterward, we have the direct to disc recordings, and many other simple miking techniques in which the mix is actually done live right into the microphones. In this view, the quality of the recordings depends on the quality of the microphones only.
It would be great if you might consider doing a video on how to use test tones etc. Why the pink/white noise, why warbles tones at certain frequencies, why recording with or without distortion etc. For newbies like me, using those test tone CDs (Sheffield A2TB test disk) I’m at a loss as to how it’s properly used to set up or test a system. 😬 TQ!
This video is gold! Extremely informative and it says it all. Gene and Matt you are stars. I'm glad that I started my journey in audio before 8 years on the right track with Audioholics and Dr. Floyd toole (The acoustics and psycho acoustics of loudspeakers and rooms). And Harman is one of the few audio companies that implements science in that way and have the best people around in sound reproduction science like floyd toole and sean olive and in the 70s 80s Matti otala who was an electronics genius who contributed a lot in amplifer designs. JBL M2 studio monitor speaker is a great example of all that science implementation . In my opinion I think lack of standarization in recording (speakers.. Studio Rooms.. Microphones..) are the ones to blame. As consumers we can reasonably treat our rooms and now days speakers designs have improved a lot. and it's really sad sometimes to not enjoy an amazing piece of music because it lacks a good recording. Thanks very much for the great video Audioholics.
Don't forget standardization in hearing. The hearing of both the mix/mastering engineer as well as the hearing of the listener, whose hearing changes as they get older. :-)
Great topic and coverage of the real issues! There are too many transfer functions that are being combined in the recording/listening paths. My favorite recordings by far, are live soundboards in outdoor venues. Meyer sound has outdoor PA design mastered and the mix does not include room EQ considerations. If you want a reference to tune your system for realism in reproduction , go to the show and sit near the soundboard. Tune your EQ at home for what sounds best. I use very fine reference speakers, Legacy Whispers, and it works well.
I LOVE the topic and agree there needs ti be recording standards. I Just turned 35 this month and have been into hifi for 30 of those years and I am tired of people telling others how to listen to music, I have been listening to a variety of music from different time periods, genre, studio quality and sound engineer skill the mixing varies DRASTICALLY. sometimes even just song originally recorded in the 60's or 70's can sound TOTALLY different from one release to another even when on the same recording medium let alone on a different format. I really miss the days of having graphic equalizers to help balance the sound based on genre, period and recording medium I like my records to sound one way and my CD'S to sound another way. I hate options being taken away, everybody should be able to listen to music the way they want it to sound
One of the most important and relevent topics that I have ever heard regarding achieving optimal sound reproduction. This aspect of sound reproduction is almost never addressed. Of course, there is no "endpoint" or resolution to this discussion, but I greatly appreciate the grit to tackle this core problem. You certainly can't buy your way out of this dilemma. Also, I do have Dr. Floyd Toole's latest book and although I may not agree with all of his teachings, most everything he writes about has the science to back it up. That's really quite rare in the audiophile world. It's also frustrating from my standpoint that this core problem will never be solved or seriouly addressed. That's okay, I can still enjoy enjoy my music and movies and life goes on.
Finally, I had the chance to watch this. You've exposited a number of issues which aren't instantly obvious to audiophiles. Kudos. As Matt makes the point, maybe it emerges from the mist and fog that we don't have a standard to build our listening upon. Are we trying to compare the height of Everest by starting the measurement from the top of a tree, or the ground at the 1st basecamp, or comparing it to Denali? We read measurements made in anechoic chambers or in large rooms (or worse, small rectangular ones) that have almost no relationships with our listening space. We see reviewers plying their trade (usually honestly) by using terms they cannot define. What do we (individually) think of "clarity" or "spaciousness" or "holographic"? What does the reviewer mean? He (or she??) is listening to samples that likely have no qualified relationship with yours. If you are a classical music listener, what can you learn from a reviewer who strongly prefers recorded Led Zeppelin, or electronic dance music? So, our 'listening' reviews are all wishy-washy, floating on a sea we, ourselves, have never seen. And, if that reviewer does throw on a sample of symphonic classic or other acoustic music, what does he (or she??) compare it to? His memories are probably of a Santana concert in a basketball arena, or such. Like Bon Jovi in Madison Square Garden with 15,000 others listening to JBL concert stacks at the threshold of bleeding ears. And conversely, what if our *standard* of fare is symphonic and acoustic music? What can that reviewer tell us about our speakers, amps, and source when playing Bruce Springsteen? As is, we are like the blind men describing the elephant. Don't expect correlation. Matt suggests future standards, and that's noble. That will be tough as heck. He further suggests standards that can describe and qualify broad categories of music. Again, noble. But the variables are pretty unmanageable and uncountable. I learned a half century ago, in a measurements course, that to successfully measure something, you need to minimize the interfering factors and to have a useable standard. In music, that's a tough errand. What does Metallica have in common with Brahms or Ellington? More importantly, what *doesn't* it have in common? And even more importantly, what does a sweeping sine wave source have in common with a drum kit? Or a Spanish guitar? A piano? A pop singer? For the current state of stuff, we shuffle along with frequency-domain measurements, but know they don't correlate with what we, individually, hear. We ignore or refuse to make time-domain measurements because we are (rightfully?) fearing opening that Pandora's box. Instead, we try to describe speaker sound as clear, accurate, quick, tight, or not. Just try to put some numbers to those terms! Worse, try to write industry standards. Meantime, I suppose we must be content with *qualifying* reviews and subjective descriptions. At least, we should qualify our *reviewers* by revealing what kind of music they prefer, at what SPL, in what sort of room, with some attention to the electrical signal source feeding it all. Is it a Hagel or a Technics? And, perhaps in some cases, their regimen of narco-enhancements. I apologize for taking so much of your time if you read to this point. I'm trying not to be totally negative, and if you flip the negative stuff over, a long winding path to success might be in here, somewhere. Or not.
Bennett Lewis yeah and while it’s the most widely talked about monitor, there are others that are equally bad and equally common. Urei is the one Toole likes to pick on. If I recall, it’s the lowest scoring and lowest fidelity speaker they had tested at the time he wrote his first book. I have heard them a number of times (though they were vintage even then) and I honestly never understood why people liked them. A really high end speaker studios use that I don’t like is the B&W Diamond 800. It’s certainly not an awful speaker. It’s better than much on the market. But it’s a flawed speaker and in my opinion not worthy of studio monitor use. It’s measured performance is anything but perfect. Blind listening tests conducted with it and others have shown that better engineered speakers like the Revel Ultima Salon2 is a preferred speaker (as it should be, it has superior measured performance). Companies like Genelec already produce state of the art speakers with excellent measured performance and great sound. This is what studios should use.
Would love to see you tackle the Masters Set and rational Speaker Placement topic.Ive found the process cuts through room issues and equipment problems and can be pretty magical.
Short of $40k speakers which I've had the pleasure of listening to I find my best listening experiences are with headphones lately. Soo much work even with good speakers to get a room to sound truly Good. Then you have environmental impact such as pets, changes in decor, friends and family, etc. Give me a good pair of noise cancelling headphones and I enjoy the music more. Not saying headphones are better, they just are for me most of the time.
I'm not sure if I'm within the subject but what is clicking in my mind is. If a mixing studios are not reproducing the sounds accurately to begin with, no matter how much you spend on speakers. You're never going to get an accurate reproduction of what the music is intended to sound like. Basically a 20,000 dollar pair of speakers may not sound any better than a 200 dollar pair of speakers. So in the end it all comes down to what speakers sound more pleasing to the individual.
Trust me on this, $20000 speakers will definitely sound better than $200 speakers. They will be full range for starters where as, the $200 speakers will probably really struggle to reach below 100Hz. There will be a huge difference in clarity and imaging as well. Neither speaker will represent what the mixing engineers heard but these qualities will always improve your music enjoyment. I have come to the conclusion that the better the speakers are, the simpler, slower paced and more relaxed the music sounds. That may possibly be the opposite of what some, who are unfamiliar with high end audio would expect.
NEVER NEVER pay more than 3k to 5k for a pair of speakers. Here are 3k to 5k speakers that soar above 80k to 100k speakers....Tekton Moab, Yamaha NS-F901, Elac Adante AF61
@@kenwebster5053 What I was getting at was that if the sound mixing isn't accurate from the studio. No matter what speaker you have. It wouldn't sound accurate on them either. I have the RP-8000FS. That's all that my budget can let me afford and they sound pretty good to my liking. Everyone has a different pellet for sound . .
@@christophermcmichael880 Yes, I do get that, I really do. I am just saying that if your speakers are tonally neutral, it won't add to the recording bias and make it even worse. Also, Clarity makes the best use of whatever is there, good or bad. So good neutral speakers still seem the best option. They make the most of good recordings and not make bad ones even worse. So the conclusion that the quality of playback doesn't matter is logically flawed and from an experience point of view I always enjoy and appreciate listing to high end gear much than mass market pedestrian stuff.
@Audioholics I enjoyed this discussion. I would be very interested in the both of you interviewing a really good sound engineer. I would suggest the folks at Sound Mirror in Boston. They do a lot of work for Reference Recordings. They recently mixed/mastered the UT Symphony and Chorus. How do they get such a huge venue down to a multi channel SACD.
The lack of standards is actually what has turned me away from atmos. The best experience in my experience as almost always been upmixing 2.1 content vs the actual surround mix in general. One surround mix has effects, the next ambient sound, the next voice. You never know what you'll get.
Get a graphic equalizer of studio quality if you must and all your tonality troubles will be reduced. At least use on to see what tonal balance you favour. What you might find is different settings will suit different recordings and you may be surprised at how a little db tweak can bring a dull, bright or midrange dominant recording into the right balance or at least a balance that you like the sound of for that particular recording or type of music, which is all that matters to me.
I think another reason classical and symphony music are used as standards is because the instruments used, make sounds and tones that are sonically and musically more pure and more simple. For example, if you’re listening to a flute, or a violin, it’s easier to hear the purity, but also any distortion in sound or music they produce. With something like rock guitar, it’s much more challenging to evaluate the fidelity of the recording to the performance event, or the fidelity of the playback equipment to the recording- or .. the performance event. The guitar is often playing through effect pedals, and those are sometimes further subjectively modified. The guitar is also playing through an amplifier of some make and model- which is designed to alter/ significantly color and affect the sound. So in this genre, the listener is largely unable to definitively discriminate what is a recording effect, an instrumental effect, an eq effect, an accidental/incidental recording or room effect, a purposeful recording or room effect, etc. With rock and pop music, it’s more that you know you like or dislike what you’re hearing ...to one degree or another. There’s no perfect evaluating of classical or symphonic music recordings, but it’s much easier to assess the quality of the recorded sound of a flute or violin, or other more naturalistic instruments. It’s easier to identify both recording quality/fidelity, and distortion/error. With fewer effects and layers , the essential simplicity of the genre provides a clearer window through which to experience it. Jazz would fall somewhere in between.
Dr. Anthony Forgione I agree. There is good reason to use live classical recordings. I think what you say is not unique to classical. Any natural acoustically derived music would accomplish this. Mickey Hart planet drum is similarly capable. Everything has a very pure tone and is recorded very simply. Lots of acoustic jazz or simple blues could fit that as well. When I review I tend to she music that contains elements for which I have a real world analog to compare to. I play guitar and enjoy collecting guitars. I am not a great guitarist but I have a good ear for what different guitars sound like. I can recognize a vintage L-00 from a modern reproduction and its for the same reasons you describe. I hope nobody took my comments as a knock on classical music.
A very interesting discussion, which also highlights the mostly subjective nature of what we are all trying to achieve. My aim was that every movie or album be an 'event', in which I've succeeded, but I'd not claim any degree of 'realism', however defined.
Do Audiophile Fuses really make a difference? I understand the theory but I've never tried them. I'm not sure I'm ready to consign them to the snake oil camp just yet but I'd like to know if the difference is measurable by REW , a multimeter and an oscilloscope. Could you make a video about this?
During the golden age of Hifi, a top system (such as the Pioneer 20-series) would aim to give the listener full control over the sound. That audiophile creativity is now reduced to mixing and matching ready-made components, an ultimately fruitless quest comprising of constant buying and selling to assemble an imaginary "perfect herd" of one-trick-ponies. If perfection is your goal, then you'd need a whole system for every need. Good luck and enjoy all the overtime away from your system. My money's on quality-controlled flexibility (as offered by the likes of Kush Audio or SPL Audio, Chandler Ltd., etc.).
Jack Petracci I agree that this is intuitive in a sense. But a lot of people have commented to me and others that they believe sound engineering is all top notch. That the professional standards assure that the recordings are as good as they can be. That there is no nonsense Like the errors in the speakers response showing up in the recordings. But it’s not true. Recording quality varies greatly and it impacts the sound we hear. It impacts our enjoyment. It also seriously compromises our ability to assess a system with music. What bugs me is that often the best music is poorly engineered. The best engineered music is the worst to listen to. Stuff I like to call audiophile fodder. It’s musical gibberish but recorded in the most pristine way. This is less true of classical, but very true of jazz, blues, rock, and pop. I hope people do find this intuitive and I hope they react to it. But I don’t see it changing much in the industry. A lot of people still love the Yamaha NS-10M and Urei monitors. They are often still in studios and used by the engineers. They should not be.
@@PoesAcoustics It drives me nuts as well. I'm always amazed at just how clueless so many people are in the music business. From engineers to the musicians themselves. Of course this just makes matters even worse. Keep up the great work, its appreciated.
Hello, I have a Marantz sr8012 and my front left and right tower speakers are 9.11 feet away from my listening position. The speaker distance in the Marantz menu only goes up to 9.9 feet and then changes to 10 feet, so no 9.10 or 9.11 feet. If my distance is 9.11 feet should I set my distance to 10 feet or 9.9 feet? Hope you understand my question! Thank You!
if we use calibrated equipment in the whole chain so that when we play it back at home every frequency is equally loud, all the way to the speakers. maybe some leeway for amps for those who want a colored amp. Is it not the only thing we can do? have calibrated recordings to pick up frequencies equally, or flat if you will. now i can make a system at home that have a perceived flat response from 16 hz 16 khz and the best possible starting point for any content i play back. This is all volume, i did not touch on sound quality, eq don't fix that.
Sometimes I hear a piece of music and I don't enjoy it but the rhythm may be very infectious. I might pinpoint my dislike to a lack of bass for example (on my system which has good bass reproduction). I'll EQ it and then it is much more pleasing to me and sometimes becomes one of my favourite songs. I sometimes feel guilty thinking that extra bass shouldn't be there if I'm listening 'correctly' like the artist intended. Then I stop and think: actually, I have no idea what this sounded like to those in that room during the recording. The drummer was probably swamping everything else as they often do and the engineer whacked the level down to complement the other instruments. Then I feel better about enjoying it my way. Hope that makes sense, haha.
If u know the albums mixer and he’s well known u likely can find the monitors he mixes with. I wouldn’t be surprised if a huge amount of stuff u like was mixed on yamaha ns10’s. Very popular for mixing. People still use them. The reason mixers give is they r harsh and unforgiving. If u can make a song sound good on them it will sound good on any system.
Nick Anthony you should read the first chapter in Floyd’s book. He specifically addresses the NS10m and what impact that really has. Mixing to sound good on a flawed speaker leads to a flawed mix. It often causes the engineer to eq the mix to compensate. That eq then leads to an imbalanced recording when listened to on a good system.
Matthew Poes perhaps. Most mixers make sure their mix will work on a wide range of systems. Most people do not have high end gear. I bet if you found what speakers were used to mix many of your favorite albums several would be ns10’s and similar. I’ve been following a few mixers lately and been surprised about things like this. No one I’ve looked at uses anything near JBL M2’s.
They use NS10s and similar speakers not because they sound good. They use them because if you can get your mix to sound good on cheaper, smaller, nearfield monitors, it will probably translate / sound decent on most standard consumer gear (computer speakers, your car, your bluetooth speaker, etc).
"Standards". Yes! Been saying this for years. Even speakers need to be re-thought. It is impossible to mimic any instruments with a speaker radiating sound out of one side of a box. That old concept needs to die.
It’s not just snake oil stuff , it’s also some of us using obscure, boring, generally forgettable source material. But recorded as SOTA reference material. I can refer to a recently referenced “audiophile” recording of a women singing , who I personally thought was a midrange talent, who could be bested by so many recorded vocals from the past or some truly gift broadway sopranos etc. I thought what is the hu bub about. This is as much of a personal thing as snake oil equipment tweaks that are ridiculously priced. When I expressed my view I received some really angry responses.
In other words -- IT IS ALL SUBJECTIVE DUE TO THE INCONSISTENT PROCESS! In research to understand and learn the art of anything, there has to be principles and values that simply do not change in order to have consistency. Look at society in its progression based upon inconsistency in values. To whom does the contribution of all these inconsistencies lie? I would say the consumer, who has become lazy and indifferent to an industry that basically does not want to know any complaints or changes to get the most profit out of their product. As far as a home stereo . . . it is subjective . . . and what is wrong with that? After all, everyone has different levels of hearing and with the countless combinations of different wires, drivers, components, amplifiers, etc. there is no one sound that is the epitome of reproducing that which is inconsistent in the first place. Until everyone gets their act together from the artist on down to the speakers that finalize what the consumer hears -- there will be no standard, no one right way . . . and even if that should supposedly be achieved, which is never . . . there would always be those by human nature, who by ego, arrogance, and know-it-all opinions would still be opposition to such fallible infallible! Let's face it, what one person wishes to uphold as the best is soon dethroned; while a person who has in their mind that their equipment is the best, no matter if his next door neighbor thinks it is junk -- it does not matter -- the one buying and defending junk is justified in the industry by the power of their pocketbook and bias control.
Does it sound like people making music and does your system sound sound musical with detail, imaging and range. Measurements alone won’t give you answers.
No, but not doing measurements allows people to imagine they hear something that isn't there. IE: "Wow! Listen to that extended treble" when the measurements show it rolls off at 11khz. Seen it happen.
That's why the best solution is to use Dirac room correction (the best to date) at the consumer level in order to neutralize the home environment, thus allowing all production intent to come through, mistakes and all.... Now if we could get all studios to use Dirac as well we would have a very good consistency from beginning to end.
dirac is not your ear, always eq your system with your own ear sitting in the spot. that is the only way to make a system sound balanced. you are not a microphone and have to take into account your aural perception to make a balanced system.
Randy Levine I’ll start by saying what I always say when this comes up, I’ve been a beta tester and user or Dirac for a long time. Since it’s inception. I agree it is one of the best room correction systems on the market. However you have way way misunderstood what I was talking about and overstated what Dirac can do. As I noted in the video, eq is any kind cannot fix a flawed speaker or a flawed room. Dirac can help address the effects of room modes to a point, but only multiple subwoofers or mode cancelation can actually fix the modes. Dirac can’t fix a speaker with a poor polar response. For it to work the speaker still needs to be perfect. While it can help address some tonal Balance issues, that isn’t where most of the flaws lie. Most speakers have problems in the polar response. An uneven DI with Inconsistent directivity. The only fix for that is in the design of the speaker itself. Dirac can’t fix problems with room reflections either. It can’t counter a reflection or undue the effect. Dirac is just one of many tools needed to address the problems. But don’t fool yourself, it can’t take a mediocre system and make it a great one.
At the end of the day, it goes without saying that you will NEVER be able to match the environment where the record was mixed and mastered, regardless if their rooms are flat or not. So it's kind of a pointless exercise to even stress about this. Until every record is tracked, mixed, and mastered in an anechoic chamber, and everyone has an anechoic chamber at home as a listening environment, we will never be able to have any sort of baseline reference and standard. Just play the music and enjoy.
Richard Wielgosz I think that’s an overstatement. What the ITU tried to do is create a standard room. Mixing and replaying music in an anechoic chamber would be undesirable. Not just because it’s impractical, but because such an environment is suboptimal for sound quality of 2-channel and unnecessary for multichannel. We don’t need to go to the extreme of removing the room all together. We just need some basic standard and principles to be followed. For example, if we are going to mix in a non-environment room, then final mix should be done in a standard room.
@@PoesAcoustics The goal of a "standard room" is just as absurdly pie-in-the-sky. Unless you're building a studio from scratch you can't always have an ideal control room due to the shape and size of the building you're going to construct the control room in, and then there's money. Full disclosure. I have helped build 2 studios. I have wired three control rooms from scratch, and I have worked in probably a dozen different studios. I have some small experience here.
Richard Wielgosz mixing very often happens in two phases. The initial mix is often done in a non-environment control room. Bigger studios often then have what is sometimes termed a mastering room. This is done for final listening and Eq. There is 0 science behind the process, but what I’ve been told is that they like the two rooms because a non-environment room is useful as a musical scalpel. A way of hearing every detail and ensuring all the levels are just right. Nothing stands out improperly. However the final mix, once it’s all together, needs to sound right in a normal room. The mastering room is his last built to mimic a perfect domestic listening space. I understand that most smaller studios don’t use or have mastering rooms. But since I’ve designed a half dozen of them and I didn’t invent the idea, they obviously are in use. As for standard rooms, I think that’s been the holy grail for decades. Groups have been pushing this notion for a long time. Standard rooms don’t have to be built the same. They just need to meet certain acoustic properties and utilize equipment that meets certain established standards. Primarily the speakers.
Richard Wielgosz me too. But everyone I worked on was essentially built from scratch. Yes they were all built into an existing space, but the room itself and it’s acoustic properties were carefully controlled and designed into the final build. I have a partnership with a group in Germany and the principle requires that any job he takes on have minimum dimensions and shape before he will even work with it. He has a standard design approach he takes and won’t build a subpar room. He would probably argue that a studio shouldn’t be built if it can’t be built to those kinds of standards. A little extreme for sure.
The idea of the mastering or mixing engineers trying to make a recording sound good wherther substandard speakers are used or whether its higher end speakers.. especially in the recordings made for the mass market. On the other hand, when MoFi, AP, Music Matters, etc...., make true "audiophile pressings" (or try to) they better results are to be expected otherwise why would i pay more... also, is it safe to say that since thier was a fairly long lull in the vinyl record business, that technology has changed as well as the true experts of the vinyl hay day are lost, or being lost.. that there is somewhat of a drop in expertise in Mastering & Mixing?
A bit of clarification: Mixing engineers double check to see what it sounds like on cheaper speakers. The intention is not to make it sound good on them. There's a few assumptions made in this conversation between Matt and Gene that should be adressed. Although the topic itself is a good one.
I listen to a fairly wide range of genres of music. One of those is Christain music. For Christain music, being a smaller market, I dont believe there would be many venues to record at. But consistently they are some of the best sounding cds I own. Not sure if there would be correlation between the equipment the use with the better quality monitors you mentioned. Just a curiosity
I'm not sure I agree totally what he's saying. in a studio you would use a graphic equaliser and spectrum analyser to set the room for a pink Noise and white noise, this should give you a neutral balance yes different speakers will play a part but a big studio usually uses the same type of speaker manufacturer. And with the correction is hardly any difference, only lower frequencies would be different. But actually now these days will design it to work in cars and for mobile devices to sound reasonable. You have to remember most studio is not designing for audiophiles or pleasure listening, it mainly disappeared in the late 80s, and now everything has heavy compression on it so there's no need for them to go out of their way to add dynamics and making it sound correct. Yes I have this gripe with produces sound engineers there's no reason why they can't make two versions of the same thing it's not really difficult because the compression is added at the end anyway. So they could release a audiophile recording and released both one is an audiophile one is just general MP3. I think they don't do it because they know they would be criticised for their skill or lack of from audiofiles. And the engineer of any salt should have electronics knowledge probably a degree and taught how to repair equipment in sound engineering college. People need to have their own studio equipment and you tune in to what you think it should sound like or what you like. Is the only way to go. But you don't need it to sound like the engineer wanted it to sound like....you're missing the point. Some correction of speakers can be done with an expander what expands the soundstage or shrinks the soundstage, most Studios mixing eq's would have it built-in like tube paragraph equalizer, would have this built in.and you have slope control cut-off as well don't forget not just equalisation. You can follow a chart and gives you a good ide, Like something like this. need to set or look for. 20 Hz and below - impossible to detect, remove as it only adds unnecessary energy to the total sound, thereby most probably holding down the overall volume of the track 60 Hz and below - sub bass (feel only) 80(-100) Hz - feel AND hear bass 100-120 Hz - the "club sound system punch" resides here 200 Hz and below - bottom 250 Hz - notch filter here can add thump to a kick drum 150-400 Hz - boxiness 200 Hz-1.5 KHz - punch, fatness, impact 800 Hz-4 KHz - edge, clarity, harshness, defines timbre 4500 Hz - exteremly tiring to the ears, add a slight notch here 5-7 KHz - de-essing is done here 4-9 KHz - brightness, presence, definition, sibilance, high frequency distortion 6-15 KHz - air and presence 9-15 KHz - adding will give sparkle, shimmer, bring out details - cutting will smooth out harshness and darken the mix Kicks: 60Hz with a Q of 1.4 -- Add fullness to kicks. 5Khz with a Q of 2.8 -- Adds attack to Kicks bottom (60 - 80 Hz), slap (4 kHz) EQ>Cut below 80Hz to remove rumble Boost between 80 -125 Hz for bass Boost between 3 - 5kHz to get the slap PROCESSING> Compression 4:1/6:1 slow attack med release. Reverb: Tight room reverb (0.1-0.2ms) General: Apply a little cut at 300Hz and some boost between 40Hz and 80Hz. Control The Attack: Apply boost or cut around 4KHz to 6KHz. Treat Muddiness: Apply cut somewhere in the 100Hz to 500Hz range. kick>> bottom depth at 60 - 80 Hz, slap attack at 2.5Hz Snares: 200Hz - 250Hz with a Q of 1.4 -- Adds wood to snares 3Khz with a Q of 1.4 -- Adds atack to snare. 7Khz with a Q of 2.8 -- Adds Sharpness to snares and percussion fatness at 120-240Hz boing at 400Hz crispness at 5kHz snap at 10kHz fatness (240 Hz), crispness (5 kHz) EQ> Boost above 2kHz for that crisp edge Cut at 1kHz to get rid of the sharp peak Boost at 125Hz for a full snare sound Cut at 80Hz to remove rumble PROCESSING> Compression 4:1 slow attack med release. Reverb: Tight room reverb (0.1-0.2ms) snare>> fatness at 240HZ, crispness at 5 KHz Vocals General: Roll off below 60Hz using a High Pass Filter. This range is unlikely to contain anything useful, so you may as well reduce the noise the track contributes to the mix. Treat Harsh Vocals: To soften vocals apply cut in a narrow bandwidth somewhere in the 2.5KHz to 4KHz range. Get An Open Sound: Apply a gentle boost above 6KHz using a shelving filter. Get Brightness, Not Harshness: Apply a gentle boost using a wide-band Bandpass Filter above 6KHz. Use the Sweep control to sweep the frequencies to get it right. Get Smoothness: Apply some cut in a narrow band in the 1KHz to 2KHz range. Bring Out The Bass: Apply some boost in a reasonably narrow band somewhere in the 200Hz to 600Hz range. Radio Vocal Effect: Apply some cut at the High Frequencies, lots of boost about 1.5KHz and lots of cut below 700Hz. Telephone Effect: Apply lots of compression pre EQ, and a little analogue distortion by turning up the input gain. Apply some cut at the High Frequencies, lots of boost about 1.5KHz and lots of cut below 700Hz. vocals>> fullness at 120 Hz, boominess at 200 - 240 Hz, presence at 5 kHz, sibilance at 7.5 - 10 kHz Hats: 10Khz with a Q of 1.0 -- Adds brightness to hats and cymbals Hi Hat & Cymbals: sizzle (7.5 - 10 kHz), clank (200 Hz) EQ> Boost above 5kHz for sharp sparkle Cut at 1kHz to remove jangling PROCESSING> Compression use high ratio for high energy feel Reverb: Looser than Bass n Snare allow the hats and especially the Rides to ring a little Get Definition: Roll off everything below 600Hz using a High Pass Filter. Get Sizzle: Apply boost at 10KHz using a Band Pass Filter. Adjust the bandwidth to get the sound right. Treat Clangy Hats: Apply some cut between 1KHz and 4KHz. hi hats/cymbals>> clank or gong sound at 200 Hz, shimmer at 7.5 kHz - 12 kHz Guitar: Treat Unclear Vocals: Apply some cut to the guitar between 1KHz and 5KHz to bring the vocals to the front of the mix. General: Apply a little boost between 100Hz and 250Hz and again between 10KHz and 12KHz. Acoustic Guitar Add Sparkle:Try some gentle boost at 10KHz using a Band Pass Filter with a medium bandwidth. General: Try applying some mid-range cut to the rhythm section to make vocals and other instruments more clearly heard. Other: Voice: presence (5 kHz), sibilance (7.5 - 10 kHz), boominess (200 - 240 kHz), fullness (120 Hz) Electric Guitar: fullness (240 Hz), bite (2.5 kHz), air / sizzle (8 kHz) Bass Guitar: bottom (60 - 80 Hz), attack (700 - 1000 Hz), string noise (2.5 kHz) Toms: attack (5 kHz), fullness (120 - 240 Hz) Acoustic Guitar: harshness / bite (2 kHz), boominess (120 - 200 Hz), cut (7 - 10 kHz) Bass - Compressed, EQ'd with a full bottom end and some mids rack toms>> fullness at 240 Hz, attack at 5 kHz floor toms>> fullness at 80 - 120 Hz, attack at 5 kHz horns>> fullness at 120 - 240 Hz, shrill at 5 - 7.5 kHz strings>> fullness at 240 Hz, scratchiness at 7.5 - 10 kHz conga/bongo>> resonance at 200 - 240 Hz, slap at 5 kHz General Frequencies: EQ Reference: Frequencies 50Hz Boost: To thicken up bass drums and sub-bass parts. Cut: Below this frequency on all vocal tracks. This should reduce the effect of any microphone 'pops'. 70-100Hz Boost: For bass lines and bass drums. Cut: For vocals. General: Be wary of boosting the bass of too many tracks. Low frequency sounds are particularly vulnerable to phase cancellation between sounds of similar frequency. This can result in a net 'cut of the bass frequencies. 200-400Hz Boost: To add warmth to vocals or to thicken a guitar sound. Cut: To bring more clarity to vocals or to thin cymbals and higher frequency percussion. Boost or Cut: to control the 'woody' sound of a snare. 400-800Hz Boost: To add warmth to toms. Boost or Cut: To control bass clarity, or to thicken or thin guitar sounds. General: In can be worthwhile applying cut to some of the instruments in the mix to bring more clarity to the bass within the overall mix. 800Hz-1KHz Boost: To thicken vocal tracks. At 1 KHz apply boost to add a knock to a bass drum. 1-3KHz Boost: To make a piano more aggressive. Applying boost between 1KHz and 5KHz will also make guitars and basslines more cutting. Cut: Apply cut between 2 KHz and 3KHz to smooth a harsh sounding vocal part. General: This frequency range is often used to make instruments stand out in a mix. 3-6KHz Boost: For a more 'plucked' sounding bass part. Apply boost at around 6KHz to add some definition to vocal parts and distorted guitars. Cut: Apply cut at about 3KHz to remove the hard edge of piercing vocals. Apply cut between 5KHZ and 6KHz to dull down some parts in a mix. 6-10KHz Boost: To sweeten vocals. The higher the frequency you boost the more 'airy/breathy' the result will be. Also boost to add definition to the sound of acoustic guitars or to add edge to synth sounds or strings or to enhance the sound of a variety of percussion sounds. For example boost this range to: Bring out cymbals. Add ring to a snare. Add edge to a bass drum. 10-16KHz Boost: To make vocals more 'airy' or for crisp cymbals and percussion. Also boost this frequency to add sparkle to pads, but only if the frequency is present in the original sound, otherwise you will just be adding hiss to the recording.
Matt says Tannoy's coaxial speakers are horrible -- strong language and fighting words to many. Matt are you condemning all Tannoy coaxial speakers? On what basis are they horrible? Measured response? My friend has modern Tannoy's Ardens, coxial, 15" woofer, if they measure 'horrible' then I must reevaluate my stance on sound reproduction because , in this case, horrible sounds amazing. Dynamics and scale of these Tannoy's make speakers with 6.5" and 8" woofers sound like insignificant warbling toys ...the tone is somewhat warm and rich I suppose, which must be a cardinal sin of coloration. I truly wonder whether some objectivists truly prefer to invest their $ in components that bring them less aural enjoyment because they 'know' that said components measure better than those that sound more pleasing and emotionally involving....
The Ardens are not really modern. They are a remake of the old HPD 385, which itself was a remake of the old MG15’s. Thee are the 15” gold coaxial monitors that people lust after. www.troelsgravesen.dk/Tannoy/Tannoy_B_level_20Hz.jpg And www.44bx.com/tannoy/images/HPD_sw.gif Shows what these measure like. I’ve found a few times that Tannoys actual measurements aren’t as good as their claimed measurements. They rarely give the precise details of how they measured and further don’t provide much polar data. That and measurements simply weren’t as good back then. I don’t see a speaker that measures well. I can show lots of $6000 speakers that measure much better. Now I get it, they are very dynamic and efficient dynamic speakers often have an alluring effortless quality to them. But there are better speakers for that. The Tannoy is a poor value in my opinion. I don’t just base that on the terrible measurements. I’ve heard them too. I’ve frequently walked away feeling they were bright and edgy with obvious colorations. The measurements I’ve seen suggest that’s true. But how good a speaker is for any one person is subjective. If you like them, that’s fine. This isn’t a pissing match. It doesn’t really matter that I think they are bad speakers. I just hope they aren’t used as studio monitors.
@@PoesAcoustics Thank you for taking the time to reply. I almost choked on my coffee when you said that your listening experience with the Tannoy was marred by a bright edgy sound as my own experience is that they are the antithesis of that: warm and dark to a fault. One British reviewer remarked that it should come with a bottle of port and a fondue set! I see the rising treble in the graphs you provided which does baffle me as I am not old and am very averse to elevated treble.... While I often dissent from your pronouncements about aspects of this hobby I do find myself returning to your channel again and again. You and Gene really are a refreshing contrast to the florid, rhapsodic poems penned by 'expert' reviewers. I like that you do not commit the fallacy of arguing from authority which is so rampant (and ironic when voiced by liberal arts majors).
I think it's true the vintage Tannoy coaxials are less than stellar in some aspects. Warm and fuzzy. On the other hand their strengths are virtually unmatched elsewhere. Their sheer sense of ease makes it difficult to live with the sense of strain that most small speakers exhibit.
Yeah room acoustics play also a large part regardless of your equipment which I’ve learned from you guys , thanks for all your insight and keep up the great work you do , STOP THE SNAKE OIL , more people should pay attention to what you guys are saying cause it’s true thanks again
“Tannoy are horrible horrible speakers” yeah that’s why ppl will pay $5000 or more for ONE 1950’s Tannoy driver👀 In the land of stupid that statement would still win a place! PS Audio recently stated that most music is mixed for car audio and mobile phones. He says this is something they intends to correct in their new recording studio.
People pay hundreds of thousands for classic cars that would be outdriven in every way by a base level modern Corvette or Tesla. How much people are willing to pay has little to do with objective performance.
Jim Jay absolutely. There newest SAM line is insanely good. There are others too. The Dutch & Dutch 8C is a marvel of engineering. Won’t work for Far field but a great speaker.
Quick question guys, What is speaker impedance range for Yamaha TSR 7850. The manual really doesn't say. It just shows you how to choose between 6ohms or 8 ohms.
I can't agree more. With all the variables that can exist, it comes down to buying the best quality speakers you can afford accounting (for us married folk), the WAF/HAF factor; then adjusting for the home/room you have to work with. The money definitely allows for the number of variables you can control in all of this. There is one company I will not name that has taken it up to to installing their own studio, engineers, and preferred musicians. WAF factors aside, I think that is the MOST you can do, but I sure can't afford that.
WOW, Matt is great to listen to; smart, very well spoken, thoughtful. This was just great. Thank you!
I spent a lot of time as a newbie with stereo wasting my money in cables and components.
The biggest improvement I succeed were : my stands, playing with speaker placement and adding a sub.
Those are essential. But it takes a lot of commitment.
I was easily persuaded to buy a 170 euro power cable but move some furniture to have the best speakers placement took me 1 year. it was the best sound improvement I ever had and Free.
Years ago (mid 80s) when I lived in a small apartment I had just some ordinary sound equipment that I didn't play loudly. I had a new inexpensive Sony CD changer that could load up to six CDs. I had just joined a CD club that I think was called BMG. If I bought one I could get four or five free, or something like that if I joined. I listened to four CDs by various artists then it started to play the 5th. This was a CD by Stan Getz that included Joao Gilberto & wife Astrud, and composer Carlos Jobim. I didn't have a lot of jazz then so I thought I would add a few since it was free anyway. The CD was from a box set called (I think) "The Bossa Nova Years." The CD of course included the very famous track "Girl From Ipanema," but it also included a live Carnegie Hall remake version of the same track. When I heard this track, it was WOW! I thought Astrud was in the SAME room as me! I could feel her breath! Never heard so much clarity and presence in my humble equipment. This recording made my CHEAP equipment sound so real and alive. From that day on as far as I was concerned (I'm non technical) it was 90% about the recording and a lot less than I would have thought about the equipment. Get the recording right, and you're almost home. It seems the most expensive equipment except for adding more dynamics at louder levels is more about cleaning up poor recording techniques. That's what the above recording told me. I remember looking up the sound engineer, assuming he was behind the magic and gave this dude a big bravo. I stored my CDs away years ago so I don't know his name right away. I would imagine that if I heard this version in 5.1 I would probably have to buy a ticket to get in! Even the very lossy mp3 at 192 Kbps sounded impressive under the circumstances. Again, it's all about GETTING THE RECORDING RIGHT in the first place as far as I'm concerned. That's my $2 worth!
Yep some sound engineers are true masters at their jobs. This is why a lot of people have a set of tracks they use to set up or test a system. And can find lots of suggestions of what tracks to listen to. I tend to use a lot of Tori Amos and Diana Krall to test and set up because most of it is well done. And other stuff to test low bass and what not. I like Will Smith's Big Willy CD for testing bass.
The circle has caused more confusion than most other misconceptions in audio. You do not need monitor speakers to make a recording, and most studios do not have in any way great speakers to do either mixing or mastering. All we need to do in the mixing is place the tracks, level them, and select which ones to use in the final mix. We have the Telarc recordings that are made with simple miking and not messed with afterward, we have the direct to disc recordings, and many other simple miking techniques in which the mix is actually done live right into the microphones. In this view, the quality of the recordings depends on the quality of the microphones only.
It would be great if you might consider doing a video on how to use test tones etc. Why the pink/white noise, why warbles tones at certain frequencies, why recording with or without distortion etc.
For newbies like me, using those test tone CDs (Sheffield A2TB test disk) I’m at a loss as to how it’s properly used to set up or test a system. 😬
TQ!
This video is gold! Extremely informative and it says it all. Gene and Matt you are stars. I'm glad that I started my journey in audio before 8 years on the right track with Audioholics and Dr. Floyd toole (The acoustics and psycho acoustics of loudspeakers and rooms).
And Harman is one of the few audio companies that implements science in that way and have the best people around in sound reproduction science like floyd toole and sean olive and in the 70s 80s Matti otala who was an electronics genius who contributed a lot in amplifer designs.
JBL M2 studio monitor speaker is a great example of all that science implementation .
In my opinion I think lack of standarization in recording (speakers.. Studio Rooms.. Microphones..) are the ones to blame. As consumers we can reasonably treat our rooms and now days speakers designs have improved a lot.
and it's really sad sometimes to not enjoy an amazing piece of music because it lacks a good recording.
Thanks very much for the great video Audioholics.
Don't forget standardization in hearing. The hearing of both the mix/mastering engineer as well as the hearing of the listener, whose hearing changes as they get older. :-)
@@matthewbarrow3727 Absolutely. That's a key element in the chain
Great topic and coverage of the real issues! There are too many transfer functions that are being combined in the recording/listening paths. My favorite recordings by far, are live soundboards in outdoor venues. Meyer sound has outdoor PA design mastered and the mix does not include room EQ considerations. If you want a reference to tune your system for realism in reproduction , go to the show and sit near the soundboard. Tune your EQ at home for what sounds best. I use very fine reference speakers, Legacy Whispers, and it works well.
I LOVE the topic and agree there needs ti be recording standards. I Just turned 35 this month and have been into hifi for 30 of those years and I am tired of people telling others how to listen to music, I have been listening to a variety of music from different time periods, genre, studio quality and sound engineer skill the mixing varies DRASTICALLY. sometimes even just song originally recorded in the 60's or 70's can sound TOTALLY different from one release to another even when on the same recording medium let alone on a different format. I really miss the days of having graphic equalizers to help balance the sound based on genre, period and recording medium I like my records to sound one way and my CD'S to sound another way. I hate options being taken away, everybody should be able to listen to music the way they want it to sound
One of the most important and relevent topics that I have ever heard regarding achieving optimal sound reproduction. This aspect of sound reproduction is almost never addressed. Of course, there is no "endpoint" or resolution to this discussion, but I greatly appreciate the grit to tackle this core problem. You certainly can't buy your way out of this dilemma. Also, I do have Dr. Floyd Toole's latest book and although I may not agree with all of his teachings, most everything he writes about has the science to back it up. That's really quite rare in the audiophile world. It's also frustrating from my standpoint that this core problem will never be solved or seriouly addressed. That's okay, I can still enjoy enjoy my music and movies and life goes on.
Finally, I had the chance to watch this. You've exposited a number of issues which aren't instantly obvious to audiophiles. Kudos. As Matt makes the point, maybe it emerges from the mist and fog that we don't have a standard to build our listening upon. Are we trying to compare the height of Everest by starting the measurement from the top of a tree, or the ground at the 1st basecamp, or comparing it to Denali? We read measurements made in anechoic chambers or in large rooms (or worse, small rectangular ones) that have almost no relationships with our listening space. We see reviewers plying their trade (usually honestly) by using terms they cannot define. What do we (individually) think of "clarity" or "spaciousness" or "holographic"? What does the reviewer mean? He (or she??) is listening to samples that likely have no qualified relationship with yours. If you are a classical music listener, what can you learn from a reviewer who strongly prefers recorded Led Zeppelin, or electronic dance music?
So, our 'listening' reviews are all wishy-washy, floating on a sea we, ourselves, have never seen. And, if that reviewer does throw on a sample of symphonic classic or other acoustic music, what does he (or she??) compare it to? His memories are probably of a Santana concert in a basketball arena, or such. Like Bon Jovi in Madison Square Garden with 15,000 others listening to JBL concert stacks at the threshold of bleeding ears.
And conversely, what if our *standard* of fare is symphonic and acoustic music? What can that reviewer tell us about our speakers, amps, and source when playing Bruce Springsteen? As is, we are like the blind men describing the elephant. Don't expect correlation.
Matt suggests future standards, and that's noble. That will be tough as heck. He further suggests standards that can describe and qualify broad categories of music. Again, noble. But the variables are pretty unmanageable and uncountable.
I learned a half century ago, in a measurements course, that to successfully measure something, you need to minimize the interfering factors and to have a useable standard. In music, that's a tough errand. What does Metallica have in common with Brahms or Ellington? More importantly, what *doesn't* it have in common? And even more importantly, what does a sweeping sine wave source have in common with a drum kit? Or a Spanish guitar? A piano? A pop singer?
For the current state of stuff, we shuffle along with frequency-domain measurements, but know they don't correlate with what we, individually, hear. We ignore or refuse to make time-domain measurements because we are (rightfully?) fearing opening that Pandora's box. Instead, we try to describe speaker sound as clear, accurate, quick, tight, or not. Just try to put some numbers to those terms! Worse, try to write industry standards.
Meantime, I suppose we must be content with *qualifying* reviews and subjective descriptions. At least, we should qualify our *reviewers* by revealing what kind of music they prefer, at what SPL, in what sort of room, with some attention to the electrical signal source feeding it all. Is it a Hagel or a Technics? And, perhaps in some cases, their regimen of narco-enhancements.
I apologize for taking so much of your time if you read to this point. I'm trying not to be totally negative, and if you flip the negative stuff over, a long winding path to success might be in here, somewhere. Or not.
I’ve always thought the Yamaha ns10 sounded terrible , I was shocked to learn how many studios use them!
Bennett Lewis yeah and while it’s the most widely talked about monitor, there are others that are equally bad and equally common. Urei is the one Toole likes to pick on. If I recall, it’s the lowest scoring and lowest fidelity speaker they had tested at the time he wrote his first book. I have heard them a number of times (though they were vintage even then) and I honestly never understood why people liked them.
A really high end speaker studios use that I don’t like is the B&W Diamond 800. It’s certainly not an awful speaker. It’s better than much on the market. But it’s a flawed speaker and in my opinion not worthy of studio monitor use. It’s measured performance is anything but perfect. Blind listening tests conducted with it and others have shown that better engineered speakers like the Revel Ultima Salon2 is a preferred speaker (as it should be, it has superior measured performance). Companies like Genelec already produce state of the art speakers with excellent measured performance and great sound. This is what studios should use.
Really that’s very interesting, my favorite monitor I would have to say is Genelec, I’ve never heard any size of them in any room sound bad.
Would love to see you tackle the Masters Set and rational Speaker Placement topic.Ive found the process cuts through room issues and equipment problems and can be pretty magical.
Short of $40k speakers which I've had the pleasure of listening to I find my best listening experiences are with headphones lately. Soo much work even with good speakers to get a room to sound truly Good. Then you have environmental impact such as pets, changes in decor, friends and family, etc. Give me a good pair of noise cancelling headphones and I enjoy the music more. Not saying headphones are better, they just are for me most of the time.
Dolby has begun to solve this issue in video reproduction with Dolby vision. Sounds like this would be a natural step for them to take.
Awesome thank you.
I'm not sure if I'm within the subject but what is clicking in my mind is. If a mixing studios are not reproducing the sounds accurately to begin with, no matter how much you spend on speakers. You're never going to get an accurate reproduction of what the music is intended to sound like. Basically a 20,000 dollar pair of speakers may not sound any better than a 200 dollar pair of speakers. So in the end it all comes down to what speakers sound more pleasing to the individual.
Trust me on this, $20000 speakers will definitely sound better than $200 speakers. They will be full range for starters where as, the $200 speakers will probably really struggle to reach below 100Hz. There will be a huge difference in clarity and imaging as well. Neither speaker will represent what the mixing engineers heard but these qualities will always improve your music enjoyment. I have come to the conclusion that the better the speakers are, the simpler, slower paced and more relaxed the music sounds. That may possibly be the opposite of what some, who are unfamiliar with high end audio would expect.
NEVER NEVER pay more than 3k to 5k for a pair of speakers. Here are 3k to 5k speakers that soar above 80k to 100k speakers....Tekton Moab, Yamaha NS-F901, Elac Adante AF61
@@kenwebster5053 What I was getting at was that if the sound mixing isn't accurate from the studio. No matter what speaker you have. It wouldn't sound accurate on them either. I have the RP-8000FS. That's all that my budget can let me afford and they sound pretty good to my liking. Everyone has a different pellet for sound . .
@@christophermcmichael880 Yes, I do get that, I really do. I am just saying that if your speakers are tonally neutral, it won't add to the recording bias and make it even worse. Also, Clarity makes the best use of whatever is there, good or bad. So good neutral speakers still seem the best option. They make the most of good recordings and not make bad ones even worse. So the conclusion that the quality of playback doesn't matter is logically flawed and from an experience point of view I always enjoy and appreciate listing to high end gear much than mass market pedestrian stuff.
Fascinating topic.
Matt bought George Costanzas lady glasses! :)
LMAO good one!
But they look good on him though.
@Audioholics I enjoyed this discussion. I would be very interested in the both of you interviewing a really good sound engineer. I would suggest the folks at Sound Mirror in Boston. They do a lot of work for Reference Recordings. They recently mixed/mastered the UT Symphony and Chorus. How do they get such a huge venue down to a multi channel SACD.
The lack of standards is actually what has turned me away from atmos. The best experience in my experience as almost always been upmixing 2.1 content vs the actual surround mix in general. One surround mix has effects, the next ambient sound, the next voice. You never know what you'll get.
Great video lads.
Get a graphic equalizer of studio quality if you must and all your tonality troubles will be reduced. At least use on to see what tonal balance you favour. What you might find is different settings will suit different recordings and you may be surprised at how a little db tweak can bring a dull, bright or midrange dominant recording into the right balance or at least a balance that you like the sound of for that particular recording or type of music, which is all that matters to me.
I think another reason classical and symphony music are used as standards
is because the instruments used,
make sounds and tones that are sonically and musically more pure and more simple.
For example, if you’re listening to a flute, or a violin,
it’s easier to hear the purity, but also any distortion
in sound or music they produce.
With something like rock guitar, it’s much more challenging to evaluate the fidelity of the recording
to the performance event,
or the fidelity of the playback equipment to the recording-
or .. the performance event.
The guitar is often playing through effect pedals,
and those are sometimes further subjectively modified.
The guitar is also playing through an amplifier
of some make and model-
which is designed to alter/ significantly color and affect the sound.
So in this genre, the listener is largely unable to definitively discriminate what is a recording effect,
an instrumental effect,
an eq effect,
an accidental/incidental recording or room effect,
a purposeful recording or room effect, etc.
With rock and pop music,
it’s more that you know you like or dislike what you’re hearing
...to one degree or another.
There’s no perfect evaluating of classical or symphonic music recordings,
but it’s much easier to assess the quality of the recorded sound of a flute or violin,
or other more naturalistic instruments.
It’s easier to identify both recording quality/fidelity,
and distortion/error.
With fewer effects and layers , the essential simplicity
of the genre provides a clearer window through which to experience it.
Jazz would fall somewhere in between.
Dr. Anthony Forgione I agree. There is good reason to use live classical recordings. I think what you say is not unique to classical. Any natural acoustically derived music would accomplish this. Mickey Hart planet drum is similarly capable. Everything has a very pure tone and is recorded very simply. Lots of acoustic jazz or simple blues could fit that as well.
When I review I tend to she music that contains elements for which I have a real world analog to compare to. I play guitar and enjoy collecting guitars. I am not a great guitarist but I have a good ear for what different guitars sound like. I can recognize a vintage L-00 from a modern reproduction and its for the same reasons you describe.
I hope nobody took my comments as a knock on classical music.
A very interesting discussion, which also highlights the mostly subjective nature of what we are all trying to achieve. My aim was that every movie or album be an 'event', in which I've succeeded, but I'd not claim any degree of 'realism', however defined.
Do Audiophile Fuses really make a difference? I understand the theory but I've never tried them. I'm not sure I'm ready to consign them to the snake oil camp just yet but I'd like to know if the difference is measurable by REW , a multimeter and an oscilloscope. Could you make a video about this?
During the golden age of Hifi, a top system (such as the Pioneer 20-series) would aim to give the listener full control over the sound.
That audiophile creativity is now reduced to mixing and matching ready-made components, an ultimately fruitless quest comprising of constant buying and selling to assemble an imaginary "perfect herd" of one-trick-ponies.
If perfection is your goal, then you'd need a whole system for every need. Good luck and enjoy all the overtime away from your system. My money's on quality-controlled flexibility (as offered by the likes of Kush Audio or SPL Audio, Chandler Ltd., etc.).
Can you please post the link to the book?
here you go: amzn.to/38JELtU
I always thought this info was known and understood by anyone taking a moment to think about it.
Jack Petracci I agree that this is intuitive in a sense. But a lot of people have commented to me and others that they believe sound engineering is all top notch. That the professional standards assure that the recordings are as good as they can be. That there is no nonsense Like the errors in the speakers response showing up in the recordings. But it’s not true. Recording quality varies greatly and it impacts the sound we hear. It impacts our enjoyment. It also seriously compromises our ability to assess a system with music.
What bugs me is that often the best music is poorly engineered. The best engineered music is the worst to listen to. Stuff I like to call audiophile fodder. It’s musical gibberish but recorded in the most pristine way. This is less true of classical, but very true of jazz, blues, rock, and pop.
I hope people do find this intuitive and I hope they react to it. But I don’t see it changing much in the industry. A lot of people still love the Yamaha NS-10M and Urei monitors. They are often still in studios and used by the engineers. They should not be.
@@PoesAcoustics It drives me nuts as well. I'm always amazed at just how clueless so many people are in the music business. From engineers to the musicians themselves. Of course this just makes matters even worse.
Keep up the great work, its appreciated.
Hello,
I have a Marantz sr8012 and my front left and right tower speakers are 9.11 feet away from my listening position. The speaker distance in the Marantz menu only goes up to 9.9 feet and then changes to 10 feet, so no 9.10 or 9.11 feet. If my distance is 9.11 feet should I set my distance to 10 feet or 9.9 feet?
Hope you understand my question!
Thank You!
if we use calibrated equipment in the whole chain so that when we play it back at home every frequency is equally loud, all the way to the speakers. maybe some leeway for amps for those who want a colored amp.
Is it not the only thing we can do? have calibrated recordings to pick up frequencies equally, or flat if you will.
now i can make a system at home that have a perceived flat response from 16 hz 16 khz and the best possible starting point for any content i play back.
This is all volume, i did not touch on sound quality, eq don't fix that.
Sometimes I hear a piece of music and I don't enjoy it but the rhythm may be very infectious. I might pinpoint my dislike to a lack of bass for example (on my system which has good bass reproduction). I'll EQ it and then it is much more pleasing to me and sometimes becomes one of my favourite songs. I sometimes feel guilty thinking that extra bass shouldn't be there if I'm listening 'correctly' like the artist intended. Then I stop and think: actually, I have no idea what this sounded like to those in that room during the recording. The drummer was probably swamping everything else as they often do and the engineer whacked the level down to complement the other instruments. Then I feel better about enjoying it my way. Hope that makes sense, haha.
If u know the albums mixer and he’s well known u likely can find the monitors he mixes with.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a huge amount of stuff u like was mixed on yamaha ns10’s. Very popular for mixing. People still use them. The reason mixers give is they r harsh and unforgiving. If u can make a song sound good on them it will sound good on any system.
Nick Anthony you should read the first chapter in Floyd’s book. He specifically addresses the NS10m and what impact that really has. Mixing to sound good on a flawed speaker leads to a flawed mix. It often causes the engineer to eq the mix to compensate. That eq then leads to an imbalanced recording when listened to on a good system.
Matthew Poes perhaps. Most mixers make sure their mix will work on a wide range of systems. Most people do not have high end gear. I bet if you found what speakers were used to mix many of your favorite albums several would be ns10’s and similar.
I’ve been following a few mixers lately and been surprised about things like this. No one I’ve looked at uses anything near JBL M2’s.
Yamaha NS10s (as opposed to NS1000s) are what you're more likely to find in studios. It is shocking how many engineers trust those.
They use NS10s and similar speakers not because they sound good. They use them because if you can get your mix to sound good on cheaper, smaller, nearfield monitors, it will probably translate / sound decent on most standard consumer gear (computer speakers, your car, your bluetooth speaker, etc).
Matt's voice is twice as loud and sounds a bit sharp while Gene's voice sounds a bit muffled. Try listening to this in the car.
I searched in the transcripts of the video. Would you some day speak about binaural recording ?
"Standards". Yes!
Been saying this for years.
Even speakers need to be re-thought. It is impossible to mimic any instruments with a speaker radiating sound out of one side of a box. That old concept needs to die.
I hate the inconsistency of movies audio quality. I have movies I used to love. But with a great home theater, I can’t stand to listen to them
It’s not just snake oil stuff , it’s also some of us using obscure, boring, generally forgettable source material. But recorded as SOTA reference material. I can refer to a recently referenced “audiophile” recording of a women singing , who I personally thought was a midrange talent, who could be bested by so many recorded vocals from the past or some truly gift broadway sopranos etc. I thought what is the hu bub about. This is as much of a personal thing as snake oil equipment tweaks that are ridiculously priced. When I expressed my view I received some really angry responses.
In other words -- IT IS ALL SUBJECTIVE DUE TO THE INCONSISTENT PROCESS! In research to understand and learn the art of anything, there has to be principles and values that simply do not change in order to have consistency. Look at society in its progression based upon inconsistency in values. To whom does the contribution of all these inconsistencies lie? I would say the consumer, who has become lazy and indifferent to an industry that basically does not want to know any complaints or changes to get the most profit out of their product.
As far as a home stereo . . . it is subjective . . . and what is wrong with that? After all, everyone has different levels of hearing and with the countless combinations of different wires, drivers, components, amplifiers, etc. there is no one sound that is the epitome of reproducing that which is inconsistent in the first place. Until everyone gets their act together from the artist on down to the speakers that finalize what the consumer hears -- there will be no standard, no one right way . . . and even if that should supposedly be achieved, which is never . . . there would always be those by human nature, who by ego, arrogance, and know-it-all opinions would still be opposition to such fallible infallible!
Let's face it, what one person wishes to uphold as the best is soon dethroned; while a person who has in their mind that their equipment is the best, no matter if his next door neighbor thinks it is junk -- it does not matter -- the one buying and defending junk is justified in the industry by the power of their pocketbook and bias control.
Does it sound like people making music and does your system sound sound musical with detail, imaging and range.
Measurements alone won’t give you answers.
No, but not doing measurements allows people to imagine they hear something that isn't there. IE: "Wow! Listen to that extended treble" when the measurements show it rolls off at 11khz. Seen it happen.
Does it matter who is right if you like what you hear from your system?
Art is not measurable....
@@ge3466 Its not art. Its science. Hence why theyre called audio engineers. Not audio artist
@@isaaccraig3666 sound production is art, sound reproduction is science.
That's why the best solution is to use Dirac room correction (the best to date) at the consumer level in order to neutralize the home environment, thus allowing all production intent to come through, mistakes and all.... Now if we could get all studios to use Dirac as well we would have a very good consistency from beginning to end.
dirac is not your ear, always eq your system with your own ear sitting in the spot. that is the only way to make a system sound balanced. you are not a microphone and have to take into account your aural perception to make a balanced system.
Randy Levine I’ll start by saying what I always say when this comes up, I’ve been a beta tester and user or Dirac for a long time. Since it’s inception. I agree it is one of the best room correction systems on the market.
However you have way way misunderstood what I was talking about and overstated what Dirac can do. As I noted in the video, eq is any kind cannot fix a flawed speaker or a flawed room. Dirac can help address the effects of room modes to a point, but only multiple subwoofers or mode cancelation can actually fix the modes.
Dirac can’t fix a speaker with a poor polar response. For it to work the speaker still needs to be perfect. While it can help address some tonal Balance issues, that isn’t where most of the flaws lie. Most speakers have problems in the polar response. An uneven DI with Inconsistent directivity. The only fix for that is in the design of the speaker itself.
Dirac can’t fix problems with room reflections either. It can’t counter a reflection or undue the effect. Dirac is just one of many tools needed to address the problems. But don’t fool yourself, it can’t take a mediocre system and make it a great one.
That was very interesting,I think you offended the owners of the Yamaha NS1000 though,lol… not That I own a pair
At the end of the day, it goes without saying that you will NEVER be able to match the environment where the record was mixed and mastered, regardless if their rooms are flat or not. So it's kind of a pointless exercise to even stress about this.
Until every record is tracked, mixed, and mastered in an anechoic chamber, and everyone has an anechoic chamber at home as a listening environment, we will never be able to have any sort of baseline reference and standard.
Just play the music and enjoy.
Richard Wielgosz I think that’s an overstatement. What the ITU tried to do is create a standard room. Mixing and replaying music in an anechoic chamber would be undesirable. Not just because it’s impractical, but because such an environment is suboptimal for sound quality of 2-channel and unnecessary for multichannel.
We don’t need to go to the extreme of removing the room all together. We just need some basic standard and principles to be followed. For example, if we are going to mix in a non-environment room, then final mix should be done in a standard room.
@@PoesAcoustics The goal of a "standard room" is just as absurdly pie-in-the-sky. Unless you're building a studio from scratch you can't always have an ideal control room due to the shape and size of the building you're going to construct the control room in, and then there's money.
Full disclosure. I have helped build 2 studios. I have wired three control rooms from scratch, and I have worked in probably a dozen different studios. I have some small experience here.
@@PoesAcoustics What do you mean by "final mix"? Mastering? There is only one mix. It is its own process.
Richard Wielgosz mixing very often happens in two phases. The initial mix is often done in a non-environment control room. Bigger studios often then have what is sometimes termed a mastering room. This is done for final listening and Eq.
There is 0 science behind the process, but what I’ve been told is that they like the two rooms because a non-environment room is useful as a musical scalpel. A way of hearing every detail and ensuring all the levels are just right. Nothing stands out improperly. However the final mix, once it’s all together, needs to sound right in a normal room. The mastering room is his last built to mimic a perfect domestic listening space.
I understand that most smaller studios don’t use or have mastering rooms. But since I’ve designed a half dozen of them and I didn’t invent the idea, they obviously are in use.
As for standard rooms, I think that’s been the holy grail for decades. Groups have been pushing this notion for a long time. Standard rooms don’t have to be built the same. They just need to meet certain acoustic properties and utilize equipment that meets certain established standards. Primarily the speakers.
Richard Wielgosz me too. But everyone I worked on was essentially built from scratch. Yes they were all built into an existing space, but the room itself and it’s acoustic properties were carefully controlled and designed into the final build.
I have a partnership with a group in Germany and the principle requires that any job he takes on have minimum dimensions and shape before he will even work with it. He has a standard design approach he takes and won’t build a subpar room. He would probably argue that a studio shouldn’t be built if it can’t be built to those kinds of standards. A little extreme for sure.
I love Dynaudio LYD 48 monitors. Any opinions about them?
The idea of the mastering or mixing engineers trying to make a recording sound good wherther substandard speakers are used or whether its higher end speakers.. especially in the recordings made for the mass market.
On the other hand, when MoFi, AP, Music Matters, etc...., make true "audiophile pressings" (or try to) they better results are to be expected otherwise why would i pay more... also, is it safe to say that since thier was a fairly long lull in the vinyl record business, that technology has changed as well as the true experts of the vinyl hay day are lost, or being lost.. that there is somewhat of a drop in expertise in Mastering & Mixing?
A bit of clarification: Mixing engineers double check to see what it sounds like on cheaper speakers. The intention is not to make it sound good on them.
There's a few assumptions made in this conversation between Matt and Gene that should be adressed. Although the topic itself is a good one.
I listen to a fairly wide range of genres of music. One of those is Christain music. For Christain music, being a smaller market, I dont believe there would be many venues to record at. But consistently they are some of the best sounding cds I own. Not sure if there would be correlation between the equipment the use with the better quality monitors you mentioned. Just a curiosity
I'm not sure I agree totally what he's saying. in a studio you would use a graphic equaliser and spectrum analyser to set the room for a pink Noise and white noise, this should give you a neutral balance yes different speakers will play a part but a big studio usually uses the same type of speaker manufacturer. And with the correction is hardly any difference, only lower frequencies would be different. But actually now these days will design it to work in cars and for mobile devices to sound reasonable.
You have to remember most studio is not designing for audiophiles or pleasure listening, it mainly disappeared in the late 80s, and now everything has heavy compression on it so there's no need for them to go out of their way to add dynamics and making it sound correct. Yes I have this gripe with produces sound engineers there's no reason why they can't make two versions of the same thing it's not really difficult because the compression is added at the end anyway. So they could release a audiophile recording and released both one is an audiophile one is just general MP3.
I think they don't do it because they know they would be criticised for their skill or lack of from audiofiles. And the engineer of any salt should have electronics knowledge probably a degree and taught how to repair equipment in sound engineering college.
People need to have their own studio equipment and you tune in to what you think it should sound like or what you like. Is the only way to go.
But you don't need it to sound like the engineer wanted it to sound like....you're missing the point. Some correction of speakers can be done with an expander what expands the soundstage or shrinks the soundstage, most Studios mixing eq's would have it built-in like tube paragraph equalizer, would have this built in.and you have slope control cut-off as well don't forget not just equalisation. You can follow a chart and gives you a good ide, Like something like this.
need to set or look for. 20 Hz and below - impossible to detect, remove as it only adds unnecessary energy to the total sound, thereby most probably holding down the overall volume of the track
60 Hz and below - sub bass (feel only)
80(-100) Hz - feel AND hear bass
100-120 Hz - the "club sound system punch" resides here
200 Hz and below - bottom
250 Hz - notch filter here can add thump to a kick drum
150-400 Hz - boxiness
200 Hz-1.5 KHz - punch, fatness, impact
800 Hz-4 KHz - edge, clarity, harshness, defines timbre
4500 Hz - exteremly tiring to the ears, add a slight notch here
5-7 KHz - de-essing is done here
4-9 KHz - brightness, presence, definition, sibilance, high frequency distortion
6-15 KHz - air and presence
9-15 KHz - adding will give sparkle, shimmer, bring out details - cutting will smooth out harshness and darken the mix
Kicks:
60Hz with a Q of 1.4 -- Add fullness to kicks.
5Khz with a Q of 2.8 -- Adds attack to Kicks
bottom (60 - 80 Hz),
slap (4 kHz)
EQ>Cut below 80Hz to remove rumble
Boost between 80 -125 Hz for bass
Boost between 3 - 5kHz to get the slap
PROCESSING> Compression 4:1/6:1 slow attack med release.
Reverb: Tight room reverb (0.1-0.2ms)
General:
Apply a little cut at 300Hz and some boost between 40Hz and 80Hz.
Control The Attack:
Apply boost or cut around 4KHz to 6KHz.
Treat Muddiness:
Apply cut somewhere in the 100Hz to 500Hz range.
kick>> bottom depth at 60 - 80 Hz, slap attack at 2.5Hz
Snares:
200Hz - 250Hz with a Q of 1.4 -- Adds wood to snares
3Khz with a Q of 1.4 -- Adds atack to snare.
7Khz with a Q of 2.8 -- Adds Sharpness to snares and percussion
fatness at 120-240Hz
boing at 400Hz
crispness at 5kHz
snap at 10kHz
fatness (240 Hz), crispness (5 kHz)
EQ> Boost above 2kHz for that crisp edge
Cut at 1kHz to get rid of the sharp peak
Boost at 125Hz for a full snare sound
Cut at 80Hz to remove rumble
PROCESSING> Compression 4:1 slow attack med release.
Reverb: Tight room reverb (0.1-0.2ms)
snare>> fatness at 240HZ, crispness at 5 KHz
Vocals
General:
Roll off below 60Hz using a High Pass Filter. This range is unlikely to contain anything useful, so you may as well reduce the noise the track contributes to the mix.
Treat Harsh Vocals:
To soften vocals apply cut in a narrow bandwidth somewhere in the 2.5KHz to 4KHz range.
Get An Open Sound:
Apply a gentle boost above 6KHz using a shelving filter.
Get Brightness, Not Harshness:
Apply a gentle boost using a wide-band Bandpass Filter above 6KHz. Use the Sweep control to sweep the frequencies to get it right.
Get Smoothness:
Apply some cut in a narrow band in the 1KHz to 2KHz range.
Bring Out The Bass:
Apply some boost in a reasonably narrow band somewhere in the 200Hz to 600Hz range.
Radio Vocal Effect:
Apply some cut at the High Frequencies, lots of boost about 1.5KHz and lots of cut below 700Hz.
Telephone Effect:
Apply lots of compression pre EQ, and a little analogue distortion by turning up the input gain. Apply some cut at the High Frequencies, lots of boost about 1.5KHz and lots of cut below 700Hz.
vocals>> fullness at 120 Hz, boominess at 200 - 240 Hz, presence at 5 kHz, sibilance at 7.5 - 10 kHz
Hats:
10Khz with a Q of 1.0 -- Adds brightness to hats and cymbals
Hi Hat & Cymbals: sizzle (7.5 - 10 kHz), clank (200 Hz)
EQ> Boost above 5kHz for sharp sparkle
Cut at 1kHz to remove jangling
PROCESSING> Compression use high ratio for high energy feel
Reverb: Looser than Bass n Snare allow the hats and especially the Rides to ring a little
Get Definition:
Roll off everything below 600Hz using a High Pass Filter.
Get Sizzle:
Apply boost at 10KHz using a Band Pass Filter. Adjust the bandwidth to get the sound right.
Treat Clangy Hats:
Apply some cut between 1KHz and 4KHz.
hi hats/cymbals>> clank or gong sound at 200 Hz, shimmer at 7.5 kHz - 12 kHz
Guitar:
Treat Unclear Vocals:
Apply some cut to the guitar between 1KHz and 5KHz to bring the vocals to the front of the mix.
General:
Apply a little boost between 100Hz and 250Hz and again between 10KHz and 12KHz.
Acoustic Guitar
Add Sparkle:Try some gentle boost at 10KHz using a Band Pass Filter with a medium bandwidth.
General:
Try applying some mid-range cut to the rhythm section to make vocals and other instruments more clearly heard.
Other:
Voice: presence (5 kHz), sibilance (7.5 - 10 kHz), boominess (200 - 240 kHz), fullness (120 Hz)
Electric Guitar: fullness (240 Hz), bite (2.5 kHz), air / sizzle (8 kHz)
Bass Guitar: bottom (60 - 80 Hz), attack (700 - 1000 Hz), string noise (2.5 kHz)
Toms: attack (5 kHz), fullness (120 - 240 Hz)
Acoustic Guitar: harshness / bite (2 kHz), boominess (120 - 200 Hz), cut (7 - 10 kHz)
Bass - Compressed, EQ'd with a full bottom end and some mids
rack toms>> fullness at 240 Hz, attack at 5 kHz
floor toms>> fullness at 80 - 120 Hz, attack at 5 kHz
horns>> fullness at 120 - 240 Hz, shrill at 5 - 7.5 kHz
strings>> fullness at 240 Hz, scratchiness at 7.5 - 10 kHz
conga/bongo>> resonance at 200 - 240 Hz, slap at 5 kHz
General Frequencies:
EQ Reference: Frequencies
50Hz
Boost: To thicken up bass drums and sub-bass parts.
Cut: Below this frequency on all vocal tracks. This should reduce the effect of any microphone 'pops'.
70-100Hz
Boost: For bass lines and bass drums.
Cut: For vocals.
General: Be wary of boosting the bass of too many tracks. Low frequency sounds are particularly vulnerable to phase cancellation between sounds of similar frequency. This can result in a net 'cut of the bass frequencies.
200-400Hz
Boost: To add warmth to vocals or to thicken a guitar sound.
Cut: To bring more clarity to vocals or to thin cymbals and higher frequency percussion.
Boost or Cut: to control the 'woody' sound of a snare.
400-800Hz
Boost: To add warmth to toms.
Boost or Cut: To control bass clarity, or to thicken or thin guitar sounds.
General: In can be worthwhile applying cut to some of the instruments in the mix to bring more clarity to the bass within the overall mix.
800Hz-1KHz
Boost: To thicken vocal tracks. At 1 KHz apply boost to add a knock to a bass drum.
1-3KHz
Boost: To make a piano more aggressive. Applying boost between 1KHz and 5KHz will also make guitars and basslines more cutting.
Cut: Apply cut between 2 KHz and 3KHz to smooth a harsh sounding vocal part.
General: This frequency range is often used to make instruments stand out in a mix.
3-6KHz
Boost: For a more 'plucked' sounding bass part. Apply boost at around 6KHz to add some definition to vocal parts and distorted guitars.
Cut: Apply cut at about 3KHz to remove the hard edge of piercing vocals. Apply cut between 5KHZ and 6KHz to dull down some parts in a mix.
6-10KHz
Boost: To sweeten vocals. The higher the frequency you boost the more 'airy/breathy' the result will be. Also boost to add definition to the sound of acoustic guitars or to add edge to synth sounds or strings or to enhance the sound of a variety of percussion sounds. For example boost this range to:
Bring out cymbals.
Add ring to a snare.
Add edge to a bass drum.
10-16KHz
Boost: To make vocals more 'airy' or for crisp cymbals and percussion. Also boost this frequency to add sparkle to pads, but only if the frequency is present in the original sound, otherwise you will just be adding hiss to the recording.
Matt says Tannoy's coaxial speakers are horrible -- strong language and fighting words to many. Matt are you condemning all Tannoy coaxial speakers? On what basis are they horrible? Measured response? My friend has modern Tannoy's Ardens, coxial, 15" woofer, if they measure 'horrible' then I must reevaluate my stance on sound reproduction because , in this case, horrible sounds amazing. Dynamics and scale of these Tannoy's make speakers with 6.5" and 8" woofers sound like insignificant warbling toys ...the tone is somewhat warm and rich I suppose, which must be a cardinal sin of coloration. I truly wonder whether some objectivists truly prefer to invest their $ in components that bring them less aural enjoyment because they 'know' that said components measure better than those that sound more pleasing and emotionally involving....
The Ardens are not really modern. They are a remake of the old HPD 385, which itself was a remake of the old MG15’s. Thee are the 15” gold coaxial monitors that people lust after.
www.troelsgravesen.dk/Tannoy/Tannoy_B_level_20Hz.jpg
And
www.44bx.com/tannoy/images/HPD_sw.gif
Shows what these measure like. I’ve found a few times that Tannoys actual measurements aren’t as good as their claimed measurements. They rarely give the precise details of how they measured and further don’t provide much polar data. That and measurements simply weren’t as good back then.
I don’t see a speaker that measures well. I can show lots of $6000 speakers that measure much better.
Now I get it, they are very dynamic and efficient dynamic speakers often have an alluring effortless quality to them. But there are better speakers for that. The Tannoy is a poor value in my opinion.
I don’t just base that on the terrible measurements. I’ve heard them too. I’ve frequently walked away feeling they were bright and edgy with obvious colorations. The measurements I’ve seen suggest that’s true.
But how good a speaker is for any one person is subjective. If you like them, that’s fine. This isn’t a pissing match. It doesn’t really matter that I think they are bad speakers. I just hope they aren’t used as studio monitors.
@@PoesAcoustics Thank you for taking the time to reply. I almost choked on my coffee when you said that your listening experience with the Tannoy was marred by a bright edgy sound as my own experience is that they are the antithesis of that: warm and dark to a fault. One British reviewer remarked that it should come with a bottle of port and a fondue set! I see the rising treble in the graphs you provided which does baffle me as I am not old and am very averse to elevated treble.... While I often dissent from your pronouncements about aspects of this hobby I do find myself returning to your channel again and again. You and Gene really are a refreshing contrast to the florid, rhapsodic poems penned by 'expert' reviewers. I like that you do not commit the fallacy of arguing from authority which is so rampant (and ironic when voiced by liberal arts majors).
I think it's true the vintage Tannoy coaxials are less than stellar in some aspects. Warm and fuzzy.
On the other hand their strengths are virtually unmatched elsewhere. Their sheer sense of ease makes it difficult to live with the sense of strain that most small speakers exhibit.
This can apply to any domain, not only to audio. All these discussions happen because of adio being subjective.
Yeah room acoustics play also a large part regardless of your equipment which I’ve learned from you guys , thanks for all your insight and keep up the great work you do , STOP THE SNAKE OIL , more people should pay attention to what you guys are saying cause it’s true thanks again
I think this is why many of us have separate audio Andvideo systems
“Tannoy are horrible horrible speakers” yeah that’s why ppl will pay $5000 or more for ONE 1950’s Tannoy driver👀
In the land of stupid that statement would still win a place!
PS Audio recently stated that most music is mixed for car audio and mobile phones. He says this is something they intends to correct in their new recording studio.
People pay hundreds of thousands for classic cars that would be outdriven in every way by a base level modern Corvette or Tesla.
How much people are willing to pay has little to do with objective performance.
Tannoy's dual concentric are horrible speakers? I disagree completely.
Genelecs SAM with GLM is moving studiospeakers in the right direction
Jim Jay absolutely. There newest SAM line is insanely good. There are others too. The Dutch & Dutch 8C is a marvel of engineering. Won’t work for Far field but a great speaker.
Quick question guys, What is speaker impedance range for Yamaha TSR 7850. The manual really doesn't say. It just shows you how to choose between 6ohms or 8 ohms.
Just set it to 8 ohms
Whatever you do, never touch impedance switch! - Audioholics Rule No 1 :)
The real elephant in the room is called money.
I can't agree more. With all the variables that can exist, it comes down to buying the best quality speakers you can afford accounting (for us married folk), the WAF/HAF factor; then adjusting for the home/room you have to work with. The money definitely allows for the number of variables you can control in all of this. There is one company I will not name that has taken it up to to installing their own studio, engineers, and preferred musicians. WAF factors aside, I think that is the MOST you can do, but I sure can't afford that.