|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.167.222.192
Hi John, I'm providing a link to a newsletter post where he speaks of the need for accuracy rather than speakers that "designers stray from the ideal of accurate reproduction of the source dynamics, phase, and frequency response and inject their own personal "tweaks" to bend the sound"
I'm asking for your opinion on this subject as you record and produce music. And as a reviewer who has tested many speakers. I also recall that you have used a variety of speakers over the years for your recordings. Is there any one constant for you, a set of headphones perhaps?
I think we can all agree we want a speaker that does not have an obvious sound signature, but beyond that, would we get the sound of the studio by using those JBLs which come with Crown amps?
I'm going to ask everyone to let this be a discussion of the merits of Waldrep's point of view, and not a chance to attack or insult John. I read the linked post, and it got me thinking, most high end speakers that I have read reviews of, usually measure reasonably flat, no obvious tweaking. The drivers used, the type of crossover, cabinet construction all have an effect on sound. It would seem to duplicate the sound of the studio, you would need an identical rack of gear and speakers, used for that recording.
I also have come to the conclusion that there is no absolute sound, that we can acquire in our homes, as the room is different, the gear is carefully chosen to get what is a pleasing sound to us. Other than having the actual musicians playing in our rooms, or building a dozen or so listening rooms each duplicating that recording studio. In reality no two rooms or systems will sound the same. Maybe with dsp, offering all corrections needed for each room, and a pro listening room designer, we could get close. But would that really be satisfying? It certainly isn't affordable, or practical for all but a few with unlimited resources.
Personally, I just want a nice transparent full range system that sounds good to me, that brings me joy, one without distracting faults.
I'll say it again, please don't use this topic to insult John or Stereophile. I think this is a topic that could generate a good, educational discussion.
Follow Ups:
then you don't really know what you are hearing in the recording studio!
That's the long and short of it.
Mark Waldrep has his opinions and is welcome to them, but his position is a good example of why not all mastering jobs are the best possible. This is a pity because this is not due to a lack of skill on the part of the mastering engineer. Its just that they really don't know what they are hearing.
I've seen many that master on cheaper speakers with the idea that the music is going to play on a cheap system (car stereo, boom box) and so the cheap speakers are used to try to simulate that. Its a flawed concept; the problem being that the cheap speakers you use to master with likely do not have the same flaws as the cheap systems others are using, so not only do you not know what your mastered work sounds like, its likely that it has synergistic flaws that will be seen as aberrations elsewhere. We've seen far too much of this in the industry in the last 25 years!!
Still others use 'pro audio speakers' without a good idea of what this really means. Quite often pro audio speakers are designed to handle high power/high volume levels while not necessarily being the most accurate or detailed. The simple fact is the best studio monitor is also going to be an excellent speaker by any measure and if you look at the better studios they have no fear of using 'high end' loudspeakers.
The bottom line is that you just get the best playback you can so that you don't screw up the recording you are making by making stupid mistakes that you can't hear.
While I am not saying to ignore Mr. Waldrep entirely, I am saying that he is off-base on this one and no mistake.
(FWIW I run an audio manufacturing operation of 40 years as well as a recording studio which includes an LP mastering operation)
….or it goes back at least 25 years as you observe. Back in the March 1994 issue of Stereophile, J. Gordon Holt wrote an article titled: Space, the Final Frontier. In it he observed that speakers with a tilt towards the bass (for "warmth") plus a treble peak (for "detail") were tending to get rave reviews compared to similar speakers tending to more of a flat type of response which were tending to get luke warm reviews. A Weslake monitor speaker, which got a luke warm review, was cited as an example and compared with some speakers which had the colorations JGH described. Now I might like the speakers with the bass tilt/treble peak more than the Weslakes, but I would not call them more accurate than the Weslakes in view of John Atkinson's frequency response graphs of all the speakers JGH compared in the article. It would be nice if the term "accurate" had become more accurately used following the Space… article, but luckily nobody was holding their breath back in '94.
I have to reluctantly admit that I generally agree with John Atkinson's take on the original post that a good engineer can listen around certain tendencies of the monitors if they are understood by the engineer. However the Mercury Living Presence recordings have been highly regarded for decades, but they were mastered over Altec V.O.T. horns, which should seemingly horrify JGH and JA from comments they have made.
Paul
Ralph, what records have you mastered that I can go out and buy?
….who is in Minnesota I believe, while I'm in Chicago. As this post is sinking down in time, it may not get noticed.
Paul
Ralph says:
"Still others use 'pro audio speakers' without a good idea of what this really means. Quite often pro audio speakers are designed to handle high power/high volume levels while not necessarily being the most accurate or detailed. The simple fact is the best studio monitor is also going to be an excellent speaker by any measure and if you look at the better studios they have no fear of using 'high end' loudspeakers."
I'll point out a counterpoint: There are monitor speakers that are far more honest and true to the music than most $50k+ audiophile speakers.
Having to make a choice between the usual suspect review honey speakers versus top line pro speakers, I'd take the top line pro speakers as a whole. Course, I have no horse in the game as I make neither speakers nor amps.
I can't figure out how you're disagreeing with him. He says "Don't be led astray by those that promote personal flavors of compromised sound because they think that their marketing people will be able to capture more sales" and that he'd buy the most accurate and revealing speakers he's ever heard if he were to buy new monitors today. It sounds like you both have the same opinion but different pet peeves. He finds outrageously expensive but still inaccurate speakers annoying and you find people who reject "high-end" speakers completely annoying.
-
Like many pro monitoring speakers, the JBL M2s are equalized to be flat on the listening axis. Studio environments are (generally speaking) acoustically dead reflection-free zones, so what the engineer hears at the listening position is a flat response. Home listening rooms are not acoustically dead, and the response at the listening position is significantly influenced by the loudspeaker's off-axis response, which is not flat. So to understand how the JBLs will sound in a home environment, look at the power response.
The JBL M2s combine a large conventional woofer and a horn loaded tweeter with a crossover around 800Hz. So up to 800Hz they will exhibit increasing directivity, and above that they will have constant directivity. JBL is nice enough to publish the power response of the M2, and you can see that the change in directivity through the crossover region will result in a dip of a few dB in the midrange, centered around the crossover. Thus they won't sound quite as neutral in a typical domestic room, especially in the far field, as compared to the studio. Also, the low-mid treble might sound subjectively a little bright.
Jeff-
there has never been a better time to get into Speakers.
I spent the last 5 years trying to narrow down my reference, Thiel CS 2.4SE. I auditioned many, many models at as many dealers/retailers.
The key is to get out there (road trip) and listen, listen, listen.
The forums and Audio press are helpful, but, only after you have upheld your end. Take your fave music w/ you!
I'm not looking for speakers, I just was intrigued by the JBLs. I read Walberg's newsletters and for a guy who produces audiophile recordings he is really down on audiophile products. The JBLs are $20,000 speakers, the theory would be if they are so accurate they should bring us the closest to what they are hearing in the studio. I don't really believe that would be the case. But I was interested in what John and others thought.
My system is set for now, due to lack of funds. But if I was able to, first I would upgrade amps, then a Directstream. Speakers would be down the list, and I am pretty sure it would be either Legacy Aeris or Vandersteen Model 5s. I like the idea of powered subs, although I am not sure about the Aeris having AD-DA conversion. I'd have to do some serious listening. It would take a miracle for me to actually be able to afford any serious upgrades any time soon.
Jeff - a very nice and cordial inquiry.
I'm not sure what JBL speakers you're talking about, but the M2 is discounted to about $3,000 per pair at Guitar Center.
More reply soon.
:)
I think these are the speakers Waldrep is referring to, see link.
> I'm asking for your opinion on this subject as you record and produce
> music. And as a reviewer who has tested many speakers.
This is an enormous subject, too big to discuss in this space, perhaps.
Studio monitors have to have a much higher dynamic range than is
necessary for a domestic design and often have a peaky output in the low
treble, to expose problems. I recently produced sessions where the
engineer's preferred speakers were Tannoy Little Reds with Mastering Lab
crossovers. These monitors were too bright for my tastes, but told the
engineer everything he needed to know. See fig.30 at the link below for
the responses of several professional monitors and compare with fig.27,
which shows the flattest-measuring speakers we had reviewed at the time
I wrote this article, in the summer of 1997.
> I also recall that you have used a variety of speakers over the years
> for your recordings. Is there any one constant for you, a set of
> headphones perhaps?
At the sessions, I exclusively use headphones: Sennheiser HD650s and
Audeze LCD-Xes. FOr mixing, editing, and mastering, I use the most
neutral speakers I have to hand, generally what I am reviewing, as well
as my 1978 pair of Rogers LS3/5a's.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
The studio where I used to assist had a common monitor setup: a pair of Yamaha NS-10Ms for most day-to-day work, a pair of big horns (JBL/Urei) built into the walls, and some little midrange-only cubes (in this case, the wonderful RORs.) They also had a pair of ProAC Studio 100s which were often used for mixing small ensemble/jazz recordings.
The Yammys *are* bright, and you do not want them in your living room. But they do let engineers quickly pick out any imperfections buried deep in the mix. The JBL/Urei's were pretty much for checking dynamics, as they had limited extension low or high, but they let you feel the kick drum in your chest. The little cubes were from the days of pocket transistor radios - mixes had to sound OK on those, so you needed a midrange-only monitor to check it.
Most engineers I know take a different approach from Waldrep, and are more in line with John's comments. Rather than "this is the best" and you should emulate it at home, they strive for sound in their studios that gives them the detail they need, and which they can reliably translate into what the customer will hear at home. In Waldrep's favor, though, are the big B&W monitors, which are in many studios and seem to be the one speaker line that successfully bridges the studio/home divide.
WW
"A man need merely light the filaments of his receiving set and the world's greatest artists will perform for him." Alfred N. Goldsmith, RCA, 1922
I like their coherency, imaging and, whatever their shortcomings, they remind me of music i have heard live and loved.
They are the speakers I have owned the longest and whose sonic character
I know the best.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
I wonder how those JBLs would sound in a home system?
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: