If it's correct that any mic and any speaker colors sound, any recorded sound you run though it is colored by the mic to begin with - so how you do you tell that you're accurately reproducing sound that's to some degree inaccurate to begin with?
Or if you're measuring reproduction of say an electronically generated tone, how is it determined how accurately the tone is being reproduced? With a mic? What about the test mic's inaccuracies?
>If it's correct that any mic and any speaker colors sound, any >recorded sound you run though it is colored by the mic to begin with - >so how you do you tell that you're accurately reproducing sound that's >to some degree inaccurate to begin with?
There ain't no monitors that are accurate or even good.
However, the best microphones are a lot better than the best monitors.
>Or if you're measuring reproduction of say an electronically generated >tone, how is it determined how accurately the tone is being >reproduced? With a mic? What about the test mic's inaccuracies?
Again, most of the monitor aberrations are way worse than the lab mike abberations. Hell, play a sweep tone on the monitor and listen with a finger stuck in one ear so you're only using the other ear to hear, and you'll hear all KINDS of frequency-domain bizarreness even in a pretty decent room. --scott
-- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
> If it's correct that any mic and any speaker colors > sound, any recorded sound you run though it is colored by > the mic to begin with - so how you do you tell that > you're accurately reproducing sound that's to some degree > inaccurate to begin with?
Accurate reproduction of sound - in what alternative universe does that happen? ;-)
The current state of the art of reproduction of sound is that on a good day, we can make recordings that cause a similar emotional reaction as the original sonic event, sometimes.
The current state of the art of reproduction of sound is that on a good day, we can make recordings that are good enough that we might be able to identify which live sonic event of many was recorded on that particular recording.
> Or if you're measuring reproduction of say an > electronically generated tone, how is it determined how > accurately the tone is being reproduced? With a mic?
As Scott and just about everybody else here will say - The are mics that are a ton more accurate than the best speakers. But don't take that as a claim that the mics are anything like perfectly accurate.
> What about the test mic's inaccuracies?
If you find a good text about acoustics, you might find a chapter about testing mics.
I did a little searching around and found that if you search google books for a book titled "Sensor technology handbook" By Jon S. Wilson . Chapter 18 looks pretty representative.
On Nov 7, 7:12 pm, muzician21 <muzicia...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It seems like it would be a catch 22.
> If it's correct that any mic and any speaker colors sound, any > recorded sound you run though it is colored by the mic to begin with - > so how you do you tell that you're accurately reproducing sound that's > to some degree inaccurate to begin with?
> Or if you're measuring reproduction of say an electronically generated > tone, how is it determined how accurately the tone is being > reproduced? With a mic? What about the test mic's inaccuracies?
In my opinion, there are no accurate or (universally) good monitors. Monitors are one of the great variables in sound reproduction. They can never sound good to everybody; the best you can do is get a decent set, and make them YOUR "good" monitors. I have done this with a few sets in my career. By trail and error, I try the same recordings on numerous sets of monitors. I LEARN how things SHOULD sound on my monitors. I teach myself, for example, how do do a mix on MY monitors that sounds good on most other monitors.
On Nov 7, 8:34 pm, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> There ain't no monitors that are accurate or even good.
> However, the best microphones are a lot better than the best monitors.
How are either of the above determined, and if so, when pro studios pay however many multiples of thousands for monitors, I assume there must be a reason they do so?
> On Nov 7, 8:34 pm, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote: >> There ain't no monitors that are accurate or even good.
Compared to the best or even just good live sound, yes.
>> However, the best microphones are a lot better than the >> best monitors.
Agreed.
> How are either of the above determined, and if so, when > pro studios pay however many multiples of thousands for > monitors, I assume there must be a reason they do so?
There are some basic requirements of a good studio monitor that simply cost money:
(1) Extended range, especially in the bass
(2) Good dynamic range, perhaps in a larger-than-average and more absorptive-than-average room
(3) Smooth frequency response
It is the rare professional monitor that sells in volumes comparable to a popular home speaker, so development and tooling costs may be divided among far fewer units.
I think that all things considered, studio monitors are generally more pragmatically priced than high end home speakers.
muzician21 wrote: > How are either of the above determined, and if so, when pro studios > pay however many multiples of thousands for monitors, I assume there > must be a reason they do so?
They buy monitors based on what they need to hear in order to make recordings that others can enjoy. While you'll hear some engineers and producers talk about walking between the studio and the control room and hearing exactly the same thing, they're really exaggerating. And when it comes to mixing a multitrack project that's been overdubbed and fixed so that all the tracks are "perfect" it's rare than you can solo any track and hear exactly what it sounded like in the studio.
The two most important things about good control room monitors are that they don't hide things that will come back to haunt you later, and that they don't make you tired when you listen for a long time.
>> There ain't no monitors that are accurate or even good.
>> However, the best microphones are a lot better than the best monitors.
>How are either of the above determined, and if so, when pro studios >pay however many multiples of thousands for monitors, I assume there >must be a reason they do so?
The first one you can easily determine with your ears. Listen to the playback of the vocal with your eyes closed. Does it sound like a real human being is in front of you, or does it sound like a speaker?
The second one is a book in itself, and that book is "Microphones" published by Bruel and Kjaer. There are actual primary standards for microphone frequency response on-axis... and once you have a mike calibrated on-axis, you can measure the response off-axis.
You can also record an impulse and then calculate the frequency response mathematically from the impulse response.
So now once you have a calibrated measurement microphone, you can accurately measure the response of rooms and speakers relative to the microphone... and even the best speakers are pretty sad both in terms of frequency response and distortion. --scott
-- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
muzician21 <muzicia...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Nov 7, 8:34 pm, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> > There ain't no monitors that are accurate or even good.
> > However, the best microphones are a lot better than the best monitors.
> How are either of the above determined, and if so, when pro studios > pay however many multiples of thousands for monitors, I assume there > must be a reason they do so?
Some speakers give me a sense of the _reality_ of the sources coming through them. Some do not. Mind you, I most often deal with what I'll call "natural" sounds - acoustic instruments, human voices, sounds that are generated without electrical amplification.
Some years ago at an AES convention on the floor of the large exhibit room at Moscone Center in SF I heard Laura Nyro via various Klein & Hummel monitors. Even in that horrible acoustical environment full of ambient noise and distraction I felt I could perceive her lips moving in front of the mic she had sung into. It was as if those speakers offered a transparent time travel window to where she was singing and playing an acoustic guitar.
A similar experience could be had in another, better treated room where ATC's were on demo.
To me, those are good speakers, in the extreme. (I am obviously less extreme about this than is Scott. <g.)
This past week working as an artist in Cedar Creek Recording in Austin TX we mostly monitored over a pair of Genelecs with which I am unfamiliar. I gradually got used to them though even after three days I'm not confident in my judgements about what I hear through them. Fred Remmert, the studio owner, certainly is. Sometimes he would switch to a pair of 6' tall Dunleavys driven by Brystons, and over those I felt I could tell what was going on in detail. If it sounded good going into them, it sounded good. If it didn't, it was painfully obvious. The Gennies aren't completely dishonest, to me, but they do have some euphonic coloration that makes things sound a little better than they do. (Sometimes that's probably a relief for the engineer.)
At home I've been working with a pair of Genelec 8040A's. I got used to them quickly and the first mixes I did with them for clients came out quite well. Played back at Terra Nova mastering over a pair of Duntechs the mixes held up well, with the big speakers in a very well treated room bringing me slightly more detail. In September I made some changes to my control room, and the rough mixes I've put together so far aren't quite as good. I have some adjustments to make to get the 200 to 400 Hz octave in balance. That said, those are not terribly expensive speakers, and I know that when I have things set-up properly I can get reasonably accurate mixes that will translate very well over other systems.
Keep in mind that as one moves toward an unobtainable audio perfection, the closer one gets to 100% the greater the cost of each additional percentile of improvement. It gets to the point where tiny improvements cost loads of money. If had I had loads of money I'd buy K&H's or ATC's in a heartbeat.
>Keep in mind that as one moves toward an unobtainable audio perfection, >the closer one gets to 100% the greater the cost of each additional >percentile of improvement. It gets to the point where tiny improvements >cost loads of money. If had I had loads of money I'd buy K&H's or ATC's >in a heartbeat.
But by the same token, the best speakers today are _far_ better than the best speakers of the eighties were.
I learned to mix on Altec 604s which never sounded _anything_ like the original signal. I play back stuff that I mixed years ago and I hear all kinds of things that I never noticed then. --scott
-- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
> But by the same token, the best speakers today are _far_ > better than the best speakers of the eighties were.
That's debatable. (It would be truer of inexpensive-to-moderately priced speakers.) Nevertheless, recordings have reached the point where, when played through really good speakers, they sound a great deal like "the real thing".
Ultimately (and unfortunately), the question of whether sound reproduction is literally accurate is a subjective evaluation.
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 07:13:28 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
<grizzledgee...@comcast.net> wrote: >> But by the same token, the best speakers today are _far_ >> better than the best speakers of the eighties were.
>That's debatable. (It would be truer of inexpensive-to-moderately priced >speakers.) Nevertheless, recordings have reached the point where, when >played through really good speakers, they sound a great deal like "the real >thing".
>Ultimately (and unfortunately), the question of whether sound reproduction >is literally accurate is a subjective evaluation.
Just the other day I was travelling with a friend on the London Underground. we were on our way up the first of two escalators into one of London's busiest rail terminals when we could just barely hear some brass band music drifting down from the concourse above. We were both in instant agreement that it was a live band playing, and not a recording. Of course we were right. They simply never sound the same, even with really good reproduction.
Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote: > hank alrich <walki...@nv.net> wrote:
> >Keep in mind that as one moves toward an unobtainable audio perfection, > >the closer one gets to 100% the greater the cost of each additional > >percentile of improvement. It gets to the point where tiny improvements > >cost loads of money. If had I had loads of money I'd buy K&H's or ATC's > >in a heartbeat.
> But by the same token, the best speakers today are _far_ better than the > best speakers of the eighties were.
Right you are, and the progress is damn near astounding. Accuracy now, in spite of the slop, is several orders of magnitude advanced over the old daze.
> I learned to mix on Altec 604s which never sounded _anything_ like the > original signal. I play back stuff that I mixed years ago and I hear > all kinds of things that I never noticed then. > --scott
Yep, but still, once you were personally calibrated to the playback system you were able to deliver mixes that translated well even if there was stuff in there of which you had no idea. <g>
One of the things I appreciated about the Genelec 8040A's is that when I got to Jerry Tubb's place there were no huge surprises, not even on the bottom.
> >Keep in mind that as one moves toward an unobtainable audio perfection, > >the closer one gets to 100% the greater the cost of each additional > >percentile of improvement. It gets to the point where tiny improvements > >cost loads of money. If had I had loads of money I'd buy K&H's or ATC's > >in a heartbeat.
> But by the same token, the best speakers today are _far_ better than the > best speakers of the eighties were.
I agree, which also makes me wonder why people are still using NS-10's.
William Sommerwerck <grizzledgee...@comcast.net> wrote: >> But by the same token, the best speakers today are _far_ >> better than the best speakers of the eighties were.
>That's debatable. (It would be truer of inexpensive-to-moderately priced >speakers.) Nevertheless, recordings have reached the point where, when >played through really good speakers, they sound a great deal like "the real >thing".
I don't think it's true of inexpensive to moderately priced speakers at all, really. While the technology has improved, that market has also been flooded with cheap crap designed for high profit margins too.
>Ultimately (and unfortunately), the question of whether sound reproduction >is literally accurate is a subjective evaluation.
That's pretty much true. But we have plenty of measurements that can at least make a good first cut at tossing out the worst of them. --scott
-- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
> Some speakers give me a sense of the _reality_ of the sources coming > through them. Some do not. Mind you, I most often deal with what > I'll call "natural" sounds - acoustic instruments, human voices, > sounds that are generated without electrical amplification.
Which are often the most difficult to get right in any monitoring environment imho. What you put in rarely seems to equal what you get back out.
<snippage>
> This past week working as an artist in Cedar Creek Recording in > Austin TX we mostly monitored over a pair of Genelecs with which I > am unfamiliar. I gradually got used to them though even after three > days I'm not confident in my judgements about what I hear through > them. Fred Remmert, the studio owner, certainly is. Sometimes he > would switch to a pair of 6' tall Dunleavys driven by Brystons, and > over those I felt I could tell what was going on in detail. If it > sounded good going into them, it sounded good. If it didn't, it was > painfully obvious. The Gennies aren't completely dishonest, to me, > but they do have some euphonic coloration that makes things sound a > little better than they do. (Sometimes that's probably a relief for > the engineer.)
Agreed. USed to do some work at a well equipped room in western ILlinois, biggest weakness was his Alesis monitors. I couldn't get anything to translate to the rest of the world on them, but the studio's owner could. HE was accustomed to them. But, sit me down in my own control room in front of the ubiquitous Yamahas many of us love to hate and I could get it done. When I"d take them to another room with a pair of same Yamahas or some soffit mounted Yureis I felt that waht I was putting it was what was coming out.
THere comes a point where you can't throw any money at speaker perfection, then it's training your ears to interpret what you are hearing. THis is why I have the ubiquitous Yamahas in the remote truck as well as a pair of JBL 4411's.
Regards, Richard -- | Remove .my.foot for email | via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site | Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:25:33 GMT, s...@spam.com (Don Pearce) wrote: >Just the other day I was travelling with a friend on the London >Underground. we were on our way up the first of two escalators into >one of London's busiest rail terminals when we could just barely hear >some brass band music drifting down from the concourse above. We were >both in instant agreement that it was a live band playing, and not a >recording. Of course we were right. They simply never sound the same, >even with really good reproduction.
You were lucky. More typically you'd have turned a corner on the Underground to find an over-amplified busker.
If this was Waterloo on a Sunday it could have been my friend Frank's wind group (not technically a brass band, but near enough:-)
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 10:17:00 -0600, walki...@nv.net (hank alrich) wrote:
>Right you are, and the progress is damn near astounding. Accuracy now, >in spite of the slop, is several orders of magnitude advanced over the >old daze.
And just as accurate speakers came along, that incredibly realistic vinyl went away! Bummer!
> I don't think it's true of inexpensive to moderately priced speakers at > all, really. While the technology has improved, that market has also > been flooded with cheap crap designed for high profit margins too.
I have several pairs of KLH Audio (now unfortunately out of business) 911B speakers. They cost $15 a pair when Best Buy had them on sale a few years ago. (The pricing was a mistake -- it should have been $30 a pair -- but it still would have been a great deal at the higher price.)
Their main problem is a bit of boxiness, which can be reduced (though not totally eliminated) by stuffing them with FiberFill. I use two of them on my Pioneer plasma (rather than the speakers Pioneer supplied), and I can't believe how good they are. They have to compete with Apogee Divas, and they don't sound bad next to speakers that (at list price) retailed for 100x as much.
Due to the magic of Chinese Communist slave labor, it is possible to buy cheap, good speakers.
I also have a pair of discontinued Mission bookshelf speakers in my bedroom, purchased for about $150. These are sonically much superior to anything that sold for that much 40 years.
>> >Keep in mind that as one moves toward an unobtainable audio perfection, >> >the closer one gets to 100% the greater the cost of each additional >>> >percentile of improvement. It gets to the point where tiny improvements >> >cost loads of money. If had I had loads of money I'd buy K&H's or ATC's >> >in a heartbeat. >> But by the same token, the best speakers today are _far_ better than the >> best speakers of the eighties were. =A0 > I agree, which also makes me wonder why people are still using > NS-10's.
Because they're accustomed to them, their ears are calibrated to them. Used 'em for years, and got used to them because many studios had them. Which is why I've a pair in my remote truck. I've the JBL monitors I mentioned earlier mounted, and will eventually think about something else, but then I"ll have to recalibrate my ears <g>.
Regards, Richard -- | Remove .my.foot for email | via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site | Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
> And just as accurate speakers came along, that incredibly > realistic vinyl went away! Bummer!
Get the SACD of Helmut Rilling conducting the Britten "War Requiem", and let me know what you think about "realism".
The new Blu-ray of "North by Northwest" has the soundtrack in stereo, and the sound is magnificent. The best analog recordings of the late 50s and early 60s hit exactly the right balance between accuracy and euphony.
On Nov 8, 8:37 am, walki...@nv.net (hank alrich) wrote:
> > How are either of the above determined, and if so, when pro studios > > pay however many multiples of thousands for monitors, I assume there > > must be a reason they do so?
> Some speakers give me a sense of the _reality_ of the sources coming > through them. Some do not. Mind you, I most often deal with what I'll > call "natural" sounds - acoustic instruments, human voices, sounds that > are generated without electrical amplification.
Isn't what the speakers are reproducing in many cases not what things sound like to your ears as a spectator but what they sound like to the mic - generally a few inches away? I.e. I imagine if you were at the same vantage point to Faith Hill as her mic, she'd sound very different.
>> But by the same token, the best speakers today are _far_ >> better than the best speakers of the eighties were. > That's debatable.
*Everything* is debatable... ;-) ...especially on RAP.
Where the debate is easy to settle is in the realm of bass extension and dynamic range. The last 25 years have done marvels in that area. Also: crossover design.
> (It would be truer of inexpensive-to-moderately priced speakers.)
Well, more true there.
> Nevertheless, > recordings have reached the point where, when played > through really good speakers, they sound a great deal > like "the real thing".
That's a formal debate that was started at the last AES by a paper by Linkwitz.
> Ultimately (and unfortunately), the question of whether > sound reproduction is literally accurate is a subjective evaluation.
Not entirely. That's another area where there has been a lot of progress - measuring speakers and correlating what we measure with what we hear. Not that its a solved problem, but it is an area where great progress has been made.
>Isn't what the speakers are reproducing in many cases not what things >sound like to your ears as a spectator but what they sound like to the >mic - generally a few inches away? I.e. I imagine if you were at the >same vantage point to Faith Hill as her mic, she'd sound very >different.
Yup. What people expect with pop music vocals isn't an accurate sound at all. People want a much larger than life vocal effect.
But there's a hell of a lot more to the music world than just pop and close-miked stuff. --scott
-- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
>>Just the other day I was travelling with a friend on the London >>Underground. we were on our way up the first of two escalators into >>one of London's busiest rail terminals when we could just barely hear >>some brass band music drifting down from the concourse above. We were >>both in instant agreement that it was a live band playing, and not a >>recording. Of course we were right. They simply never sound the same, >>even with really good reproduction.
>You were lucky. More typically you'd have turned a corner on the >Underground to find an over-amplified busker.
>If this was Waterloo on a Sunday it could have been my friend Frank's >wind group (not technically a brass band, but near enough:-)
No, it was the Sally Army - Early Christmas begging I guess.
|
