In a very early Stereophile, Gordon Holt (a good recording engineer himself) showed a graphic equalizer as it was adjusted in a studio during a recording. He then showed the measured frequency response of the monitors in the studio. He pointed out that the equalizer settings were the exact inverse of the frequency response of the speakers---the engineer was using the equalizer to correct the frequency response of the speakers! The problem is, that equalization was applied to the tape, so when the recording was played on a speaker that didn’t require EQ’ing, the recording would sound like that inverse of the monitor speaker. In order to sound right, the recording HAD to be played on that studio monitor loudspeaker, and it alone! In many studios, since each speaker in the monitor booth makes a recording sound different, with no definitive reference to live sound, the engineer will adjust the EQ until the recording sounds about equally "good" (whatever that means to the engineer) on all the monitors. Oy! |
Auratones…man…and I think the only valid explanation of NS10s is everybody had them, but I have never been able to stand those damn things…they give me a headache. Note that mastering has a huge impact on the final sound…luckily…Bob Ludwig, et al…save the day often.
|
I am another believer in recordings are the first thing to blame when sound is not good in a hifi system. And i believe they are 90% good to great in actuality . There is no way in hell big record labeles are putting out crappy sounding records . Can you imagine the producers , studio engineers , execs doing a listening session before release and the sound making their ears bleed from crappy sound . Then they tell the record execs "don't worry it will it will sound better on a car radio" . nonsense i say |
I've done a little mixing, some with Yamaha NS-10s. I think of them as a critical-listening speaker, not a listening-for-pleasure speaker. I'd be curious to hear from the pros as to whether that's a valid distinction.
I know one thing: when I'm testing a mix it sounds different on every single system I try. It's maddening.
|
^^^ ... I agree bgp24.
The proof of what you're saying is when you hear a CD that's been ripped right off of the master tape with no added digital reverb and very little or no EQ. Just a flat recording one step from the original source. When you hear a great CD like that, one can clearly hear how so many of the recording engineers really foul things up. Totally unnecessary too. Amazing. |
Some studio consoles are excellent and others not so good.
I do a lot of listening on Grado headphones; they are trustworthy.
We built up 6 channels of vacuum-tube microphone preamps which are wired directly into the tape machines- no intervening mixer console; no EQ, nothing but the mic. Our monitors are made by High Emotion Audio and are very fast and revealing. I don't think there is any Yamaha gear in the entire recording chain...
|
Those damn Yamaha NS10s are everywhere, and Auratones (!) are still around, to mix singles for Radio play (they sound like car speakers). I've been seeing Tannoys in studios lately, but never, ever, audiophile type loudspeakers. Pros use a completely different kind of speaker, and EQ to make music sound "good" on them. Wonder why their recordings played back on your home speakers sounds "wrong"?! |
I am thinking that pro-sound guys, listen, to their studio consoles. |
I'm also a pro sound dude (recording, live sound mixer, musician, bon vivant, lazy older person trying not to seem creepy) and I agree that no gear is "neutral" really, but if you can cobble together a system that demonstrates the differences between things and makes music enjoyable for Active Engaged Listening, that's all you can ask. By the way…ever actually hear what "rich sound engineers" listen to for mixing? It's shocking I tell ya…Yamaha NS10s…man…it varies wildly but often it simply comes out just fine. And what does "bon vivant" mean anyway?
|
I'm one of those recording engineers. There are electronics that really are neutral- that don't emphasize the highs while also getting the bass right. The problem areas are in equipment matching, distortions made by equipment that the ear interprets as brightness, speakers that don't have problems of their own, and the media itself.
If you have a recording that you have created, its possible to wade through all the errant examples of hifi and find those that really work. So the answer to this was hidden in the original post.
|
Yes, I’d say you were not exactly correct, but for a different reason. This exact problem is one I found a solution for after stumbling onto Alan Maher Designs in 2010. I keep going on about AMD, from time to time at least, and nobody may pay me much mind about it I suppose, but I can understand that really since AMD is too new and too out there for anyone to feel they have any kind of real-world frame of reference, and so there is too little advertising or user reports yet for most people to have something to go by or to be able to latch onto that particular concept of reducing electrical noise.
But, I think you are absolutely *correct* in identifying that there is indeed a problem...that there is a rather noticeably large gulf between all but the very most expensive gear (or presumably, at least, since many of us don’t easily visit that economic strata) and the real-world (lack of) performance in regard to what you noted vs the descriptions of "neutral"-sounding gear. But, what I’d tell you, based on my experience for the last 6 years with AMD, is that what I think you’re are bumping into here is really an "electrical noise" problem - not any equipment issue at all and not a recording problem either. If sinking more that $10k into AMD gear (and quite happily) over the last 6 years has taught me anything, it’s that all recordings are perfectly fine (the bad ones make up entirely less than 1% [I listen to CD’s]) and that most every piece of gear is far better than we give it credit for - that is to say that electrical noise crushes the life out of music FAR more than the average audiophile ever suspects...or may feel they have reason to suspect. When you get rid of noise on a large scale, all sorts of longheld sonic problems clear up entirely (the kind that also, likewise, usually get blamed on gear or recording quality), but the problem of neutrality here is certainly one of them. Without the noise problem present (and yes, it is everywhere, trust me), then EQ behaves like a dream, not a bandaid, digital sounds better than reel-to-reel, your gear never dictates what you might ever want to listen to...on and on like that. Every system then can reach it’s potential because all the components can then operate at full spec (or better than spec if the spec in question was arrived at by real-world measurement rather than calculation). That not only extends the bandwidth in the room, but it more importantly flattens it as well. If flattened enough, then neutrality improves tremendously...it has the overall effect, too, of increasing both accuracy And musicality at the same time.
This is a solution to one of those problems that I think it seems the audiophile community at large has yet to catch on to, and yet sometimes, like you point out here, it’s hard to ignore the elephant in the room that is the apparent disconnect between system performance and cost and that it too often seems that working one’s way up the audio food chain only really seems to be asking to repeat the problem. It’s just that I believe that, IME, it is in fact explained by neither recording quality nor gear quality, but indeed can be explained by electrical noise alone...you just need to be able to throw enough of the solution at the problem to reveal to you the true nature of both. As always, I am not affiliated with Alan or AMD in any way, just a satisfied customer. |
No one ever said they were neutral. |
"Rich recording engineer"? You think recording engineers are rich?! I'll bet you think professional musicians are too. News flash: Most musicians live in abject poverty, making barely enough money for food and rent. Recording engineers make a modest living, nothing like rich, not even close. |
I think that "neutral" is one of the most miss-understood and misused words in the audio hobby.
My impression of neutral is a sonic signature which does not emphasize the low or the high frequencies. However, most of the time I see that word being used, even by the print media, they are describing a component which highlights the upper frequencies, which provides the illusion of more detail/resolution.
They call a component that emphasizes the bass region warm, but one that emphasizes the highs is called neutral. In my humble opinion this is an incorrect usage of the word.
The other issue is 'neutral in relation to what?' Since a whole audio system works in unison to present one sound, all components have an impact on the final product, the sound.
Neutral electronics are no more or less a farce than neutral speakers, cables, etc. In essence, neutral means what one wants it to mean. Neutral can mean many different things to many different people.
Personally, I don't strive for a neutral sound, I strive for a natural sound.
Yes, I understand that the word 'natural' means many different things to many different people.....but that is for another thread.
|
