The basic point is this, in most cases the mastering engineer never heard the music being recorded. Therefore his frame of reference is what sounds best TO HIM. Many prefer monitors that are by most standards somewhat bright, in order to be able to pick up everything on the tape. I myself prefer broadcast monitors, in that in most cases they can be easily compared to the performance they are monitoring. In my experience they often sound softer in the top end than the ones used for mastering. I am basing this on my experience with BBC monitors and also with Nelson Reed, which was designed for movie playback and was [ and may still be ] Kavi Alexander's monitor speakers. It would be interesting to compare recording engineer's monitors with mastering studio's monitors. Tony Falkner uses Quad 57s for playback, I doubt if any mastering studio does.
Underestimating the influence of studio monitors?
Every recording gets its final sonic signature from a recording engineer who listens to the recording through a pair (or more in case of mutli-channel) of studio monitors. In the face of that reality, the recordings we listen to at home are shaped by those very studio monitor speakers.
So, if the monitors used are inherently bright, the result in our home systems will sound slightly dull assuming that the engineer is adjusting the mix to sound "real" based on the sound coming from the monitors. If the monitor's bass doesn't extend to the lowest octave, then the result at home is likely to sound overblown in the bottom octave for this same reason. Likewise, if the monitor has a bass hump, then the final result may sound a bit bass-shy. Therefore, unless the studio monitor is completely neutral in tonal balance and covers the entire audible spectrum from low to high, the final recording will have some inappropriate signature based on its defficiencies.
I suppose the skill and experience of the recording mixing engineer can come into play if they know the defficiencies of the monitors themselves and compernsate accordingly in the mixdown but can we really count on this? What do you think?
So, if the monitors used are inherently bright, the result in our home systems will sound slightly dull assuming that the engineer is adjusting the mix to sound "real" based on the sound coming from the monitors. If the monitor's bass doesn't extend to the lowest octave, then the result at home is likely to sound overblown in the bottom octave for this same reason. Likewise, if the monitor has a bass hump, then the final result may sound a bit bass-shy. Therefore, unless the studio monitor is completely neutral in tonal balance and covers the entire audible spectrum from low to high, the final recording will have some inappropriate signature based on its defficiencies.
I suppose the skill and experience of the recording mixing engineer can come into play if they know the defficiencies of the monitors themselves and compernsate accordingly in the mixdown but can we really count on this? What do you think?