[William Sommerwerck]

So all of you use the same monitor speakers? Directional boxes
aimed at your face, with reflections from the room damped? Well,
I hate to break it to you, but George Graves uses Martin Logan dipoles,
and there is a lot of respect for Quads, Maggies, and MBL omnis.

The point is that these speakers are used by recording engineers who aren't
listening for an "uh-oh" problem, as much as they are for overall naturalness
and "realism". You're not going to get those things from Böse 901s.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
Gary Eickmeier wrote:

So all of you use the same monitor speakers? Directional boxes aimed at your
face, with reflections from the room damped? Well, I hate to break it to
you, but George Graves uses Martin Logan dipoles, and there is a lot of
respect for Quads, Maggies, and MBL omnis.

Yes. For the most part everyone does use the same monitor system and
configuration, because it translates well.

I do use Maggies, but I also use NHT A-20s. And I got to the point of
being able to use the Maggies only after 20 years of mixing on conventional
soffit-mounted systems, because they don't translate perfectly.

I have never heard of anyone mixing on Martin-Logans or MBL speakers, and
it has been decades since I have heard of anyone mixing on Quad ESLs.

If your playback system doesn't translate, you will have to work around it,
and that's not easy and sometimes impossible.

----------------------------------------
I'm puzzled, Scott, because I would want to use the best-possible speakers
when monitoring. B&Ws weren't mentioned, and they're used for a lot of
classical monitoring.

Though classical recordings are (I assume) still too-often multimiked, the end
result is supposed to be a resemblance to the original live sound. Getting
that requires a truly accurate speaker -- not the speakers that are commonly
used to listen to music that has no acoustic parallel.

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
I'm puzzled, Scott, because I would want to use the best-possible speakers
when monitoring. B&Ws weren't mentioned, and they're used for a lot of
classical monitoring.

I have mixed on the earlier 801s and worked with a company that used the
801s, and they were great monitors. I would be happy working with them
in a room designed for them.

I really do like the distant presentation of the maggies, though, which
in some way compensates for my personal taste. I like to sit in the balcony
and I like recordings to sound like I'm in the balcony. If I mix and mike
so that i get a presentation that I like on the maggies, the customer usually
is happy with it on the conventional monitors.

This is a personal abberation of mine and should in no way be considered
standard operating practice, and I would certainly not suggest anyone else
mix this way or learn to mix this way.

Though classical recordings are (I assume) still too-often multimiked, the end
result is supposed to be a resemblance to the original live sound. Getting
that requires a truly accurate speaker -- not the speakers that are commonly
used to listen to music that has no acoustic parallel.

I don't know, I learned to mix on Altec 604s, which are not exactly the
most accurate things around. Overall balances (if the room is set up for
them) are accurate, but there are lots of narrowband problems. Even so,
mixes made on them seem to translate well onto more accurate systems.

However, if I take recordings made using the 604s as reference and play
them back on high quality monitors, I hear all kinds of things like
squeaky podiums and scores rustling around which I never heard on the 604s.
I'd much rather be able to hear that kind of thing in the original session
so I can get a retake of those bars, but back then I couldn't.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

I'm puzzled, Scott, because I would want to use the best-possible speakers
when monitoring. B&Ws weren't mentioned, and they're used for a lot of
classical monitoring.

I have mixed on the earlier 801s and worked with a company that used the
801s, and they were great monitors. I would be happy working with them
in a room designed for them.

I really do like the distant presentation of the maggies, though, which
in some way compensates for my personal taste. I like to sit in the balcony
and I like recordings to sound like I'm in the balcony. If I mix and mike
so that i get a presentation that I like on the maggies, the customer usually
is happy with it on the conventional monitors.

This is a personal abberation of mine and should in no way be considered
standard operating practice, and I would certainly not suggest anyone else
mix this way or learn to mix this way.

----------------------

This is also interesting. It's what might be called the "El Greco"
perspective. As you know, El Greco (Doménikos Theotokópoulos) painted tall and
narrow people. It was suggested that this was due to severe astigmatism! But
such astigmatism would affect both his view of the subject, and of the
painting, thereby cancelling out the effect (if he "painted what he saw").

If you like a distant perspective, and adjust the recording to sound "distant"
on a distant-sounding speaker, the final recording will not sound distant.
Right?

I know from limited experience that recordings mixed to "sound good" on cheap
speakers often do not "sound good" on first-rate speakers.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

If you like a distant perspective, and adjust the recording to sound
"distant" on a distant-sounding speaker, the final recording will not
sound distant. Right?

My experience is that mixes tend to end up having the same tonal balance as
the loudspeaker they are mixed on.

I know from limited experience that recordings mixed to "sound good"
on cheap speakers often do not "sound good" on first-rate speakers.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Audio_Empire]

In article ,
"William Sommerwerck" wrote:

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
Gary Eickmeier wrote:

So all of you use the same monitor speakers? Directional boxes aimed at your
face, with reflections from the room damped? Well, I hate to break it to
you, but George Graves uses Martin Logan dipoles, and there is a lot of
respect for Quads, Maggies, and MBL omnis.

Yes. For the most part everyone does use the same monitor system and
configuration, because it translates well.

I do use Maggies, but I also use NHT A-20s. And I got to the point of
being able to use the Maggies only after 20 years of mixing on conventional
soffit-mounted systems, because they don't translate perfectly.

I have never heard of anyone mixing on Martin-Logans or MBL speakers, and
it has been decades since I have heard of anyone mixing on Quad ESLs.

If your playback system doesn't translate, you will have to work around it,
and that's not easy and sometimes impossible.

----------------------------------------
I'm puzzled, Scott, because I would want to use the best-possible speakers
when monitoring. B&Ws weren't mentioned, and they're used for a lot of
classical monitoring.

Though classical recordings are (I assume) still too-often multimiked, the
end
result is supposed to be a resemblance to the original live sound. Getting
that requires a truly accurate speaker -- not the speakers that are commonly
used to listen to music that has no acoustic parallel.

That brings up another point. Pop and rock OBVIOUSLY, would sound best
(define that as being closest to the sound that the producers and
musicians were going for when the recording was produced), played back
on the same speakers that were used to produce the original studio mix.
We don't really have any way of knowing what those speakers were. As far
as I know, the closest the industry ever came to standardizing their
monitors was in the 1960s and 1970's when JBL 4310s and 4320s (etc) were
the rage. While these were loud, had big bass and tremendous
high-frequency output, I certainly wouldn't want to actually listen to
real acoustic music on them such as classical or even acoustic jazz.
They sounded, to these ears, simply dreadful.

And Martin-Logans are great for monitoring classical and jazz because
they are so transparent. I honestly believe that the most accurate
speakers on the market today are the Martin-Logan CLXs. No, I don't own
them, with suitable subwoofers, they will set you back about $30 grand,
and even if I did have the where-with-all to buy them, my listening room
is nowhere near large enough to house them. Wish I did have them.
though. They sound like real music.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[George Graves]

In article

,
Jeff Henig wrote:

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
So all of you use the same monitor speakers? Directional boxes aimed at
your
face, with reflections from the room damped? Well, I hate to break it to
you, but George Graves uses Martin Logan dipoles, and there is a lot of
respect for Quads, Maggies, and MBL omnis.

Yes. For the most part everyone does use the same monitor system and
configuration, because it translates well.

I do use Maggies, but I also use NHT A-20s. And I got to the point of
being able to use the Maggies only after 20 years of mixing on conventional
soffit-mounted systems, because they don't translate perfectly.

I have never heard of anyone mixing on Martin-Logans or MBL speakers, and
it has been decades since I have heard of anyone mixing on Quad ESLs.

If your playback system doesn't translate, you will have to work around it,
and that's not easy and sometimes impossible.
--scott

I was gonna' say, I thought that was kinda' the point: have a monitoring
system that's as close to some sort of standard as possible so there's less
guesswork about the sound. Then it's less work to get it right if you're
having to fly it to another studio, say, or make it sound right in a normal
listening room.

I would think that the way a lot of pop recordings are made today would make
it de-riguer that studios standardize on monitor speakers, but they don't seem
to. When the orchestra track is laid-down in NYC, and the vocalist is recorded
in LA, I'd think that both studios would want to hear the same things in the mix.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
...

Though classical recordings are (I assume) still too-often multimiked, the
end
result is supposed to be a resemblance to the original live sound. Getting
that requires a truly accurate speaker -- not the speakers that are commonly
used to listen to music that has no acoustic parallel.

That brings up another point. Pop and rock OBVIOUSLY, would sound best
(define that as being closest to the sound that the producers and
musicians were going for when the recording was produced), played back
on the same speakers that were used to produce the original studio mix.

Correct. Which is why classical recordings generally sound equally good (or
equally bad) over a wide range of "good" speakers.


We don't really have any way of knowing what those speakers were. As far
as I know, the closest the industry ever came to standardizing their
monitors was in the 1960s and 1970's when JBL 4310s and 4320s (etc) were
the rage. While these were loud, had big bass and tremendous
high-frequency output, I certainly wouldn't want to actually listen to
real acoustic music on them such as classical or even acoustic jazz.
They sounded, to these ears, simply dreadful.

And Martin-Logans are great for monitoring classical and jazz because
they are so transparent. I honestly believe that the most accurate
speakers on the market today are the Martin-Logan CLXs. No, I don't own
them, with suitable subwoofers, they will set you back about $30 grand,
and even if I did have the where-with-all to buy them, my listening room
is nowhere near large enough to house them. Wish I did have them.
though. They sound like real music.

------------------

The only obvious competitor would be the top QUADs. If I could just sell a
screenplay, I could buy the M-Ls or QUADs.

Say, do you still make those columnar speakers with the bass ports at the
bottom?

[hank alrich]

George Graves wrote:

In article

,
Jeff Henig wrote:

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
So all of you use the same monitor speakers? Directional boxes aimed
at your face, with reflections from the room damped? Well, I hate to
break it to you, but George Graves uses Martin Logan dipoles, and
there is a lot of respect for Quads, Maggies, and MBL omnis.

Yes. For the most part everyone does use the same monitor system and
configuration, because it translates well.

I do use Maggies, but I also use NHT A-20s. And I got to the point of
being able to use the Maggies only after 20 years of mixing on
conventional soffit-mounted systems, because they don't translate
perfectly.

I have never heard of anyone mixing on Martin-Logans or MBL speakers,
and it has been decades since I have heard of anyone mixing on Quad
ESLs.

If your playback system doesn't translate, you will have to work
around it, and that's not easy and sometimes impossible. --scott

I was gonna' say, I thought that was kinda' the point: have a monitoring
system that's as close to some sort of standard as possible so there's less
guesswork about the sound. Then it's less work to get it right if you're
having to fly it to another studio, say, or make it sound right in a normal
listening room.

I would think that the way a lot of pop recordings are made today would
make it de-riguer that studios standardize on monitor speakers, but they
don't seem to. When the orchestra track is laid-down in NYC, and the
vocalist is recorded in LA, I'd think that both studios would want to hear
the same things in the mix.

While there are exceptional cases where a particular room + system = a
suprising outlier, in general the basic principles that lead us to
acoustical remediation aimed at controlling reflections and spectrum
beget reasonably workable systems.

Experience counts. When moving from one room to another most will carry
recordings with which they are initimately familiar, both their own work
and other recordings, as a way of calibrating one's ears to a different
mixing environment. My own experience has been that in many different
rooms with widely varying speakers this approach has allowed me to get
mixes that will play well over most systems.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

Audio_Empire wrote:

Pop and rock OBVIOUSLY, would sound best
(define that as being closest to the sound that the producers and
musicians were going for when the recording was produced), played back
on the same speakers that were used to produce the original studio mix.
We don't really have any way of knowing what those speakers were.

Monitor systems often do not sound "best". They often sound clinical, so
that when one has a good mix, it sounds good even over that system.
Taken to s system that is intended to sound really good the mixes often
sound glorious.

We also cannot ignore the role of the room as part of the playback
system. The room is a big deal.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[George Graves]

In article ,
(hank alrich) wrote:

George Graves wrote:

In article

,
Jeff Henig wrote:

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
So all of you use the same monitor speakers? Directional boxes aimed
at your face, with reflections from the room damped? Well, I hate to
break it to you, but George Graves uses Martin Logan dipoles, and
there is a lot of respect for Quads, Maggies, and MBL omnis.

Yes. For the most part everyone does use the same monitor system and
configuration, because it translates well.

I do use Maggies, but I also use NHT A-20s. And I got to the point of
being able to use the Maggies only after 20 years of mixing on
conventional soffit-mounted systems, because they don't translate
perfectly.

I have never heard of anyone mixing on Martin-Logans or MBL speakers,
and it has been decades since I have heard of anyone mixing on Quad
ESLs.

If your playback system doesn't translate, you will have to work
around it, and that's not easy and sometimes impossible. --scott

I was gonna' say, I thought that was kinda' the point: have a monitoring
system that's as close to some sort of standard as possible so there's
less
guesswork about the sound. Then it's less work to get it right if you're
having to fly it to another studio, say, or make it sound right in a
normal
listening room.

I would think that the way a lot of pop recordings are made today would
make it de-riguer that studios standardize on monitor speakers, but they
don't seem to. When the orchestra track is laid-down in NYC, and the
vocalist is recorded in LA, I'd think that both studios would want to hear
the same things in the mix.

While there are exceptional cases where a particular room + system = a
suprising outlier, in general the basic principles that lead us to
acoustical remediation aimed at controlling reflections and spectrum
beget reasonably workable systems.

Experience counts. When moving from one room to another most will carry
recordings with which they are initimately familiar, both their own work
and other recordings, as a way of calibrating one's ears to a different
mixing environment. My own experience has been that in many different
rooms with widely varying speakers this approach has allowed me to get
mixes that will play well over most systems.

That makes sense. Thanks.

[George Graves]

On Thursday, October 3, 2013 11:09:11 AM UTC-7, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message

...



Though classical recordings are (I assume) still too-often multimiked, the

end

result is supposed to be a resemblance to the original live sound. Getting

that requires a truly accurate speaker -- not the speakers that are commonly

used to listen to music that has no acoustic parallel.



That brings up another point. Pop and rock OBVIOUSLY, would sound best

(define that as being closest to the sound that the producers and

musicians were going for when the recording was produced), played back

on the same speakers that were used to produce the original studio mix.



Correct. Which is why classical recordings generally sound equally good (or

equally bad) over a wide range of "good" speakers.





We don't really have any way of knowing what those speakers were. As far

as I know, the closest the industry ever came to standardizing their

monitors was in the 1960s and 1970's when JBL 4310s and 4320s (etc) were

the rage. While these were loud, had big bass and tremendous

high-frequency output, I certainly wouldn't want to actually listen to

real acoustic music on them such as classical or even acoustic jazz.

They sounded, to these ears, simply dreadful.



And Martin-Logans are great for monitoring classical and jazz because

they are so transparent. I honestly believe that the most accurate

speakers on the market today are the Martin-Logan CLXs. No, I don't own

them, with suitable subwoofers, they will set you back about $30 grand,

and even if I did have the where-with-all to buy them, my listening room

is nowhere near large enough to house them. Wish I did have them.

though. They sound like real music.



------------------



The only obvious competitor would be the top QUADs. If I could just sell a

screenplay, I could buy the M-Ls or QUADs.



Say, do you still make those columnar speakers with the bass ports at the

bottom?

Nah. I don't make that honkin' big "gold god" of a turntable any more either.

Sorry about that. Audio_Empire is my alter-ego and sometimes my newsreader
changes e-mail identities on me without my noticing.

George Graves

[George Graves]

In article ,
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Peter Larsen wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:

If you like a distant perspective, and adjust the recording to sound
"distant" on a distant-sounding speaker, the final recording will not
sound distant. Right?

My experience is that mixes tend to end up having the same tonal balance as
the loudspeaker they are mixed on.

Well, the opposite tonal balance, really. If you have too much low end,
the mix has too little.

So, the FIRST requirement is that the playback system be as tonally neutral
as possible. I think this is possible with a variety of different systems
of different dispersions, from soffit-mounted horn monitors to planars.

I know from limited experience that recordings mixed to "sound good"
on cheap speakers often do not "sound good" on first-rate speakers.

If I am mixing something that is intended to sound good on cheap speakers,
the first thing I will do is remove all deep bass and replace it with
something in the lower midrange so people can hear the lower register
instruments. The end result of this is a mix that sounds pretty poor
on wide range speakers. You don't get something for nothing.
--scott

See, I don't mix in a studio. I use a stereo pair and SOMETIMES an accent mike
or two. But since I do nothing but location recording, I obviously don't have any
monitor speakers with me and I have to mix on the fly using my Koss Pro-4AAs
because they are the most isolatory phones I know of. Hate their sound, but they
exclude the direct ensemble sound to a great degree (I'm often in the same room
as the group I'm recording) so that I can hear what it is that I'M doing.

George Graves

[Neil Gould]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
I'm puzzled, Scott, because I would want to use the best-possible
speakers when monitoring.

As I was taught, and practiced since, monitoring during recording is
primarily to detect problems in the setup, mix, etc. The monitors that best
revealed such problems, such as the Altec 604s, EVs, and JBLs would not be
my choice for an entertaining playback, but problems stuck out and could be
quickly addressed. Playback for verification purposes was done in different
environments with a variety of speakers. For example, the playback room in
my last studio was about the size of a typical living room, with a few
different popular brands of speakers and audio systems (that was in the
'70s, when audio systems varied quite audibly).
--
best regards,

Neil

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Peter Larsen wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:

If you like a distant perspective, and adjust the recording to sound
"distant" on a distant-sounding speaker, the final recording will
not sound distant. Right?

My experience is that mixes tend to end up having the same tonal
balance as the loudspeaker they are mixed on.

Well, the opposite tonal balance, really. If you have too much low
end, the mix has too little.

Or if it is not capable in the low end you don't challenge it, if it is you
do.

So, the FIRST requirement is that the playback system be as tonally
neutral as possible. I think this is possible with a variety of
different systems of different dispersions, from soffit-mounted horn
monitors to planars.

Yes indeed.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
...

Though classical recordings are (I assume) still too-often
multimiked, the end
result is supposed to be a resemblance to the original live sound.
Getting that requires a truly accurate speaker -- not the speakers
that are commonly used to listen to music that has no acoustic
parallel.

That brings up another point. Pop and rock OBVIOUSLY, would sound best
(define that as being closest to the sound that the producers and
musicians were going for when the recording was produced), played back
on the same speakers that were used to produce the original studio
mix.
Correct. Which is why classical recordings generally sound equally
good (or equally bad) over a wide range of "good" speakers.

We don't really have any way of knowing what those speakers were. As
far as I know, the closest the industry ever came to standardizing
their monitors was in the 1960s and 1970's when JBL 4310s and 4320s
(etc) were the rage. While these were loud, had big bass and
tremendous high-frequency output, I certainly wouldn't want to
actually listen to real acoustic music on them such as classical or
even acoustic jazz. They sounded, to these ears, simply dreadful.

But listen to them today with better quality audio going in and perhaps a
wee bit of cross-over mod as I have had done on my L100's so the midrange
units stopped competing with the treble units and it is a very different
story. It is an official mod btw. It was not their fault that they didn't
sound well, they just did what a monitor is there to do: said "hey, this
input signal is not - ahum - excellent". And yes, I slammed them back then
and ended up buying a pair in 1997 and it is one of the best audio purchases
I made. Because if it is good on them, it is good on everything ...

And Martin-Logans are great for monitoring classical and jazz because
they are so transparent. I honestly believe that the most accurate
speakers on the market today are the Martin-Logan CLXs. No, I don't
own them, with suitable subwoofers, they will set you back about $30
grand, and even if I did have the where-with-all to buy them, my
listening room is nowhere near large enough to house them. Wish I did
have them. though. They sound like real music.

I have heard Martin Logans, amazingly good, but they have the standard
dipole problem, you need to prevent the rear wall from reflecting what comes
out of them to the rear back into the room.

Did you hear the full range ESS AMT? - probably one of the rarer beasts out
there, came with a current source amplifer for the LF element.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[George Graves]

In article ,
"Peter Larsen" wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote:

"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
...

Though classical recordings are (I assume) still too-often
multimiked, the end
result is supposed to be a resemblance to the original live sound.
Getting that requires a truly accurate speaker -- not the speakers
that are commonly used to listen to music that has no acoustic
parallel.

That brings up another point. Pop and rock OBVIOUSLY, would sound best
(define that as being closest to the sound that the producers and
musicians were going for when the recording was produced), played back
on the same speakers that were used to produce the original studio
mix.
Correct. Which is why classical recordings generally sound equally
good (or equally bad) over a wide range of "good" speakers.

We don't really have any way of knowing what those speakers were. As
far as I know, the closest the industry ever came to standardizing
their monitors was in the 1960s and 1970's when JBL 4310s and 4320s
(etc) were the rage. While these were loud, had big bass and
tremendous high-frequency output, I certainly wouldn't want to
actually listen to real acoustic music on them such as classical or
even acoustic jazz. They sounded, to these ears, simply dreadful.

But listen to them today with better quality audio going in and perhaps a
wee bit of cross-over mod as I have had done on my L100's so the midrange
units stopped competing with the treble units and it is a very different
story. It is an official mod btw. It was not their fault that they didn't
sound well, they just did what a monitor is there to do: said "hey, this
input signal is not - ahum - excellent". And yes, I slammed them back then
and ended up buying a pair in 1997 and it is one of the best audio purchases
I made. Because if it is good on them, it is good on everything ...

That's an interesting perspective on the JBLs, and one I've not encountered before. You are saying that their lousy midrange was due to the crossover? Well I guess that's possible.

And Martin-Logans are great for monitoring classical and jazz because
they are so transparent. I honestly believe that the most accurate
speakers on the market today are the Martin-Logan CLXs. No, I don't
own them, with suitable subwoofers, they will set you back about $30
grand, and even if I did have the where-with-all to buy them, my
listening room is nowhere near large enough to house them. Wish I did
have them. though. They sound like real music.

I have heard Martin Logans, amazingly good, but they have the standard
dipole problem, you need to prevent the rear wall from reflecting what comes
out of them to the rear back into the room.

I don't really find that a problem. I used to be a Magneplanar fan, and have owned
Tympani 3C's (that's the big 8-panel Maggies from the late 70's, early 80's), MG-2's,
MG-3's and MG-3.6s, etc., so, I'm used to dipoles and know how to use them to best
effect. What changed me to a Martin-Logan fan was the low distortion and the speed.

Did you hear the full range ESS AMT? - probably one of the rarer beasts out
there, came with a current source amplifer for the LF element.

The Air Motion Transformer, as designed by Dr, Heil of ESS is actually a very
popular high-frequency driver these days, In fact, The Martin-Logan "Motion"
Series of speakers uses it. The Motion 20 and Motion 40 are both amazing
sounding loudspeakers at US$1500 and US$1900 a pair, respectively. There are
some nearfield monitors that use AMTs as well. Haven't heard any of them,
But it's interesting how, after all these years, the AMT is gaining recognition.

George Graves

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

George Graves wrote:

The Air Motion Transformer, as designed by Dr, Heil of ESS is
actually a very popular high-frequency driver these days,

I said: the full range version, a two-way with AMT bass unit, a dipole btw.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[William Sommerwerck]

"George Graves" wrote in message
...

But it's interesting how, after all these years,
the AMT is gaining recognition.

Actually, it had a lot of recognition. I suspect someone got rid of its
problems -- particularly the somewhat zippy sound.

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"George Graves" wrote in message
...

But it's interesting how, after all these years,
the AMT is gaining recognition.

Actually, it had a lot of recognition. I suspect someone got rid of its
problems -- particularly the somewhat zippy sound.

Dunno, listen to the SLS monitors. Top end is still kind of zippy, and
the dispersion match between the top and bottom is still problematic. But
the vocal sound is very, very clean.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

George Graves wrote:
See, I don't mix in a studio. I use a stereo pair and SOMETIMES an accent mike
or two. But since I do nothing but location recording, I obviously don't have any
monitor speakers with me and I have to mix on the fly using my Koss Pro-4AAs
because they are the most isolatory phones I know of. Hate their sound, but they
exclude the direct ensemble sound to a great degree (I'm often in the same room
as the group I'm recording) so that I can hear what it is that I'M doing.

Try bringing speakers with you and take over a small room backstage or in
an office somewhere. You don't get controlled acoustics, but you have a
chance of being able to at least judge imaging and direct/reverberant
ratios, which you can only guess at with headphones. Over the years I have
used AR 4-Xes, LS 3/5as, the NHT Super Ones, and the A-20s for the job
and they all had good and bad attributes but they all would allow me to
make reasonable imaging judgements.

It's MUCH nicer having a truck to work out of, where you have controlled
and at least repeatable playback acoustics, but you can do remarkably
respectable monitoring on the fly in the field.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Trevor]

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
A few years ago I walked into a horrible acoustical environment and
heard really excellent SR. Barbara K and Richard Bowden were playing, so
source quality was worthy. Mics were SM58's, and the board and speakers
were all cheap Behringer kit. It sounded fabulous.

Then I noted Chet Himes was the engineer.

My experience too. A good engineer can get pretty good sound these days from
from most Behringer kit. It's biggest problem is it's not very rugged or
very repairable.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
Brings us back to the need for the best monitoring one can muster while
recording live music. Direct sound bleed into one's headphone feed while
sitting front and center leaves one largely clueless about the sound
being fed to recorders.

Not such an issue if you are recording everything multi-track IMO. The
meters tell you if your incoming signals are OK, a spectrum analyser can
tell you if you have hum or noise problems, and everything else can be done
later in post.

Trevor.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Jeff Henig" wrote in message
...

Is this what you're discussing?
http://www.parts-express.com/pe/show...number=264-600

That type of driver, yes. I didn't know they were available commercially.

[William Sommerwerck]

I met Dr Heil many years ago. He claimed credit for developing the first FET,
long before Bell Labs developed the junction transistor.

He also took "credit" for a talking a fellow scientist out inventing the
laser!

[William Sommerwerck]

Is this what you're discussing?
http://www.parts-express.com/pe/show...number=264-600

One of the reviews says... "Set them up right with the correct crossovers and
the right speakers, and you have a system that will rival any
three-figure-priced speakers."

That isn't much of a complement, because three figures gets you to only $999.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Jeff Henig wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" wrote:
Is this what you're discussing?
http://www.parts-express.com/pe/show...number=264-600

One of the reviews says... "Set them up right with the correct crossovers
and the right speakers, and you have a system that will rival any
three-figure-priced speakers."

That isn't much of a complement, because three figures gets you to only $999.

LOL

"It's the maths: you ain't doin' them right!"


frowns

I was told there would be no math.

--
Les Cargill

[George Graves]

In article ,
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

George Graves wrote:
See, I don't mix in a studio. I use a stereo pair and SOMETIMES an accent
mike
or two. But since I do nothing but location recording, I obviously don't
have any
monitor speakers with me and I have to mix on the fly using my Koss Pro-4AAs
because they are the most isolatory phones I know of. Hate their sound, but
they
exclude the direct ensemble sound to a great degree (I'm often in the same
room
as the group I'm recording) so that I can hear what it is that I'M doing.

Try bringing speakers with you and take over a small room backstage or in
an office somewhere.

That's just it. most of the time, that's not an option, so I don't even bother
to try. Besides, the 'phones tell me what I need to know about levels etc. and
experience means that I almost never get it wrong.

You don't get controlled acoustics, but you have a
chance of being able to at least judge imaging and direct/reverberant
ratios, which you can only guess at with headphones. Over the years I have
used AR 4-Xes, LS 3/5as, the NHT Super Ones, and the A-20s for the job
and they all had good and bad attributes but they all would allow me to
make reasonable imaging judgements.

It's MUCH nicer having a truck to work out of, where you have controlled
and at least repeatable playback acoustics, but you can do remarkably
respectable monitoring on the fly in the field.

That would be nice, but today's equipment is so compact, that a van would be
overkill! How about a Smart-Car? 8^)

George Graves


--scott

[Gary Eickmeier]

Neil Gould wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:
I'm puzzled, Scott, because I would want to use the best-possible
speakers when monitoring.

Wow, I guess I have stirred up a hornet's nest once again. Haven't been able
to look in again until now, 24 hrs later.

All of this talk boils down to the differences between studio monitoring
systems and home entertainment playback systems - I mean the best ones, not
Joe Sixpack down the street. Legend has it that recording engineers like to
use straight ahead, flat, no reflections "real man" speakers in order to
best hear into the tracks. Home entertainment systems can be a completely
different presentation and sound even better than the recording monitors.
The classic question to be addressed is shouldn't anyone with any sense be
listening on the same speakers that were used in the studio to make the
recording?

My deeper question to y'all is what exactly are you using those monitors
for? Sounds like another silly Eickmeier question, but I would posit that I
can make an entire session without any monitor speakers at all. For example,
as George has explained, at the live session (concert with audience), we
have to use headphones to check for a good signal and no distortion and good
levels etc, but there is no way to set up a back room to check imaging on
actual speakers. But who cares? You have placed your mikes IAW your vast
experience, you are recording them properly, what else can you adjust even
if you had a glass room?

Back in the studio for mastering, are you doing a lot of compression or EQ?
I'm not. Until lately, I have done all of my cutting and laying down tracks
using just the computer monitors. I don't know what it really sounds like
until I go out into the theater, but I know from the past that my
microphones don't need any EQ, and the stereo tracks are mixed only one way
unless it is a multi-miked concoction or other fancier mix.

Yes yes I know that if you have some accent mikes you have to place those
sounds in the right place in the mix and level them so they are not obvious,
but can't most speakers tell you when it is right?

I agree that you can tell imaging much better on speakers than headphones,
but are the particular speakers so critical in doing that? Some of us
monitor nearfield, some LEDE in a larger room, some in a more normal room
such as Dave Moulton advocates with his omni speakers and reflective side
walls.

I agree with Scott about needing to check the final mix against all kinds of
amateur consumer systems because I have been surprised by that with movie
sound, but for a high quality concert mix, are the speakers so critical if
we are all using some very different setups?

Gary Eickmeier

[Gary Eickmeier]

George Graves wrote:
n article ,
Marc Wielage wrote:

On Wed, 2 Oct 2013 10:42:58 -0700, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article ):

Actually, I found the Acoustic Wave radio very annoying, because the
transmission line gadget produced a big peak down at the bottom of
the vocal range, which made baritone announcers on the radio less
easy to understand.
------------------------------snip------------------------------

I hated that, too. Way, way too boomy for me. And Bose's bizarre
design philosophy made them omit tone controls, balance controls,
and a mono mode for radio reception, which is just insane in what
is, essentially, a big clock radio.

Henry Kloss' later Cambridge Soundworks version of the Bose Radio
took care of all these problems. I also think its speakers were a
lot better-sounding, and it was a little cheaper (like $295 instead
of $350).

We're not talking about the same Bose radio, I don't think. The
original Acoustic
Wave radio is the big one. It sells for around $1000. I was not
talking about the
little one that you see advertised on TV all the time.

Aside from the "no treble" problem of the 901's, the weird matching
between the subwoofer and the satellites was always a strange one to
me. Way too much missing low-mids for me.

Yeah, the bass was all screwed-up on those things. When I first tried
to put together
a surround system in the mid 1970's (remember SQ "quadraphonic
sound"?) I got a
pair of used 901s "on approval" to use as rear channel speakers (sans
the bass EQ box).
I thought that perhaps their "direct/reflecting" malarkey would give
a spacious rear-channel sound. the 901's weren't even any good in
that application. I took 'em back to the dealer who had loaned 'em to
me, and ended up buying a pair of used Hegeman speakers instead.

Makes a world of difference crossing them over to a Velodyne F-1800. And
yes, I am using the 901s all around, but also incorporating some more
directional small speakers to "help" with discrete surround movie playback
on the surround imaging. Also, of course, a center speaker.

Do you guys use a center speaker when monitoring/mixing?

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

hank alrich wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Suppose I mocked you for using your dipolar speakers. They have this
innacurate backwave that splashes reflected sound all over the room,
don't you know what a fool you are, and on and on. What defense
could you come up with for such ignorance? You would be left holding
the bag, put in your place by a pack of children kicking your ankles.

Suppose you just stopped being so full of yourself and **** at the
same time? Just suppose.

You can't get a decent recording. You've told us that. You refuse to
listen to suggestions as to why that might be, beginning with your
****ed up "monitor" system and ending with your ****ed up mental
processes.

There is no way you can be helped. You already know it all. You've had
your head up your ass for so long that you've come to thiunk darkness
is light.

Thanks Hank. But Earth to Alrich - that was Sommerwerck who said he can't
get a good recording.

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

Trevor wrote:
"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
Brings us back to the need for the best monitoring one can muster
while recording live music. Direct sound bleed into one's headphone
feed while sitting front and center leaves one largely clueless
about the sound being fed to recorders.

Not such an issue if you are recording everything multi-track IMO. The
meters tell you if your incoming signals are OK, a spectrum analyser
can tell you if you have hum or noise problems, and everything else
can be done later in post.

Trevor.

That would be my observation as well. I know my microphones and as long as I
have connected them to the right inputs of my recorder and leveled them
properly, I know I am getting good sound.

Think also about the perhaps common problem that there is no sound check for
my benefit beforehand at these things. I must place my microphones where
past experience tells me they need to be well before show time, set levels
where I think it will not overload, and just check my headphones once in a
while during the concert.

This is very much like when I shoot video. I do not drag a 50 inch
flatscreen with me to the shoot so that I can see the images a lot better
than in my viewfinder. I just rely on my experience with white balance and
exposure and make any refinements in post back home.

Maybe some of my attitude about sound is also from my video and film
experience. In film work, you do not monitor your live sound on some big
speakers in a trailer - well, maybe the big guys doing a studio remote, but
crews on location just place mikes where they know they need to be and then
all of the real sound production is done back in the edit studio. The
dubbing stage is "where it's at" in movie sound. After all of the tracks
have been built and sub-mixed, the sound mixer sits in this mini movie
theater and mixes down 10 minutes worth at a time while watching picture.
This would be surround, of course, where the types of speakers and their
positioning to mimic most commercial theaters is all important. So I pipe my
sound out to the media room now in hopes of being able to do some discrete
surround for video or whatever in the future.

It's a learning curve. So NOW may I please open the box and inspect my new
H6? If it's all right with Alrich, of course. Right after I take these 901s
off my head.

Gary

[Scott Dorsey]

Jeff Henig wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" wrote:
"Jeff Henig" wrote in message
...

Is this what you're discussing?
http://www.parts-express.com/pe/show...number=264-600

That type of driver, yes. I didn't know they were available commercially.

Well, the next thing is trying to understand enough to be able to put
together a set of speakers with them.

I didn't see any plans involving those things.

Then just buy a pair of ADAM monitors, which use ESS-style drivers. And
yes, the top end IS a little spitty but that can be an advantage at times.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Frank Stearns]

"Gary Eickmeier" writes:

-snips-

I thought that perhaps their "direct/reflecting" malarkey would give
a spacious rear-channel sound. the 901's weren't even any good in
that application. I took 'em back to the dealer who had loaned 'em to
me, and ended up buying a pair of used Hegeman speakers instead.

Makes a world of difference crossing them over to a Velodyne F-1800. And
yes, I am using the 901s all around, but also incorporating some more
directional small speakers to "help" with discrete surround movie playback
on the surround imaging. Also, of course, a center speaker.

Somehow, I missed this. What's your crossover point to the sub? I assume (sure
hope) you're actively rolling off the LF into the 901s, and perhaps fairly steeply

Next, what "helper" HF speakers are you using, and how are they placed?

If you can relieve the 901s of low bass duties (and thus remove a huge IM distortion
component), and then also give a little help to the top end to clarify imaging, I
can see this system sounding reasonable. Still not sure it'd be my mix preference,
but at least with augmentation you'd mitigate a portion of the underlying problems
with any full-range driver approach to reproduction.

Do you guys use a center speaker when monitoring/mixing?

Depends on whether the final product will include a center channel.

I don't use a center speaker (don't do any 5.1 or 7.1 work), but once someone
thought I was lying when I said there was _not_ a center speaker in my room. I had
to pull away some of the treatment at the front of the room to convince him
otherwise -- no hidden center channel.

"But that vocal sounds like it's right THERE," he said, emphatically jabbing his
finger in the air between the monitors, "like I could reach out and touch her!!" (It
was either Diana Krall or Shawna Colvin.)

I smiled, "first time you've heard good imaging in a proper room, it would seem."

To this day I still don't think he entirely believed me....

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Scott Dorsey]

Audio_Empire wrote:
That brings up another point. Pop and rock OBVIOUSLY, would sound best
(define that as being closest to the sound that the producers and
musicians were going for when the recording was produced), played back
on the same speakers that were used to produce the original studio mix.
We don't really have any way of knowing what those speakers were. As far
as I know, the closest the industry ever came to standardizing their
monitors was in the 1960s and 1970's when JBL 4310s and 4320s (etc) were
the rage. While these were loud, had big bass and tremendous
high-frequency output, I certainly wouldn't want to actually listen to
real acoustic music on them such as classical or even acoustic jazz.
They sounded, to these ears, simply dreadful.

Actually, most of the big studios were very well documented. Many of them
had their own custom-designed monitoring systems but they were mostly
variations on a few standard horn-loaded designs, soffit-mounted.

And yes, they were almost all loud and dreadful.

In the 70s, though, there was a secondary problem that, due to the
obsession with isolation that resulted with the adoption of multitrack
production, there was a brief period where studios were designed to be
as dead as possible. In most cases, that meant dead on the top end
and flabby on the bottom. Along with this studio design, the same
philosophy would often extend into the control room too.

Even in the 60s, though, it was not unusual to find studios with
control booths that had linoleum floors and "acoustic tile" on three
walls and the ceiling.

This sort of thing has a tendency to result in overuse of artificial
reverberation, among other problems.

There are other mix translation issues too. Somewhere I have a folk
rock album whose liner notes say something to the effect of "we were
completely stoned when we recorded this, you should be completely stoned
when you listen to it."

But, I do have to say that a lot of those recordings do seem to take on
a life of their own, played back in a dead room with aggressively forward
horn speakers.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Jeff Henig" wrote in message
...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote:
"Jeff Henig" wrote in message
...

Is this what you're discussing?
http://www.parts-express.com/pe/show...number=264-600

That type of driver, yes. I didn't know they were available commercially.

Well, the next thing is trying to understand enough to be able to put
together a set of speakers with them.

ESS supposedly has a crossover for a full-range system, but you still have to
pick the drivers. (One poster on P-E -- going against what is to me common
sense -- said you should use paper drivers, rather than polypropylene, because
they're "faster" and mate better with the AMT. This is unlikely.)

The AMT is supposedly near-resistive, so designing a high-pass filter for it
shouldn't be too difficult. As for the rest... there are books on crossover
and speaker design.

[William Sommerwerck]

Actually, most of the big studios were very well documented.
Many of them had their own custom-designed monitoring
systems but they were mostly variations on a few standard
horn-loaded designs, soffit-mounted.
And yes, they were almost all loud and dreadful.

Many years ago, when I worked for Rupert Neve, I assisted in installing Neve
automation at Atlanta's largest studio. During listening sessions, I put my
fingers in my ears, and was later told that was a very rude thing to do. Well,
I value my hearing more than I value appearing courteous.

They had new monitor speakers, designed by a retired aerospace engineer. (It
was not, unfortunately, Jon Dahlquist.) They were awful. One of their worst
qualities was that, with white noise going through them, you could -- from the
normal monitoring position -- hear each driver as a separate sound source!

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

George Graves wrote:

Try bringing speakers with you and take over a small room backstage
or in an office somewhere.

That's just it. most of the time, that's not an option, so I don't
even bother to try. Besides, the 'phones tell me what I need to know
about levels etc. and experience means that I almost never get it
wrong.

Visual contact with the event and an easy route to the main pair mic stand
are important factors to consider.

George Graves

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[William Sommerwerck]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...

My deeper question to y'all is what exactly are you using those monitors
for? Sounds like another silly Eickmeier question, but I would posit that I
can make an entire session without any monitor speakers at all.

It depends on what you're recording. As I usually recorded classical music
with a single mic pair, Im not sure speakers would have done much good.

I used Sony MDR-CD6 headphones to make sure I was reasonably close to what I
wanted. It's unfortunate these 'phones were discontinued, because they did
things other headphones didn't (and still don't) do:

Though very small, they had an effective on-the-ear foam seal. In other
words, they were supra-aural and (sort-of) circumaural at the same time!

They were extremely sensitive, but could handle high power levels without
distorting.

The result was that I could stand behind the conductor, and /wipe out/ the
direct sound of the orchestra, hearing only the 'phones. That is useful.

I learned fairly quickly that if I wanted a reasonably wide image, I had to
mike for a less-than-wide image through the 'phones. (Think about that before
you object.)

I still own a working pair -- unused. Someday I might need them again.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...

Thanks Hank. But Earth to Alrich - that was Sommerwerck who
said he can't get a good recording.

I never said I can't get a good recording. I made lots of "good" recordings. I
just made only few recordings that sounded the way I expected them to sound.