Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Julien Bernier Julien Bernier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default Frequency range of the voice

Hi all!
Is there anyone knowing what are the actual frequencies we should
Heighten/Lower in an EQ for the vocals to sound crisper and to get out
of the mix clearly. Most of the time I cut the bass below the 100Hz
range and up it a bit in the 15-22k range. But I'm not sure it is the
best thing to do. I use a precision 200 AKG microphone. (If it might be
useful)
Thanks

  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Richard Crowley Richard Crowley is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 806
Default Frequency range of the voice

"Julien Bernier" wrote ...
Is there anyone knowing what are the actual frequencies we should
Heighten/Lower in an EQ for the vocals to sound crisper and to get out
of the mix clearly. Most of the time I cut the bass below the 100Hz
range and up it a bit in the 15-22k range. But I'm not sure it is the
best thing to do. I use a precision 200 AKG microphone. (If it might
be
useful)


IMHO, nobody's voice puts out anything useful in a complex
mix at 15-22KHz. Half the listeners can't even hear those
freqs.

  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers Mike Rivers is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,744
Default Frequency range of the voice


Richard Crowley wrote:

IMHO, nobody's voice puts out anything useful in a complex
mix at 15-22KHz. Half the listeners can't even hear those
freqs.


Boosting in the 15 kHz range (which of course starts boosting at a
lower frequency) is what's often called "giving air" to a mix with EQ.
There are certain throat noises up in that range that can make a voice
sound different when boosted. You might like it, you might not, or you
mic may never pick anything up in that range.

  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Julien Bernier Julien Bernier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default Frequency range of the voice

Well, I know I could add some mids, but my voice sounds too "nosy" when
I do that. How can I compensate? I tried reducing a bit on the
mid-side, but then my voice gets lost in the mix.

  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
GregS GregS is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 527
Default Frequency range of the voice

In article .com, "Julien Bernier" wrote:
Hi all!
Is there anyone knowing what are the actual frequencies we should
Heighten/Lower in an EQ for the vocals to sound crisper and to get out
of the mix clearly. Most of the time I cut the bass below the 100Hz
range and up it a bit in the 15-22k range. But I'm not sure it is the
best thing to do. I use a precision 200 AKG microphone. (If it might be
useful)
Thanks


You should be able to figure this out yourself. I would first try toggling the 3.5 kHz,
and then up around 7 kHz if needed.

greg

greg


  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Anahata Anahata is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 378
Default Frequency range of the voice

Julien Bernier wrote:
Well, I know I could add some mids, but my voice sounds too "nosy" when
I do that. How can I compensate?


Reduce the mids on something else in the mix.

Anahata
  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Anahata Anahata is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 378
Default Frequency range of the voice

Anahata wrote:


Reduce the mids on something else in the mix.


PS I meant instead of boosting the mids in your vocal. Or maybe a little
of both...

Anahata

  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Frequency range of the voice

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Julien Bernier" wrote ...
Is there anyone knowing what are the actual frequencies we should
Heighten/Lower in an EQ for the vocals to sound crisper and to get out
of the mix clearly. Most of the time I cut the bass below the 100Hz
range and up it a bit in the 15-22k range. But I'm not sure it is the
best thing to do. I use a precision 200 AKG microphone. (If it might
be
useful)


IMHO, nobody's voice puts out anything useful in a complex
mix at 15-22KHz. Half the listeners can't even hear those
freqs.


Note that when you use a simple second-order filter like on typical
console EQ, you can set the sweep to 22 KHz and still be making a
substantial change at 8 KHz.

My advice to new folks is to spend some time with the equalizer boosting
various frequencies and getting a sense of what each of the ranges sound
like. THEN, when you actually want to equalize, try first only cutting,
never boosting. Think about what you need to take away, never what you
need to add. Once you get a good feel for how to get the sound you want
using _only_ cutting, then learn what you can do with boost.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Frequency range of the voice

Julien Bernier wrote:
Well, I know I could add some mids, but my voice sounds too "nosy" when
I do that. How can I compensate? I tried reducing a bit on the
mid-side, but then my voice gets lost in the mix.


Set the filter pretty tight, and set it to full boost. Sweep the frequency
control back and forth until you find where that nasal sound is, then turn
the knob from boost to cut. Widen up the filter a little bit until it starts
to sound right.

My suggestion, though, is that maybe you would be better off with a different
microphone that better suits your voice. Do as much EQ with the microphone
itself and the mike placement.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Julien Bernier Julien Bernier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default Frequency range of the voice

Thanks Scott.
I found your hints to be very interesting: Ie: Cutting instead of
Boosting. I find it is a lot easier to test when I do it that way. I
spent some time just equalizing my voice for it to sound just like I'd
like it to. I'll think about buying some HARDWARE EQ's because as of
now I think it pretty sucks to use digital EQs. You don't have the feel
of playing with frequencies very well and I want to TOUCH something.
What EQ would you consider as a pro? I don't want to spend 1k$, but if
more money = more quality, I'd prefer a costy one over a cheap sounding
one. I don't want metallic sounds. (ie: Digital effects on my Alto
mixer). That's another thing... where can I get good reverb sounds?
Everything I listen to sounds like a tin can!
Thanks a lot!



  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Frequency range of the voice

Julien Bernier wrote:
I found your hints to be very interesting: Ie: Cutting instead of
Boosting. I find it is a lot easier to test when I do it that way. I
spent some time just equalizing my voice for it to sound just like I'd
like it to. I'll think about buying some HARDWARE EQ's because as of
now I think it pretty sucks to use digital EQs. You don't have the feel
of playing with frequencies very well and I want to TOUCH something.
What EQ would you consider as a pro? I don't want to spend 1k$, but if
more money = more quality, I'd prefer a costy one over a cheap sounding
one. I don't want metallic sounds. (ie: Digital effects on my Alto
mixer).


Take a look at the Spec parametric EQ. It's under $1k and sounds decent.
Also look for a used Orban 622. They are a little grainy by modern standards
but a whole lot more powerful than typical console EQ and sell for pretty
reasonable prices.

For a while, dbx was selling a decent parametric that actually came from
the Orban guys. I forget the part number on it, but again it should turn
up at reasonable prices used.

That's another thing... where can I get good reverb sounds?
Everything I listen to sounds like a tin can!


From a good room!
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Frequency range of the voice

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Take a look at the Spec parametric EQ. It's under $1k and sounds decent.
Also look for a used Orban 622. They are a little grainy by modern standards
but a whole lot more powerful than typical console EQ and sell for pretty
reasonable prices.


err.. Speck. I can't spell today either.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Julien Bernier Julien Bernier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default Frequency range of the voice

Cool! thanks!
About a "good room". I know I only have a home studio, but I want to
get the best I can from it. So from what you are saying, If I need a
hall reverb, I have to put my microphone in a hall? I'll try it just
for fun tonight. The problem is outdoor and ambiant noise outside of my
typical room. I don't want to unplug my fridge and die from "insert
disease here".

  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Frequency range of the voice

Julien Bernier wrote:
About a "good room". I know I only have a home studio, but I want to
get the best I can from it. So from what you are saying, If I need a
hall reverb, I have to put my microphone in a hall? I'll try it just
for fun tonight. The problem is outdoor and ambiant noise outside of my
typical room. I don't want to unplug my fridge and die from "insert
disease here".


Most of the time when people use reverb, it's to hide problems from
tracking in rooms that aren't right for what they want to do.

SOMETIMES they use reverb more heavy-handedly as an obvious effect.
A lot of that can be done with careful tracking, or re-recording with
an echo chamber. Not all of it, though.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Julien Bernier Julien Bernier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default Frequency range of the voice

So what you are saying is I should try to record a song without
"reverb" and see how it sounds? But sometimes, a small room like mine
(I'd say 15*12') doesn't give an "heavy" feel for the drums and the
vocals. the reverb time is too low and we almost don't hear it. Can I
fix this?



  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Frequency range of the voice

Julien Bernier wrote:
So what you are saying is I should try to record a song without
"reverb" and see how it sounds? But sometimes, a small room like mine
(I'd say 15*12') doesn't give an "heavy" feel for the drums and the
vocals. the reverb time is too low and we almost don't hear it. Can I
fix this?


With a bigger room. Sometimes you might be able to do tricks like
use an adjacent hallway and add some room mikes in the hallway and bring
them in, if you're stuck in a small place.

But there really is no way to get a _good_ drum sound without a large room.
Electronics reverb can help fake it, but it's never as good as the real thing.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Julien Bernier Julien Bernier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default Frequency range of the voice

Thanks for the reply Scott.
I'll try a thing or two tonight.
Like the hall recording you spoke of.
Thanks again

  #18   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Laurence Payne Laurence Payne is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,824
Default Frequency range of the voice

On 13 Sep 2006 11:06:13 -0700, "Julien Bernier"
wrote:

Thanks for the reply Scott.
I'll try a thing or two tonight.
Like the hall recording you spoke of.
Thanks again


I'm just getting a whole new meaning of "hall" reverb :-)
  #19   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Julien Bernier Julien Bernier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default Frequency range of the voice

:\

  #20   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Frequency range of the voice

"Julien Bernier" wrote in message
oups.com

I found your hints to be very interesting: Ie: Cutting
instead of Boosting. I find it is a lot easier to test
when I do it that way. I spent some time just equalizing
my voice for it to sound just like I'd like it to.


Cutting instead of boosting helps you avoid problems with clipping due to
boosting.

I'll think about buying some HARDWARE EQ's because as of now I
think it pretty sucks to use digital EQs.


That is a strange thing to say.

You don't have
the feel of playing with frequencies very well and I want
to TOUCH something.


The way any eq, digital or analog works is that you change various
adjustments, listen to the results, and adjust again until you get what you
want. That's true whether the Eq is analog or digital, hardware or software.

What EQ would you consider as a pro?


The most powerful and flexible Eqs around are the ones that are implemented
as software, such as those in DAW software like Audition. They are also the
most economical.





  #21   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Kevin T Kevin T is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 88
Default Frequency range of the voice


GregS wrote:
In article .com, "Julien Bernier" wrote:
Hi all!
Is there anyone knowing what are the actual frequencies we should
Heighten/Lower in an EQ for the vocals to sound crisper and to get out
of the mix clearly. Most of the time I cut the bass below the 100Hz
range and up it a bit in the 15-22k range. But I'm not sure it is the
best thing to do. I use a precision 200 AKG microphone. (If it might be
useful)
Thanks


You should be able to figure this out yourself. I would first try toggling the 3.5 kHz,
and then up around 7 kHz if needed.

greg

greg


Agreed but try the entire 2.5-4k area also play with cuts in the 400Hz
area and turn down the suck button

Kevin T

  #22   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Julien Bernier Julien Bernier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default Frequency range of the voice

The WHAT button?
----
www.soundclick.com/g1mike
listen to songs recorded in my home studio! =D

  #23   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Kevin T Kevin T is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 88
Default Frequency range of the voice


Julien Bernier wrote:
The WHAT button?
----
www.soundclick.com/g1mike
listen to songs recorded in my home studio! =D

You know when the guitarists girlfriend complains the sound sucks you
grab a dummy knob marked SUX and turn it down. she replies 'Now thats
better"

Kevin T

  #24   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Julien Bernier Julien Bernier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default Frequency range of the voice

Oh, only knew about the STFU button

  #25   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
darrelldklein darrelldklein is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 63
Default Frequency range of the voice

http://www.thepengwins.com/assets/soundman-farside.gif
"Jimmy's Last Day as a Sound Man"
Gary Larsen
Far Side

Julien Bernier wrote:
The WHAT button?
----
www.soundclick.com/g1mike
listen to songs recorded in my home studio! =D




  #26   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] pandorapayne@charter.net is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 147
Default Frequency range of the voice

That's another thing... where can I get good reverb sounds?
Everything I listen to sounds like a tin can!


From a good room!




Should fake reverb ever be applied to
outdoor recordings? This guy I know
played me a recording he made of a
singer outdoors and he had put a LOT
of reverb on it.

  #27   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Frequency range of the voice

In article om,
wrote:
That's another thing... where can I get good reverb sounds?
Everything I listen to sounds like a tin can!


From a good room!


Should fake reverb ever be applied to
outdoor recordings? This guy I know
played me a recording he made of a
singer outdoors and he had put a LOT
of reverb on it.


People do this when they have outdoor recordings that they don't want to
sound like outdoor recordings.

However, in general when reverb is added heavily to vocals, it's an effect
and not an attempt to reproduce an actual environment. And more often than
not it's an attempt to hide something wrong with the performance or
recording.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #29   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Frequency range of the voice


wrote in message
ps.com...

That's another thing... where can I get good reverb sounds?
Everything I listen to sounds like a tin can!


Maybe you should move your listening sessions out of that tin can. ;-)

From a good room!


Should fake reverb ever be applied to
outdoor recordings?


Only if it really makes things sound better.

A performer's voice recorded with very little reverb can be very unnatural.
Most performance spaces have quite a bit of reverb, so usually the natural
way to hear a performer's voice is with a fair amount of reverb.

Even just close-micing in a fairly lively room can remove enough reverb to
be unnatural.

In my way of hearing things, a voice without enough reverb sounds "hot" and
"biting" even if the singer's voice is really pretty good.

Of course, if the singer is mediocre or worse, a low-reverb track can make
all the singer's failings just that much more apparent.

Reverb, even just moderate natural reverb cuts singers some slack. Many if
not most need it!

This guy I know
played me a recording he made of a
singer outdoors and he had put a LOT
of reverb on it.


Rule of thumb - if the reverb is so strong that you hear it distinctly, it
is too much. If you can hear reverb as an added effect, it is too much.


  #30   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] RickPV8945@aol.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default Frequency range of the voice


Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
ps.com...

SNIP

Rule of thumb - if the reverb is so strong that you hear it distinctly, it
is too much. If you can hear reverb as an added effect, it is too much.


I agree, but I had a customer last week who sang 50's style country and
he wanted the vocals absolutely dripping with reverb.

I got the mix so that it was dripping with reverb and he wanted more.
He was absolutely in love with the sound of the tails.

Kind of reminded me of the amount of reverb that Andy Williams used.



  #32   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Julien Bernier Julien Bernier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default Frequency range of the voice

I rarely use my reverb plugins at more than 5-15% anyway. More than
that, it sounds kitch and the more you go up, the more 80's you go.
Same with the drums too...
my 2 cents.

  #33   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Ben Bradley Ben Bradley is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 142
Default Frequency range of the voice

On 26 Sep 2006 07:48:03 -0700, "Julien Bernier"
wrote:

I rarely use my reverb plugins at more than 5-15% anyway. More than
that, it sounds kitch and the more you go up, the more 80's you go.


Perhaps I'm older than you, but I always thought of "too much
reverb" as being a '60's thing, as in "Wipe Out" or Phil Spector's
numerous wall-of-sound type songs.
I do remember Duran Duran on the radio around the start of the
'80's. Perhaps that's when I started listening more to the classical
music stations.

Same with the drums too...
my 2 cents.


  #34   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Frequency range of the voice

In article ,
Ben Bradley wrote:
On 26 Sep 2006 07:48:03 -0700, "Julien Bernier"
wrote:

I rarely use my reverb plugins at more than 5-15% anyway. More than
that, it sounds kitch and the more you go up, the more 80's you go.


Perhaps I'm older than you, but I always thought of "too much
reverb" as being a '60's thing, as in "Wipe Out" or Phil Spector's
numerous wall-of-sound type songs.


The sixties thing, though, is more of a clangy sounding reverb. Throw
the overheads on a spring and then compress the crap after it to exaggerate
the spring decay.

The eighties thing is a more hollow and mellow sounding reverb. Get one
of those Yamaha digital boxes and then compress the crap after it...

I do remember Duran Duran on the radio around the start of the
'80's. Perhaps that's when I started listening more to the classical
music stations.


"This new album has sold a lot of phonographs. I know it's made me
want to sell mine."
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #35   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Julien Bernier Julien Bernier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default Frequency range of the voice

Scott Dorsey wrote:
"This new album has sold a lot of phonographs. I know it's made me
want to sell mine."


Lol I might just be too young to had one. I listen to a lot of
60's/70's songs though.
We can clearly see the reverb thing on some of these year's records.
So much influence I got from these bands....

The Doors,
Donovan,
The Beatles,
Pink Floyd (atom earth mother's cool)
Alan Parson's project
Cat Stevens
Al Stewart(just Year of the cat :P)
Michael Jackson - Thriller album only (is it really 70's? more like the
80's stuff debut)
70's/60's compil... there was a lot of "one hits" bands

Anyway, out of context...



  #36   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Agent 86 Agent 86 is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 78
Default Frequency range of the voice

On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 09:55:12 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:

"This new album has sold a lot of phonographs. I know it's made me want
to sell mine."


I've often wondered what Scott Dorsey's home stereo consists of. We know
he has Maggies and a Citation II in the studio. We also know he thinks
RCA connectors are an abomination. And since he still masters for vinyl &
has his own lathe, it's a good bet he has a really nice turntable.

Care to fill in the blanks Scott? (If I'm being nosy, just tell me to go
to hell & I'll apologize.)

  #37   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Frequency range of the voice

Agent 86 wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 09:55:12 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:

"This new album has sold a lot of phonographs. I know it's made me want
to sell mine."


I've often wondered what Scott Dorsey's home stereo consists of. We know
he has Maggies and a Citation II in the studio. We also know he thinks
RCA connectors are an abomination. And since he still masters for vinyl &
has his own lathe, it's a good bet he has a really nice turntable.

Care to fill in the blanks Scott? (If I'm being nosy, just tell me to go
to hell & I'll apologize.)


Right now everything is in total disarray because we have moved to a house
that is mostly under construction. So I do most of my listening on the
Maggies and try to avoid the birds. Citation II, passive preamp, HHB 800
with that goofy Monster Cable DAC for CDs, Thorens TD126 with homebrew
INA103-based preamp for LPs. The Sony transcription table (SME arm, and
MUCH nicer than the Thorens) is in a closet somewhere.

I also have a set of NHT Super Ones and a set of A-20s for remote recording
work and I think Melissa has a single M-00 attached to her computer with a
resistive summing network (since she has hearing only from one ear anyway).

There's a lot of other junk around here. I think if I had my way, I might
take something a little more analytic than the Maggies for mixing even though
they are great for listening. But, I think I'd still stick with planars.
Maybe some of the newer Magnepans.

Right now I am not mastering for vinyl because I don't have the platform
for the lathe finished for the new place yet. And there are loud parrot
sounds everywhere all the time. Since I don't track here it's pretty much
just an annoyance, but it can be very annoying. Also the projection booth
for the home theatre has been half-framed for the past month now.

Someday it will all be back to normal and I will actually have a home stereo
and a mixdown studio but right now I sort of have pieces of either without
having either one complete. Perhaps six months.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #38   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Agent 86 Agent 86 is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 78
Default Frequency range of the voice

On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 20:57:02 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:


Someday it will all be back to normal and I will actually have a home
stereo and a mixdown studio but right now I sort of have pieces of either
without having either one complete. Perhaps six months. --scott


Thanks, and good luck with the move.

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
rec.audio.car FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (caution, this is HUGE) MOSFET Car Audio 0 June 18th 06 05:27 AM
It's amazing what you can find when you look. Audio Opinions 76 December 3rd 05 07:33 AM
Note to Trevor Audio Opinions 9 November 7th 05 09:45 AM
Some Recording Techniques kevindoylemusic Pro Audio 19 February 16th 05 08:54 PM
Artists cut out the record biz [email protected] Pro Audio 64 July 9th 04 10:02 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:12 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"