A Audio and hi-fi forum. AudioBanter

Go Back   Home » AudioBanter forum » rec.audio » Pro Audio
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Audible Difference Between Monitors



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old May 29th 19, 06:31 PM posted to rec.audio.pro
Neil[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 157
Default Audible Difference Between Monitors

On 5/29/2019 8:29 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, Neil > wrote:
>> As I see it, the real question is, "So what?" The primary purpose of
>> monitors is to allow one to manage the sound of their production and
>> reduce problems with the understanding that it will sound very different
>> in every environment that the material is played in, regardless of the
>> hardware used.

>
> I learned to mix on Altec 604s. I listen to recordings that I made using
> 604s today on modern monitors, and I hear all kinds of things that I never
> heard during the original sessions. Squeaky chairs, thumping feet, mechanical
> noises from pianos.
>
> So... the recordings I make today, what are they going to sound like in
> another 40 years? I hope that people will be playing them back on systems
> that are better than we have today. So I want monitors that will get me
> as close to that as possible.
> --scott
>

Of course, the ability to record and reproduce is always improving. The
604s had serious limitations with regard to broad-spectrum reproduction,
as you've discovered. That doesn't mean that they weren't useful for
their intended purpose (I saw them used for voice-overs most of the
time). Had you heard the thumping feet, mechanical noises and squeaky
chairs, your options to correct for them would have been limited, as well.

--
best regards,

Neil
Ads
  #22  
Old May 29th 19, 09:10 PM posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,576
Default Audible Difference Between Monitors

In article >, Neil > wrote:
>604s had serious limitations with regard to broad-spectrum reproduction,
>as you've discovered. That doesn't mean that they weren't useful for
>their intended purpose (I saw them used for voice-overs most of the
>time). Had you heard the thumping feet, mechanical noises and squeaky
>chairs, your options to correct for them would have been limited, as well.


Not at all! I have gaffer's tape and foam to fix all of those problems!

That's the thing about audio.... the sooner in the chain you can correct
something, the easier it is. Stuff that would have taken a minute at the
tracking session can take a week to fix in mastering. Monitors exist to
let you know what is going on so you can fix it.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #23  
Old May 30th 19, 02:31 AM posted to rec.audio.pro
Phil Allison[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 380
Default Audible Difference Between Monitors

Neil wrote:

>
> >>
> >> Even with the same monitors of the
> >> same brand used in the same position, etc. The ability of human senses
> >> to discern small differences is still well beyond the capability to
> >> manufacture products with more precision than one may be able to detect.
> >>

> >
> > ** Sounds dangerously close to audiophool nonsense that insist ears are better then any test gear and everything makes an audible difference.
> >

> When one is referring to AUDIBLE DIFFERENCES it is not a contest between
> ears and test gear. Both require one to understand the limitations to
> know what the measurements actually represent. Turn your head or move
> your Schoeps a couple inches off-center and you'll get measurable and
> audibly different results.
>


** Fraid that has SFA to do with what I posted.


> >> As I see it, the real question is, "So what?" The primary purpose of
> >> monitors is to allow one to manage the sound of their production and
> >> reduce problems with the understanding that it will sound very different
> >> in every environment that the material is played in, regardless of the
> >> hardware used.
> >>

> >
> > ** Now that IS audiophool nonsense.
> >

> If you believe that monitors in one environment accurately represent
> reproduction in another then you don't understand much about acoustics.
>


** My complaint was about the wording above my comment.

Your "if" statement changes to context so I would have to debate your idea instead of defending my comment.

No way.


..... Phil


  #24  
Old May 31st 19, 02:01 AM posted to rec.audio.pro
Neil[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 157
Default Audible Difference Between Monitors

On 5/29/2019 4:10 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, Neil > wrote:
>> 604s had serious limitations with regard to broad-spectrum reproduction,
>> as you've discovered. That doesn't mean that they weren't useful for
>> their intended purpose (I saw them used for voice-overs most of the
>> time). Had you heard the thumping feet, mechanical noises and squeaky
>> chairs, your options to correct for them would have been limited, as well.

>
> Not at all! I have gaffer's tape and foam to fix all of those problems!
>
> That's the thing about audio.... the sooner in the chain you can correct
> something, the easier it is. Stuff that would have taken a minute at the
> tracking session can take a week to fix in mastering. Monitors exist to
> let you know what is going on so you can fix it.
> --scott
>
>

I agree with what you've written about the fixes. The difference in our
approach is that I didn't rely on monitors to expose those problems...I
stood in the room near the instruments while determining things like mic
position.

--
best regards,

Neil
  #25  
Old May 31st 19, 03:31 AM posted to rec.audio.pro
Trevor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,756
Default Audible Difference Between Monitors

On 29/05/2019 10:29 pm, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> I learned to mix on Altec 604s. I listen to recordings that I made using
> 604s today on modern monitors, and I hear all kinds of things that I never
> heard during the original sessions. Squeaky chairs, thumping feet, mechanical
> noises from pianos.


Even 604's can happily reproduce all those things. The big difference I
suggest is *many* years experience at actually listening.




 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is there really an audible difference between different fiber optic eye bro kit[_2_] High End Audio 5 April 24th 07 11:23 PM
Schoeps CMC6 vs. CMC6XT - any audible sound difference ? Ivo Pro Audio 12 February 26th 05 08:31 AM
Schoeps CMC6 vs. CMC6XT - any audible sound difference ? Ivo Pro Audio 0 October 5th 04 05:05 PM
Audible Audiobooks Gene Venable Marketplace 0 September 23rd 04 03:15 PM
Audible difference?: 1cu-ft and 1.25cu-ft Tony Car Audio 4 December 30th 03 01:17 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 AudioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.