would there be a difference between an esoteric high-end set of
audiophile speakers and an expensive high-end set of studio mastering
speakers?

if so, what would be the difference, and is it a major difference, or
more of a 0.00213% difference?

there's one of those boutique hi-fi stores down the road from me, and
i'm wondering if that's a place i should be wandering around in.

there was actually a very interesting article in Sound-on-Sound
comparing two "audiophile" speaker sets and two "studio" speaker sets.
on the waterfall plots, the Infinity's (audiophile) actually showed
much less ringing/overshoot compared to the KRK's.

not that any of these speakers were "amazing" (each were about
$600-1000/pair), but it got me thinking that this contest could be
extended up into higher price points and more exotic designs.

i remember loving the waterfall plots in the sound on sound article.
they seemed so informative to me, much more so than a simple cartesian
plane graph. i guess there is a secret-geek lurking inside of me,
because i love charts and specs.

xy wrote:
would there be a difference between an esoteric high-end set of
audiophile speakers and an expensive high-end set of studio mastering
speakers?

Might be. There are a lot of audiophile speakers out there. Some are
intended to be flattering, some are intended to be accurate. Most of
the speakers that turn up in mastering houses wind up getting used by
audiophiles one way or another anyway.

if so, what would be the difference, and is it a major difference, or
more of a 0.00213% difference?

There is such a total difference between different speakers in the audiophile
world to begin with. You'll find very neutral planar speakers out there,
and you'll also find huge horn systems that make everything sound the same.

there's one of those boutique hi-fi stores down the road from me, and
i'm wondering if that's a place i should be wandering around in.

It's certainly worth taking a trip, bringing some recordings, and getting
a sense of what is out there.

there was actually a very interesting article in Sound-on-Sound
comparing two "audiophile" speaker sets and two "studio" speaker sets.
on the waterfall plots, the Infinity's (audiophile) actually showed
much less ringing/overshoot compared to the KRK's.

Doesn't surprise me. The smaller KRKs are ringy as hell on the bottom
end. The bigger ones are even worse on the bottom end. Some people like
that.

i remember loving the waterfall plots in the sound on sound article.
they seemed so informative to me, much more so than a simple cartesian
plane graph. i guess there is a secret-geek lurking inside of me,
because i love charts and specs.

Waterfall plots actually tell you something useful, and you can get
some sense of how a speaker is going to sound from them. That's why
nobody publishes them. Sound on Sound was probably the last magazine
doing serious speaker reviews out there.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

would there be a difference between an esoteric high-end set of
audiophile speakers and an expensive high-end set of studio mastering
speakers?

Well, since all esoteric high end audiophile speakers are different & all
studio speakers are different, that's a rather difficult question to answer
meaningfully.

if so, what would be the difference, and is it a major difference, or
more of a 0.00213% difference?

The difference could be huge. You may be surprised to find out how much really
great speakers can differ from one another, & still sound great.

there's one of those boutique hi-fi stores down the road from me, and
i'm wondering if that's a place i should be wandering around in.

You should, just to find out what you've been missing from "studio" speakers.

there was actually a very interesting article in Sound-on-Sound
comparing two "audiophile" speaker sets and two "studio" speaker sets.
on the waterfall plots, the Infinity's (audiophile) actually showed
much less ringing/overshoot compared to the KRK's.

Not surprising. Just about any high end audiophile speaker can beat the pants
off of just about any studio monitor.



Scott Fraser

"ScotFraser" wrote in message
...

there was actually a very interesting article in Sound-on-Sound
comparing two "audiophile" speaker sets and two "studio" speaker sets.
on the waterfall plots, the Infinity's (audiophile) actually showed
much less ringing/overshoot compared to the KRK's.

Not surprising. Just about any high end audiophile speaker can beat the
pants
off of just about any studio monitor.

Not necessarily, no. If you're talking about real high end, there's so much
air in the price that it doesn't correlate with the quality anymore. Also,
if you compare the best 2000-4000 $ studio monitors with home high-end of
the same price region, the differences will be very huge depending on the
manufacturer. I wouldn't make generalisations about studio/high-end
speakers. Well, except for the fact that studio monitors' purpose is to be
accurate, whereas high-end can be anything from accurate to just
mind-blowingly good-sounding with intended colorisations.

In article , "Tommi"
wrote:

I wouldn't make generalisations about studio/high-end
speakers. Well, except for the fact that studio monitors' purpose is to
be accurate, whereas high-end can be anything from accurate to just
mind-blowingly good-sounding with intended colorisations.

I partly agree and partly disagree. Studio monitors are traditionally
designed to be able to take a beating, not necessarily to be terribly
accurate. Many monitors have somewhat limited extension and varying
response curves, yet can stand up to loud playback and heavy use. Some
models in more recent years have thankfully started to pay more
attention to the sound quality and accuracy, but durability is still
usually a top design criteria. Mastering speakers are usually a
combination of accurate, extended, and reasonably durable. Audiophile
speakers sometimes fit this desciption as well, yet many more audiophlie
consumer speakers are voiced for a pleasing effect rather than accuracy,
and some are comparatively fragile.

Mastering speakers tend to be in the crossover area - the pro monitors
that put sound quality near the top of the criteria list, or the
audiophile models that strive for accuarcy over pleasing colors. The
mainstreams of both categories are often not well-suited. Neither
Infinitys (quoted from earlier in the thread) nor Augspergers are likely
to find consensus with mastering engineers, yet are quite popular in
their respective categories.

In the end, good speakers are good speakers, and I wouldn't discount one
because of it's intended market, nor would I assume suitability of
another for the same reason.

Some manufacturers that have models that "go both ways" include ATC,
Quested, PMC, Dynaudio, ProAc, B&W, the former Dunlavy, and possibly
Eggleston or even some Sonus Fabers from the past generation or two (in
other words, not the current "home" line).

--
Jay Frigoletto
Mastersuite
Los Angeles
promastering.com

"Jay - atldigi" wrote in message
...

I partly agree and partly disagree. Studio monitors are traditionally
designed to be able to take a beating, not necessarily to be terribly
accurate. Many monitors have somewhat limited extension and varying
response curves, yet can stand up to loud playback and heavy use. Some
models in more recent years have thankfully started to pay more
attention to the sound quality and accuracy, but durability is still
usually a top design criteria. Mastering speakers are usually a
combination of accurate, extended, and reasonably durable. Audiophile
speakers sometimes fit this desciption as well, yet many more audiophlie
consumer speakers are voiced for a pleasing effect rather than accuracy,
and some are comparatively fragile.


Agreed, studio monitors are generally more robust than home speakers.
I however think that their main purpose is to be accurate more than being
able to take a beating. I don't know which companies prefer that approach,
but we mustn't forget that an accurate monitor _should_ be sort of rugged;
for example, the speaker cone must be tightly attached to prevent unwanted
resonances, the speaker has to be hard, solid etc. for minimizing
reflections inside the speaker(more true straight sound), thus also a
shorter decay and so on..So the durability can also come as bonus with the
"accurate" design.
PA speakers are a different matter then...

Mastering speakers tend to be in the crossover area - the pro monitors
that put sound quality near the top of the criteria list, or the
audiophile models that strive for accuarcy over pleasing colors. The
mainstreams of both categories are often not well-suited.
In the end, good speakers are good speakers, and I wouldn't discount one
because of it's intended market, nor would I assume suitability of
another for the same reason.

Neither would I, based solely on the speaker's intended market, but there is
a certain logic behind the argument that because music is mixed and mastered
through the monitor speakers(in most cases), ie. the music is made through
them, they should be more accurate than the home speakers, where the product
finally ends.

Stereophile does waterfall plots of speakers.


"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
xy wrote:
would there be a difference between an esoteric high-end set of
audiophile speakers and an expensive high-end set of studio mastering
speakers?

Might be. There are a lot of audiophile speakers out there. Some are
intended to be flattering, some are intended to be accurate. Most of
the speakers that turn up in mastering houses wind up getting used by
audiophiles one way or another anyway.

if so, what would be the difference, and is it a major difference, or
more of a 0.00213% difference?

There is such a total difference between different speakers in the
audiophile
world to begin with. You'll find very neutral planar speakers out there,
and you'll also find huge horn systems that make everything sound the
same.

there's one of those boutique hi-fi stores down the road from me, and
i'm wondering if that's a place i should be wandering around in.

It's certainly worth taking a trip, bringing some recordings, and getting
a sense of what is out there.

there was actually a very interesting article in Sound-on-Sound
comparing two "audiophile" speaker sets and two "studio" speaker sets.
on the waterfall plots, the Infinity's (audiophile) actually showed
much less ringing/overshoot compared to the KRK's.

Doesn't surprise me. The smaller KRKs are ringy as hell on the bottom
end. The bigger ones are even worse on the bottom end. Some people like
that.

i remember loving the waterfall plots in the sound on sound article.
they seemed so informative to me, much more so than a simple cartesian
plane graph. i guess there is a secret-geek lurking inside of me,
because i love charts and specs.

Waterfall plots actually tell you something useful, and you can get
some sense of how a speaker is going to sound from them. That's why
nobody publishes them. Sound on Sound was probably the last magazine
doing serious speaker reviews out there.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
news:sVmzb.407644$Tr4.1169547@attbi_s03

Stereophile does waterfall plots of speakers.

IMO, Stereophile does a pretty good job with the speakers they review.

I think they've even reviewed a few speakers that one might expect to see in
an audio production environment.

Stereophile does waterfall plots of speakers.

IMO, Stereophile does a pretty good job with the speakers they review.

Eh. I did waterfall plots before Stereophile, and learned something they don't
seem to pay any attention to...

Specifically, the plots are sometimes mis-scaled. Too much of the decay is
hidden below the zero line, making the speaker look better than it is. This
occurs when there is a significant peak or bump in the speaker's response, which
"forces down" the plot.

John Atkinson has little respect for such measurements. When I showed him the
horrible waterfall plots for the original AKG K-1000 headphones -- which clearly
revealed why they honked like a flight of geese -- he poo-poohed them with "Are
you sure you were making the measurements correctly?"

It is my understanding (though I'm getting forgetful in my old age) that it was
my negative review of these 'phones that forced AKG to withdraw them in the US.

By the way, when John started doing these plots (around 1984, I believe) I
suggested he do them for a year or so, without publishing them, so the magazine
could get a better understanding of what they really meant. In typical JA style,
my suggestion was summarily rejected.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
news:sVmzb.407644$Tr4.1169547@attbi_s03

Stereophile does waterfall plots of speakers.

IMO, Stereophile does a pretty good job with the speakers they review.

I think they've even reviewed a few speakers that one might expect to see in
an audio production environment.

You know, I haven't checked out Stereophile's reviews in ages. I should do
that.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 15:01:45 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

Stereophile does waterfall plots of speakers.

Waterfall plots are trivially easy for anyone with a
computer and a soundcard to do themselves. Doesn't
really require a fancy microphone either; it's not
hard to be *lots* better than any speaker. Software
is $50, IIRC. Big fun.


Chris Hornbeck
"That is my Theory, and what it is too."
Anne Elk

xy wrote:

would there be a difference between an esoteric high-end set of
audiophile speakers and an expensive high-end set of studio mastering
speakers?

For mastering you want flat and wide frequency response, low distortion,
and wide dynamic range.

Some of the well known "audiophile" speakers test very poorly and have
far-from-flat frequency responses. Others are pretty darned flat. A
recent AES Journal article discussed qualifying trained listeners
discussed this.


--
Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio
Core Sound http://www.stealthmicrophones.com
Teaneck, New Jersey USA http://www.core-sound.com
Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912

Arny Krueger wrote:

Stereophile does waterfall plots of speakers.

IMO, Stereophile does a pretty good job with the speakers they review.

I think they've even reviewed a few speakers that one might expect to see in
an audio production environment.

You have to read between the lines. John Atkinson's measurements are
nicely done and very informative if you interpret them carefully; his
comments are sometimes gentler than the measurements would indicate they
deserve. When he writes a complete review, I trust it implicitly -- he
hears things the way I do. In contrast, some of the other folks who
write the review do it subjectively, and while some have good ears, some
don't.

One speaker review that stands out in my memory is their review of the
Red Rose Music R3 monitors. I auditioned these at the Red Rose shop
before I saw any reviews and later found that Atkinson's measurements
exactly confirmed the sonic shortcomings I heard -- 15 dB holes in the
midrange are not easy to ignore. In contrast, the reviewer (Michael
Fremer) thought they were the cat's meow -- that taught me to ignore his
opinions related to sound quality.

--
Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio
Core Sound http://www.stealthmicrophones.com
Teaneck, New Jersey USA http://www.core-sound.com
Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912

I wouldn't make generalisations about studio/high-end
speakers. Well, except for the fact that studio monitors' purpose is to be
accurate, whereas high-end can be anything from accurate to just
mind-blowingly good-sounding with intended colorisations.

In 30 years of doing this for a living I have NEVER heard a "pro studio
monitor" deliver the degree of detail & imaging I have heard from any number of
esoteric audiophile speakers. And I disagree that studio monitors are designed
to be accurate. They are designed not to blow up when abused.

Scott Fraser

"ScotFraser" wrote in message
...
I wouldn't make generalisations about studio/high-end
speakers. Well, except for the fact that studio monitors' purpose is to be
accurate, whereas high-end can be anything from accurate to just
mind-blowingly good-sounding with intended colorisations.

In 30 years of doing this for a living I have NEVER heard a "pro studio
monitor" deliver the degree of detail & imaging I have heard from any
number of
esoteric audiophile speakers. And I disagree that studio monitors are
designed
to be accurate. They are designed not to blow up when abused.


Could you be more specific, what do you mean by "detail and imaging", in
techical terms?
The purpose of a home speaker is, at its essence, to please the listener.
In the studio, I'd value most of all a flat frequency response(if I had to
pick just one thing), but this isn't necessarily what I demand from a home
speaker. High end and studio monitors have different goals; high end's
purpose is to provide the most pleasing sensation to the listener(this can
be achieved with accuracy but can also be achieved with severe
colorisations), whereas studio monitors' purpose is to provide as accurate
representation of the original signal as possible to the audio engineer.
This is not to say that it couldn't be any other way, but that _should_ be
the starting point for any speaker manufacturer fundamentally. It's up to
them what they provide to us.

Kalman Rubinson wrote:


I do find it interesting that the few studios I've visited (e.g.,
Sterling in NY) use high end consumer speakers in many of their rooms.


It is good to hear the sound from many perspectives, not just to mix to
one set. You definitely want to hear the mix on a real fine set of
consumer speakers in addition to your studio monitors.

-Rob

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 20:17:34 +0200, "Tommi"
wrote:

Could you be more specific, what do you mean by "detail and imaging", in
techical terms?

Detail? Resolution.
Imaging? The capacity to create stable phantom sounds between the
speakers which relates to speaker matching and linearity.

The purpose of a home speaker is, at its essence, to please the listener.
In the studio, I'd value most of all a flat frequency response(if I had to
pick just one thing), but this isn't necessarily what I demand from a home
speaker.

It's what I want.

High end and studio monitors have different goals; high end's
purpose is to provide the most pleasing sensation to the listener(this can
be achieved with accuracy but can also be achieved with severe
colorisations), whereas studio monitors' purpose is to provide as accurate
representation of the original signal as possible to the audio engineer.
This is not to say that it couldn't be any other way, but that _should_ be
the starting point for any speaker manufacturer fundamentally. It's up to
them what they provide to us.

I do find it interesting that the few studios I've visited (e.g.,
Sterling in NY) use high end consumer speakers in many of their rooms.

Kal

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:02:58 -0600, Rob Adelman
wrote:



Kalman Rubinson wrote:


I do find it interesting that the few studios I've visited (e.g.,
Sterling in NY) use high end consumer speakers in many of their rooms.


It is good to hear the sound from many perspectives, not just to mix to
one set. You definitely want to hear the mix on a real fine set of
consumer speakers in addition to your studio monitors.

Well, they were the only ones in those rooms but I accept your point.
Most of the record buyers will be listening on crappy equipment and
they must be catered to.

Kal

In article , says...
There are a lot of audiophile speakers out there. Some are
intended to be flattering, some are intended to be accurate.

The speakers in my studio, a pair of SLS S8Rs, were originally marketed
for home theatre use, and are fairly flat and remarkably detailed (to
the point that most CDs sound like crap, because you can hear all the
flaws; I can't actually imagine that anyone would want these in their
living room). U. Mass at Lowell just purchased a set of the larger
SLS's for their new 5.1 critical listening room. SLS now markets them
to both studios and home users with different color cabinets.

--
Jay Levitt |
Wellesley, MA | Hi!
Faster: jay at jay dot eff-em | Where are we going?
http://www.jay.fm | Why am I in this handbasket?

Imaging? The capacity to create stable phantom sounds between the
speakers which relates to speaker matching and linearity.

As well as the capacity to create phantom images wider than the speaker
locations, and three dimensional depth behind the speakers.


Scott Fraser

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 18:56:35 -0800, xy wrote
(in message ) :

would there be a difference between an esoteric high-end set of
audiophile speakers and an expensive high-end set of studio mastering
speakers?
--------------------------------snip----------------------------------


About 10 years ago, I had a discussion about this with the late, great Gabe
Wiener at his mastering studio, QSI in New York.

Gabe had made the (somewhat-controversial at the time) decision to go with
the large Wilson Grand Slamm loudspeakers, which I think were well over
$100,000 even back then. We talked about the differences between traditional
mastering speakers vs. high-end audiophile speakers, and he felt that at the
very highest "cost-no-object" level, there was no difference between them.

I have to admit, the things sounded phenomenal. So did the room he was
using, which (as I remember) was a kind of odd-shaped Walters-Storyk-designed
room. The walls and ceiling had some unusual angles, and I suspect this was
done to break up any standing waves and so on. I don't know the particulars,
except that Gabe did great work, and the room sounded terrific.

Gabe did admit (under duress) that one small factor in getting the Wilsons
was the snob factor. Anybody who came in who knew about the Wilson Grand
Slamms was bound to be impressed.

--MFW

About 10 years ago, I had a discussion about this with the late, great Gabe
Wiener at his mastering studio, QSI in New York.

Gabe had made the (somewhat-controversial at the time) decision to go with
the large Wilson Grand Slamm loudspeakers, which I think were well over
$100,000 even back then. We talked about the differences between traditional
mastering speakers vs. high-end audiophile speakers, and he felt that at the
very highest "cost-no-object" level, there was no difference between them.

I have to admit, the things sounded phenomenal. So did the room he was
using, which (as I remember) was a kind of odd-shaped Walters-Storyk-designed
room. The walls and ceiling had some unusual angles, and I suspect this was
done to break up any standing waves and so on. I don't know the particulars,
except that Gabe did great work, and the room sounded terrific.

Gabe did admit (under duress) that one small factor in getting the Wilsons
was the snob factor. Anybody who came in who knew about the Wilson Grand
Slamms was bound to be impressed.

The problem with using really high-quality speakers for mastering music that has
no meaningful acoustic correlative is that a mix that sounds great on the
Willsons won't sound very good on average speakers -- and vice versa.

This applies to some extent to all forms of music. The other day NPR (I think)
played a bit of "Under the Sea." I could plainly understand every one of
Sebastian's words on a cheap clock-radio -- which I've never been able to do,
even on a horribly expensive audiophile system.

On 03 Dec 2003 22:18:27 GMT, (ScotFraser) wrote:

Imaging? The capacity to create stable phantom sounds between the
speakers which relates to speaker matching and linearity.

As well as the capacity to create phantom images wider than the speaker
locations, and three dimensional depth behind the speakers.

Yeah but I was trying to be fairly conservative about it in order not
to create another divergence of the thread. Beyond the speakers
depends on the room and placement and depth is, to me, still between
the speakers from the listener's perspective.

Kal

"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 20:17:34 +0200, "Tommi"
wrote:

Could you be more specific, what do you mean by "detail and imaging", in
techical terms?

Detail? Resolution.
Imaging? The capacity to create stable phantom sounds between the
speakers which relates to speaker matching and linearity.


Resolution can in this context mean just about anything. The lack of it can
be about compressed transients or high-frequency elements, impulse response,
how the sound spreads from the speakers etc..

The purpose of a home speaker is, at its essence, to please the listener.
In the studio, I'd value most of all a flat frequency response(if I had
to
pick just one thing), but this isn't necessarily what I demand from a
home
speaker.

It's what I want.

Well, that's what I want too, also from a home speaker, but I doubt that
many home listeners excluding audio industry professionals and the like
necessarily demand a flat response from their speakers. If one doesn't know
how to listen for a flat frequency response, they just listen to whatever
sounds good, and like it.
It's essentially a different starting point for studio and home markets,
even though it is obvious that a good speaker is always a good speaker.

I do find it interesting that the few studios I've visited (e.g.,
Sterling in NY) use high end consumer speakers in many of their rooms.

Yes, studios should have as much different speaker sets with differing
quality as possible. Once again, it's up to the studios themselves what they
choose to use.
It can not be used as a "proof" about anything but the choice the studio has
made.

would there be a difference between an esoteric high-end set of
audiophile speakers and an expensive high-end set of studio mastering
speakers?
BRBR


You'll probably break the "audiophile" speakers in a working suite and probably
dislike the "studio monitors" in a home setting.

The "audiophile" speakers will cost you more in glossy finishes and connector
jewelry. The "studio monitors" will cost too much for reasons that you won't be
able to figure out.

The "audiophile" speakers will have brochures detailing all of their esoteric
hoo-hah features, which may or may not have any basis in physics. The studio
monitors will have brochures extolling many of their hoo-hah features in
somewhat more technicaly correct terms, which may or may not have any bearing
on reality.

As far as reasons to pick one or the other, fear of breaking them at a rapid
pace is a good reason.


--
Dr. Nuketopia
Sorry, no e-Mail.
Spam forgeries have resulted in thousands of faked bounces to my address.

Tommi wrote:
"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 20:17:34 +0200, "Tommi"
wrote:

Could you be more specific, what do you mean by "detail and imaging", in
techical terms?

Detail? Resolution.
Imaging? The capacity to create stable phantom sounds between the
speakers which relates to speaker matching and linearity.


Resolution can in this context mean just about anything. The lack of it can
be about compressed transients or high-frequency elements, impulse response,
how the sound spreads from the speakers etc..

Yup. All of those are individual issues which together combine to make an
overall perception of detail. Now, when you hear a system that sounds very
detailed or not very detailed, it becomes an adventure to find out why
sometimes.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 10:46:53 +0200, "Tommi"
wrote:

Resolution can in this context mean just about anything. The lack of it can
be about compressed transients or high-frequency elements, impulse response,
how the sound spreads from the speakers etc..

Certainly. All those factors contribute.

It's essentially a different starting point for studio and home markets,
even though it is obvious that a good speaker is always a good speaker.

Of course, the starting point depends on the individual making the
selection. There are consumers who want accuracy and those who want
to be titillated. There are professionals who want accuracy and those
who want to hear what the average 'end-user' will hear. And
everything in between.

Yes, studios should have as much different speaker sets with differing
quality as possible. Once again, it's up to the studios themselves what they
choose to use.
It can not be used as a "proof" about anything but the choice the studio has
made.

The only reason I mentioned this was to counter the earlier argument
that high-end consumer speakers are inappropriate for studio use. I
did not state that they were preferable or exclusive.

Kal

Could you be more specific, what do you mean by "detail and imaging", in
techical terms?

By detail I'm referring to a speaker's ability to resolve subtle distinctions
between similar frequency & amplitude regions.

By imaging I mean the ability to recreate subtle directional cues from the
original recording space, as well as the ability to portray a palpable sense of
three dimensional depth to the sound stage.


Scott Fraser

Resolution can in this context mean just about anything.

I think it's pretty specific. In optics, a lens that can properly show two
adjacent thin lines as separate is said to have more resolving power, or
greater resolution, than a lens which blurs the 2 lines together. The same can
be said of speakers, with regard to similar frequencies and/or amplitudes.

The lack of it can
be about compressed transients or high-frequency elements, impulse response,
how the sound spreads from the speakers etc..

How the sound spreads from the speakers is an aspect of imaging, not detail.

Scott Fraser

Hi William,

usually I am in complete agreement with the things I've seen you post,
however I have to disagree here. IMHO the opposite is true, as long as
we're talking about *accurate* high end (audiophile) monitors. There are
speakers that aren't as accurate as one would desire, Wilson is not
among them IMO.

In general I find that a good master that sounds "right" on the main
monitors will translate very well to other systems, a car radio to a
club to a mid range and of course a high end system. A master with a
good frequency balance, dynamics, clarity and stereo imaging will loose
some of those factors when played on inferior equipment, but will still
sound good.

My 2 cents.

Regards,
Thor



In article ,
"William Sommerwerck" wrote:

About 10 years ago, I had a discussion about this with the late, great Gabe
Wiener at his mastering studio, QSI in New York.

Gabe had made the (somewhat-controversial at the time) decision to go with
the large Wilson Grand Slamm loudspeakers, which I think were well over
$100,000 even back then. We talked about the differences between
traditional
mastering speakers vs. high-end audiophile speakers, and he felt that at
the
very highest "cost-no-object" level, there was no difference between them.

I have to admit, the things sounded phenomenal. So did the room he was
using, which (as I remember) was a kind of odd-shaped
Walters-Storyk-designed
room. The walls and ceiling had some unusual angles, and I suspect this
was
done to break up any standing waves and so on. I don't know the
particulars,
except that Gabe did great work, and the room sounded terrific.

Gabe did admit (under duress) that one small factor in getting the Wilsons
was the snob factor. Anybody who came in who knew about the Wilson Grand
Slamms was bound to be impressed.

The problem with using really high-quality speakers for mastering music that
has
no meaningful acoustic correlative is that a mix that sounds great on the
Willsons won't sound very good on average speakers -- and vice versa.

This applies to some extent to all forms of music. The other day NPR (I
think)
played a bit of "Under the Sea." I could plainly understand every one of
Sebastian's words on a cheap clock-radio -- which I've never been able to do,
even on a horribly expensive audiophile system.

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:24:31 -0800, William Sommerwerck wrote
(in message ):

The problem with using really high-quality speakers for mastering music that
has
no meaningful acoustic correlative is that a mix that sounds great on the
Willsons won't sound very good on average speakers -- and vice versa.
--------------------------------snip----------------------------------


Obviously, that's only true if you choose the reference speakers blindly, and
never bother to go out and compare the mixes on other speakers.

In Gabe's case, of course, he did so -- and the mixes still sounded fine.
Many of his CDs are still available, and you can listen to them for yourself.

--MFW

In article ,
"William Sommerwerck" wrote:
The problem with using really high-quality speakers for mastering music that
has
no meaningful acoustic correlative is that a mix that sounds great on the
Willsons won't sound very good on average speakers -- and vice versa.

No- that depends very much on what you're trying to do. It's
certainly possible to take fancy speakers and do things that won't
translate, but it's also possible to place things in a
three-dimensional, coherent context with a great deal of believability
to the sound. If you do that, it translates great. The idea is to make
things sound real, not to produce music with 'no meaningful acoustic
correlative' that SOUNDS amazing but unreal.

It all depends on how you define 'great'. If you're trying to do the
right thing it will only be easier on high-performance speakers.


Chris Johnson

William Sommerwerck wrote:

The other day NPR (I think) played a bit of "Under the Sea." I could
plainly understand every one of Sebastian's words on a cheap
clock-radio -- which I've never been able to do, even on a horribly
expensive audiophile system.


How often do you listen to the Little Mermaid soundtrack on your
horribly expensive audiophile system? Is that what you bought it for?


ulysses

Justin Ulysses Morse wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote:


The other day NPR (I think) played a bit of "Under the Sea." I could
plainly understand every one of Sebastian's words on a cheap
clock-radio -- which I've never been able to do, even on a horribly
expensive audiophile system.



How often do you listen to the Little Mermaid soundtrack on your
horribly expensive audiophile system? Is that what you bought it for?


Could probably hear it fine with a properly set up home theater system
with a center channel speaker. Otherwise the predominately midrange mono
clock radio might be giving the same effect. Not that surprising.

"Tommi" wrote in message
...
snip

Well, that's what I want too, also from a home speaker, but I doubt that
many home listeners excluding audio industry professionals and the like
necessarily demand a flat response from their speakers. If one doesn't
know
how to listen for a flat frequency response, they just listen to whatever
sounds good, and like it.
It's essentially a different starting point for studio and home markets,
even though it is obvious that a good speaker is always a good speaker.


I think you are a bit out of touch with Audiophile speakers. There has been
a major trend over the last 15 years to speakers that have a fairly flat
front hemispherical response. Also, some major speaker manufacturers
(Thiel the main advocate here) strive to get something resembling a flat
power response from the speakers. Thiel among others also strives for time
and phase coherence. And they are among the most popular high-end speakers
out there.

Bought what for? The soundtrack or the audiophile system?

I have two horribly expensive audiophile systems. One ribbon, one
electrostatic. The Little Mermaid soundtrack sounds absolutely fabulous on
both of them.

Marc Wielage wrote:

In Gabe's case, of course, he did so -- and the mixes still sounded fine.
Many of his CDs are still available, and you can listen to them for yourself.

Where? I have part of his Buxtehude set and I would love the rest of it.
--scott

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

Harry Lavo wrote:

I think you are a bit out of touch with Audiophile speakers. There has been
a major trend over the last 15 years to speakers that have a fairly flat
front hemispherical response. Also, some major speaker manufacturers
(Thiel the main advocate here) strive to get something resembling a flat
power response from the speakers. Thiel among others also strives for time
and phase coherence. And they are among the most popular high-end speakers
out there.

Absolutely, but at the same time you have the whole horn speaker renaissance
going on, and the Lowther full-range paper cone thing going on.

There is a real push for more accurate reproduction on all fronts, but then
the Jadis Eurhythmies show up....
--scott

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

On 4 Dec 2003 20:46:28 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Absolutely, but at the same time you have the whole horn speaker renaissance
going on, and the Lowther full-range paper cone thing going on.

There is a real push for more accurate reproduction on all fronts, but then
the Jadis Eurhythmies show up....

Do you characterise a population by its fringe elements?

Kal

Kalman Rubinson wrote:
On 4 Dec 2003 20:46:28 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Absolutely, but at the same time you have the whole horn speaker renaissance
going on, and the Lowther full-range paper cone thing going on.

There is a real push for more accurate reproduction on all fronts, but then
the Jadis Eurhythmies show up....

Do you characterise a population by its fringe elements?

The problem with the audiophile community is that it seems to consist
entirely of different fringes, none of which agree with one another and
all of which fight. But that is part of what makes it so much fun.

I do sort of find the whole single-ended triode thing alarming, though.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."