The myth of "The Absolute Sound"

[gmgraves]

16 hours ago, STC said:

 

So a studio monitor is your reference. For someone who claimed that they can hear the essence of the recording from any position now suggesting a studio monitor. And now DSP is okay in the playback chain? You are amazing, Frank!

 

 

 

As a recording engineer, I’ve heard every kind of studio monitor. The ones sold AS studio monitors sound awful (JBLs, RCA Labs, Altec Lansing, etc.). Home speakers used as studio monitors fare better. For instance, Paul Stubblebine Studios in San Francisco used B&W 801s, and I’ve seen Magnepan MG 20s used in studios as well. 

[fas42]

https://www.stereophile.com/content/dutch-dutch-8c-active-loudspeaker-system-page-2 ...

[STC]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

As a recording engineer, I’ve heard every kind of studio monitor. The ones sold AS studio monitors sound awful (JBLs, RCA Labs, Altec Lansing, etc.). Home speakers used as studio monitors fare better. For instance, Paul Stubblebine Studios in San Francisco used B&W 801s, and I’ve seen Magnepan MG 20s used in studios as well. 

They serve a difference purpose. Studio monitor is meant to listen for errors, level, mixing balance, mono compability  accuracy. They are designed differently so that the  crossover is placed before the power amp which will be more accurate to serve the recording engineers needs. 
 

Usually there will be two types of speakers used. One for mixing and one to listen to the final sound. All recordings were made to listen not in studio environment!  
 

Generally, the preferred FR curve is slopping downwards. But IMO, this is only true for classical. Often hifi speakers designed with elevated bass and HF because that what people like. Audiophiles make a small percentage of main stream music buyers. The general population prefers elevated lows and highs. Just look around how the EQ adjusted in a typical non audiophile home listeners. You will see they look a flatten U. 

End of the day, money is everything. Unless the studio could afford the best equipment for the different jobs, they often settle in between. 
 

 

[Ralf11]

2 hours ago, gmgraves said:

As a recording engineer, I’ve heard every kind of studio monitor. The ones sold AS studio monitors sound awful (JBLs, RCA Labs, Altec Lansing, etc.). Home speakers used as studio monitors fare better. For instance, Paul Stubblebine Studios in San Francisco used B&W 801s, and I’ve seen Magnepan MG 20s used in studios as well. 

 

have you heard the newer Tannoy?  Gold series

[gmgraves]

17 hours ago, STC said:

They serve a difference purpose. Studio monitor is meant to listen for errors, level, mixing balance, mono compability  accuracy. They are designed differently so that the  crossover is placed before the power amp which will be more accurate to serve the recording engineers needs. 
 

Usually there will be two types of speakers used. One for mixing and one to listen to the final sound. All recordings were made to listen not in studio environment!  
 

Generally, the preferred FR curve is slopping downwards. But IMO, this is only true for classical. Often hifi speakers designed with elevated bass and HF because that what people like. Audiophiles make a small percentage of main stream music buyers. The general population prefers elevated lows and highs. Just look around how the EQ adjusted in a typical non audiophile home listeners. You will see they look a flatten U. 

End of the day, money is everything. Unless the studio could afford the best equipment for the different jobs, they often settle in between. 
 

 

I think that neutral or “accurate” is most important for listening to the final mix. I know that most studios also use so-called “near field” monitors sitting close to the mix engineer, often on the recording console itself. These are small speakers, often self-powered, the purpose of which is to eliminate the “room” from the mix as much as possible by putting the speakers as close to the ears of the engineer/producers as possible. Many studios used a certain model JBL  (I don’t recall the model number) back in the 1970’s for the sole reason that it’s what all the studios had. Therefore, the “backup” track with the instrumental accompaniment could be laid-down in, for instance, Nashville, and the vocal added in LA and the LA engineers could hear the same “balance” that the Nashville engineers heard. Also, while these JBLs sounded just lousy with “real” music, they actually worked pretty good with studio music like rock and roll and other pop genres, and they were practically indestructible, which meant that playback could be at near rock-concert levels without damaging the speakers (something that couldn’t be said about the ears of those listening to that playback 😉).

[gmgraves]

17 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

have you heard the newer Tannoy?  Gold series

I haven’t been in an actual working recording studio in many years. In the 70’s and 80’s I worked in a number of studios in and around the San Francisco Bay Area including Coast Recorders and Wally Heider studios as well as several more, the names of which I’ve forgotten because they no longer exist. I remember, fondly, one studio in Berkeley that was an absolutely gorgeous facility, and state-of-the-art. Even the building is gone now - there’s an office building in its place!

So, to answer your Q, no, I have not heard the newer Tannoy Gold series. In fact other than a high-school buddy of mine’s father’s system, in the 60’s, and maybe at a hi-fi show or so, I haven’t heard any Tannoy speaker in many years. They really aren’t all that popular on this side of the pond. Although, in Ol’ Blighty they are so well known that the Brits often refer to any public address system as “the tannoy”.