12-05-2020, 03:48 PM
Lots of points here. Too many to respond to individually. I'll pick up on a couple:
A lot of people get worked up about football. Why? Because they love it.
So I get (slightly) worked up about the state of the hi-fi industry because I love hi-fi. So there!
I've have repeatedly acknowledged in this thread that people are free to spend their money however they want. But I just wish there was a bit more honesty.
It's not so much the existing hi-fi devotees that I'm worrying about - they are already trapped in the "spend, dopamine hit, doubt, insecurity, dissatisfaction, spend..." cycle, and there's relatively little you can do for those.
Rather, I really wish hi-fi could become mass market again. I know that a lot of people would love better sound at home, but they see hi-fi as too expensive, too complicated, too niche. And you can see why. Hi-fi is basically a cult now. As an industry, hi-fi is killing itself. That is what's at the root of my frustration.
Even Richer Sounds - the last of the chains where you can still buy a reasonably priced hi-fi system from - spoils it by pushing woo-woo cables, which alienates customers (I know of people who walked out when the cable hard-sell started).
There's nothing there that I haven't already said, but it's a long thread and I've written far too much already. But this is the briefest way I can summarise why I'm so disappointed with the state of the industry that I once dreamt of working in.
PS: Amie, I think Nick's point is similar to what you're saying? Either way, I'm not ignoring your last post
Without re-reading everything I've written, I'm fairly sure I've mentioned this already, or at least alluded to it. But it's possible I wrote it and deleted it - despite the length of my posts, they are seriously edited down by the time they appear.
Yes, a range of speakers will be available for the mix engineer, including the dreaded Auratones: https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/aur...sound-cube.
Some studios took it at stage further, and installed low power broadcast transmitters, complete with typical transmission chain equipment in common usage (Optimods, etc), so that artists could go and see how their mix sounded in their cars! Actually a very good idea, as they could tune across the band and instantly compare theirs to others (obviously "references" are commonly used used in the studio, but there's something special about hearing it in the car you drive every day). IIRC, this was discussed in an interview with the Bee Gees, who were talking about how they recorded "Tragedy" - it was an interesting programme, and if I can find a copy, I'll link to it.
So yeah, mixing for the target context is important.
In the heyday of vinyl, good mastering engineers were really sought after - they did the seemingly impossibly job of making vinyl work well. They fully understood the limitations of the cutting lathe and the vinyl itself, and skilfully employed lots of signal processing to make the recording fit within that envelope. All quite separate from the studio mix (generally, the mastering engineer only had access to the finished stereo mix).
In theory, mastering - or at least the signal-altering part of mastering - is not required for CD - the stereo mix could go straight on the CD. But in practice, the mastering engineer will need to alter levels between tracks, or might need to gently EQ because the mix monitor speakers were bass-heavy or similar, or add a bit of compression and/or peak level limiting. The mix is just that - a mix. Good though it might be, it might not be absolutely "radio-ready".
That was all fine until the Loudness Wars came along, and the poor mastering engineers were forced to do absolutely horrible things to mixes. And those mixes might already have been bad if the studio engineer had similarly been "got at". And of course, most "remastered" releases are normally less good than the original, but are basically an opportunity to sell the back-catalogue again (good trick that, much cheaper than inventing a new delivery format, then having a ruinously expensive format war and a lot of unhappy consumers who backed the wrong horse). The Dynamic Range Database is a great resource for comparing original to remastered releases, and much more besides.
Yes, some early CDs were criticised for their sound quality. It's very hard to be sure if the problem was mastering or elsewhere - in reality, there was probably several causes. There's rumours of post-mastered (for vinyl) tapes being put straight onto CD because the studio mix couldn't be located, which might explain a thing or two. But it was a time of great change, both technically and artistically, and people were getting used to the clean, undistorted sound of digital, which is free from the restrictions of vinyl, so were pushing levels at HF (for example) because they could. Often, the vinyl mastering "tamed" the excesses of what came out of the studio.
As you might image, vinyl vs. digital is (still!) a massive point of contention in the hi-fi world. Unfortunately, it is just about impossible to convince these people that they sound different because of the different mastering. You can't do a genuine comparison of vinyl medium to the CD medium because different content is placed on each of these two formats. Now, if they refuse to understand/believe/accept such a simple argument, it's no wonder you can't convince them about the more detailed things that we've been discussing in this thread...
That's simple. That's just what good loudspeakers do.
Other speakers will be less flat, and could have significant peaks in their response. That will flatter some recordings, but make others unbearable.
That, in a nutshell, is why audiophiles who use hi-fi speakers are always changing them.
Also in a nutshell, that's why in a showroom dem with carefully chosen material, most people will pick hi-fi speakers over "monitor" speakers.
Rather like their video cousins, monitor speakers are intended to be neutral and honest. Whereas Hi-fi loudspeakers are simply designed to sell. Again, market forces and personal preference - I have no problem with that. Though I do have a problem with a certain well-known brand that markets its speakers as "monitors", yet they sound (and measure) worse than a lot of hi-fi speakers. And we're back to dishonest marketing again. Nurse!
The LS3/5A is well loved by many, but sounds just a bit boring to a lot of hi-fi fans. That was certainly my first impression (though I was only 16, to be fair!).
Actually, within the realm of "monitor class" speakers, the LS3/5A is a bit of a cheeky ruffian. But it was excellent for its time, and it is a well-known quantity - I and many others can mix successfully with them. But today there are better options...
(12-05-2020, 08:16 AM)nick Wrote: Its a market economy - I'm not at all sure why so many people get worked up about this - it's an individual's choice.
A lot of people get worked up about football. Why? Because they love it.
So I get (slightly) worked up about the state of the hi-fi industry because I love hi-fi. So there!
I've have repeatedly acknowledged in this thread that people are free to spend their money however they want. But I just wish there was a bit more honesty.
It's not so much the existing hi-fi devotees that I'm worrying about - they are already trapped in the "spend, dopamine hit, doubt, insecurity, dissatisfaction, spend..." cycle, and there's relatively little you can do for those.
Rather, I really wish hi-fi could become mass market again. I know that a lot of people would love better sound at home, but they see hi-fi as too expensive, too complicated, too niche. And you can see why. Hi-fi is basically a cult now. As an industry, hi-fi is killing itself. That is what's at the root of my frustration.
Even Richer Sounds - the last of the chains where you can still buy a reasonably priced hi-fi system from - spoils it by pushing woo-woo cables, which alienates customers (I know of people who walked out when the cable hard-sell started).
There's nothing there that I haven't already said, but it's a long thread and I've written far too much already. But this is the briefest way I can summarise why I'm so disappointed with the state of the industry that I once dreamt of working in.
PS: Amie, I think Nick's point is similar to what you're saying? Either way, I'm not ignoring your last post
(12-05-2020, 11:58 AM)ppppenguin Wrote: This is a very inteersting point. I don't have hard evidence but I'm fairly sure that a lot of pop releases were (still are?) mixed to sound OK on cheap equipment. Dansettes and small portable radios back in the day. As a result they may not sound too good on high quality kit. It was, perhaps still is, common to have a par of small speakers at the mixing desk so the balancer can check his work on something closer to small domestic kit.
Without re-reading everything I've written, I'm fairly sure I've mentioned this already, or at least alluded to it. But it's possible I wrote it and deleted it - despite the length of my posts, they are seriously edited down by the time they appear.
Yes, a range of speakers will be available for the mix engineer, including the dreaded Auratones: https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/aur...sound-cube.
Some studios took it at stage further, and installed low power broadcast transmitters, complete with typical transmission chain equipment in common usage (Optimods, etc), so that artists could go and see how their mix sounded in their cars! Actually a very good idea, as they could tune across the band and instantly compare theirs to others (obviously "references" are commonly used used in the studio, but there's something special about hearing it in the car you drive every day). IIRC, this was discussed in an interview with the Bee Gees, who were talking about how they recorded "Tragedy" - it was an interesting programme, and if I can find a copy, I'll link to it.
So yeah, mixing for the target context is important.
(12-05-2020, 11:58 AM)ppppenguin Wrote: I'll repeat Eckersley's comment from c1930: "The wider you open the window the more the dirt flies in". While some of the first generation ADCs were a bit iffy, CD is an essentially transparent medium. What's on the studio master tape is what arrives at the DAC. Compare and contrast with LPs which have various measurable and obvious distortions. So an inferior recording might well be disguised by LP release but rendered horible on CD. Remastering for CD is commonplace. It can be done well or badly. Some of von Karajan's recordings can be a nightmare because he thought he knew the engineer's job better than the engineer himself.
In the heyday of vinyl, good mastering engineers were really sought after - they did the seemingly impossibly job of making vinyl work well. They fully understood the limitations of the cutting lathe and the vinyl itself, and skilfully employed lots of signal processing to make the recording fit within that envelope. All quite separate from the studio mix (generally, the mastering engineer only had access to the finished stereo mix).
In theory, mastering - or at least the signal-altering part of mastering - is not required for CD - the stereo mix could go straight on the CD. But in practice, the mastering engineer will need to alter levels between tracks, or might need to gently EQ because the mix monitor speakers were bass-heavy or similar, or add a bit of compression and/or peak level limiting. The mix is just that - a mix. Good though it might be, it might not be absolutely "radio-ready".
That was all fine until the Loudness Wars came along, and the poor mastering engineers were forced to do absolutely horrible things to mixes. And those mixes might already have been bad if the studio engineer had similarly been "got at". And of course, most "remastered" releases are normally less good than the original, but are basically an opportunity to sell the back-catalogue again (good trick that, much cheaper than inventing a new delivery format, then having a ruinously expensive format war and a lot of unhappy consumers who backed the wrong horse). The Dynamic Range Database is a great resource for comparing original to remastered releases, and much more besides.
Yes, some early CDs were criticised for their sound quality. It's very hard to be sure if the problem was mastering or elsewhere - in reality, there was probably several causes. There's rumours of post-mastered (for vinyl) tapes being put straight onto CD because the studio mix couldn't be located, which might explain a thing or two. But it was a time of great change, both technically and artistically, and people were getting used to the clean, undistorted sound of digital, which is free from the restrictions of vinyl, so were pushing levels at HF (for example) because they could. Often, the vinyl mastering "tamed" the excesses of what came out of the studio.
As you might image, vinyl vs. digital is (still!) a massive point of contention in the hi-fi world. Unfortunately, it is just about impossible to convince these people that they sound different because of the different mastering. You can't do a genuine comparison of vinyl medium to the CD medium because different content is placed on each of these two formats. Now, if they refuse to understand/believe/accept such a simple argument, it's no wonder you can't convince them about the more detailed things that we've been discussing in this thread...
(12-05-2020, 11:58 AM)ppppenguin Wrote: I don't claim any particular expertise but some speakers seem to emphasise faults with the source, other speakers smooth over them. If you're making a recording or broadcast then you want the monitor speakers to show everything. The famous BBC LS3/5A are like that, though it's years since I've heard them. I have a pair of Quad ESL63s. I also listen to a fair number of 78s. I'm surprised (and pleased) at how little fuss these speakers make about the imperfections on 78s. They are audible but not shoved in your face.
That's simple. That's just what good loudspeakers do.
Other speakers will be less flat, and could have significant peaks in their response. That will flatter some recordings, but make others unbearable.
That, in a nutshell, is why audiophiles who use hi-fi speakers are always changing them.
Also in a nutshell, that's why in a showroom dem with carefully chosen material, most people will pick hi-fi speakers over "monitor" speakers.
Rather like their video cousins, monitor speakers are intended to be neutral and honest. Whereas Hi-fi loudspeakers are simply designed to sell. Again, market forces and personal preference - I have no problem with that. Though I do have a problem with a certain well-known brand that markets its speakers as "monitors", yet they sound (and measure) worse than a lot of hi-fi speakers. And we're back to dishonest marketing again. Nurse!
The LS3/5A is well loved by many, but sounds just a bit boring to a lot of hi-fi fans. That was certainly my first impression (though I was only 16, to be fair!).
Actually, within the realm of "monitor class" speakers, the LS3/5A is a bit of a cheeky ruffian. But it was excellent for its time, and it is a well-known quantity - I and many others can mix successfully with them. But today there are better options...
