NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/audio/17247

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-23 | 3.3 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!news.tek.com!gvgpsa!gold.gvg.tek.com!chrisc
From: [e-mail] (Chris Christensen)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Recorded using B&W speakers
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Dec 92 17:46:36 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA
Lines: 57

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Jack Campin) writes:
>[e-mail] (Gabe M Wiener) wrote:
>> The advantage of using B&W speakers (or another fine brand) for monitoring
>> is that you bring out all the flaws in your recording right then and there.
>> Recordings monitored and judged through transducers of less-than-ideal
>> quality often have flaws that are audible through high-end audiophile grade
>> systems.  Many feel that these problems can be avoided by monitoring on
>> such a system in the first place.

I _do_ have a problem using audiophile speakers for recording.

While they _may_ be more revealing, etc, etc  They _will_ impart *their*
signature on the recording.  While this may not be the problem with
B&W speakers it is with others.

I do a lot of live to two track (as does Gabe and others in this
forum) and I monitor on headphones.  I am also able to do a direct
comparison of the headphones of the E-E recorded sound to the live
sound.  If I go like a bunny back to the home studio I can play the
tape there and determine,  within the ability to recognize the fact,
that my monitorning system is reasonably neutral.

I don't use audiophile grade speakers but I do know that there are
audiophiles that listen to my release cassette albums and like them.

I listened to a CD that a friend had loaned to me and the CD
specifically noted that it had meen remastered using Snell
speakers..... I did not like the result.  The recording sounded dull
in comparison to other CD's I have (used as a reference to eliminate
any hearing loss that I may suffer......).  Oh and the fact that the
other CD's had better high end does not mean that ther had too much.
While releases do differ slightly in the their spectral content the
differences between releases and this one was large.

>Somewhere I read that recording companies in the 60s took the exactly
>opposite approach when mixing-down pop tracks: the last stage in the chain
>was the sort of speaker you'd find in a cheap trannie on the beach.  Since
>that was where their product was aimed, that was what they balanced it for.

A good mix will still sound like a good mix, even on cheep speakers.
The problem is with the definition of 'good'

The use of "consumer" speakers in the studio is for testing the mix as
the customer might hear it.  Just to be certain that is still is
happening.

I don't see any reason (and some studios do) not to use audiophile
speakers for testing at that quality level,  but I still don't agree
that audiophile speakers should be used for tracking and mixing.

The above comments reflect my personal and professional opinions.
Please do not confuse that with your agenda!
--
Chris Christensen                  The opinions I express are my own,
[e-mail]            and sometimes they are wrong!
916-478-3419 FAX [phone]      After all, I *AM* only human.