NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/audio/17258

Text File | 1992-12-23 | 4.1 KB | 99 lines

Newsgroups: rec.audio
Path: sparky!uunet!walter!porthos!hera!gfl
From: [e-mail] (lenahan,grant f)
Subject: Re: Recorded using B&W speakers
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 19:18:14 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Summary: bizzare definition of audiophile ... and my ramblings
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET System Software)
Lines: 86

[e-mail] (Chris Christensen) writes:
> (Jack Campin) writes:
> >[e-mail] (Gabe M Wiener) wrote:

and their comments seem now to be blurred together ....

> >> 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.
>

Whoa!  This is really odd.  May I summarize the logic as "audiophile
speakers impart their innacuracies on the music, and thus will be
over-compensated for".  This implies that a-phile speakers are _less_
neutral than _regular_ speakers (whatever they are).

Now, I would like to think that "audiophile" speakers are distinguished
by their more realistic portrayal of music.  I would further define
this as greater fidelity, weighted for all the subjective criteria
that define perception (don't ask me what they are - today this is
most often acheived by listening, and proclaiming your own opinion
right).  Be that as it may, I hardly think that most "monitoring"
speakers are more accurate - not from what I've seen and heard at
AES and NAB shows.  Ouch!

Now the arguament that headphones are generally better than loudspeakers
makes some snse to me - but imaging will be hard to monitor for in those
cases, unless your goal is binaural - yea, right.

IS your point that there are lots of _bad_ audiophile speakers out there?
Then say so, and lets cut through the fog (isn't that a nice word for it???)

> 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.

..you didn't like the result on what speaker .... heh, heh. :-)

 The recording sounded dull

Translation: the Snells were bright or yours are dull.  Or maybe
I'm dull, but you'll surely point that out if its so....

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

Wrong-O.  Many mixes are produced to puch bass through cheap
boom-boxes.  This will be terrible on speakers with flat bass response.
Or do you mean that an experienced engineer will ignore the contributions
of monitor speakers....
>
> 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'm sure you're often right.  I know of certain sessions where this
was NOT the case, however, adn that's the activity at issue.
>
> The above comments reflect my personal and professional opinions.
> Please do not confuse that with your agenda!

And mine concern possible conflicting definitions, and a generally
lower opinion of the commercial goals of major recording
corporations.  Also, I don't consider a comparatively flawed
speaker to be "audiophile" (just a pretender to the gullible folks),
while you, apparently, do.

Your turn.  :-) :-).

Grant
[e-mail]
'cause my return line is WRONG!