NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/audio/17328

Text File | 1992-12-25 | 3.9 KB | 78 lines

Newsgroups: rec.audio
Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!gumby!destroyer!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.columbia.edu!cunixa.cc.columbia.edu!gmw1
From: [e-mail] (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: Recorded using B&W speakers
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (The Network News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: cunixa.cc.columbia.edu
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 05:55:03 GMT
Lines: 64

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Chris Christensen) writes:
>
>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.

Well, not every audiophile grade speaker is up to the task of monitoring
a recording.  B&W's are, Wilsons are, etc.  On balance, since there is no
such thing as a signature-free speaker system, I'd much rather live with
the signature of a B&W or a Wilson Audio, as it's significantly less than
an NS-10M or a lot of the other stuff used today.

>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.

When I'm doing a live concert (not a recording session for a CD, just a
concert for archival or whatever), I monitor on a pair of V6's.  Now of
course I have to put up with many of the odd psychoacoustic effects of
monitoring a live recording on headphones, including the rather annoying
problem of having to hear *both* the live sound and the E-E sound
simultaneously.  Usually on a live concert when there isn't much setup
time, there isn't the time to set up the control point in another room.
As such, I'm forced to make a lot of critical judgments using the
phones and then judge the quality of my work later.

Chris, the problem with what you say above is that the quality of the
rendering you get on tape is directly dependent on how you place your
microphones and what sort of a stereo spread you use.  Your monitoring
system may respond differently to AB than it does to XY, NOS, ORTF,
Thiele's omni techniques, splayed subs, MS, etc.  It also depends how
you place them in the room.  It really isn't necessarily a fair
comparison to judge the live sound in the room to that of your recording
unless your listening position at the site is ideal.

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

Indeed.  "Good" is dependent on the audience.  As a classical music
recordist, my opinion on a good mix is different from, say, an engineer
who mixes rap.  Each will optimise for a different audience, and a
different hardware requirement.

>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.

Who ever said anything about tracking?  I wouldn't *want* to use
most audiphile speakers for tracking of a multi-track session.  You'd
have trouble getting localization of pan points, etc.  But in two-track
stereophonic recording, I certainly want the best reproduction I can
afford.


--
Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.     "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings
[e-mail]       to be seriously considered as a means of
N2GPZ in ham radio circles        communication. The device is inherently of
72355,1226 on CI$                 no value to us." -Western Union memo, 1877