Stereo salesmen, eh?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MickB
  • Start date Start date
M

MickB

New member
One of the salesmen in the Audio-T shop in Reading, after talking about the merits of his equipment, once asked me what the point was in having standard conditions for recording (ie - why good monitors are like they are, the right accustics for recording and monitoring, etc.)

I told him that without the right conditions for the recording and monitoring, playback on various hifi machines would be very peculiar. But then he asked that why did that matter if each stereo sounds different anyway.

That put me off buying expensive hifi equipment. I'd much rather get pro stuff for half the money but still get the 'right' sound!
 
A lot of salesmen don't get it. But don't think that because something says "pro" or "studio" or "studio monitor" on the side that it's going to sound better than quality high-fidelity components...

Not that there aren't good "pro" monitors out there - But the next time I find a pair that sound better than quality hi-fi components for a reasonable price, I'll shoot up a flare.
 
What they sound like don't enter into it! When monitoring, the goal is to have an accurate reproduction of what's on your tape/digibox.

Purity over gloss, mate, purity over gloss. When the composition's done, that's when it's time to cooing over the quality.
 
MickB said:
What they sound like don't enter into it! When monitoring, the goal is to have an accurate reproduction of what's on your tape/digibox.
.
Click to expand...

and what is that if not the sound newbie???? and i was gonna rep you... i may still... stick around there's alot of good info around here...
 
Not that I'm trying to be big headed here, it depends on what you want to do.
 
MickB said:
What they sound like don't enter into it! When monitoring, the goal is to have an accurate reproduction of what's on your tape/digibox.

Purity over gloss, mate, purity over gloss. When the composition's done, that's when it's time to cooing over the quality.
Click to expand...
But that's exactly what I'm talking about - Accuracy and consistency. I've yet to hear a pair of "budget-friendly" boxes that say "STUDIO MONITOR" on them that can compete with even entry-level audiophile gear.

It's *all* about "what they sound like" - I don't want a pair of "MONITORS" that make a decent representation of a contrabass - I want speakers that make it sound like the contrabass is in the room with me. As long as they can do that consistently and in the range I want (which you certainly aren't going to find with most nearfield boxes, regardless of price) and they're predictable along that range - that's the goal.

Because when you think about it, if every box out there that claimed "flat and accurate" then they'd all sound exactly the same.
 
I meant "what they sound like" as in what a hifi listener would prefer the recording to taste like. So to speak.

Many people say 'that oboe don't sound like an oboe', for example. And maybe it wouldn't if the engineer wanted it tampered with. But good monitors should reproduce as accurately as possible the sounds which the mikes pick up, accustics and all.

And as my understanding has it, it is only once the accuracy in the reproduction has been achieved, then the refinements can begin.
 
I'm still using hi-fi stuff and 'phones now, but

if my double bass sounds great right off the bat out of my Thiel CS 3.5 speakers or the old B and W speakers I have or my Time Windows... then I won't eq it or worry so much about placement in the mix or anything.

If some little studio monitors lack a little bass, but show off all the little buzzes in the 66 year old plywood and odd room reverberations and whatever, then I can work on them. I don't want to go right to speakers that make everything sound great, like my old KLH model 24 bookshelf speakers (I will always have a special place in my heart for their midrange!)

This logic is enough to make me want to save up the $500 it would cost to get some reasonably useful nearfields.
 
Last edited:
MickB said:
One of the salesmen in the Audio-T shop in Reading, after talking about the merits of his equipment, once asked me what the point was in having standard conditions for recording (ie - why good monitors are like they are, the right accustics for recording and monitoring, etc.)

I told him that without the right conditions for the recording and monitoring, playback on various hifi machines would be very peculiar. But then he asked that why did that matter if each stereo sounds different anyway.

That put me off buying expensive hifi equipment. I'd much rather get pro stuff for half the money but still get the 'right' sound!
Click to expand...

I think of it this way. It's true that out there in the listening world there are all kinds of systems with all kinds of deviations from accuracy. A reasonable assumption is that there is sort of a distribution around a mean. I'll assume the overall mean is near "neutral and accurate", which may or may not be a good assumption.

So you want the most neutral, accurate monitors you can get. That should help make mixes designed to translate across a lot of systems about as well as you can, since they will sound right on accurate systems and the big deviations hopefully are minimized. Now there are specialized systems, such as with super boom bass, where you might need a separate mix just for them.

The other specialized system I'm thinking more about these days is earbud headphones. That's how a lot of people listen these days. Heck, a lot of my listening is done that way. So, you go to all the trouble of mixing on a good set of speakers and get a good soundstage presentation and then your audience listens on little headphones, where the sound is all "in your head and between your ears". Makes me wonder if I need to mix to earbud headphones, too.

Back to monitors.... in practice, you also want a system with full low end and no clipping of peaks in either the amp or speakers right up to peak volume, which for me is about 106 dB at the mix position.

No reason not to use good hifi speakers if they meet the criteria for low end response, clean output level, quick transient response and flat frequency response. Near fields don't do the job.

Cheers,

Otto
 
ofajen said:
The other specialized system I'm thinking more about these days is earbud headphones. That's how a lot of people listen these days. Heck, a lot of my listening is done that way. So, you go to all the trouble of mixing on a good set of speakers and get a good soundstage presentation and then your audience listens on little headphones, where the sound is all "in your head and between your ears". Makes me wonder if I need to mix to earbud headphones, too.
Click to expand...

People watch videos on ipods too, but I wouldnt want to edit on one. :D

I don't want a pair of "MONITORS" that make a decent representation of a contrabass - I want speakers that make it sound like the contrabass is in the room with me. As long as they can do that consistently and in the range I want (which you certainly aren't going to find with most nearfield boxes, regardless of price) and they're predictable along that range - that's the goal.
Click to expand...

I dont understand this post at all. :confused: Maybe its the wording? :confused: What I want: I want some kind of way to figure out what a recording will sound like in someone's living room that isnt mine :D Having a contrabass in the room with me does me no good if it isnt in my listeners room as well.
 
As long as the speakers properly do the job for which they are to be used, ace.

As good a summary as ever, I think.
 
I think people are underestimating true audiophile quality... Most $5000 hifi speaker systems can have flatter response than any studio monitors that cost under $1000... Speakers are designed to do just that. Also, there are a lot more factors in speaker design than just the frequency range. Things like resonant decay of materials used, coupling of the speaker with the air, and other factors that I don't have time to read enough to understand...

I'm not a hifi buff at all... I would need to get a second job for that. I'm just saying that true hifi stuff tends to have much higher standards than studio monitors, which are typically rated only for their frequency response curve and nothing else. In hifi, freq response discussions are cliche compared to the complicated crap they obsess about...

In truth, the studio monitoring world could learn a thing or two from the hifi community.

Salesmen are salesmen. Once you realize that what they're saying is bullshit, then you're just dealing with a liar. Besides, you practically need a degree in physics to understand all the science that goes into modern hifi equipment... The average salesman just points out how much shinier the big speakers are.

All that said, $500 studio monitors are way better than the average boombox that the average joe has, and that's the goal, anyway. I don't expect any hifi buff to ever appreciate my mixes or recordings when one of his speakers is worth 3 times my entire studio...
 
It seems that my monitors are honest and my hi-fi speakers are pollyannish.
 
apl said:
It seems that my monitors are honest and my hi-fi speakers are pollyannish.
Click to expand...

Man, I could have just said that and saved some time. Good work :)
 
Massive Master said:
It's *all* about "what they sound like" - I don't want a pair of "MONITORS" that make a decent representation of a contrabass - I want speakers that make it sound like the contrabass is in the room with me. As long as they can do that consistently and in the range I want (which you certainly aren't going to find with most nearfield boxes, regardless of price) and they're predictable along that range - that's the goal. .
Click to expand...

hey david... i dont want to presume to speak for john but consider for a sec...

it's called imaging....
the degree to which wee feel a sense of stage.... does the vocalist "appear" to be front and center???? are the bull fiddles in the back??? or going the other direction... do instruments seem to move with respect to the freq range they're playing in at the time???

the idea that we should somehow cater to the inaccuracies of the normal system has always bothered me... like the cliche' smily curve on an EQ... or an over driven sub....

fuck me running... what absolute hubris... for listeners to believe that they might know more about how my music should sound than i do.... :mad:
 
Wow, some interesting thoughts in here. Whatever happened to plain old quality? I could care less whether the speakers I use to track and mix on are "studio monitors", "hi-fi speakers" or "audiophile speakers". The only thing that matters is how they sound, how they react in your room, and how well they translate for you. MANY top tier studios utilize speakers that are not marketed as "studio monitors", but perform as well as any other "studio monitors". To me it is all in the design, components, implementation and the outcome. Other than that I could not care how it is branded. Maybe we should also keep in mind that when people say "audiophile" they are not referring to Polk Audio or Infinity or some shelf style name brand. Once you start dealing with M&K, B&W, K&H etc... you are dealing with brands that will often work very well in multiple environments and for multiple purposes.

As a side note, what I took from John's first post in this thread is that it does not matter at all what the "intended market" for your speakers are, but only how well they work.
 
xstatic said:
Wow, some interesting thoughts in here. Whatever happened to plain old quality? I could care less whether the speakers I use to track and mix on are "studio monitors", "hi-fi speakers" or "audiophile speakers". The only thing that matters is how they sound, how they react in your room, and how well they translate for you. MANY top tier studios utilize speakers that are not marketed as "studio monitors", but perform as well as any other "studio monitors". To me it is all in the design, components, implementation and the outcome. Other than that I could not care how it is branded. Maybe we should also keep in mind that when people say "audiophile" they are not referring to Polk Audio or Infinity or some shelf style name brand. Once you start dealing with M&K, B&W, K&H etc... you are dealing with brands that will often work very well in multiple environments and for multiple purposes.

As a side note, what I took from John's first post in this thread is that it does not matter at all what the "intended market" for your speakers are, but only how well they work.
Click to expand...

Well said, thanks :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top