I was, several times. And saw how recordings are done. Also in the venue where I was head technician.
If i understand you right, you was head technician at a studio ( venue?)and you then see yourself and the work you did as such:
As i've been in same position as yours in a recording studio (as well as behind the desk too) i can understand desillusion about it (opinion) but not to the point to denigrate my work, colleague and the effort put in place i worked in/at. Sounds too easy to me... and only give fragments of the picture faced when working in such places, it's more complicated in my view.
I keep on my statement your comments belong to 70's, engineers do not destroy their ears as they did in this time since 90's and if they have issues they openly admit, studio morphed into place where acoustic matter much more than gear present in the place ( to the point recent control rooms often look alike mastering rooms of 00's with reference to outboard gear and 99% of things done itb). The only remaining place from this period (70's/80's) are the one which were successfull regarding acoutics and overall integration anyway.
New gen are not impressed by hardware gear this much anymore and skills and attention to important points such as acoustic matters more for the one i know. Time are changing ( as they always did...anyway).
As i've been in same position as yours in a recording studio (as well as behind the desk too) i can understand desillusion about it (opinion) but not to the point to denigrate my work, colleague and the effort put in place i worked in/at. Sounds too easy to me... and only give fragments of the picture faced when working in such places, it's more complicated in my view.
I keep on my statement your comments belong to 70's, engineers do not destroy their ears as they did in this time since 90's and if they have issues they openly admit, studio morphed into place where acoustic matter much more than gear present in the place ( to the point recent control rooms often look alike mastering rooms of 00's with reference to outboard gear and 99% of things done itb). The only remaining place from this period (70's/80's) are the one which were successfull regarding acoutics and overall integration anyway.
New gen are not impressed by hardware gear this much anymore and skills and attention to important points such as acoustic matters more for the one i know. Time are changing ( as they always did...anyway).
Last edited:
A reference grade response is especially difficult to achieve.
Just one of many examples.. has anyone braced a cabinet only to be disappointed with the result? Sterile, empty.. and when you fix one problem there's another worse problem lurking beneath it, and another? This can lead to using resonant panels as a design philosophy.
Does this mean cutting through all the layers of problems isn't possible? No. Is it worth it? Yes.
Just one of many examples.. has anyone braced a cabinet only to be disappointed with the result? Sterile, empty.. and when you fix one problem there's another worse problem lurking beneath it, and another? This can lead to using resonant panels as a design philosophy.
Does this mean cutting through all the layers of problems isn't possible? No. Is it worth it? Yes.
The difference between a home high fidelity speaker for reproducing recorded music that's mixed, produced and released as a consumer product vs a studio monitor for listening to and mixing raw unedited recordings seems primarily to be...
1. Studio monitors need flat frequency response out to the extremes, especially the top. You need the same tonal balance as the live feed. In contrast, at home, FR that tilts downward as frequency increases sounds most neutral with most commercially released music recordings. (Is it because the final mix is usually made with too bright a balance?) Similarly, for a studio monitor, the bass should not be accentuated in any way, unlike many home systems where a bit of boost in the bass is often preferred.
2. The ability of studio monitors to play loudly without distortion is important, but probably less so than the ability to scale up in dynamics without compression or changes in FR.
3. Finally, because of the often-nearfield setup, studio monitors need to sound accurate & the drivers outputs well integrated at closer distance than most home speakers. So more controlled directivity. This helps explain the proliferation of waveguides for mid & high FR domes in studio monitors.
In other aspects, the desired traits of home & studio speakers are similar: smooth wide FR, good transient response, low resonance, dynamic range, time alignment, phase response, etc.
1. Studio monitors need flat frequency response out to the extremes, especially the top. You need the same tonal balance as the live feed. In contrast, at home, FR that tilts downward as frequency increases sounds most neutral with most commercially released music recordings. (Is it because the final mix is usually made with too bright a balance?) Similarly, for a studio monitor, the bass should not be accentuated in any way, unlike many home systems where a bit of boost in the bass is often preferred.
2. The ability of studio monitors to play loudly without distortion is important, but probably less so than the ability to scale up in dynamics without compression or changes in FR.
3. Finally, because of the often-nearfield setup, studio monitors need to sound accurate & the drivers outputs well integrated at closer distance than most home speakers. So more controlled directivity. This helps explain the proliferation of waveguides for mid & high FR domes in studio monitors.
In other aspects, the desired traits of home & studio speakers are similar: smooth wide FR, good transient response, low resonance, dynamic range, time alignment, phase response, etc.
For at least three decades the only difference is proper studio monitors can withstand obscene SPL levels and input torture, whereas home hifi may be comparable at 85 dB/W/M, but goes to bits beyond 90-95 dB /W/M.
Not if you're looking at high end home speakers. I've measured >100 dB@1m at 40-50Hz from LX521 clones in my studio without obvious signs of distress or change in tonal balance. I'm sure bass distortion climbs, but not enough to be a problem.
BUT no way it sounds natural when FR is eq'd to be flat from 1 to 15 kHz. Always needs the right side to slope down. EQ'd flat, I can't listen to much music for long, and only a handful of recordings sound natural.
OTOH, the same LX521 clones were too subdued in the treble to catch all the detail of a guitarist finger-picking nylon strings quietly with a high performance Neumann TLM 102 mic into a Universal Audio Apollo Twin X audio interface. Admittedly, the Apollo has no digital out, so analog output had to be used to feed the miniDSP 4x10 HD for the speakers. That could have affected performance audibly... but likely not enough to explain the treble difference, because adjusting input PEQ on the 4x10 HD for near-flat measured FR at 1m made the reproduction tonally accurate. Didn't have time to listen/trial longer.