I'm using a slight exaggeration to make a point. The point is that the standard system will have shortcomings. Often times, the music mixed on the system with the shortcomings will sound subjectively better on a system that addresses those shortcomings.
Regarding state-of-the-art equipment, a standard would force producers to ignore anything developed since the last change to the standard. (Or at least weight the sound of the mix through the standard more heavily than the sound of the mix through newer equipment.)
Regarding producers, there are many reasons that intelligent people with good equipment can still turn out disappointing mixes. One of those reasons is the lack of standards, since they currently have to consider playback on cheap ear buds, and boomboxes. Additionally, they have to please the musicians and the general population.
Personally, I think the vast majority of mixes could be improved. I suspect I would feel that way even if I were listening on the system used during mixing.
I'm kind of sad to see the direction this thread is headed towards.
I don't blame the mixes or mastering. The more I get my tonal balance in check, the better a wide variety of music sounds. Even if it means using only a slight mid/side EQ to please myself (way less than most think, maybe even less than most systems vary by themselves).
I recognised the "problem" as outlaid in this thread by Pano. I've spend quite a bit of time on it to understand more about that phenomenon.
I don't want to mess with re-equalising the art of others. Those recordings are the standard, it's my job to get a good representation of that, trough optimising my room + system. I had fun with the tests I ran inspired by this thread and wrote lots more about that subject on my own thread.
Right now we seem to attract the "armchair producers" that are willing to lay the blame where it shouldn't be. The number of times I have read that most music is badly mixed or mastered and only this or that recording (or genre) is well done.... Guess again. A good system will make everything sound better. Not better than it is recorded, but most people paid to do this job actually know a thing or two about audio.
There's going to be exceptions, like the producer from Amy Winehouse that deliberately made choices to get the atmosphere of old Jazz recordings or a Jazz club (can't remember which). No ideas which recordings (or what club reference) he listened too because most old recording I've heard are surprisingly better done than a lot of productions out today.
It seems the general consensus is we can do without studios (or use our own home studios) more and more... That's a sad thing i.m.h.o.
I don't blame the mixes or mastering. The more I get my tonal balance in check, the better a wide variety of music sounds. Even if it means using only a slight mid/side EQ to please myself (way less than most think, maybe even less than most systems vary by themselves).
I recognised the "problem" as outlaid in this thread by Pano. I've spend quite a bit of time on it to understand more about that phenomenon.
I don't want to mess with re-equalising the art of others. Those recordings are the standard, it's my job to get a good representation of that, trough optimising my room + system. I had fun with the tests I ran inspired by this thread and wrote lots more about that subject on my own thread.
Right now we seem to attract the "armchair producers" that are willing to lay the blame where it shouldn't be. The number of times I have read that most music is badly mixed or mastered and only this or that recording (or genre) is well done.... Guess again. A good system will make everything sound better. Not better than it is recorded, but most people paid to do this job actually know a thing or two about audio.
There's going to be exceptions, like the producer from Amy Winehouse that deliberately made choices to get the atmosphere of old Jazz recordings or a Jazz club (can't remember which). No ideas which recordings (or what club reference) he listened too because most old recording I've heard are surprisingly better done than a lot of productions out today.
It seems the general consensus is we can do without studios (or use our own home studios) more and more... That's a sad thing i.m.h.o.
Last edited:
A good system can reveal shortcomings in a mix that are overwhelmed by the shortcomings of a lesser system.
An excellent system with an excellent mix shows us what's possible. By comparison, a mediocre mix on an excellent stereo is disappointing.
Do you own such an excellent system? If you do, I'd like to see some measurements. Let's learn something from that fast knowledge you seem to possess.
Show the system, the room, the measurements and name a couple of excellent mixes to educate us please. I'm here to learn!
I'm guessing your opinions outweigh your real experience in the matter.
Do you think that the mastering engineer working for the producer alters the sound to accommodate how he imagines the recording will sound on cheap earbuds and boomboxes? The mastering engineer working typically on a calibrated speaker system in a carefully designed acoustic environment? Do you further think that the question of monitor/environment neutrality has not been agonized over for years? It is the core consideration of any mastering facility.
Last edited:
My opinions are based on my experiences with mixes I've heard, and discussions I've had with people who do mixing.
I don't think they have to imagine what their mix sounds like on earbuds, I think the good engineers check it by listening to it on earbuds. Martin Walker from sound on sound agrees with me:
Martin Walker said:
Maybe you haven't noticed, but earbuds are ubiquitous these days.
This is not a sentence.
I don't care if it has or hasn't been agonized over for years. The fact is that the results differ. My interpretation is that most engineers don't operate with the priorities I would like them to have. On telarc and mapleshade mixes, the engineers are much more likely to produce a mix that pleases me. What is your explanation for the discrepancy if not a different objective or different priorities?
I'm with butterfield (any relation to the old band?).
Seems that the other side of the debate is with people who are enormously naive about the real world of commercial recordings and the deplorable values of some producers and their servants, the recording engineers.
There just isn't an objective means of making a recording for a single music room at home* let alone lots of different rooms. Just a fantasy that such a Platonic Ideal even exists.
B.
*Unless it is Earl's room at home where he listens to music (and all the rooms where he listens to music) or a room identical in every every respect (even temperature and humidity and with speakers of identical "group delay") to the room it was mixed in
This is the bottom line isn't it. Everybody wants to be their own recording engineer "fixing" the mixes. They "fix" one which makes another sound worse, etc. etc. and then they wonder why they are never satisfied. It is the "circle of confusion" and the only way to get out of it is to accept "accuracy" as the fundamental principle on which your decisions are made.
So how many actually tried the things that were talked about in this thread. Or measured what "the ear position" looks like when both speakers are firing.
Samples of that are right here in this thread, both done by respected people from this business like Toole and by a DIY fanatic with a dedicated room.
To show examples:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/277519-fixing-stereo-phantom-center-27.html#post4693335
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/277519-fixing-stereo-phantom-center-61.html#post4745331
The similarity between the two is completely accidental, I'm sure.
The naïve people 'only' using real world measurements and science to show what's going on.
Easily fixed with your special recordings in your own rooms, I'm sure.
Pano, thanks for this great thread subject, it turns out we were just listened to the wrong kind of music. Problem solved.
Anyone care to put this thread back on track?
Samples of that are right here in this thread, both done by respected people from this business like Toole and by a DIY fanatic with a dedicated room.
To show examples:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/277519-fixing-stereo-phantom-center-27.html#post4693335
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/277519-fixing-stereo-phantom-center-61.html#post4745331
The similarity between the two is completely accidental, I'm sure.
The naïve people 'only' using real world measurements and science to show what's going on.
Easily fixed with your special recordings in your own rooms, I'm sure.
Pano, thanks for this great thread subject, it turns out we were just listened to the wrong kind of music. Problem solved.
Anyone care to put this thread back on track?
Not everyone.
Some of us actually listen/read if we can learn something.I noticed the rewards are big enough if one does that.
Headphones have their benefits, but also challenges, I have not heard any set of headphones that really let me feel the music as I would listening live; but it could be improved to a point to enhance the spacial perception to be quite realistic and immersive. As a matter of fact, I have been proposing that AirPods have stereo recording capability to assist in such process, and also combine it with stereo video as well.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Have you heard of the Bauer interaural crossfeed circuit (and some recent reincarnations of it) that corrects the curve for people with ears on opposite sides of their heads? A bit of crosstalk helps too.
I built a Bauer circuit 50 years ago and still lives in a closet somewhere. Makes a big difference in the hole-in-middle effect... at least for headphones and might be applicable to speakers.
Ben
Last edited:
I have looked into it way back when it was discussed in WirelessWorld, it was a passive circuit which had two settings, one for headphones, and one for speakers. But the impedance loading on the passive circuit was so low that it seemed the driving circuit would have problems driving it. But maybe it is work a new look now that lots of headphones are low impedance.
If the design is good, why leave it in the closet?
Did a bit more search, it seems that people are doing this in DSP. This would be an interesting approach for headphones if you could adjust it to individual head properties, But still, whether the original instrument/vocal was recorded in stereo or mono, how the mixing occurred would play a significant role in how successful the playback will be for each recording.
So if the left and right pair are EQ'd to flat based on the mono phantom center the dip would likely be the same or worse due to not changing the interference? If the dual channel dip level came up with the eq than when you have a strong single channel sound in the recording that channel will have a big peak where the dip is with both channels?
So how many actually tried the things that were talked about in this thread. Or measured what "the ear position" looks like when both speakers are firing.
Samples of that are right here in this thread, both done by respected people from this business like Toole and by a DIY fanatic with a dedicated room.
To show examples:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/277519-fixing-stereo-phantom-center-27.html#post4693335
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/277519-fixing-stereo-phantom-center-61.html#post4745331
Mike made it easy to try a few sound clips, you could try if it does anything for you at all:
With your horns you'd already be in a favorable position due to avoiding early reflections. Easy enough to try
Are there any more sound clips out there for this? That link is broken. Thanks