https://www.discogs.com/artist/359096-Steve-Hoffman?filter_anv=0&type=Credits
Here is a pretty exhaustive list of everything he has been involved in.
Here is a pretty exhaustive list of everything he has been involved in.
Lucky for us that's quite a list. 
Do you have any others who's work you prefer? I mentioned Steve Hoffman because all of his work I've heard sounds stellar. But I couldn't make a list full of people like him.
I do look at discogs quite often to find more mixes of a recording engineer I like. It doesn't always work out though.
Not at all my genre but I noticed most mixes that involve Serban Ghenea seem to image at least above average. Lot's of hits there too.
The imaging sometimes makes the genre tolerable.
Do you have any others who's work you prefer? I mentioned Steve Hoffman because all of his work I've heard sounds stellar. But I couldn't make a list full of people like him.
I do look at discogs quite often to find more mixes of a recording engineer I like. It doesn't always work out though.
Not at all my genre but I noticed most mixes that involve Serban Ghenea seem to image at least above average. Lot's of hits there too.
The imaging sometimes makes the genre tolerable.
Last edited:
Barry Diament comes to mind.
https://www.discogs.com/artist/389175-Barry-Diament
He is a little more hit and miss than Hoffman, but more hits than misses.
https://www.discogs.com/artist/389175-Barry-Diament
He is a little more hit and miss than Hoffman, but more hits than misses.
Thanks! Interesting! I already see some titles I'd like to try
He is a nice and informative guy if you get the chance to chat with him (I have).
Doug Sax
https://www.discogs.com/artist/365860-Doug-Sax?filter_anv=0&type=Credits
R.I.P 2015
Everything I have of his sounds good to my ears.
https://www.discogs.com/artist/365860-Doug-Sax?filter_anv=0&type=Credits
R.I.P 2015
Everything I have of his sounds good to my ears.
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Ha ha you too loyal just because avatar says "Jump" you don't need to take the step.
Attachments
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Top 10 remastering engineers | Steve Hoffman Music Forums
There is a thread at the Hoffman site "Top 10 Remastering Engineers". It ought to give you plenty to consider.
There is a thread at the Hoffman site "Top 10 Remastering Engineers". It ought to give you plenty to consider.
Maybe I can explain my Avatar choice. At the time David Lee Roth did his rendition of "California Girls" I was floored by that video. Being a young kid I could not get enough of that clip. I decided to decorate my room with the theme... all drawn using a HB pencil and some color pencils, here's my interpretation of it:
Too bad there aren't any pictures of the ceiling I did in that room!
Too bad there aren't any pictures of the ceiling I did in that room!
No worries, we went see van Halen last year and David Lee Roth can no longer jump... [emoji3]
Today I had a little fun with the new shuffler, based on (half) the Choueiri IR.
More info in the Phantom Center thread about the technical features of it.
I was pretty pleased what it did for me, but need way more time to properly listen/analyze what it does. The working part is very similar to the phase shuffler, with the exception that this one does the same on/to both channels.
It is designed to fight the same problem, the cross talk dips inherent in Stereo listening. If there's interest in the subject I'm willing to go a bit deeper into the subject, just say so, on here or the other thread.
More info in the Phantom Center thread about the technical features of it.
I was pretty pleased what it did for me, but need way more time to properly listen/analyze what it does. The working part is very similar to the phase shuffler, with the exception that this one does the same on/to both channels.
It is designed to fight the same problem, the cross talk dips inherent in Stereo listening. If there's interest in the subject I'm willing to go a bit deeper into the subject, just say so, on here or the other thread.
The trouble with testing any variations of the shuffler with music is that the way the music was recorded and mixed is unknown, and probably full of its own shortcomings, variables and/or randomness, when it comes to imaging.
I've been getting into recording bands lately, and I see first hand the amount of compromises that are made, which would affect imaging. You put mics where you can, rather than where would be technically better, venue acoustics are a big issue, mixing with pan controls is only mostly proper above 1kHZ, and everything we've been taught was based on a single mic, rather than two ears... The perfect way to adjust a playback system may only work with a certain variation of recording and mixing technique.
On another diyaudio thread, they compared about 10 different midrange drivers, trying to decide which one was the best, all about 3 inch, and they used music (such as Barracuda by Heart) to judge them and rate them in blind listening tests. They eventually did a bunch of more sophisticated tests, FR, impulse, there may have been some waterfall graph, distortion at a certain level... You reach a point where things are very good enough, and find that to go beyond that is very difficult. And all these tests are based on a single calibrated mic rather than two ears.
Making things better than today's state-of-the-art is not easy. Sorry if I'm being a downer here. I still think using inter-aural cancellation with an L-XR stereo matrix for L & R, and a center L+R speaker is maybe as good as it's going to get. I've been living with an actively steered version of that while building my passively steered version, and it's pretty good except for when the active steering does something weird or makes the center image seem too confined (too narrow).
I've been getting into recording bands lately, and I see first hand the amount of compromises that are made, which would affect imaging. You put mics where you can, rather than where would be technically better, venue acoustics are a big issue, mixing with pan controls is only mostly proper above 1kHZ, and everything we've been taught was based on a single mic, rather than two ears... The perfect way to adjust a playback system may only work with a certain variation of recording and mixing technique.
On another diyaudio thread, they compared about 10 different midrange drivers, trying to decide which one was the best, all about 3 inch, and they used music (such as Barracuda by Heart) to judge them and rate them in blind listening tests. They eventually did a bunch of more sophisticated tests, FR, impulse, there may have been some waterfall graph, distortion at a certain level... You reach a point where things are very good enough, and find that to go beyond that is very difficult. And all these tests are based on a single calibrated mic rather than two ears.
Making things better than today's state-of-the-art is not easy. Sorry if I'm being a downer here. I still think using inter-aural cancellation with an L-XR stereo matrix for L & R, and a center L+R speaker is maybe as good as it's going to get. I've been living with an actively steered version of that while building my passively steered version, and it's pretty good except for when the active steering does something weird or makes the center image seem too confined (too narrow).
It would be very hard to guess what I'm hearing I suppose. But I do believe in Stereo being quite capable in presenting a convincing stereo image to the listener in the sweet spot. I'm not that convinced a dedicated center can do a better job on true stereo material. It would largely depend on the algorithm that makes up the center signal.
I wish I could let you hear what I've got. But that would require at least a dummy head to record it. Even better a visit in person.
The amount of work I've spent on getting both FR and phase as linear as I could, some of it in old fashioned damping and other parts of it solved digitally, really all helps to put this step together. Combine that with a response starting at ~17 Hz to ~18000 Hz.
The imaging, as I have said before, is above average already without any help from extra shufflers. But what the shuffler does give the listener in the sweet spot is a more real 3D image.
Believe me this stuff works. Without it I got this review:
I'll see if I can get Jan Fekkes in again to let him hear the difference. More and more I'm looking into the recording, different on every song I listen to. But still only using that basic Stereo signal. The signal at the ears has been flattened (for a longer period) in time. That's the main difference between the shuffler and without it.
I had a lot more typed out but I don't want to step on peoples toes. It isn't until you try and get the room out of the equation that you really run into the "problems" of Stereo listening. You might ask yourself, do I really want that. As a room can add a certain pleasantness of it's own to the listening experience.
But I'm just not convinced adding a center is the solution for stereo listening. Not without a dedicated mix made for three channels (or more).
Did you ever go to great length to have flat FR starting low and ending as high as possible, with flat phase at the listening spot (meaning you'd have to control all early reflections) and judge that?
Contrary to popular believe that IR is really telling us a lot. Not everything though, but way more than many give it credit for. One of the things you don't get from it is the fact that we have 2 ears and a brain. And that brain part is pretty sophisticated. At least it can be.
I wish I could let you hear what I've got. But that would require at least a dummy head to record it. Even better a visit in person.
The amount of work I've spent on getting both FR and phase as linear as I could, some of it in old fashioned damping and other parts of it solved digitally, really all helps to put this step together. Combine that with a response starting at ~17 Hz to ~18000 Hz.
The imaging, as I have said before, is above average already without any help from extra shufflers. But what the shuffler does give the listener in the sweet spot is a more real 3D image.
Believe me this stuff works. Without it I got this review:
Jan Fekkes said:
I'll see if I can get Jan Fekkes in again to let him hear the difference. More and more I'm looking into the recording, different on every song I listen to. But still only using that basic Stereo signal. The signal at the ears has been flattened (for a longer period) in time. That's the main difference between the shuffler and without it.
I had a lot more typed out but I don't want to step on peoples toes. It isn't until you try and get the room out of the equation that you really run into the "problems" of Stereo listening. You might ask yourself, do I really want that. As a room can add a certain pleasantness of it's own to the listening experience.
But I'm just not convinced adding a center is the solution for stereo listening. Not without a dedicated mix made for three channels (or more).
Did you ever go to great length to have flat FR starting low and ending as high as possible, with flat phase at the listening spot (meaning you'd have to control all early reflections) and judge that?
Contrary to popular believe that IR is really telling us a lot. Not everything though, but way more than many give it credit for. One of the things you don't get from it is the fact that we have 2 ears and a brain. And that brain part is pretty sophisticated. At least it can be
.