Audiophiles v sound engineers

[moo-fi]

Again I am limiting this to mastering speakers, as mixing speakers are selected with many different aims besides sound quality.
To see the difference between design intentions of studio v home we only have to look at home many home speakers use twin 15 inch bass drivers, or being designed to be soffit mounted. Studio owners generally spend a lot of money on studio design and room treatment which most of us don't at home and this is perhaps most often most noticeable in the low frequencies.

 

[wow&flutter]

Here’s a perfect example of using the mixing desk as an instrument Tony!

 

[flowjm]

Given the quality of most modern mastering I’d rather polish the turds than serve them unadulterated.

That's a different matter altogether. Also, I'm not sure that any system can restore the dynamic range of loudness war victims.

 

[misterdog]

PS I agree with Graham above in that there is zero advantage to balanced wiring in domestic audio! It just isn’t needed.

Though as 'balanced' mike cable costs peanuts, and was probably used in the studio you are listening to now why not take advantage of it.

If you feel that XLR plugs have no benefit just shove some of those nice Phono plugs on.

Quad core mike cable still benefits from having twisted pair rejection.

Van Damme quadcore Mike cable costs from 35p Metre ! (because they make thousands of miles of the stuff for musicians)

https://www.designacable.com/compon...re-starquad-bulk-cable-black-268-029-000.html

https://www.psneurope.com/studio/abbey-road-studio-two-says-hello-to-vdc

Still if people believe that paying £ 0000 for some 'domestic special monitor' RCA cable is better.

Though as many persist in claiming there is zero advantage to balanced cables in the domestic environment.

Though I would say there is zero disadvantage to it, and many potential rewards.

 

[Tony L]

Though as 'balanced' mike cable costs peanuts, and was probably used in the studio you are listening to now why not take advantage of it.

The cable costs peanuts, but it requires extra electrical components on both the source and receiving audio components, which is against the ethos of much high-end audio where the most simple approach tends to be preferred. I really don’t see a case for it in a typical domestic audio system where components are only a matter of inches away and interconnect cable quality is exceptionally high.

PS Do remember that huge, huge amounts of studio kit, instruments etc is not balanced! I’m trying to remember but I think other than mics the only thing I had with a balanced out was a Roland Jupiter 6 synth, everything else (synths and FX) was just standard 1/4” jack plugs.

 

[John Phillips]

Again I am limiting this to mastering speakers, as mixing speakers are selected with many different aims besides sound quality.
To see the difference between design intentions of studio v home we only have to look at home many home speakers use twin 15 inch bass drivers, or being designed to be soffit mounted. Studio owners generally spend a lot of money on studio design and room treatment which most of us don't at home and this is perhaps most often most noticeable in the low frequencies.

Exactly. The aim of reproducing in your home the same sound as in the final mastering seems to me to be highly laudable (although I note that others disagree). However it also seems to me that the only way to approach the goal is to simultaneously:

• use the same kind of loudspeakers;
• have the same kind of room treatment; and
• listen at the same audio level

A very serious enthusiast might get some way towards this but I suspect that would very much be the exception.

 

[Julf]

The cable costs peanuts, but it requires extra components on both the source and receiving components, which is against the ethos of much high-end audio where the most simple approach tends to be preferred.

The important part is the differential input, and any op-amp input already has both inverting and non-inverting circuitry. Even if you have to add an extra transistor to an input stage, it is not an additional component in series with the signal path, but in parallel - yes, you have two transistors instead of one, but each only handles half the signal, so the total path length is no longer / more complicated than with unbalanced. The same applies to outputs.

I really don’t see a case for it in a typical domestic audio system where components are only a matter on inches away and interconnect cable quality is exceptionally high.

The avoidance of ground loops is a major benefit even in domestic systems.

 

[Arkless Electronics]

The cable costs peanuts, but it requires extra electrical components on both the source and receiving audio components, which is against the ethos of much high-end audio where the most simple approach tends to be preferred. I really don’t see a case for it in a typical domestic audio system where components are only a matter of inches away and interconnect cable quality is exceptionally high.

PS Do remember that huge, huge amounts of studio kit, instruments etc is not balanced! I’m trying to remember but I think other than mics the only thing I had with a balanced out was a Roland Jupiter 6 synth, everything else (synths and FX) was just standard 1/4” jack plugs.

Partially semantics I guess but it depends on what you class as "studio kit" and if you include the instruments... Personally I wouldn't include them as they are the source of the music and played by musicians rather than something for recording the music and used by recording engineers etc. History again comes into this IMHO in that instruments were primarily intended for playing live and when amplifiers and electric guitars etc became available the amps used unbalanced inputs. VFM was a top priority and adding balancing transformers to the guitars and amps was all more money! Also when you are playing live and trying to be heard above a drum kit then low hum and hiss are not much of a requirement.

Hence DI boxes!

As I brushed on in another thread just now, historically, balanced signals @ 775mV and into an impedance matched 600 Ohm system (= 1mV = 0dBm or "0VU") were what was used in telephony and telephony was about the first use for "electronics", driven by public demand and huge corporations like Bell in the USA (The Bell System, "Western Bell", "Bell Laboratories" etc etc). Hence some of the first requirements for test gear and any standardisation in pro use was for balanced and at 600 Ohm... before radio etc this WAS "audio" and this standard was used to interface to booster amplifiers (repeaters) and as so much gear available was built to this standard it was adopted for pro audio when it became "a thing".

 

[Arkless Electronics]

The important part is the differential input, and any op-amp input already has both inverting and non-inverting circuitry. Even if you have to add an extra transistor to an input stage, it is not an additional component in series with the signal path, but in parallel - yes, you have two transistors instead of one, but each only handles half the signal, so the total path length is no longer / more complicated than with unbalanced. The same applies to outputs.



The avoidance of ground loops is a major benefit even in domestic systems.

I totally disagree and for all the reasons I gave the last time we "debated" just this for pages.
Please don't bother replying to this as lifes too short.... I refer you to everything I said last time.

 

[Julf]

I totally disagree and for all the reasons I gave the last time we "debated" just this for pages.
Please don't bother replying to this as lifes too short.... I refer you to everything I said last time.

And you are totally wrong, for all the reasons I gave the last time we "debated" just this for pages.
Please don't bother replying to this as lifes too short.... I refer you to everything I said last time.

 

[misterdog]

the ethos of much high-end audio where the most simple approach tends to be preferred.

Though Bruno Putzeys, John Westlake, Benchmark, Auaralic, Neurochrome and many more current designers will all disagree with you and show results with a measured reduction in noise.

Linn have an interesting philosophy where they both agree and disagree regarding balanced.

If your audio equipment has high quality balanced inputs and outputs, the Linn Silver balanced interconnect cable will let you hear just how much better this can sound than an ‘unbalanced’ interconnection.

 

[Arkless Electronics]

And you are totally wrong, for all the reasons I gave the last time we "debated" just this for pages.
Please don't bother replying to this as lifes too short.... I refer you to everything I said last time.

I'll reply just to say that it is you that is totally wrong!

 

[Arkless Electronics]

Though Bruno Putzeys, John Westlake, Benchmark, Auaralic, Neurochrome and many more current designers will all disagree with you and show results with a measured reduction in noise.

Linn have an interesting philosophy where they both agree and disagree regarding balanced.

Then I disagree with all of the above then! And yes as you will be aware from another site I have been working on a balanced phono stage with new and original topology and characteristics.... but it being balanced has nothing to do with reducing noise or with "sound quality". In fact in phono stages balanced is often noisier than unbalanced! (not mains hum but noise ie hiss)

 

[misterdog]

This is one channel of a fully balanced Class A/B amplifier, too many components ?

THD+N -107 dB 0.00045 % 40 W, 8 Ω, 1 kHz

The Neurochrome Modulus composite amplifier topology uses a precision amplifier to perform error correction on a less precise power amplifier. The Modulus-186 is a composite amplifier, which uses an LME49720 to perform error correction on an LM3886 power amplifier IC. This results in an amplifier which has the precision of the LME49720 and the power of the LM3886. This error correction is the central point of the Neurochrome Modulus composite architecture. The composite design will correct for many types of error, including distortion and power supply induced errors.

The error correction circuit in the Modulus-186 has its own regulated power supply. Consequently, the power supply for the error correction circuit is clean and free of ripple, even if there is some ripple voltage on the power supply to the board. In addition, the error correction circuit (LME49720 and associated components) has its own power supply rejection (the PSRR of the LME49720 due to its design and architecture). The end result is that the error correction circuit will correct for any distortion and supply-induced errors by the LM3886. This is done without introducing any errors of its own, while staying within the performance limitations of the LME49720. The end result is a powerful amplifier with vanishingly low distortion.

As mentioned, the error correction circuit also corrects for power supply induced errors in the power amplifier. This makes the Modulus-186 indifferent to the type of power supply used. When operated at levels below clipping, the Modulus-186 performs as well on a well regulated switching supply as it does on an unregulated power supply.

pseudo-differential cable between the single-ended (unbalanced, RCA) source and the differential (balanced, XLR) input on the Modulus-186. These cables can easily be made by the savvy DIYer. They are also available commercially.

 

[claire.foxx]

Got the elevator pitch for the motion picture rights

Witness the plucky romanticism of the “go it alone* inventor” who, facing up to the disagreement of his peers forges ahead, alone but for the sake of his wild passionate dreams, he risks everything to pursue his mad but beautiful dream of a completely silent balanced photo stage; he leaves his corporate day job designing humdrum consumer products for unfeeling managers and déclassé customers to risk poverty and more to craft a phono stage for the oncoming analog revival... they all said it would be folly, but one day he will prove them all wrong, oh yes, he will make them all eat their words. Because “If you build it, it won’t hum.”

*STOP FOLLOWING ME YOU PACK OF CVNTS! Aaaaaaaaaa!

 

[Millennium]

Interesting thread. I don't really know what to make of it all! My observations:

With a DAC* and AMP** that accept XLR I have found better sound quality in one XLR cable, compared to another, better again than cheap XLR cable new, and all of this was better than silver core RCA. I may be experiencing some bias here but I honestly hope not. What this spells for my wallet is another matter. I don't currently use Phono sources so none of this is from a turntable.

I live in a basement flat so I have no scope for dual 15" drivers. With this in mind what might the studio monitor crowd offer me? I'm no longer interested all that much in <90hz unless I'm at a live gig anyway. I don't know what this says about loudness levels or quality of modern studio recordings.

The source is king. There are digitally available 70s analogue Jazz records that sound better Today than many chart mixes, similarly there are modern albums that continue to push the boundaries of Tidal Master (which other than FLAC rips is the majority of my HQ listening).

The sound engineering for a modern release must be very complex, how close to ideal quality are people with a home setup getting these days? I've certainly noticed the difference when a Youtube musician has been on a proper US show with a decent microphone setup, even if that is listened to via Youtube 1080p audio compression.

I have on order a pair of Triangle BR08 as after many years I felt I could move from my Comete EX modded pair. Also, both drivers are different/changed I promise PFM a review when they arrive (could be later this week). They are currently on the credit card (mehhhhh moar audio).

However, if they are too much bass for the neighbours they could just be going back - depending on how they work in a ""treated"" room, an untreated room and with some iffy sources.
I wish I had a spare barn...

*AudioLab M-DAC with PSU ** Primare A30.1

 

[Tony L]

Partially semantics I guess but it depends on what you class as "studio kit" and if you include the instruments... Personally I wouldn't include them as they are the source of the music and played by musicians rather than something for recording the music and used by recording engineers etc. History again comes into this IMHO in that instruments were primarily intended for playing live and when amplifiers and electric guitars etc became available the amps used unbalanced inputs. VFM was a top priority and adding balancing transformers to the guitars and amps was all more money! Also when you are playing live and trying to be heard above a drum kit then low hum and hiss are not much of a requirement.

This is getting on for half my lifetime ago so my memory is a bit fuzzy, but as I recall our studio was pretty much exclusively single-ended. We had a Soundcraft Spirit Studio 16/8/2 desk, the muti-track recorder was an Alesis ADAT (an early digital 8 track that recorded to a SVHS tape!) and a rack of outboard kit (digital reverbs, delays, compressors etc). I am certain all that lot was wired up with bog-standard mono 1/4” jack plugs, a right bloody rats nest to be honest. Its only recently I went through what was left of the cables that had been sitting in my cellar for ages and flung a bin-sack full of filthy junk out, and none were TRS jacks. I can remember the couple of XLRs we had were used one on the JP6 and the others were just mic leads!

 

[Julf]

I'll reply just to say that it is you that is totally wrong!

Can you remind me, what parts of this do you think are wrong?

 

[Joe P]

Julf,

This part is clearly pushing the boundaries of credulity.

Joe

 

[misterdog]

Not to be confused with that other “ground plane”, which is what engineers call the regular bus service run by Air France to ferry passengers between Brussels and Paris when French traffic control goes on strike again.

LOL, and a great Preamp design for free, at the end.