What is the Single Ended Triode thing?

[tuga]

I've heard very well regarded recording engineer (Decca) and designers of high end studio equipment use phrases like 'these (we were talking about a 70s mixing desk mic pre) don't sound particularly transparent and they can be a bit noisy, but they have a lovely sound and I would use them in preference to that (points at a current digital mixer costing about the same as my house) every time for a small chamber ensemble'.

Studio equipment is used in production, not reproduction.

Although I do believe that there's room for audio engineers to design 'euphonic' reproduction equipment catering for audiophiles who don't enjoy 'accuracy'. It's a godd think to have different options to choose from.

 

[tuga]

Studios will often run ATC loudspeakers not because they are the absolute best loudspeakers system available or the highest fidelity (they are quite respectable though), but they are reliable and repeatable. sit in front of any pair or SCM100ASLs and you know what you are listening to.

Surely studios would rather have both accuracy and reliability, and cheap.

Studio monitors need to be accurate for engineers to hear what they're doing.

 

[gez]

I think you are making a mistake here too. The aim is, or should be, the greatest involvement with the music, not fidelity to a measurement. Otherwise the artist is wasting their time.

With respect, that's your objective. Tugs point is that that's not everyones objective, and you should accept that.

For some people hifi is about enjoying the end result, irrespective of anything. They only use their ears to make that determination
For some people hifi is about accuracy of reproduction from a purely technical level. i.e. measurements, and they only use measurements to make that determination. They then accept that some stuff will sound relativley poor and some stuff will sound superb.
For the remainder, it's a mix of both. They ultimately want to enjoy the end result, but they also like to know their equipment is at least measuring reasonably well. They may accept slightly worse measuring eqiupment if they feel it makes their system sound better overal.

ALL of the above approaches are EQUALLY valid. The people from each camp won't ever agree with the others approach, but that doesn't make alternative approaches wrong. It's simply a preference, nothing more, nothing less. Nobody has the right to make absolute statements that there is only ONE true way that everybody should follow.

 

[gez]

The trouble is... the limited measurements used don't highlight what's going on in an amplifier when it's reproducing music connected to loudspeakers
If amplifiers where as perfect as some measurements seem to indicate, we would have full reproduction of the source.
In my experience we rarely have full reproduction of the source

The obvious question that your statement raises is : How do you know you don't have full reproduction of the source?

 

[Puggie]

Surely studios would rather have both accuracy and reliability, and cheap.

Studio monitors need to be accurate for engineers to hear what they're doing.

There is a significant amount of audio reproduction in a recording studio, hours of overdubs and editing will all be done as replay of the original recording. Granted its not the same as a pure replay system.

I would put reliability ahead of accuracy in studio monitor requirements, it no good if the tweeters blown because someone replugged something on the studio floor with the faders up. cheap is nice but reliability doesn't come cheap. They need to be accurate enough.

 

[gez]

Musicians are artists, they're almost exclusively only interested in how "good to their ears" their instrument sounds. The same is true to a degree with recording engineers. It's simply not true that all recording engineers are only aiming to acheive an accurate capture of the instruments, their aim is to ultimately produce a recording that the producer and artists are happy with, and therein lays the subjective and emotional aspect of music recording. That's why recording engineers will have a shelf full of different types of microphones for vocals, or cymbals or guitars etc, each with their own characteristics. Some mics will attempt to be strictly neutral, others (usually vocal mics) are deliberately not neutral and many vocalists have very strong preferences for which mic they want to be used to record them because of it. The engineer will also have their own preferences and opinions.

Studio monitors are rarely 100% accurate (the nearfield genelecs etc may well be, but not all are). ATC mid monitors are demonstrably not accurate, they have a raising treble response, which is deliberate. Studio engineers want monitors that let them hear the changes they make to eq etc easily, their objective is to get instruments to sound "nice" in the final mix, that frequently means using significant eq on individual instruments channels. Such that if you were to listen to it in isolation it'd sound pretty bad. Then you get the arguments between the artists each of which is always complaining that "they can't hear themselves" in the mix. It's all a huge balancing act with the aim of keeping everyone happy at the end of the day. The mix also has to sound good on small speakers and the radio, so even once they've got a master that sound great on the main monitors, they'll then go and play it on nearfield monitors and retouch the mix/eq.

Within the whole process there is a continuous subjective assessment going on by all involved as to how "good" things sound, and as anyone who's ever listened to more than one band will know, some bands/studio engineers/producers idea of what sounds "good" can be pretty damn horrendous.

 

[tuga]

There is a significant amount of audio reproduction in a recording studio, hours of overdubs and editing will all be done as replay of the original recording. Granted its not the same as a pure replay system.

I would put reliability ahead of accuracy in studio monitor requirements, it no good if the tweeters blown because someone replugged something on the studio floor with the faders up. cheap is nice but reliability doesn't come cheap. They need to be accurate enough.

I would rate them equal at best, if you don't have accuracy your mix is not likely to be as good.

 

[tuga]

It might be worth pointing out that accuracy refers to absence of linear modifications (frequency response deviations) and non-linear distortions (harmonic, intermodulation, etc.).

 

[gez]

It might be worth pointing out that accuracy refers to absence of linear modifications (frequency response deviations) and non-linear distortions (harmonic, intermodulation, etc.).

Right, and this is the frequency response of the most popular vocal microphone in history the Shure SM58, not even close to accurate. It's primarily a live performance mic, but it's also frequently used (out of choice exactly because of it's characteristics) in the studio.

 

[gez]

The simple truth is, that even if you were able to find microphones that were truly neutral (which you can't), and you just recorded every instrument to a channel and never applied any eq to anything and simply mixed the channels to get the relative volumes of each channel you wanted, then unless you're recording a simple small chamber ensemble or something, the resulting mix will sound like garbage.

 

[Puggie]

I would rate them equal at best, if you don't have accuracy your mix is not likely to be as good.

I've seen someone demonstrate how to mix on an oscilloscope, he knew how the bass note wave forms should look to get the sound he wanted, he also used loudspeakers, but not to tune the EQ and compression on the bass end. Accurate sounding speakers are not required to mix on, speakers you know well and are used to are more important.

If you are blowing tweeters every week you have unhappy engineers, why did domestic ATCs use the seas tweeter and pro models use the Vifa at one point, then they developed their own tweeter?

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

The trouble is... the limited measurements used don't highlight what's going on in an amplifier when it's reproducing music connected to loudspeakers
If amplifiers where as perfect as some measurements seem to indicate, we would have full reproduction of the source.
In my experience we rarely have full reproduction of the source

Well, you can simultaneously 'measure' what goes in and comes out, then from that determine what changes an amp made while used in that setup with that source material. But it doesn't in itself tell you if you'd prefer some *other* amp in that system with that music which would have made 'different' changes.

Given that source material may not be 'perfectly to your taste' if it were played using an amp that made NO changes, it follows that a change of amp might make changes which overall you prefer being made.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

Artists and sound engineers produced the music recording, hi-fi equipment reproduces that recording.
An audio engineer does not design audio equipment for "involvement with the music" but high fidelity.

The snag being that in some cases an amp "imperfection" might make the result "sound better" or even "sound more like the source".

e.g. Obvious basic example. Using an amp with more bass roll-off might give a 'better' result when using it with some speakers that are boomy or used in a boomy room.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

Surely studios would rather have both accuracy and reliability, and cheap.

Studio monitors need to be accurate for engineers to hear what they're doing.

More likely that they need to be a "known quantity" to the person doing the slider-wiggling, etc, and suit them in terms of judging what the result will end up sounding like.

However I confess I'm wary of always according people who make studio recordings too much status here given the way we've often had them inflict LOUDNESS, clipping, etc, on us countless time with the belief that LOUDER SELLS. Some studio people are excellent. Others aren't when it comes to sound quality of the final product.

 

[GT]

An audio engineer does not design audio equipment for "involvement with the music" but high fidelity.

Due to the inherent imperfections of stereo recording and reproduction it is a mistake to claim that a particular system or topology sounds more 'realistic' because 'realistic', like 'musical', is a matter of opinion.

The first is not mutually exclusive. They are pretty much the same thing...

The second statement: nothing can improve a poor recording, as it will always sound poor. However, with a good recording played through a good audio system people will be able to hear a "realistic" or a "musical" sound, unless they have a hearing defect. It won't be a matter of opinion, it should be easy for people to hear. The human ear is perfectly capable of highlighting the changes and differences in sound.

 

[GT]

Although I do believe that there's room for audio engineers to design 'euphonic' reproduction equipment catering for audiophiles who don't enjoy 'accuracy'. It's a godd think to have different options to choose from.

You are not related to Keith Cooper are you by chance, only your tack is almost identical to his...

Time we put the word "accuracy" to bed as it is meaningless to describe any form of audio reproduction.

 

[tuga]

The first is not mutually exclusive. They are pretty much the same thing...

I disagree. Not everyone finds how accurate equipment reproduces music 'involving'. Many audiophiles prefer 'euphonic' equipment.

The second statement: nothing can improve a poor recording, as it will always sound poor. However, with a good recording played through a good audio system people will be able to hear a "realistic" or a "musical" sound, unless they have a hearing defect. It won't be a matter of opinion, it should be easy for people to hear. The human ear is perfectly capable of highlighting the changes and differences in sound.

Again, this is a matter of personal preference. Many audiophiles find accurate reproduction overly revealing or 'clinical' and 'uninvolving', particularly with bad recordings.

 

[tuga]

Time we put the word "accuracy" to bed as it is meaningless to describe any form of audio reproduction.

The word 'accuracy' is a synonym of high fidelity, also refered to as 'garbage in garbage out'.
From Stereophile's glossary: "An accurate device reproduces what is on the recording, which may or may not be an accurate representation of the original sound."

It's the recording which dictates whether or not 'realism' can be achieved, not the system.

 

[jimification]

Studio monitors are rarely 100% accurate

Indeed...I bought my last pair from GAK and they had a big setup with different sets of monitors that you could toggle between instantly. They all sounded remarkably different from each other!

 

[tuga]

The snag being that in some cases an amp "imperfection" might make the result "sound better" or even "sound more like the source".

e.g. Obvious basic example. Using an amp with more bass roll-off might give a 'better' result when using it with some speakers that are boomy or used in a boomy room.

'Sounds better' is relative/subjective, it depends on who you ask.

'Sounds more like the source' depends on how the recording was made, and requires that whoever judges has listened to the live event if there was one.