music production

What people are working on at the moment
User avatar
ed
retired
Posts: 5384
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 4:01 pm
Location: yorkshire
Contact:

#1 music production

Post by ed »

some odd thoughts on music production...prompted by DTB and Andrew Ivimey mentioning audio recording in various posts.

I used to use my Ariel loudspeakers in the studio setup to do final mastering and some mix adjustements. I parted company with them 2 years ago(big, no huge mistake) and have since been restricted to near field monitoring.

I have found that mixes and masters produced with nearfield and headphone monitors do not sound anything like the final result played on the hifi. Likewise, the same masters played on a pc with soundcard and pc speakers, sound different again.

My general feeling is that studio monitors and headphones present a well rounded and accessible result...but the hifi sounds rather dull and pc playback has stuff missing altogether. As a consequence I have been using a studio artifact called an exciter. This produces much better results on hifi playback and to some extent returns some missing stuff to pc playback. It sounds OTT when monitoring in the studio. You may say that my studio monitoring chain is not faithfull, but I would firmly argue that is not the case, based on my having recorded the instruments in the first place.

I know that other project studio users have reported similar findings but I've never discussed this with professional engineers so I don't know for sure whether it occurs or what they do about it, if it does occur.

All of my reference material suggests that the master is aimed at a particular target medium, because target mediums have different audio capabilities, obviously. This may be what I'm experiencing, but I'm not sure why I have a discrepancy between the studio and a highly capable hifi system. The goal would seem obvious, aim for something that satisfies all targets to some extent. Or is it?

Back to the exciter. This gizmo targets a particular frequency band and enhances it. The bottom line description is that it brightens. My headscratching moment now becomes apparent because this excitement targets the harmonics of a good percentage of the modern recorded instruments, and adds boost.

But surely, in pursuit of good equipment design, we are trying to minimise harmonic intrusion....
There's nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be
User avatar
andrew Ivimey
Social Sevices have been notified
Posts: 8307
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 8:33 am
Location: Bedford

#2 Re: music production

Post by andrew Ivimey »

know watcha mean and that's why on many a deal there was a pair of auratone speakers, some used Yamaha ms10, but the point was to remind the engineer that HiFi or normal picnic players do not sound at all like the real thing i'e' through the monster monitor speakers.

I had an 'exciter' once (the 90s) - it might have been made by Behringer. It might have been called 'big bottom' - no really and It did something to the mix which, like what that nice Registrar wanted to do to my bottom. was not altogether unpleasant.

Now I'm totally in love with 'Garageband' on a desktop Mac with midi keyboard for the er, midi keyboards on offer and M Track 2X2 to get the Fender Strat recorded properly.

Endless noodles endless doodles.
Philosophers have only interpreted the world - the point, however, is to change it. No it isn't ... maybe we should leave it alone for a while.
User avatar
Dave the bass
Amstrad Tower of Power
Posts: 12273
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 4:36 pm
Location: NW Kent, Darn Sarf innit.

#3 Re: music production

Post by Dave the bass »

andrew Ivimey wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 12:23 pm ....It might have been called 'big bottom'....
"...talk about mud flaps....."
"The fat bourgeois and his doppelganger"
User avatar
ed
retired
Posts: 5384
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 4:01 pm
Location: yorkshire
Contact:

#4 Re: music production

Post by ed »

andrew Ivimey wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 12:23 pm
Endless noodles endless doodles.
might we be lucky, or privileged enough, to hear some of these doodles...

go on, I'll show you mine if you show me yours
There's nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be
User avatar
Dave the bass
Amstrad Tower of Power
Posts: 12273
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 4:36 pm
Location: NW Kent, Darn Sarf innit.

#5 Re: music production

Post by Dave the bass »

:idea: :idea: :idea: :idea:

We should do a forum tune.
"The fat bourgeois and his doppelganger"
User avatar
rowuk
Old Hand
Posts: 453
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2014 2:50 pm
Location: Germany

#6 Re: music production

Post by rowuk »

THis is a VERY loaded topic as the processing stages are no longer as clear cut as in the past. From your description, you as the "recording engineer" are responsible for the end product. I would offer that this - like in the printing industry is much different than what was successful in the past.
Not so long ago we had:
1) the creatives - musicians/conductors etc.
2) Producers - decision makers with the end product in focus and the ability to make "suggestions" to the creatives - to the point of actually interfering with the creative process. The producer was also responsible for budget
3) the recording engineers - with the goal of getting as much of the music as possible while still pleasing the producer
4) the mastering engineer this was the magician that turned the recordings into products.

Today we have incredibly good equipment available to everybody. Bands record and release their own products - BUT very often without the producers ear and mastering engineers qualities.
Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.
Ant
Shed dweller
Posts: 2332
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 6:45 pm
Location: Yorkshire

#7 Re: music production

Post by Ant »

I bought the little behringer interface so that daughter could record herself playing and edit, she got on well with garageband on the mac mini better than audacity and something else which i forget the name of.
The cd i burned and played back downstairs sounded flat.. i thought it was something to do with the settings wed used at the time because it sounded fine on the little samson studio amp and mission standmounts connected to the mac.

It will be interesting to see what the r2r sounds like, although ill have to mic the guitar rather than plug it into an interface.

Wish i knew what i was doing.....
Also starring Rex Hamilton as Abraham Lincoln

www.bte-designs.weebly.com
Max N
Old Hand
Posts: 1453
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 6:10 pm

#8 Re: music production

Post by Max N »

Revealing my ignorance here, but what is it that has driven the 'loudness wars'?
What are producers hearing that leads them to reduce dynamic range?
Or is it driven by listening habits (in the car or headphones on the bus -> lots of background noise)?
User avatar
Dave the bass
Amstrad Tower of Power
Posts: 12273
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 4:36 pm
Location: NW Kent, Darn Sarf innit.

#9 Re: music production

Post by Dave the bass »

Max N wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 2:18 pm Revealing my ignorance here, but what is it that has driven the 'loudness wars'?
Listeners. IMO.

In the days of AM and FM radio particularly, the louder the signal was the more likely youd attract a bigger audience.

Big audience = big ad revenue = happy shareholders and business owners.
"The fat bourgeois and his doppelganger"
User avatar
Nick
Site Admin
Posts: 15706
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:20 am
Location: West Yorkshire

#10 Re: music production

Post by Nick »

I have found that mixes and masters produced with nearfield and headphone monitors do not sound anything like the final result played on the hifi. Likewise, the same masters played on a pc with soundcard and pc speakers, sound different again.
Then (if I understand) then there are a number of things that may cause that

1. the nearfield and headphone monitors are not flat and so by mixing to make them sound flat you are producing a non flat result, the hifi is showing this non flatness

2. the nearfield and headphone monitors are flat and the same material played on the hifi sounds poor: This option has two sub options

2.1 The process of transferring the source material from studio to hifi has lost omething, so the source material is not equal in both cases, the "mixdown" is not transparent

2.2 The mixdown is transparent, but the hifi is not flat and is not reproducing the source correctly.

Note by hifi and studio I include the entire reproduction chain downstream from the source. So DAC, Amplifier, Loudspeaker and room.

It may just be the fact that one is nearfield or headphones and the other farfield so the room is getting involved, so that would in the above list make it 2.2
Whenever an honest man discovers that he's mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or he will cease to be honest.
User avatar
ed
retired
Posts: 5384
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 4:01 pm
Location: yorkshire
Contact:

#11 Re: music production

Post by ed »

snigger...

I am slowly creeping towards the time when I have enough evidence to stand on my soapbox and declare that all audiophools are objectively wasting their time and money buying all this esoteric hifi gear. Or, at least I will claim that they will be wasting their time arguing about it on hifi forums....

Their only justification can ever be that they enjoy it.

There may be agreement that a particular recording is fantastic, based on lots of reports from people with differing equipment...but that certainly doesn't identify less than top notch equipment....

@rowuk +1, gpwm.
There's nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be
User avatar
rowuk
Old Hand
Posts: 453
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2014 2:50 pm
Location: Germany

#12 Re: music production

Post by rowuk »

An acid test to see how much difference a mastering engineer makes is to take your favorite LP and buy the CD to compare. We can measure the difference when the analog mastertape was just copied and the CDs pressed. I have compared some of the Sheffield direct to disc recordings with the CD versions. Simply a disaster.

My live recordings (symphonic and chamber music) sound very good, but get much better when a bit of compression increases the „density“. I personally believe that if the source is (much) better than the playback, the limits by overloading frequency range, dynamics, sense of space are not predictable.
Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.
User avatar
Nick
Site Admin
Posts: 15706
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:20 am
Location: West Yorkshire

#13 Re: music production

Post by Nick »

As is often the case I don't think I understand what this thread is about any more.
Whenever an honest man discovers that he's mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or he will cease to be honest.
User avatar
ed
retired
Posts: 5384
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 4:01 pm
Location: yorkshire
Contact:

#14 Re: music production

Post by ed »

Max N wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 2:18 pm Revealing my ignorance here, but what is it that has driven the 'loudness wars'?
What are producers hearing that leads them to reduce dynamic range?
Or is it driven by listening habits (in the car or headphones on the bus -> lots of background noise)?
Max,
You may have missed this gem from dtb...it might address your question:
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/phpBB3/view ... tart=12394

rowuk,
I am aware of the problem you mention, from many years of reading forum posts bewailing the situation, but alas I can only rely on my faulty memory. I resisted cd for many years but finally relented in 2003 when I disposed of my lp12/ittok and my entire vinyl collection. I haven't been able to make any comparisons, but I'm happy to accept 2nd hand reports...it's really no biggy for me...I delude myself that I can spot a recording cock-up. I did transfer a good deal of my vinyl to digital(cd) but discovered that cdr was not a reliable medium and lots has been lost...
There's nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be
User avatar
ed
retired
Posts: 5384
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 4:01 pm
Location: yorkshire
Contact:

#15 Re: music production

Post by ed »

Nick wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 4:22 pm As is often the case I don't think I understand what this thread is about any more.
My original post was a highlight of differing production methods, used to address differing target mediums, or, attempting to address all mediums at the same time with one production. I wasn’t expecting any particular response, be it: why this happens, or just an acceptance that it does happen, and maybe personal experience of noticing it happening. But you chose the why it happens response, which is fine by me.

In response, I will point out that in the last 20 years I have used monitors from Mackie, Tannoy, Diy Markaudio nearfield and diy ariel farfield. Repro chains incorporating active(Mackie obviously), valve amplification, and solid state..plus AH Lite off board dacs. In all that time I have been happy with the monitors reporting faithfully. So I read this as flat response.

So, using your response, highlighting why there might be a discrepancy, I conclude that my, and most everybody else’s hifi may not be reproducing what the engineer, mastering engineer, or producer intended.

The reason I posted originally was for no other reason than discussion...it has gone in differing directions, but in the main has satisfied the original intention.

looking at the bigger picture, does it have to be about anything really...check out how quickly many threads go OT.
There's nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be
Post Reply