DiyMobileAudio.com Car Stereo Forum banner

41 - 50 of 50 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
I’m sorry I certainly was not trying to upset anyone. And I’m certainly unaffected by whether Im like someone else or not.

To the statement, B&W matrix and nautilus series speakers blow, I couldn’t disagree more. I find it foolish. Those designs were at the front of research and development at the time of fruition. And there are a boat load of Recordings and studios that used them and still do.

I chose B&W as an example of a speaker that has been proven exemplary for recording and mastering. I can send you a dozen links to forums specifically for mastering and recording that have threads upon threads attesting to the fact? Or how about the 100s of pics of them in studios through out the world including Abbey Road.

I have used both in my home and I have had many many speakers of their ilk. They are very good and actually offered tremendous value especially in the late 90s and most of the 2000s. It also is blatantly obvious in their resell value. They have held there worth in the used market like no other speaker in my memory.

I also said that I no longer use them and I gave specific and sound reasons why I do not. And I will probably never again. My reference system and what I consider to be some of the best gear in audio period has nothing to do with money or rich people. I was tipsy from scotch an maybe I went a bit over board on my reasoning why I don’t use them. My apology. I got interested when statements start flying like Wilson, engleston, Sonus fabor and the like don’t boogie and that jbl, tannoy and Altec mastered this years ago. See I’m also into all the old compression drivers with alnico magnets from these companies. Especially Altec. I love tannoy full range drivers as well. Why? Because I also love low powered tube amps using specific tube topology. But let’s face it. None of those companies can touch a Japanese Goto driver. Or the aer drivers from Germany. I have drivers from all the companies mentioned. The old jbl, and Altec are a tremendous value when bought on the used market but...cost no object of today are better.

I was actually asking a question. I wasn’t telling either of you, you were wrong, I was asking why they were not being considered. I was interested in your thread. I also apologized in advance a few times 🏻

And I’m sorry again I shouldn’t of participated it’s not that important to me. That was my first day posting on this site and I got carried away. My bad?

But I will finish with this. Most sound engineers, recording studios, producers in the studio or otherwise I feel have no idea what they are doing. And it shows in 90 percent of the recordings being made today. I’m sorry but recording studio environments should not be different from typical listening environments. Or should I say any different than the perfect two channel stereo set up. There should not be some underlying agenda to basically guess what it’s going to sound like in a car, phone or on some ridiculous millennials Alexa device. It should be recorded to the best of its possibility using tried and true tactics for panning that produce realistic sound stages. The best mics, amps, cables etc. Using as much of the frequency range as possible and when appropriate as much dynamic range as possible. Where there is depth and natural separation and pin point imagery. Not images floating off in space. Or layered on top of each other. Or flattened to accommodate inferior listening devices. Where timber, decay, texture, tone are important. Most recordings today can’t touch the best analog recordings of the 50s 60s 70s and even sometimes 80s.
And I do not feel that is my opinion or subjective bantor. It’s the truth.

So in my best Forest Gump impression I would like to end with. .........

Sorry for ruining your black panther party.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,911 Posts
One listen to an m2 or kenrick 43xx and you will write me Christmas cards every year apologizing for what you used to find foolish. The guys that know laugh at the people thinking b&w compete or are better. Your stuff might be the best, glad you like it but that single ended and dirivitive flea power stuff can be sublime, or nutter. Got to ask yourself which.

Lighthearted jest. Since it comes off harsh:surprised:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
no Generally it goes something like this. The 300b is the tube that most of you finally one day happen to get in front of. It’s the most popular of low powered sets and
The Bose of flea powered amps. No highs no lows it must be bose, Bose blose. Now they have more power than the other two tubes I’ll mention and it makes it easier to facilitate. But the 300b is rolled off. It lacks extension and air. I find it rather colored as well. But it does have a very natural and analog sound with lots of weight. This tube catches people’s attention for this reason. And so if you have a “meh” of a man who listens to solid state amps or higher powered tube amps base on common ass mediocre kt88 , 6550, el84 and by they hear a decent amp based around the 300b they sometimes go bananas. Especially if they listen to singer songwriter or
Simply acoustic music. All hell im rambling

Long story short. I generally ask my self 3 questions?

Do I want to feel like a schizophrenic?
The 300b is an angel talking to you.

Do I want to feel like a prophet?
The 2a3 is like Jesus or Moses singing

Do I want to feel like the holy fucking spirit?
When you listen to an amp using the 45 tube as its output it’s sounds like GOD communicating in your head.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,911 Posts
Yeah i appreciate your knowledge but you sell fellow audiophiles short. 45s are super well known in the horn, high efficiency system guys. People aren't stupid and the fidelity of the 45 are well known. I know a guy with a least 5 custom 45s he rubs multiple systems with them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
Discussion Starter #45
I’m sorry I certainly was not trying to upset anyone. And I’m certainly unaffected by whether Im like someone else or not.

To the statement, B&W matrix and nautilus series speakers blow, I couldn’t disagree more. I find it foolish. Those designs were at the front of research and development at the time of fruition. And there are a boat load of Recordings and studios that used them and still do.

I chose B&W as an example of a speaker that has been proven exemplary for recording and mastering. I can send you a dozen links to forums specifically for mastering and recording that have threads upon threads attesting to the fact? Or how about the 100s of pics of them in studios through out the world including Abbey Road.

I have used both in my home and I have had many many speakers of their ilk. They are very good and actually offered tremendous value especially in the late 90s and most of the 2000s. It also is blatantly obvious in their resell value. They have held there worth in the used market like no other speaker in my memory.

I also said that I no longer use them and I gave specific and sound reasons why I do not. And I will probably never again. My reference system and what I consider to be some of the best gear in audio period has nothing to do with money or rich people. I was tipsy from scotch an maybe I went a bit over board on my reasoning why I don’t use them. My apology. I got interested when statements start flying like Wilson, engleston, Sonus fabor and the like don’t boogie and that jbl, tannoy and Altec mastered this years ago. See I’m also into all the old compression drivers with alnico magnets from these companies. Especially Altec. I love tannoy full range drivers as well. Why? Because I also love low powered tube amps using specific tube topology. But let’s face it. None of those companies can touch a Japanese Goto driver. Or the aer drivers from Germany. I have drivers from all the companies mentioned. The old jbl, and Altec are a tremendous value when bought on the used market but...cost no object of today are better.

I was actually asking a question. I wasn’t telling either of you, you were wrong, I was asking why they were not being considered. I was interested in your thread. I also apologized in advance a few times 🏻

And I’m sorry again I shouldn’t of participated it’s not that important to me. That was my first day posting on this site and I got carried away. My bad?

But I will finish with this. Most sound engineers, recording studios, producers in the studio or otherwise I feel have no idea what they are doing. And it shows in 90 percent of the recordings being made today. I’m sorry but recording studio environments should not be different from typical listening environments. Or should I say any different than the perfect two channel stereo set up. There should not be some underlying agenda to basically guess what it’s going to sound like in a car, phone or on some ridiculous millennials Alexa device. It should be recorded to the best of its possibility using tried and true tactics for panning that produce realistic sound stages. The best mics, amps, cables etc. Using as much of the frequency range as possible and when appropriate as much dynamic range as possible. Where there is depth and natural separation and pin point imagery. Not images floating off in space. Or layered on top of each other. Or flattened to accommodate inferior listening devices. Where timber, decay, texture, tone are important. Most recordings today can’t touch the best analog recordings of the 50s 60s 70s and even sometimes 80s.
And I do not feel that is my opinion or subjective bantor. It’s the truth.

So in my best Forest Gump impression I would like to end with. .........

Sorry for ruining your black panther party.
Was this written in response to me?^ I was literally just asking who you meant by "pro community" because this is a car audio forum and that could mean all sorts of things to different people.

I have no issues whatsoever with the fact that you like B&W. I've only owned their lower end stuff like Matrix 805 and for the $, it was good.

As for whether studios should be different than a perfect 2 channel set up, yes and no. It's not about some secret agenda to crapify stuff. We do work for artists though (or some people for labels) and most artists want to at least know their art is going to sound okay on the stereos that 95% of people use (not only ones with massive dynamics, super deep bass and really black noise floors). That said, most studios tend to mix back and forth between the perfect 2 channel and something smaller that is still quite accurate, just limited in what it can do. Yes, there are engineers out there who are dumb and want it to pop on a laptop. And there are plenty who have never heard a great system. I think it's a bit of a caricature though if you're saying that most/all engineers (if you mean pros) are like that these days. I personally do aim for the best sound I can get. But, I also check my stuff on more limited setups because honestly a great mix (say from the 60s/70s) sounds great even on a crap setup, and if my mix sounds really poor on a crap setup but pretty good on a "perfect" setup, the fact is it could probably sound a ton better on the perfect setup as well. Just my perspective on that.

You're totally welcome at my black panther party :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
Discussion Starter #46
PS. If this is "my" thread (it isn't) as in my BP party, I've totally lost control, haha. The agenda of "tonight's meeting" went out the window long ago.

Sublmnl, do you mix records?

PPS. not exactly a random question but what do you think of Michael Jackson records?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,275 Posts
Why would someone mix to the "lowest common denominator"? I'm confused, where did that idea come from? I've never had a band tell me "hey, we want this to sound good on an iphone speaker and don't care what it sounds like in our cars".



What exactly is "true to the original recording"? I mean defined in a way that isn't circular. Isn't it like saying "I want a photograph that looks like a photograph"? If a band told me that, I'd be like "So you want me to just leave all the faders at the same level, or uhh?? Should I not EQ anything? It's going more lows and low mids than anything in this genre, but okay".... I'm guessing you mean true to the original music. But then I wonder "the original music from whose perspective?". To an audience member? On stage? In the studio? Or through what microphone placed where? Do you mean how it sounds at a concert? Or do you mean the band without a PA system? There are very few genres where "true to the original" is like "ok, I know what you mean". Classical orchestra/choir/symphony is one because it's only ever played in one context (a large echoey room) - pretty much just determine how distant you want it to sound. Jazz, sorta. Some folk.



I wrote something much longer but figured we should start basic. In short though, most mix engineers mix on both full bandwidth speakers (I mean speaker system, with a woofer and tweeter, I don't mean "wideband" in the car audio sense of talking about a certain type of driver) and one pair of frequency restricted speakers (lacking bass definitely, and perhaps upper treble too). Bare minimum, the mix has to sound decent on both and they have to "agree" with each other - it has to sound like roughly the same mix. In other words, you can't stick a bunch of really important things in a mix that exist exclusively below 80Hz. If you do, many people will miss major elements of a song...



I'm not trying to be argumentative above. I'm trying to make sure I understand your questions (and that you do too).
Yeah, sorry about the "true to the original recording", you are correct "true to the original music" is what I meant.
Your post #12 mentions iPod/iPhone headphones might not be great but at least you know they'll have midrange. That sort of implies that you mix for the lowest common denominator.
And above, you cleared up all of my questions, you use both "crappy" and good sounding monitors to ensure every consumer gets a similar experience. You guys were totally confusing me with all of the talk about monitors with weird sonic qualities. But in the end, I understand, thanks for the explanation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,275 Posts
But then I wonder "the original music from whose perspective?". To an audience member? On stage? In the studio? Or through what microphone placed where? Do you mean how it sounds at a concert? Or do you mean the band without a PA system? There are very few genres where "true to the original" is like "ok, I know what you mean". Classical orchestra/choir/symphony is one because it's only ever played in one context (a large echoey room) - pretty much just determine how distant you want it to sound. Jazz, sorta. Some folk.
"True to the original music" would mean something like this; you set up the mixer board like you are only listening and not recording, levels of different instruments/mics set so they blend nicely and provide an enjoyable experience, like you would set up for a concert but it could be in a studio. Kind of like the experience that the Eagles "Hell Freezes Over" album conveys. I know it's not that simplistic, but I think I've explained what I meant with that idea.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
Discussion Starter #49
Yeah, I don't mix to lowest common denominator by any means. I've never checked a mix of mine on earbuds. That said, I do want it to at least sound good in my car (stock system, for now), cause what's the point if it's only "good" on perfect systems that very few people will ever hear... I hear ya on the true to original music. That approach works for some genres, or rather some bands' vision and not others. To really pull it off with extremely minimal mixing requires a band that's quite high caliber (not just at playing but at playing for recording, which is a different thing than regular live performance - the range of what "works" is narrower). That said, part of the reason this can't be the approach 90% of the time is that fewer than 10% of bands are like the Eagles, ya know? Most people need a bit more help. I don't mean insane amounts of editing, but volume automation of tracks, just basic stuff like that, is needed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,275 Posts
That said, part of the reason this can't be the approach 90% of the time is that fewer than 10% of bands are like the Eagles, ya know?
Oh yeah, I definitely know that. The "Hell Freezes Over" album is the only instance of live performance recording that I prefer over studio recordings.
 
41 - 50 of 50 Posts
Top