Travis In Austin

Terrible above 12K, but the ringing is gone. Between flying, rock concerts and hunting, all without protection, it's gone forever. The reference standard to do work such as mixing and mastering is either 80(I forget) or 85 (AES) db because this is the level that humans have the best frequency response. I prefer the lower of those two for careful listening. I don't think I could do 85db for very long. I wear earplugs at most concerts (rock, opera, symphonic). I worry about the earbud generations, I think they are all at way above 85 db for extended periods of time.

It is a great book, and his book on studio speakers/monitors is even more on point and I highly reccomend that as well. He has written extensively about the NS-10. Newell does discuss the reality of it all as follows: "In an interview in EQ magazine in June 1993, George Massenburg, one of the world’s pre-eminent recording engineers and producers, said ‘I believe that there are no ultimate reference monitor systems, and no “golden ears” to tell you that there are. The standards may depend on the circumstances. For an individual, a monitor either works or it doesn’t ....Much may be lost when one relies on an outsider’s judgement and recommendations’. Also, it is worth repeating (from Section 2.4.1) that about a hundred years earlier, Baron Rayleigh, one of the true giants of acoustical research, stated ‘The sensation of sound is a thing sui generis, not comparable to our other sensations. Directly or indirectly, all questions connected, with this subject must come for decision to the ear, as the organ of hearing, and from it there can be no appeal.’" PREFERENCE The factions do persist to this day, but they appear to be manufacturer driven or who has done what lately that sounded spectacular. How JBL got in the market is very well documented. The BBC monitor is even better documented than that. The NS-10 came about because Clearmountain and a couple of other "freelance" engineers needed portable monitors that they could take from studio to studio as a constant reference. The engineer was becoming more a part of the production process and there was more and more demand to have a particular engineer on a project, regardless of the studio where it was being recorded. When other engineers heard that Clearmountain did album X on NS-10s, or when he gave interviews about using them on Avalon by Roxy Music other engineers wanted to have them. I don't think there is anything new about that. Where it got weird is that in interviews he said he used tissue paper to cut the brightness of the tweeters. Then engineers wanted to know what brand of tissue paper he was using and what thickness. For those that are convinced I must be making this all up, please see: Examining the Yamaha NS-10M “Tissue Paper Phenomenon”An Analysis of the Industry-Wide Practice of Using a Tissue-Paper Layer to Reduce High-Frequency OutputRecording Engineer/Producer Magazine, February 1986 – by Bob Hodas http://www.bobhodas.com/examining-the-yamaha-ns-10m.php "The rest, as they say, is history. Clearmountain in particular was (as he is now) a first-call producer and engineer for the biggest projects, and once he and a few others began to rely on the NS10, the phenomenon grew like a virus inhabiting a welcoming host: studios began to buy NS10s in their thousands in an effort to attract name engineers. Of course, in order to thrive, a virus needs a host to which it is particularly well suited, and this was provided by the rapidly increasing number of freelance engineers I described earlier. When engineers heard that he did album X on NS-10s, or when he gave interviews about using them on Avalon by Roxy Music other engineers wanted to have them. I don't think there is anything new about that. Where it got weird is that in interviews he said he used tissue paper to cut the brightness of the tweeters. Then engineers wanted to know what brand of tissue paper he was using and what thickness. " Unfortunately, from the time I was a kid, I read every recording industry magazine that came to our door addressed to my Dad. It has always fascinated me, I suppose because I got to see it first hand in a few studios he would drag me along to in Los Angeles and the Bay Area while growing up. I still subscribe to Mix, Sound on Sound, Tape Op and a half dozen others so I can know a bunch of useless information about how a particular album was recorded, mixed or mastered. You never know when you might need to "de-brighten" a pair of studio monitors armed only with a roll of toilet paper.

Wait, really? I thought there was a direct correlation between the number and perceived sound quality. The higher the number the better the sound. That isn't true? Oh no. What to do, what to do. If that's the case I guess we will have to go back to trusting our ears.

And it doesn't even matter. If he can get a preferred sound from freeware across his whole library he has hit the goal of most audiophiles. It doesn't matter that his preferred listening taste is the result of cd mastering from a master production tape (tape sent to pressing facilities with RIAA as, yes there are 1000s of cds that were originally mastered.from production tapes, ask Diamant about having to do that), or the limitations of tape, or a plug in used during tracking, or eq, or compression at tracking and mixing? I have never understood why the source of the eq or compression mattered. If you can fix it to your liking, fix it. Unfortunately, the loudness wars all gets blamed on mastering, and I guess it is easy to blame eq preferences not being met on mastering as well. Does it matter if it happens at mixing or mastering? Only when the mix is messed up and it they have to try and fix it at mastering. Those guys never get the credit for saving some very, very bad stuff.

It's because he makes the assumption based on working backwards. So logically it appears.to make sense. People who actually do it, select microphones, determine placement, settings on amp or DI, tracking, mixing and them mastering know what is accurate and which assumptions are faulty. None of the mixing and mastering people who are at the top of their field subscribe to the conclusions either.

@Combover Mastering, I told you they were going to want a DR number.

Everyone has a different goal with this. @Chris A wants pleasing sound (preference) @Bonehead Jr and @Combover Mastering have to satisfy a client AND try to make it pleasing to the masses. The client, which is whatever is in their head, subject to being guided or persuaded by professionals. @Combover Mastering and @Bonehead Jr. Did you provide them alternate mastered versions to chose from? I know this costs more and not everyone can afford it. Good studio monitors hopefully allow the mixers and.mastering engineer the ability to try and approach everyone's goals. I'm surprised that @Chief bonehead did his flat to 26hz. Most of the iconic near field monitors only go down to about 100hz (NS-10, BBC LS3/5A) the 4310 went to about 45 or 50 I believe. In 70s 80s and 90s studio monitors were expected to be accurate to detect problems and address them. Now they need to "TRANSLATE" for mixing and mastering. You need monitor that allows you to mix and master for car radio, head phones, streaming speakers, and the average stereo system. Sometimes the goals converge, sometimes not. Thanks to Chief Bonehead everyone is going to be bitching about not enough Bass. @Bonehead Jr. You better put a shelving filter in the monitor output to correct for that😀

Great stuff.

Did you have a chance to look at the links that @wvu80 posted above? I'm not sure if the answers are in there, but I think it would give you a head start. Travis

Thank you for posting the "before" 2 track mix tape versions and the "after" master tape version after mastering. People can compare for themselves what mastering does to a raw mix down tape. There is a common misconception among some audiophiles that mastering is a destructive and unnecessary process only utilized at the insistence of record company executives to get a louder record using massive compression and limiting along with unnecessary equalization. Why that may be true in some cases, or with certain types of music, people here can listen to those files and determine for themselves whether the mastered version is an improvement over the raw mix. Most people have never had the opportunity to hear a raw mix down tape before mastering is undertaken. Unfortunately they are left with the impression that if the end product has too much compression, or too much eq, or other type processing they assume this was done in during mastering, as opposed to further up the chain during mixing or tracking. Thus (I believe) the reason for Roy @Chief bonehead giving the title to this post that he did. I think the other thing that most people who have an appreciation for well recorded music would be shocked to see is the studio monitors that are utilized for musician playback, mixing and mastering. I guess it's like that old adage about seeing how sausage is made. They would be quite surprised to know that some of the most revered studios, mix and mastering engineers had used a pair of Yamaha NS-10s to achieve the results of the final product. Seeing a pair of grot boxes like the Auratone 5C would be too much for many to bear. I hope the Klipsch Delgado Studio monitors take off like the NS-10 did back in the day. Travis

I was thinking same thing. We have a few that are wall mounted. I saw somewhere mounts or adapters that let you attach a sound bar to top or bottom. Anyone know who makes those?

They are.going to wonder why you need this. They will wonder if you smooshed it and what the DR number is. They are also going to want to know why you would possibly need eq if it was tracked and mixed so well. Obviously it was those super accurate monitors you have that let you tweak it even better😀. Great, great sound!

That would be awesome!

There is too many anyway

You should hear Forte III's or 396s.

That makes no sense.

HERITAGE THEATER BAR Handcrafted in Hope, AR with domestic and imported components, the Klipsch Heritage Theater Bar offers furniture-grade cabinetry and powerful sound bar performance in a premium package – custom made to fit virtually any TV. Available from 54”-80”, the Klipsch Heritage Theater Bar is made to order and sized specifically to match your television’s width with a complete left, center and right three-channel output. Choose from a wide variety of wood veneers and grille cloths to perfectly integrate premium audio into any room aesthetic.

I didn't see the part where it said most speaker designs were made by 1930 and technology only made them cheaper. I did see this: "A system was even mounted at the 1939 New York World’s Fair, this one designed by Rudy Bozak, who worked for Cinaudagraph." The Museum had one of the drivers from this system plus literature about the system and driver. I also saw this last sentence: "Since then [1955] there have been many improvements to both sound quality and strength, which is why loudspeakers are still in use today." Really?

Have not read the article yet, but if you look at Horn and driver or a pape cone speaker in an enclosurer, then yeah they are all the same. If you look at sensitivity, frequency response and distortion, nothing is the same. Interesting to see how the article glosses over patents.

Somebody say "Constitution"?

Here is a link to the official Klipsch CES 2018 page. I am told that the page will be updated daily with photos and news of That day's events. I'm not sure if that will be a separate page or if the blog will appear on the same page, maybe @Chad knows. If it is a seperate link I will add it in here. http://www.klipsch.com/ces-2018

+1.

You are referencing the famous Stereo Review test from 30 years ago conducted by an audio skeptic, David Clark. Your close on the equipment, Pioneer receiver, Marl Levinson ML-11, about 2,000, but it was $12,000 Futterman Monoblocks! People could tell differences, and they could have preferences. People often miss out on what Clark's point was in all of this: your money is better spent on speakers and source (higher level turntable and cartridge). Everything else in the chain, phono, preamp, cartridge, tonearm was top of the line. Most people can't even remember the speakers used, only that a Pioneer receiver beat a 12,000 pair of Monoblocks. There is a marked difference in DBT an audio component (like an amp) and a pair of speakers. There is scientific validity, if done right, on DBT of speakers, across a number of peer reviewed journals. I agree that it is nigh on impossible to come up with a valid way of ABing a component like an amp. I think Clark's method was flawed. Two amps were compared at a time, but listeners were told 3. The 3rd they were asked to name when in fact is was either A or Buddhist they had already heard. But you can conduct speaker test where people can listen and select their preference, which is capable of being duplicated over and over. You can compare groups of people, like audio reviewers with high school students. People in the US with people in Japan. One of 100 examples http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2012/11/behind-harmans-testing-lab.html From there you can try and determine what common objective data is shared by the "preferred" speakers. Harmon Int'l has concluded it is flat frequency response. They claim they have a correlation of .86 as to what people will predictably prefer. Above video two online audio guys picked the cheapest of 4 speakers as sounding best (which were Harman), and one of them ranked a set of Polk speakers worst (which he owned). It may very well in fact be the case that differences in capacitors in a network are of the "minute" sort of difference that are not capable of being accurately A/B tested. I don't know. You can most certainly tell the difference between speakers in DBT, can express a preference, and it some cases, that will even save you money. If it sounds good to the buyer, they are happy, and perfectly ok with paying more for caps of their choice, who cares? Of course that goes both ways. If it isn't worth the price, or if they can't tell the difference, or even prefer Jensen, or PIO, or Sprague, etc., who cares? If it were me, I would suggest that people are just unsure, build one speaker with El Cheepo brand, and one set of with expensive Brand de jour and let em decide for themselves. If they love brand de Jour they can just order another set. If they don't like the de Jour they can sell them in Garage Sale and not be out the full amount.

Matt, How can we buy a High Rez version?

I think that sums up the entire exercise. Well said.