2. misc-audio
  3. 129359-231

Recording Studio sound Vs. Audiophile system

Has anyone had the opportunity to compare what they hear in a recording studio vs. What they hear in their own system?

i recently had a friend come over and Listen to the album they had just recorded and mixed with a fantastic NYC engineer. The drums were recorded analog in a large studio (the way top albums are) while the rest was recorded digitally.

I was was quite impressed with the sound as the engineer captured the full envelope and dynamic shadings (for a rock record, that is). In fact the engineer doesn’t even allow people to take pictures of his mic positions or Pro tools session settings- I can hear why he’s protective of his secret sauce.


I pushed her for a comparison of what she heard in the studio vs. What she was hearing in my system. She commented that she could hear much more in my system vs. The studio, and would have mixed the vocals diferrently!

I cautioned her to make sure the mastering she was planning on having done doesn’t squash the life out of the tracks, or introduce subtle distortion in an attempt to win the "loudness wars."

I’m getting ready to do a blumlein Stereo recording for another friend in my space and Tonight I played some tracks the Rupert Neve company uploaded comparing seperate guitar and vocal tracks with 2 difference mic pre amps, so perspective buyers can compare. (One I own and one is a newer design/flavor)

https://m.soundcloud.com/rupertnevedesigns/sets/shelford-channel-and-portico-ii-channel-comparison

In an interview The engineer that recorded the demo tracks seemed to prefer the newer preamp over the one I own, as he felt it emulated some of the Classic Neve units and had a bigger sound.

Upon listening to the naked tracks in my system ( Tad cr1’s + PS Audio/Atmasphere electronics and top power conditioning) it was so obvious the newer (retro) design was glossing over the details the older more transparent Portico II design easily revealed.

In fact I could hear lots of flaws in the recording, eq, breath pops, ) with the more transparent pre amp.

My point is that often listening to recordings on my system I think " if only the engineer / producer could hear their work on a system of this level (and in a big room) their aesthetic and technical choices would provide much better recordings.

I often hear to me what sounds like mic pre amp subtly distorting or hitting their dynamic threshold (gain set too high or low) , which makes the sound brittle or hard.

Anyone else with studio vs. Audiophile experience who can chime in?

I know hearing a multi track master can be an incredible and dynamic experience but I’m referring more to the final mixes.
emailists
lowrider57's avatar
lowrider57
3,018 posts
 
It's been my experience that in a control room, engineers use equalizers and acoustic treatments to set up the room to measure as flat as possible. Having said that, the recording/mixing engineer is listening to the monitors in a near-field situation and is exposed to colourations of the speakers and amps.

As far as audiophile gear in the recording studio, the top studios use very high-end monitoring systems. A quick google search showed that some of the top studios in the world use B&W, Tannoy, Dynaudio monitors and Bryston or Classe amps. And what a surprise; they still have a set of Auratones in the room.
When I was mixing (on a much smaller scale) I was in analogue studios in which JBL was widely used for monitoring. Plus we had Auratone mini-monitors where we would check the final mix because it simulated the sound of a car stereo or a cheap stereo.

the engineers have to know their monitors and rooms and try to predict what the end user will hear with no idea of where it will end up being played. I don’t think they look for harmonic textures as much as balance and eq settings to get the track to sound how they want.
I agree with @chayro and @bdp24 in that the engineer is looking for a balanced mix, which does not include any of the qualities desired by the audiophile. But, and this is a big but, the producer always has the final decision. This is often unfortunate because a producer may have a certain "signature sound" that he imparts to the final mix.
 
lowrider57's avatar
lowrider57
3,018 posts
 
So far, I assume we have been discussing Rock music production. Jazz and Classical would be treated very differently as far as the use of effects and compression. I once mixed down a Classical performance for PBS, syncing picture and sound, and the producer had the full score laid out on his desk. No effects were added, only EQ.
bdp24's avatar
bdp24
4,908 posts
 

I just watched a video on Michael Fremer’s Alanog Planet website in which he visits a couple of mastering studios. Sterling Sound in NYC is one of them, and in their monitoring system is a pair of Pass amps and Rythmik subwoofers, plus a pair of floor-standing speakers I don’t recognize. Sterling is well known for their superior mastering work, which includes many audiophile LP’s.

Another AP video is of a visit to a few recording studios, and they all have a pair of Yamaha NS10’s sitting on the console, plus 15" woofers and horns built into their monitor room wall. The only studio I’m aware of that uses audiophile speakers as monitors is Barry Diament’s Soundkeeper, in which Barry has a pair of Magnepan MG3.7. He has each 3.7 mounted on a square piece of plywood, with a trio of roller bearings sitting between the plywood and the studio floor, to achieve seismic isolation.

lowrider57's avatar
lowrider57
3,018 posts
 
@bdp24 , now you've brought up an entirely new subject; the mastering studio. I would imagine a top-tier studio would have to have gear that reproduces "audiophile" quality. Too bad mastering engineers are at the mercy of The Loudness Wars or the latest trends.

BTW, did you see any Yamaha monitors using tissue over the tweeters? :-)
steakster
720 posts
 
@gregkohanmim   Thx for contributing from the perspective of a working professional.   Very informative.
More to discover