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

Showing 3 responses by bdp24

Auratones and Yamaha NS10's were in the control/monitoring room of just about every studio I recorded at in L.A. during the 80's and 90's. Some of them also had large Altec "monitors" (Voice Of The Theater) or other 15" woofer/compression horn systems built into a wall of the room. In the 2000's I started seeing Westlake (a Pro sound company) self-powered speakers, and British Tannoy monitors. Smaller studios (including home studios) often have Mackie speakers and sometimes subs.

The vast majority of engineers are not trying to achieve the "natural timbre" and "uncolored" sound audiophiles judge speakers by, let alone the depth and soundstage valued by them. It is a "good" sounding mix the engineer is going for, good being a very subjective and relative term. The timbre and tonality of acoustic instruments (including vocals) is almost always subjected to parametric equalization, compression, limiting, gating, and electronic reverb. Microphones are not selected for their "accuracy", but for their character. For instance, many engineers record snare drums with a Shure SM57, a mic with a deliberate presence peak built in, appropriate for it's intended use as a stage vocal mic.

The final test of a mix is made by playing the new recording and comparing it to a commercially released hit album CD, A/Bing them back-to-back. The idea is to make the new recording sound as "punchy" and "loud" as the CD. The relationship between the frequency response of the monitor(s) and the sound of the recording is not taken into consideration. J. Gordon Holt long ago found that many recordings were equalized to compensate for deviations from flat response in the speaker used to monitor the recording; play the recording on a speaker possessing flat response, and you hear the colorations built into the recording to make it sound natural on the monitor speaker that is itself colored.

You never see audiophile speakers in U.S. studios---no Vandersteen, Wilsons, Magneplanar, KEF, Spendor, Thiel, Magico, or any other brand found in high end home systems. It's a wonder Pop recordings sound as good as they do!


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.

lowrider---Tracking and mixing engineers (typically two separate individuals in big-time recording) often taped tissue paper over the tweeters of the Yamahas, to tame the speaker's hot tweeter. Yamaha took notice, and offered a version of the NS-10 with a slightly less emphasized treble, the NS-10s I believe.