5 ms·

Considering things like gold-plated speaker cables and crystal sound purifiers, audio is also a very expensive game to play stupidly ;-)

by ygra 10y ago

cannam 10y ago
Studio audio technicians are not so easily fooled. I'm sure the field has its fair share of peculiar magic, but it's not like home audio. People who spend thousands on exotic speakers in the name of "transparency" in their home setup could do so much better in that respect with a pair of active studio monitors. But they might not like the results as much.
- doctorshady 10y ago
  Keep in mind though, the frequency response curve of studio monitors is more intended for pointing out flaws in a mix than enjoying music. Some of the engineers I've talked to pointed out that NS-10 monitors (once very poor selling consumer speakers, they've been considered legendary in studios for 25/+ years) are particularly harsh, and they don't enjoy listening to things on them when they don't have to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_NS-10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_NS-10 Things like Beats have frequency response curves that're basically a polar opposite from the NS-10s. Even less cringe-worthy headphones, like Sennheiser HD-280s have sort of a "smiley face" (dip from ~900-2800 hertz, while boosting very low and very high frequencies) EQ curve. Not to discredit them - they are good headphones, but in doing my own projects, I honestly feel like I've done better work on terrible sounding, $5 headphones.
  - hammock 10y ago
    "If it sounds good on NS10's it'll sound good on anything" I have fucked up a few mixes by using $5 headphones. But yes properly monitoring gear will point out flaws rather than make something sound good. When I get to the end of a mix (using Sony MDR7506's for example) and I think "man this sounds SO CLOSE but it's still a little shitty" then I'll go and check it on iPhone headphones or something and it'll sound fantastic.
    - lambdadmitry 10y ago
      >When I get to the end of a mix (using Sony MDR7506's for example) This. All that talk about "great detailed sound" that is "as close to the original as possible" of some $1000+ headphones and yet most music is done on something like $100 MDR-7506. Moreover, 7506s are very comfortable and sturdy, I can't comprehend why anyone in their mind would shell out hundreds or even thousands bucks for their "everyday" headphones (granted, noise-cancelling or sport-y ones are a bit different thing).
      - riprowan 10y ago
        > most music is done on something like $100 MDR-7506 Musicians wear headphones in studios when recording, but audio engineers pretty much never use headphones for mixing except as microscopes to listen in terrific detail for something in particular. Mix engineers mix on speakers almost exclusively.
        doctorshady 10y ago
        Considering how many people listen on headphones as opposed to past decades, would it not be a valid choice to do more headphone mixing?
        riprowan 10y ago
        It's true that you can "mix for the listening format." This is just my personal experience and opinion (and that of pretty much every audio engineer I've worked with): headphones lie. Ears are designed to perceive sounds in 3-space, not to have individual channels shot down the ear canal bypassing the outer ear, with a sealed transducer directly loading the eardrum. As an audio engineer, you're looking for the truth, and this isn't the way for your ears to best perceive it. Moreover headphones are generally fatiguing compared to a good set of studio monitors in a tuned control room. So the most representative mix - regardless of listening format - is going to come from speakers. I think most audio engineers are going to agree on this point. Some audio engineers "mix for the format" - I suppose if you want a mix that is optimized for headphones, then yes you're going to at least check the mix with headphones, but I still doubt many engineers would do the mix on headphones. Seasoned engineers know that listening fads come and go - the way to make a mix that will stand the test of time is to make a mix that sounds good on anything, and "good studio monitors in a good room" is going to get you there best.
cnvogel 10y ago
What makes these devices (e.g. the microphones, monitor speakers, the mixing console...) so hideously expensive isn't even the sound quality (even if I wouldn't expect anything short of the technically achievable performance in mic-preams, dynamic range/noise, ...). This equipment will have to run 24/7, be constantly worked on, be easy to service, will likely have redundant power-supplies, maybe redundant DSPs/Routing/I/O. And if anything breaks, you'd expect to get a 100% drop-in replacement (in terms of frequency response, gain, ...) delivered over-night, or by a courier/technician. Regarding the mixing consoles: For live-sound (the only area I know a little about), only recently a wealth of very affordable mixing-consoles have flooded the market, but anything slightly larger still sets you back ~€10k for an entry system (Midas Pro, Yamaha CL, Soundcraft VI, Allen-Heath GLD). And there, I suspect the number of units shipped is one or two orders of magnitude larger than what Lawo sells for fixed installation in studios. Generally, the equipment will work flawlessly, even when hauled around every weekend and not handled very gently.
riprowan 10y ago
You don't find real audio engineers using stuff like that. Gear has its place or it leaves the studio.
- ygra 10y ago
  That comment actually intended to say »Even when you have no clue about audio (i.e. are doing this for your home, not a studio), you can leave a lot of money (in this case unjustified). Apparently that wasn't clear enough :-)
superuser2 10y ago
A home stereo has to take maybe 2 channels through a hilariously blunt EQ stage (bass/treble knobs) and then up to suitable wattage for a pair of small speakers, which only need to sound right in an area of a couple square feet. I won't get into it all unless you want me to, but a system for live performance or broadcast has orders of magnitude more work to do, functionality which is demanded by a tiny market relative to consumer electronics, with far higher expectations on reliability, flexibility, etc. There are certainly people (Pyle, Behringer, etc) who claim to sell cheap solutions, but they are substantially more likely to bite you in the ass in concrete, embarrassing ways if you try to use them in performance environments.
- artine 10y ago
  > I won't get into it all unless you want me to... My experience is 100% studio and 0% live, and though I'm not ygra, if you're willing to type, I'd love to read.

Considering things like gold-plated speaker cables and crystal sound purifiers, audio is also a very expensive game to play stupidly ;-)

by ygra 10y ago

Considering things like gold-plated speaker cables and crystal sound purifiers, audio is also a very expensive game to play stupidly ;-)

cannam 10y ago

Studio audio technicians are not so easily fooled. I'm sure the field has its fair share of peculiar magic, but it's not like home audio. People who spend thousands on exotic speakers in the name of "transparency" in their home setup could do so much better in that respect with a pair of active studio monitors. But they might not like the results as much.

doctorshady 10y ago
Keep in mind though, the frequency response curve of studio monitors is more intended for pointing out flaws in a mix than enjoying music. Some of the engineers I've talked to pointed out that NS-10 monitors (once very poor selling consumer speakers, they've been considered legendary in studios for 25/+ years) are particularly harsh, and they don't enjoy listening to things on them when they don't have to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_NS-10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_NS-10 Things like Beats have frequency response curves that're basically a polar opposite from the NS-10s. Even less cringe-worthy headphones, like Sennheiser HD-280s have sort of a "smiley face" (dip from ~900-2800 hertz, while boosting very low and very high frequencies) EQ curve. Not to discredit them - they are good headphones, but in doing my own projects, I honestly feel like I've done better work on terrible sounding, $5 headphones.
- hammock 10y ago
  "If it sounds good on NS10's it'll sound good on anything" I have fucked up a few mixes by using $5 headphones. But yes properly monitoring gear will point out flaws rather than make something sound good. When I get to the end of a mix (using Sony MDR7506's for example) and I think "man this sounds SO CLOSE but it's still a little shitty" then I'll go and check it on iPhone headphones or something and it'll sound fantastic.
  - lambdadmitry 10y ago
    >When I get to the end of a mix (using Sony MDR7506's for example) This. All that talk about "great detailed sound" that is "as close to the original as possible" of some $1000+ headphones and yet most music is done on something like $100 MDR-7506. Moreover, 7506s are very comfortable and sturdy, I can't comprehend why anyone in their mind would shell out hundreds or even thousands bucks for their "everyday" headphones (granted, noise-cancelling or sport-y ones are a bit different thing).
    - riprowan 10y ago
      > most music is done on something like $100 MDR-7506 Musicians wear headphones in studios when recording, but audio engineers pretty much never use headphones for mixing except as microscopes to listen in terrific detail for something in particular. Mix engineers mix on speakers almost exclusively.
      - doctorshady 10y ago
        Considering how many people listen on headphones as opposed to past decades, would it not be a valid choice to do more headphone mixing?
        riprowan 10y ago
        It's true that you can "mix for the listening format." This is just my personal experience and opinion (and that of pretty much every audio engineer I've worked with): headphones lie. Ears are designed to perceive sounds in 3-space, not to have individual channels shot down the ear canal bypassing the outer ear, with a sealed transducer directly loading the eardrum. As an audio engineer, you're looking for the truth, and this isn't the way for your ears to best perceive it. Moreover headphones are generally fatiguing compared to a good set of studio monitors in a tuned control room. So the most representative mix - regardless of listening format - is going to come from speakers. I think most audio engineers are going to agree on this point. Some audio engineers "mix for the format" - I suppose if you want a mix that is optimized for headphones, then yes you're going to at least check the mix with headphones, but I still doubt many engineers would do the mix on headphones. Seasoned engineers know that listening fads come and go - the way to make a mix that will stand the test of time is to make a mix that sounds good on anything, and "good studio monitors in a good room" is going to get you there best.

cnvogel 10y ago

What makes these devices (e.g. the microphones, monitor speakers, the mixing console...) so hideously expensive isn't even the sound quality (even if I wouldn't expect anything short of the technically achievable performance in mic-preams, dynamic range/noise, ...). This equipment will have to run 24/7, be constantly worked on, be easy to service, will likely have redundant power-supplies, maybe redundant DSPs/Routing/I/O. And if anything breaks, you'd expect to get a 100% drop-in replacement (in terms of frequency response, gain, ...) delivered over-night, or by a courier/technician. Regarding the mixing consoles: For live-sound (the only area I know a little about), only recently a wealth of very affordable mixing-consoles have flooded the market, but anything slightly larger still sets you back ~€10k for an entry system (Midas Pro, Yamaha CL, Soundcraft VI, Allen-Heath GLD). And there, I suspect the number of units shipped is one or two orders of magnitude larger than what Lawo sells for fixed installation in studios. Generally, the equipment will work flawlessly, even when hauled around every weekend and not handled very gently.

riprowan 10y ago

You don't find real audio engineers using stuff like that. Gear has its place or it leaves the studio.

ygra 10y ago
That comment actually intended to say »Even when you have no clue about audio (i.e. are doing this for your home, not a studio), you can leave a lot of money (in this case unjustified). Apparently that wasn't clear enough :-)

superuser2 10y ago

A home stereo has to take maybe 2 channels through a hilariously blunt EQ stage (bass/treble knobs) and then up to suitable wattage for a pair of small speakers, which only need to sound right in an area of a couple square feet. I won't get into it all unless you want me to, but a system for live performance or broadcast has orders of magnitude more work to do, functionality which is demanded by a tiny market relative to consumer electronics, with far higher expectations on reliability, flexibility, etc. There are certainly people (Pyle, Behringer, etc) who claim to sell cheap solutions, but they are substantially more likely to bite you in the ass in concrete, embarrassing ways if you try to use them in performance environments.

artine 10y ago
> I won't get into it all unless you want me to... My experience is 100% studio and 0% live, and though I'm not ygra, if you're willing to type, I'd love to read.