5 ms·

I don't buy the accuracy argument for a second. By working only on the most expensive, rarified equipment, the only thing you're ensuring is that your own exper

I don't buy the accuracy argument for a second. By working only on the most expensive, rarified equipment, the only thing you're ensuring is that your own experience will be drastically different from 99.9% of end users. Imagine if the guy responsible for developing new recipes for McDonalds insists that his "creative work" only be done with organic Niman ranch beef.

SwellJoe 17y ago
I don't buy the accuracy argument for a second. Seriously? I hope you're not a designer, videographer, photographer, or recording engineer. Imagine if the guy responsible for developing new recipes for McDonalds insists that his "creative work" only be done with organic Niman ranch beef. The point. You missed it. You're not even close. It's way over there. The monitor is the measuring cups, not the ingredients.
- Retric 17y ago
  It's generally a poor assumption that averaging a huge number of inaccurate devices is going to end up with the same sound as one high quality set. I would support finding out what the "average" home equipment sounds like, but suggest "perfection" is the best approximation is laughable. For example, the average single cone speaker is going to be setup to handle mid range sounds ok, but it's going to miss highs and lows. I think the real advantage is people get used to how their system adjusts music. So by following the convention it's going to sound "normal" to them.
anigbrowl 17y ago
Yes, your experience will be different from that of most end users. But it will be minimally biased - you won't be baking in the settings that sound good on one set of cheap speakers but which would sound like total ass on other ones where cost has been saved in other ways. For example, many hifi and computer speakers come with some kind of bass boost. If I edit something using speakers like that there will be little or no bass on speakers which don't have that 'feature'. Or if I go in the other direction and finish on speakers that sound rather thin, the result will be an unmerciful honking noise on anything with a bass boost. Using a pair of (moderately) expensive speakers means I can split the difference, and know that while it will never sound as good as I'd like on consumer speakers, it will never sound too awful either. If you still don't think it matters, watch some short films or videos on YouTube. Then take even a modest Hollywood movie and notice how vastly, enormously better it sounds. Obsessing over sound and color seems trivial to those who don't have to work on content, but the very fact that most people take these things for granted is what fuels that obsession: because people are so sensitive they notice very quickly if the quality is off, even if they can't articulate why.
- potatolicious 17y ago
  Also, cheap components have a ridiculous degree of variance. As a designer you need your work to look/sound the same on all of the tools you use. That shade of blue should not look blue-er on one monitor in your studio.

SwellJoe 17y ago

I don't buy the accuracy argument for a second. Seriously? I hope you're not a designer, videographer, photographer, or recording engineer. Imagine if the guy responsible for developing new recipes for McDonalds insists that his "creative work" only be done with organic Niman ranch beef. The point. You missed it. You're not even close. It's way over there. The monitor is the measuring cups, not the ingredients.

Retric 17y ago
It's generally a poor assumption that averaging a huge number of inaccurate devices is going to end up with the same sound as one high quality set. I would support finding out what the "average" home equipment sounds like, but suggest "perfection" is the best approximation is laughable. For example, the average single cone speaker is going to be setup to handle mid range sounds ok, but it's going to miss highs and lows. I think the real advantage is people get used to how their system adjusts music. So by following the convention it's going to sound "normal" to them.

anigbrowl 17y ago

Yes, your experience will be different from that of most end users. But it will be minimally biased - you won't be baking in the settings that sound good on one set of cheap speakers but which would sound like total ass on other ones where cost has been saved in other ways. For example, many hifi and computer speakers come with some kind of bass boost. If I edit something using speakers like that there will be little or no bass on speakers which don't have that 'feature'. Or if I go in the other direction and finish on speakers that sound rather thin, the result will be an unmerciful honking noise on anything with a bass boost. Using a pair of (moderately) expensive speakers means I can split the difference, and know that while it will never sound as good as I'd like on consumer speakers, it will never sound too awful either. If you still don't think it matters, watch some short films or videos on YouTube. Then take even a modest Hollywood movie and notice how vastly, enormously better it sounds. Obsessing over sound and color seems trivial to those who don't have to work on content, but the very fact that most people take these things for granted is what fuels that obsession: because people are so sensitive they notice very quickly if the quality is off, even if they can't articulate why.

potatolicious 17y ago
Also, cheap components have a ridiculous degree of variance. As a designer you need your work to look/sound the same on all of the tools you use. That shade of blue should not look blue-er on one monitor in your studio.