[Freo-1]

Some of the recent discussions about speakers sparked a question about speaker design goals.  The question is:  Should audiophiles look to speakers that are used for mastering?  My own experience has changed my view on speakers markedly. 

Well designed mastering speakers tend to reveal both the good qualities as well as the bad qualities of recordings.  They will not sound overly sweet or euphonic, but instead will sound accurate and detailed.  They will also be able to play loud when called upon (high spl), and not suffer from breakup or distortionas much as most commercial speakers. 

Makes one wonder why audiophiles don't seek out mastering speakers more often. 


http://mastering-media.blogspot.com/2008/05/diy-mastering-part-3-mastering-speakers.html

[JerryM]

To answer your question: I don't think audiophiles should look away from them for the sole reason that they are Mastering speakers.

However, listening to a demo of Mastering speakers in an audiophile listening environment is nearly impossible. Applicable reviews are also nearly impossible to find.

Unless and until the Mastering Speaker industry embraces and enables the audiophile, the speakers will likely remain overlooked by audiophiles.

Have fun,

Jerry

[dflee]

I think it depends on the type of listening that is being done. If I remember correctly Lou of Deadilus and Legacy Audio both boast of use in recording studios. I have heard some monitors (near field) used for mastering I definitely wouldn't use in my home but are praised in the studio.

Don

[newzooreview]

What's a "mastering speaker"?

Harbeth and B+W are used in some of the finest recording studios, yet many would (incorrectly) dismiss them as just a pleasing, warm, adulterated "British" sound. Other studios use self-powered JBLs with etched treble to tease out details (so I've read--haven't heard them). Many studio speakers are designed for near-field listening and close placement to boundaries. That could work in your home, but what if you had more space to give the speakers? Could you do better without the compromise of the cramped studio setting?

Could studios do better with speakers more typically used in home systems? Should they be giving themselves more room to use audiophile speakers rather than something with compromises to fit their space constraints? Are those compromises functionally irrelevant? Can't you design a speaker to be excellent for a room requirement that will fail in another setting?

[JohnR]

I have no "skin in the game" since I don't buy commercial/off the shelf speakers any more, but I think there is a fundamental difference in how a recording professional views speakers (or electronics), compared to an audiophile. The former sees them as a tool that helps get a better final result, more sales / higher chart ratings, more jobs, etc. The latter sees them as the vehicle to a pleasurable experience, and is thus also prone to various "philosophical" predilections such as the use of certain types of amplification, certain types of speaker, all the way down to wires and capacitors, and (for example, no offense Freo) memes such as "I should use at home what the recording engineer used in the studio".

[JLM]

Most "Mastering Speakers" are active 2-way monitors intended for near field use while sitting on a bridge over the recording counsel.  They are also intended to provide a dry, very flat frequency response, and be extremely detailed (all adding up to a fatiguing experience) while most audiophiles' primary goal is simply to be entertained (leaning to a lush/warm sound).  I've auditioned several of the cheaper professional monitors and was not impressed (or entertained).  But among some of the professional reviews you can find those who use "X" brand/model and then after long days of studio work go home to listen some more where they listen to "X" or "Y" brand/model.  Those are the ones I search for (both accurate and enjoyable).  Some are even flaunted as being 'room filling'.  Keep in mind that a few (KEF, Paradigm, and Quad for example) are even designed/marketed for home use. 

Please note that active and powered speakers are different.  While powered speakers (such as Audio Engine) have amps selected by the designer to work well with the drivers, that's it's only real sonic advantage over typical audio (passive) speakers.  On the other hand active design has additional huge inherent design advantages.  Those who have smaller spaces, limited budgets, or just want a simpler system should look into active monitors but be prepared to do more homework to find their right choice.

[Freo-1]

Thanks for all the feedback.  The intent was to discuss mastering speakers in general (advantages and limitations), and question if audiophiles should seek them out for auditioning.  One does not often see those types of speakers at the high end audio shows, but perhaps they should get more involved with those.  The mastering speakers I've come across over the years have all been pretty impressive. 

The suggestion about active monitors is a good one. 

[spence]

Most of the pro (notice I said "pro") mastering houses I see use expensive full range home stereo speakers like B&W, Wilson, Dunlavey, Legacy, etc. I seldom ever see 2 way active nearfield speakers in a true mastering scenario, but plenty of those are used in the recording studio, which is a whole different animal. I'm not saying that there aren't smaller mastering guys who use 2 ways, it's just not the norm. I say go for it if you can afford the type of speakers used in mastering. Just make sure you have a decent size room with good acoustical treatment. Large full range speakers used in mastering sound great in the right setting.

[Diamond Dog]

Metropolis Studios - London. 4825 watts. Room-filling. Hope you've got understanding neighbors. 

"Audiophiles" or people who just enjoy music for that matter should ignore dogma and seek out whatever speakers sound best to them, work in their given situations and keep their marriages intact. Even if it means getting ATC's... even that.

D.D.

[JLM]

I thought that post-production mixing was done for the producer's benefit (who is under financial pressure to make it sound good for a wide market who typically listen via MP3, in the car, boom boxes, earbuds, FM, and just maybe audio/videophile gear).

[Freo-1]

I thought that post-production mixing was done for the producer's benefit (who is under financial pressure to make it sound good for a wide market who typically listen via MP3, in the car, boom boxes, earbuds, FM, and just maybe audio/videophile gear).

I would think that something along the lines of a Yamaha NS-10 is more likely used for pop music played on mp3, streaming, etc. 

[JLM]

Freo-1, yes the Yamaha NS-10 was known for sounding like cheap consumer hi-fi and so it became iconic in the studio, but with the increased use of higher quality consumer playback (MP3 vs cassette, decent headphones/earbuds, even A/V systems) the NS-10 has been (thankfully) retired.

[Glenn Kuras]

Freo-1, yes the Yamaha NS-10 was known for sounding like cheap consumer hi-fi and so it became iconic in the studio, but with the increased use of higher quality consumer playback (MP3 vs cassette, decent headphones/earbuds, even A/V systems) the NS-10 has been (thankfully) retired.

For the most part yes, but you would be surprised how some of the younger kids want them.  Honestly I think they just want it because they think it is old-school-cool. 

[spence]

There's a lot of good reading at the Mastering Forum on the Gearslutz website. There are some folks who use near/mid field studio (meaning recording studio) monitors for mastering, but if you look, you'll see the big name, high dollar, stereo speakers in most of the big time mastering studios. There are some crossover 3 way speakers that can be used for both recording and mastering, but they are usually smaller in size, and the mastering guys usually want to be engulfed in a huge soundstage which is why you see the big  tall speakers in their mastering suites.  I usually don't see a "category" for "mastering speakers" when shopping for speakers. You usually see home stereo (or hifi) speakers or recording studio monitors. Mastering guys usually use regular home stereo speakers, albeit the big expensive ones. Just so everyone knows, recording studios and mastering suites are 2 different things.

Pertaining to the picture above, those big speakers are usually there to please the client with a big loud sound when listening to playback of what they just recorded.  More or less for a "wow" factor. I'm pretty sure that's a recording studio , not a mastering suite.

[BPT]

Some use Lapinski L-707s.

[Diamond Dog]

Pertaining to the picture above, those big speakers are usually there to please the client with a big loud sound when listening to playback of what they just recorded.  More or less for a "wow" factor. I'm pretty sure that's a recording studio , not a mastering suite.

In this video, you'll get to see the inside of a mastering suite at Metropolis. The speakers in there aren't exactly petite either.

http://www.musicradar.com/news/tech/watch-mastering-engineer-mazen-murad-master-a-track-574447

D.D.

[Freo-1]

Some use Lapinski L-707s.

I can see why.  They have excellent reviews.

[JLM]

For the most part yes, but you would be surprised how some of the younger kids want them.  Honestly I think they just want it because they think it is old-school-cool. 

"Old school" is relative.   

With all these high-powered/high-end speakers, is there any effort to address bass room effects (doubling/cancelation due to reflective wave phenomenon)?  I'm thinking of Floyd E. Toole's use of multiple dispersed subwoofers to even the in-room bass response.  From the images I've found, there are room treatments, but little else to suggest that this has been addressed.

[Freo-1]

"Old school" is relative.   

With all these high-powered/high-end speakers, is there any effort to address bass room effects (doubling/cancelation due to reflective wave phenomenon)?  I'm thinking of Floyd E. Toole's use of multiple dispersed subwoofers to even the in-room bass response.  From the images I've found, there are room treatments, but little else to suggest that this has been addressed.

Interesting.  When I called SVS about getting a subwoofer(s) to complement the monitors, their expert recommended that based on my speakers and electronics, they recommend a single SB 13 Ultra as opposed to a pair of more modest sealed 12" subs.  It took a bit to "dial it in", but his recommendation has worked out in my room. 

I do think multiple subs is ideal. 

[JLM]

I looked up a couple of references to 'Mastering Speakers' and found that they should possess the following qualities:

1. Flat frequency response, 20 - 20,000 Hz
2. Accurate phase response to allow for good stereo imaging and deep/convincing sound staging
3. Wide/controlled dynamic range (without distortion at high sound pressure levels)
4. Revealing/accurate
5. Clinical (does not provide enhancement but sounds 'dry' to the point of almost being boring/bland)
6. Unforgiving (so that bad recordings can't hide)

If we can agree that this is a reasonable good list of attributes that describe 'Mastering Speakers' we can proceed to debate the question at hand.

My priorities stop after #4.  #5 doesn't sound enjoyable or entertaining to me.  And #6 would remove poor recordings of great music from my routine playlist.