[Ethan Winer]

How do you know what the recording engineer wanted you to hear?  How do you know that rolled off highs are not what he/she wanted?

I'm addressing only what happens in the listener's room. The best a mixing or mastering engineer can aim for is to make the music sound pleasing on a system that is as flat as possible. Then ideally the listener has a system that's as flat as possible too, to hear at least a good approximation of what was intended. But adding distortion or EQ during playback can only take you farther from what the engineer heard, unless the playback EQ is compensating for deficiencies in the listener's system.

--Ethan

[Kevin Haskins]

"What aggravates me is that we don't have a standard in the recording industry for mastering.   People use all types of mastering systems and acoustical environments to evaluate the final product.    How do you know what the recording engineer wanted you to hear?  How do you know that rolled off highs are not what he/she wanted?   He may have been using Auratone 5Cs, or Yamaha NS-10M for monitoring and listening in the near-field, where the response changes drastically with position.   Those are obviously much different then listening in the far field in a normally reflective room with a pair of speakers with drastically different power response. 

The problem starts with the lack of standards on the mastering side.   If we had a standard there, we would then be able to meaningfully talk about what we should get on the playback side.  "

====================

I have to think about this. Good points- but I don't know if it has to be this complicated.  I have recordings where the highs are rolled off and some where they are not. I don't believe you have to take it back as far as the recording studio. We have no control over anything on the 'other side' of the CD or LP. 

Have you ever used a thundering rainstorm as a test? It's incredibly detailed, contains a plethora of frequencies, has a sound stage and only works well with Hi-Def audio systems.  Of course the storm has to be VERY well recorded. It's easy to mess such recording up, especially the thundering part.  The listener has to acclimate themselves to the recording as well. There's so much detail it will take a few listening sessions to ascertain what's going on.

No... I have a barrage of recordings that I use for voicing, none of them rainstorms.  If I'm designing something, I try to use recordings that my consumers would use.   I also have a bias for music that I like or would listen to myself.   I tend to design partially for personal satisfaction so that factors into the mix also.

Things like rainstorms I would guess are highly ambient in nature.   Succesfully recreating it is going to depend upon the reverbiant field and hence the listening room.   I tend to design one speaker at a time, voicing it in mono for timbre accuracy first.   I do so in a warehouse so it is far from your typical listening environment.   Only after I have a set of good measurements and a "go" on the timbre accuracy do I move them into a listening room and start listening in stereo.   I've found that it takes very little for me to give them the final "ok" once I move them into the listening room.   

 

[Kevin Haskins]

How do you know what the recording engineer wanted you to hear?  How do you know that rolled off highs are not what he/she wanted?

I'm addressing only what happens in the listener's room. The best a mixing or mastering engineer can aim for is to make the music sound pleasing on a system that is as flat as possible. Then ideally the listener has a system that's as flat as possible too, to hear at least a good approximation of what was intended. But adding distortion or EQ during playback can only take you farther from what the engineer heard, unless the playback EQ is compensating for deficiencies in the listener's system.

--Ethan

Ah... but wouldn't be nice if we had a standard mastering environment?   And... what is flat?   We know that the subjective impression is formed by the total power response of the loudspeaker and the environment where it is reproduced.    Wouldn't it make the most sense that we had a standard in the world of "professional audio" whereby the loudspeaker, room and seating position where standardized?  Wouldn't it also be constructive to know the hearing acuity of the engineer?     Otherwise, we never really know what is heard by the mastering engineer unless we recreate their individual environment exactly and have the same hearing acuity of the mastering engineer.

My main point is that there is some ambiguity in how a loudspeaker should be voiced.   A loudspeaker with wide dispersion over the entire bandwidth that measures flat on-axis sounds completely different than a loudspeaker with a narrow dispersion over most of the bandwidth that measures flat on-axis.    When you throw in the differences in listening environments, you throw yet another monkey wrench into the equation.   

 

[Niteshade]

Kevin-

That would be **tough** !!

What about computer generated music? AKA: MIDI?

It would be completely instrumental, but you set the standards.

[Ethan Winer]

wouldn't be nice if we had a standard mastering environment?

Well sure, but only a handful of top pros could afford it. Photo of black belt engineer George Massenburg's room below.

This is pretty far away from whether a replacement AC power cord can make an audible difference!

--Ethan

[jtwrace]

Ethan,

What's the rough cost of a room like that?  $500k?

[Kevin Haskins]

wouldn't be nice if we had a standard mastering environment?

Well sure, but only a handful of top pros could afford it. Photo of black belt engineer George Massenburg's room below.

This is pretty far away from whether a replacement AC power cord can make an audible difference!

--Ethan

Nice...

I'm thinking more on the lines of an IEC room, with standards for the basics, speaker specifications, listening distance, room specifications etc...    All record labels that meet the standard, get to put a stamp on their recordings that they meet the standards.   It wouldn't need to be enforced, and it wouldn't require that level of financial commitment that a room like that presents. 

From a loudspeaker design standpoint, I'd like to see some standards for those mastering monitors.   You could make it a window of acceptable values and manufactures that get their product to perform within that window, can advertise "Professional Monitor Approved".   

That would at least get us in the ball park.   That is the sort of things that standards do for an industry.    I really see no reason why such an agenda couldn't be pushed.   It would improve everything that is recorded and give us much more consistent results on the consumer side of the equation. 

[Kevin Haskins]

Kevin-

That would be **tough** !!

What about computer generated music? AKA: MIDI?

It would be completely instrumental, but you set the standards.

I'm mainly concerned with the loudspeaker & playback side of this question.   We know, beyond a shadow of a doubt what specifications to shoot for in loudspeaker performance.   We know that their dispersion, and the room they are used within has a large impact on their perceived performance.    Why don't we have standards for recording studios and recording engineers?   Why is everyone using their own flavor?   

[Browntrout]

Kevin there have been standards for this for donkies years, BBC, the German broadcast standard they set parameters for speaker design and other things as well. There were many manufacturers of speakers who adhered to the BBC standard and competed against each other to win contracts.
  If I remember correctly Harbeth and Spendor and Rodgers and KEF still make some of their line to this standard (design) which mainly revolves around a non rigid box that talks with the driver.
http://www.irt.de/en/research/production.html

From the Harbeth website...


As explained in Q22, the loudspeaker designer's first conundrum concerns the listening level his users will listen at and the acoustic characteristics of the listening space. A broadcast control room is typically the same size as a living room at home, and with a very similar acoustic and reverberation signature. The listener sits about the same distance from the speakers and the replay level is very similar, and moderate.

So, a loudspeaker designed to fulfil BBC requirements makes the perfect loudspeaker philosophy for critical listening at home.

 So the BBC standard considers the things you have mentioned including the expected size of the 'average' listening room.

From this below (also from their site) we can see that if you listen to your radio or tv through a Rodgers LS5 or design copy you are very likely listening on the exact same speakers as mastered it.

Both throughout the UK and overseas in the World Service, the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) have purchased and installed Harbeth speakers since 1977. The BBC comprises many business units, each self-accounting and free to employ people and technical resources as they choose according to their budget and needs.

After the ending of a centrally imposed equipment mandate in the mid 1990's and the demise of Rogers, Harbeth developed into the primary long-term supplier of quality studio monitors across the BBC and took responsibility for servicing and maintaining their Rogers LS speakers. The number of installed Harbeths in the BBC has steadily increased in applications which were previously reserved for the BBC's own LS3/5a (Monitor 20), LS5/9 (Monitor 30) and LS5/8 (Monitor 40) monitor loudspeakers.

The Harbeth sound is natural, neutral, uncoloured and extremely easy to work with for hours on end at a moderate listening level, just as were the BBC's own LS series speakers. Other monitors brands have different characteristics.

As at January 2006, the BBC is Harbeth's biggest single UK customer and has the largest installed base of Monitor 40 (active and passive) in the world amongst hundreds of Monitor 20 and Monitor 30 (active and passive), Circle series designed by Harbeth and sold under the HHB brand and Harbeth LS3/5a. Orders are continuously received for BBC installation as the Harbeth application base within the BBC steadily expands. Product performance leads to recommendations and further sales. Harbeth's installed base in ITV (Granada-Yorkshire-Anglia) is increasing.

During any one day, more than 20 million UK listeners and viewers are unwittingly hearing audio mastered on Harbeth speakers along with millions more overseas. For example, when a BBC announcer says that a Network radio programme - perhaps a drama or a concert - was made at BBC Bristol, BBC Cardiff, BBC Belfast, BBC Bangor or others it has been made on Monitor 40s. Likewise in television - countless BBC programmes from Eastenders* to Question of Sport are made on various Harbeths throughout the production. We have lost track of the total installed base now and the application to which they are put so it's always a treat to discover which programmes the Monitor 20/30/40 are used on.

I think these were designed in the late fifties or sixties (I might be wrong) and are still renowned for their ability to recreate voice which is the main stay of broadcast and ultimatley the easiest thing for a human to differentiate between correct and incorrect reproduction. As with any standard it has to be at a standard and a good hifi will better that standard most likely.
  I have a record made using all Tim De'parravincini gear of trumpet and organ and it has realism well beyond most records even some hifi  pressings I own, I don't think recording studios are necessarilly ahead of the game when it comes to equipment, I get the impression that the majority still use solid state electronics and their quality suffers accordingly.

[Ethan Winer]

What's the rough cost of a room like that? $500k?

No idea, but I know it was all custom designed and built and took a long time.

--Ethan

[Ethan Winer]

I'm thinking more on the lines of an IEC room, with standards for the basics, speaker specifications, listening distance, room specifications etc.

The only thing this overlooks is the variance of the people doing the mixing and mastering.

As long as they don't spec which IEC power wires must be used I'll be happy.

--Ethan

[NewBuyer]

...Why don't we have standards for recording studios and recording engineers?   Why is everyone using their own flavor?

I don't know the answer, but Kevin I am wondering please: If you were forced to speculate, what do you think are the reasons for this lack of standards?

P.S. I really liked the "drag coefficient of a fork lift" analogy - classic!  

[Browntrout]

I think there are standards for both studios and engineers.

[Ethan Winer]

what do you think are the reasons for this lack of standards?

There are no standards because you don't have to get a license to be a recording engineer. Anyone can set up shop and proclaim themselves an "engineer." Some recordings are made in million dollar studios by pros with 40 years experience, and others in bedrooms on a Dell computer by 15 year old kids. All that matters is if the music sounds good enough for people to buy it.

--Ethan

[Browntrout]

An audio or studio technician operates the equipment and an audio engineer is the one who designs/builds the equipment and will most likely have a degree. You can study a degree in Audio Production,
  The Audio Engineering Society sets standards for every aspect of the role and here they are. Unfortunately this page only has abstracts as you have to buy the full standards, as far as I'm aware theses are internationally acceptable:

http://www.aes.org/publications/standards/

As you can see by scrolling down there are many. In fact this one should be of interest to you Ethan
AES11-2003: AES recommended practice for digital audio engineering - Synchronization of digital audio equipment in studio operations. (Revision of AES11-1997)
Cheers, Ben.

[turkey]

An audio or studio technician operates the equipment and an audio engineer is the one who designs/builds the equipment and will most likely have a degree. You can study a degree in Audio Production,
  The Audio Engineering Society sets standards for every aspect of the role and here they are. Unfortunately this page only has excerts as you have to buy the full standards, as far as I'm aware theses are internationally acceptable:

http://www.aes.org/publications/standards/

As you can see by scrolling down there are many. Cheers, Ben.

There isn't any requirement to follow these though. That's the problem.

[Browntrout]

The consumer can choose a studio that meets these requirements though. A professional standard is not law, unless the profession involves the law of course.

[Kevin Haskins]

...Why don't we have standards for recording studios and recording engineers?   Why is everyone using their own flavor?

I don't know the answer, but Kevin I am wondering please: If you were forced to speculate, what do you think are the reasons for this lack of standards?

P.S. I really liked the "drag coefficient of a fork lift" analogy - classic!  

I don't have a lot of time to participate here today but just real quick.     There would need to be standards that have a financial benefit for following them.    The AES can publish a "recommended" standard and as Ethan says, it can be completely ignored because anyone can record sound and distribute it these days.

I was thinking of a program like the THX standard for home theater.   That is a label that has marketing power.   You can argue legitimately about the usefulness of the THX standard, but it has marketing value and we would need to combine the two ingredients, good technical choices based upon current research, and marketing power in terms of being able to brand product with a compliance label. 

Why hasn't it happened?   There isn't a big powerful governing body in the industry.    In the computer industry you have some big companies that force standards.   In other industries you have government forcing standards.   You can argue about whether that is good or bad and I'd agree with many of the arguments on both sides, but having standards across an industry is a good thing.   Ask any computer programmer. 

Browntrout:    I've not read through all the Harbeth information but the BBC acted in the capacity of an industry standard maker in much the way I'm talking about.    We have a lot more research about what makes good loudspeakers than we did in the hey-day of the BBC.    I'd say we need a standards body that updates the standards every 5-10 years with some eye towards the reality of the cost of updating studios.    That body would consist of industry people and they would be responsible for tracking current research.   I wouldn't advocate a static standard.   It should be something that evolves with the industry and it would be International in scope.   

This is all a pipe dream.   I don't see any one player being powerful enough to make it happen and as Ethan has alluded to, the trend is more towards small independent recording studios rather than larger well-funded ones.    People buy music based upon what they like and think very little about the recording process behind it.   

 

 

[turkey]

The consumer can choose a studio that meets these requirements though. A professional standard is not law, unless the profession involves the law of course.

What consumer? The performer?

[turkey]

Browntrout:    I've not read through all the Harbeth information but the BBC acted in the capacity of an industry standard maker in much the way I'm talking about.    We have a lot more research about what makes good loudspeakers than we did in the hey-day of the BBC.    I'd say we need a standards body that updates the standards every 5-10 years with some eye towards the reality of the cost of updating studios.    That body would consist of industry people and they would be responsible for tracking current research.   I wouldn't advocate a static standard.   It should be something that evolves with the industry and it would be International in scope.   

This is all a pipe dream.   I don't see any one player being powerful enough to make it happen and as Ethan has alluded to, the trend is more towards small independent recording studios rather than larger well-funded ones.    People buy music based upon what they like and think very little about the recording process behind it.   
 

That sums it up nicely.