[toobluvr]

I would say forget about accuracy.

With my system I just try to achieve a sound that is natural and pleasing.....to me.  I guess you can argue that if you obtain "natural" you have achieved "accuracy".   But I really don't care one way or another.  Debating the merits of accuracy, or even whether it is achievable in home playback systems is a theoretical discussion that really doesn't lead anywhere or make your system sound any better.     

[Niteshade]

Could you provide more details regarding your monitor speakers and listening environment. You're right- I skimmed over your post too fast. Didn't mean to step on any toes!

If you were to use speakers and acoustic environment identical to that used to monitor the recording, you would at least hear what the engineer intended. If your speakers were identical but the environment merely similar, you'd be close.

The reasoning behind choosing monitors with the flattest response possible and tightly controlled dispersion is that, based on the presumption that most speaker designs are attempting flat response, the target (translation of the sound to the "real world") will be hit more often than if the monitors themselves were also inaccurate.

I chose the monitors I am now using based on their response amplitude accuracy and audibly low distortion. Not only are they revealing of details deep within the mix, but there are revelations to be had in the area of dynamics - for example I noticed for the first time the subtle tremolo caused by the nervousness of the performer on a wind instrument in a recording with which I was well familiar. The bonus is that these function not only as microscopes but are very enjoyable - if only because recordings sound so different from each other.

My point in all this is to refute the "there is no truth" idea as a blanket descriptor. If there is a "point of truth" - a reference point - and there should be to make sense of the process, it is the monitor speakers and their environment. This is the pivot point - the fulcrum - and should be as flat and accurate as possible, then all the creativity that goes into the rest of the process makes more sense.

[Russell Dawkins]

The room is live end/dead end (LEDE) with the dead end around the speakers and the live end behind me. The rear of the room is diffusive and irregular and the end in front of me is almost perfectly symmetrical with a large wide bandwidth trap built into a false wall behind the speakers that extends from the ceiling down to 2' up from the floor and is roughly 14' wide. This wall and trap is about 6 feet in front of my mix position. The side walls are convex surfaced for the front 15 feet with a 14' radius. They are reinforced with curved plywood shelves and the result is very rigid with a very high resonant frequency if you pound on it with a fist, where a conventional wall has a very low resonant frequency

The speakers are about 40º left and right of center so that I can simply lean in to hear Blumlein as it should be heard and lean back to hear conventional stereo.

If I reach out my arms towards the speakers, my fingertips come within about 10 inches of the fronts, so I am listening in the nearfield. I prefer the midfield (about 5 feet away) but am in transition at the moment and that will have to wait until I get the subs dialed in and get these monitors operating from 60 Hz or so and up, instead of full range.

The speakers are Klein and Hummel 0300s, soon to be known as Neumann 0300s, since Sennheiser, the new owners of K+H, changed the name as of Jan 31st this year.

http://tinyurl.com/5s8j3k

As a recording, mixing and mastering engineer I take monitoring accuracy very seriously as do most good engineers, and for the same reason - accurate translation of the mixes you are making to the world at large. The logic of this I explained in my other post.

Everyone gets used to the sonic characteristics of their system, and if the mix I just made sounds correct on my system it will sound the way you expect it to on your system, whether that is accurate or not, and I've done my job properly.

I was just saying in the earlier post - if you want to hear it more or less as intended by the mastering engineer, then you are likely going to need a (speaker/room) system that actually measures more or less accurate - even if you can't measure it.

I hope this is constructive.

[Niteshade]

Very good information! Thank you.

I was invited to participate in the workings of a recording studio and can't wait to learn first hand about what goes on. They want to know more about what I do, so the excitement is mutual.

I'm going to look more into what you're talking about over time.

[Wind Chaser]

I hope this is constructive.

It is to those who are not too proud in their on conceit and are willing to learn.  Thanks for taking the time to share your insight, Russell.  You've explained it far better than I ever could.

[Bill Baker]

Everyone gets used to the sonic characteristics of their system, and if the mix I just made sounds correct on my system it will sound the way you expect it to on your system, whether that is accurate or not, and I've done my job properly.

 I really wish more recording engineers thought along these lines. Nicely put Russell.

[Niteshade]

What would you recommend for passive monitors?

The room is live end/dead end (LEDE) with the dead end around the speakers and the live end behind me. The rear of the room is diffusive and irregular and the end in front of me is almost perfectly symmetrical with a large wide bandwidth trap built into a false wall behind the speakers that extends from the ceiling down to 2' up from the floor and is roughly 14' wide. This wall and trap is about 6 feet in front of my mix position. The side walls are convex surfaced for the front 15 feet with a 14' radius. They are reinforced with curved plywood shelves and the result is very rigid with a very high resonant frequency if you pound on it with a fist, where a conventional wall has a very low resonant frequency

The speakers are about 40º left and right of center so that I can simply lean in to hear Blumlein as it should be heard and lean back to hear conventional stereo.

If I reach out my arms towards the speakers, my fingertips come within about 10 inches of the fronts, so I am listening in the nearfield. I prefer the midfield (about 5 feet away) but am in transition at the moment and that will have to wait until I get the subs dialed in and get these monitors operating from 60 Hz or so and up, instead of full range.

The speakers are Klein and Hummel 0300s, soon to be known as Neumann 0300s, since Sennheiser, the new owners of K+H, changed the name as of Jan 31st this year.

http://tinyurl.com/5s8j3k

As a recording, mixing and mastering engineer I take monitoring accuracy very seriously as do most good engineers, and for the same reason - accurate translation of the mixes you are making to the world at large. The logic of this I explained in my other post.

Everyone gets used to the sonic characteristics of their system, and if the mix I just made sounds correct on my system it will sound the way you expect it to on your system, whether that is accurate or not, and I've done my job properly.

I was just saying in the earlier post - if you want to hear it more or less as intended by the mastering engineer, then you are likely going to need a (speaker/room) system that actually measures more or less accurate - even if you can't measure it.

I hope this is constructive.

[Russell Dawkins]

What would you recommend for passive monitors?

All I could do is tell you what I would attempt to audition since all the passive speakers that would interest me are not easily heard and I haven't heard any of them.

What would interest me of the current crop are the Emerald Physics 2.3s, Gedlee Nathan, Abbey and Summa, Duke LeJeune's Jazz Modules and Plantetarium Alpha System, plus I would like to hear the JBL passive 3 ways LSR 6332.

They all share the characteristics of low distortion at moderately high levels through the bulk of the spectrum, controlled dispersion and reasonable flat response.