What's wrong with Redbook, really?

microstrip · Feb 2, 2012

Robh3606 said:
(...)

Read Tooles book. They can tell you quite a bit enough so you can predict what the typical inroom response will be. Go look at Revels measurements. They have an inroom curve as part of their published specifications. They are unusual in this respect and many companies simply don't have the facilities for that type of measurements.

Rob

Rob,
First we must ask what people are referring to as typical measurements. Otherwise we be debating vague things. Most manufacturers only give you an almost useless and single frequency response on axis at 2m. Is this what is being debated?

Then we can go in the Toole book.

microstrip · Feb 2, 2012

Phelonious Ponk said:
Recording studio monitoring systems.

Tim

Tim,
Sorry but I am not a pro, and sometimes miss the nuances. As far as I know, even pro's have several types of monitoring systems, depending on the type of work they are carrying. Are you addressing the typical studio used to monitor the life-feed or the mastering studio? Or something else?

Gregadd · Feb 2, 2012

DonH50 said:
Too many audiophiles listen to the gear and not the music IMO.

Is that because the gear is imperfect, or the audiophile is biased?

Gregadd · Feb 2, 2012

First off all assuming we are talking about a recording engineer, they have access to a live feed. The are pros. rapid switching ma be easier for them. They are searching for a formatted siound.

I think emotion is unique to human beings. While a kitten can't fell emotions the certainly can evoke an emotional response in humans. A stereo system is incapable of expressing emotion. Music whether live or reproduced can evoke an an emotional response in humans.

Robh3606 · Feb 2, 2012

Rob,
First we must ask what people are referring to as typical measurements. Otherwise we be debating vague things. Most manufacturers only give you an almost useless and single frequency response on axis at 2m. Is this what is being debated?

Then we can go in the Toole book.

I answered this part of the post

So what are the objective metrics used for loudspeaker resolution, dynamic contrast, truthfulness of harmonic texture and spatial projection?

And listed what measurements might be appropriate. It doesn't matter if most manufaturers don't have the guts to post these measurements. The fact is there are measurements that can address his points.

If you want a "real" set of speaker measurements instead of the useless crap you get from most all you need to do is look at Pro Speakers.

Night and Day

Rob

Phelonious Ponk · Feb 2, 2012

mep said:
I shouldn’t be surprised that you have flipped this argument on its head and have turned it into a digital vs. analog system debate. I’m having none of that. Let’s compare apples to apples. You assemble a “very high-end system” that is based on a digital front end and then assemble your now expense increasing pro system that is going to beat it and tell us what it is. And, let’s keep both systems all solid state to further put your boast in a box.

Or, was your entire boast predicated on picking examples of high-end systems that would have the worst possible specs and your boast of “beating” them was based on the specification sheets?

There was no argument here until you came along and threw down, Mark. Micro and I were having a discussion and doing fine, thanks. As far as flipping the argument on its head are concerned, substitute a very high end NOS dac or a tube preamp for the turntable if you like. The results will be similar in more than enough cases to make the point. Will there be exceptions? Sure. That wasn't the point.

And yes, the objective criteria I speak of are measurements, unless you want to conduct blind listening tests for us. Otherwise, we'll just be exchanging opinions. You're welcome to yours. But this all started when I said that, like the Strads and the modern violins, I'd bet that most very high end components could be matched, by any objective criteria, by a component accessible to many more music lovers, and that I thought the audiophile community's insistence that such comparisons just can't be true did not serve the hobby or the industry well. I believe you could blind test (insert absurdly expensive SS amp) against Emotivas (or your PLs) with music lovers, not audiophiles, and if they could even tell the difference they wouldn't think it amounted to much.

I still believe all of the above is true. I'd still personally go to pro audio, active systems, to get the best performance. And I still believe that doing so, I could match the performance of most high end systems at a fraction of the cost. All? Probably not. That would cost more. But I wouldn't have to pick the worst performers, I'd just have to avoid the very best. And FWIW, as I'm sure you've guessed, more often than not, the gear that sounds right to me, meets the objective criteria quite well. So I'm not just reading charts. MHO. YMMV. Etc.

Tim

Phelonious Ponk · Feb 2, 2012

microstrip said:
Tim,
Sorry but I am not a pro, and sometimes miss the nuances. As far as I know, even pro's have several types of monitoring systems, depending on the type of work they are carrying. Are you addressing the typical studio used to monitor the life-feed or the mastering studio? Or something else?

If I were looking for the most accurate performance I could get at any given price point, I'd look to control room monitoring systems. These can be built as active or wired active with amps and electronic crossovers outside of the cabinets, but very few are passive these days. They can range from small desktop mini monitors to huge built-ins that will compete with the largest floor-standing audiophile speakers. A lot of mastering is done on these kinds of speakers but their primary purpose is monitoring and mixing. Mastering suites often use consumer gear, sometimes high end, sometimes not, to get a better idea of how their masters will sound in use.

Tim

Bruce B · Feb 2, 2012

Phelonious Ponk said:
A lot of mastering is done on these kinds of speakers but their primary purpose is monitoring and mixing. Tim

I'd have to disagree with this one Tim. I can only think of a handful of mastering studios that use active monitors. Like you said, it's the recording/mixing rooms that use them.

microstrip · Feb 2, 2012

Phelonious Ponk said:
If I were looking for the most accurate performance I could get at any given price point, I'd look to control room monitoring systems. (...)

Tim

I have never been at a control room, but one sound engineer with whom I usually discuss these matters told me that it is does not have the best conditions to enjoy music. Sound engineers have large responsibilities and they center their activity mostly in aspects that can not be corrected later. Most of the time they rely mostly on strong attenuation of primary reflections to focus on specific aspects of music. They play music louder that the average audiophile.
As he often says we work, you (consumers) play. So comparing pro systems with consumer ones seems you are comparing apples with oranges. Some people like mixed juices, unhappily I do not!

microstrip · Feb 2, 2012

Robh3606 said:
I answered this part of the post

And listed what measurements might be appropriate. It doesn't matter if most manufaturers don't have the guts to post these measurements. The fact is there are measurements that can address his points.

If you want a "real" set of speaker measurements instead of the useless crap you get from most all you need to do is look at Pro Speakers.

Night and Day

Rob

Thanks - I misread your previous list. Can you post a few links to these full manufacturers measurements? I would like to compare them with some others we have access in the specialized press.

Phelonious Ponk · Feb 2, 2012

Bruce B said:
I'd have to disagree with this one Tim. I can only think of a handful of mastering studios that use active monitors. Like you said, it's the recording/mixing rooms that use them.

I'm really talking about smaller studios doing their own mastering, Bruce, not dedicated mastering studios like yours. You're at the top of the food chain, bro. Out here in the hinterlands, there are tons of audio production done daily that never sees a mastering suite. That used to be a bad thing. These days, outside of the influence of the majors and loudness wars, I'd bet some pretty good work is done from time to time.

Tim

Phelonious Ponk · Feb 2, 2012

microstrip said:
I have never been at a control room, but one sound engineer with whom I usually discuss these matters told me that it is does not have the best conditions to enjoy music. Sound engineers have large responsibilities and they center their activity mostly in aspects that can not be corrected later. Most of the time they rely mostly on strong attenuation of primary reflections to focus on specific aspects of music. They play music louder that the average audiophile.
As he often says we work, you (consumers) play. So comparing pro systems with consumer ones seems you are comparing apples with oranges. Some people like mixed juices, unhappily I do not!

My experience isn't consistent with your friend's. Strong attenuation of first reflections? Yes. A good idea in any listening room, but most of the control rooms I've been in are not anechoic, by any means. They are just rooms very well constructed and treated for critical listening. And my experience is not that engineers listen at higher levels than audiophiles. It varies, of course, by individual, but engineers listen all day. If they listened at very high levels all that time, their most valuable tool, their hearing, wouldn't last long. Last but not least, it is only apples and oranges if your goal is something other than high fidelity to the recorded signal. That is the goal of good studio monitors. There are bad ones, of course; those that exaggerate the bass, or more commonly, the treble in a mockery of "detail." Just keep those out of your consideration set and deliberately "euphonic" components out of consideration on the audiophile side of the fence, and we should all be eating the same fruit.

Tim

Bruce B · Feb 2, 2012

Phelonious Ponk said:
If I were looking for the most accurate performance I could get at any given price point, I'd look to control room monitoring systems.Tim

Yeah... I'd have to agree. The flattest speaker response I've seen came from a pair of Genelecs. From about 60Hz up, it's ruler flat....

Ron Party · Feb 2, 2012

Bruce do you remember which model of Genelecs and under what conditions you saw (heard?) them?

rbbert · Feb 2, 2012

The problem with "accurate" is that no matter what the price point, it's still not very close to live sound. Thus the slightly different styles of reproduced sound various listeners prefer, since we each probably have different priorities for particular aspects of sound quality. Some might prioritize flat frequency response, others micro dynamics, others imaging, etc. All of those are aspects of "accuracy", and there isn't any one system that's going to reproduce all of them better than any other system.

fas42 · Feb 2, 2012

It looks like we lost Redbook way back down the road ...

As rbbert points out, absolutely nothing so far has been said about whether the sound is realistic, as in whether a person, "blind", could not distinguish the reproduction from the replay. Accuracy is just a piece of pap, as far as I'm concerned, unless that aspect enters the equation.

Frank

Bruce B · Feb 2, 2012

Ron Party said:
Bruce do you remember which model of Genelecs and under what conditions you saw (heard?) them?

I believe they were 8040 or 8050. There have been several reports and reviews where they have measured the response. I had them in my control room and they measured flat... but I didn't care for the sound. Go figure...

Ron Party · Feb 2, 2012

Thanks, Bruce. I ask because of the following slide below which you may have seen, showing the same model Genelec monitor measured from the listening location in 164 recording/mixing studios worldwide. Note that while the consistency in the high frequencies is not bad (+/-2.5dB), it gets noticeably worse in the mids (where vocals reside) and absolutely terrible in the bass (+/-25dB of variation below 100Hz).

[Minor misprint: the slide should read 372 loudspeakers (according to Genelec), not 250.]

fas42 · Feb 2, 2012

Bruce B said:
I believe they were 8040 or 8050. There have been several reports and reviews where they have measured the response. I had them in my control room and they measured flat... but I didn't care for the sound. Go figure...

I think you'd better go to the "naughty" corner, Bruce. With a perfect FR like that someone like Tim might insist that you should be experiencing Nirvana ... :b:b

Frank

NorthStar · Feb 2, 2012

Bruce B said:
Yeah... I'd have to agree. The flattest speaker response I've seen came from a pair of Genelecs. From about 60Hz up, it's ruler flat....

Nearfield measurements Bruce?

What's wrong with Redbook, really?

VIP/Donor

VIP/Donor

WBF Founding Member

WBF Founding Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member

VIP/Donor

VIP/Donor

New Member

New Member

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member

WBF Founding Member

Well-Known Member

Addicted To Best

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member

WBF Founding Member

Addicted To Best

Member

Similar threads