Re: [ARSCLIST] Aren't recordings original sources?

[Tom Fine <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Those Yamaha POS's came in later. In the 70's, there were often Awfultone Soundcubes on the console, 
but that was to reality-check how something would sound on a TV or radio used by the typical 
consumer.

No, back in ye golden age, the monitors were generally big Altecs, usually hung over the control 
room window so there was a bit of distance down to the engineer (ie the stereo field and general 
sound quality had a little space to develope instead of being close-in on small speakers like 
today). This evolved to bigger, louder soffit-mounted monitors in the 70's and 80's. The NS-10's 
came along but I saw them more in TV-sound places (and sound is always second to picture there). I 
never saw anyone mixing a music release on those things, so that must have come along in the late 
80's.

By the way, the mean level of recording quality went down as all this evolved, so none of it helped 
the knob-turners learn how to listen. The fact that a typical 70's studio was heavily deadened and 
baffled just made it all worse. Once rock producers got the hang of producing (ie taking a bunch of 
basic tracks laid down at different times and places by semi-musical blokes and producing an end 
product that was completely different from the basic tracks but could well have sonic merits of its 
own), the albums sounded a little better. Hell, even some of those zillion-mic productions of 
classical recordings from Columbia sound OK. But I digress.

The main point is, back in ye golden oldie days, control rooms were most certainly designed for 
critical listening because engineers had to rely much more on getting it right first and once since 
there was little overdub capacity and sessions were generally expensive and high-pressure and there 
were few toys to fix things later like today. The musicians needed to do their job and the engineer 
needed to do his job and there was no room for screwups since the clock and cash register were 
running. This was also most certainly true in classical recording, especially with unionized US 
orchestras. Merely getting a level/balance practice take cost hundreds of dollars. So there was no 
choice but to do critical listening in the control room, from start to finish.

It could be argued that's why mastering suites of yore were generally not critical-listening 
environments. Back then, the mastering engineer was more a technician tasked with making what came 
out of the studio work on a grooved record. He had to contend with EQ and dynamics to make his sides 
trackable but he wasn't expected to do much else to change the sound, unless there was something 
wrong with the master tape that needed to be addressed, like a hum or buzz. Ironically, the more 
timid guys were who changed the sound the most (generally for the worse) because they'd limit 
dynamics, make sure to assign low frequencies to dead center and over-do it with the high-frequency 
compression. The bolder/more skilled guys generally made it their job to make the final LP sound as 
close to the master tape as was possible with the technology at hand.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Clark Johnsen" <clarkjohnsen@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2008 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Aren't recordings original sources?


> On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 7:41 PM, Tom Fine <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
> > Also, it used to be (maybe not, in general, anymore) that a professional
> > studio's control room WAS designed for CRITICAL LISTENING. That was the
> > whole freakin' point! In fact, one of the big evolutions I saw in NY rooms
> > in the late 70s into the 80s was moving all the noisy tape machines out of
> > the control room into an isolated machine room or machine "closet" so one
> > could listen MORE carefully. Given the levels I've heard most professional
> > engineers listening at, I can't imagine the tape machines would be audible
> > but perhaps this was helpful for a client seated toward the back of the
> > control room. Anyway, let's not forget history here! Do some reading about
> > the evolution of studio monitors. And the tuning of control rooms, etc. Yes,
> > perhaps today when every "musician" with a Mac and a mic thinks he has a
> > "studio," what passes for a recording studio may not be a critical listening
> > environment, but this was certainly not always the case!
>
>
> In the old days you refer to, the Yamaha NS10M monitor speaker was
> widely popular among recording professionals (I use the word as loosely as
> anyone). It featured a top end so, ah, brutal... that the tweeter was
> commonly covered with a flap of Kleenex or toilet paper. This was the de
> facto reference standard.
>
> Plus, studio monitoring is almost always done in extreme near-field
> conditions, IMO an unnatural place to listen -- even notwithstanding the
> fact that few end-users (as I believe they're called) employ such a setup.
>
> > And by the way, here's a big irony. Go back and look at most of the
> > mastering rooms where the "golden age" records were cut. Those were usually
> > TERRIBLE listening environments!
>
>
> True enough. And yet... and yet... They were doing something right.
>
> What's been lost?
>
>
> > This is all very different over the past couple of decades, mastering
> > suites have evolved to be "super-fi" listening rooms. Has the net quality of
> > the end product evolved upwards? I would say this is a very arguable point.
>
>
> No argument from me there!
>
> Only that I disagree about the soi-disant "'super-fi' listening rooms".
>
> clark
>
> > -- Tom Fine
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Poretti" <r.poretti@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 5:31 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Aren't recordings original sources?
> >
> >
> > <SNIP>
> > > > A few of these facilities use those $1000+ AC cables.  I did not have the
> > > > balls to ask them to swap to a standard cable for my own curiosity, but I
> > > > can tell you *none* of the mastering engineers described the differences
> > > as
> > >
> > > > "major improvements".
> > >
> > > Again, the studio environment... these are not listening studios, these
> > > are
> > > recording (or mastering) studios.
> > > <SNIP>
> > >
> > > RP)  I'm sorry, but I beg to differ and I believe most audio professionals
> > > won't agree with that statement.  Mastering rooms are built for critical
> > > listening.  I agree that the design criteria (neutrality with excellent
> > > translation to the outside world) might be different then in a personal
> > > listening room. (personal preference often based on a preferred music
> > > genre.)
> > >
> > > If you really feel this way, then we have a serious void in our individual
> > > point of reference, to even continue the debate.... IMHO.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > <SNIP>
> > > Besides, I've never claimed that differences are instantly detectable.
> > > They're not, usually. They get to you over an extended period.
> > >
> > > RP)  That's an interesting comment.  I was reacting earlier to your
> > > statement "wrought major improvements".
> > >
> > > I would think that "wrought major improvements" are also "instantly
> > > detectable."  Would you mine defining "an extended period"?  Was it hours,
> > > days, weeks?
> > >
> > >
> > >   Do I understand by your comments that the "major
> > > > improvements" that you discerned did not require ABX listening tests?
> > >
> > >
> > > "Require"? As stated earlier, ABX only blurs the distinctions.
> > >
> > > Someone locally here once told me he'd done a DBT that proved to the 99%
> > > confidence level, that insertion of the ABX box was audible. I chuckled,
> > > as
> > > I might hope everyone would.
> > >
> > > Who elected the ABX box as our arbiter?
> > >
> > >
> > > RP)  First, I meant to say DB ABX.  My mistake.  Second, you can build
> > > very
> > > transparent ABX boxes and the nice thing about them is they provide the
> > > same
> > > lens for both "A" and "B" - that's why they are valid in critical
> > > listening
> > > tests.  Unless you are saying that all DB ABX listening tests are not
> > > valid?
> > > Do you have a more definitive listening test procedure?
> > >
> > > My comment about "requiring ABX" was that I was trying to determine how
> > > audible the difference was - was it instant or was it difficult to
> > > determine? I think you could see the intent of my question.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
> > > Rob Poretti
> > > Sales Engineer - Archiving
> > > Cube-Tec North America
> > > Vox.905.827.0741
> > > Fax.905.901.9996
> > > Cel.905-510.6785
> > >
> > > _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/