music production

What people are working on at the moment
User avatar
Nick
Site Admin
Posts: 15708
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:20 am
Location: West Yorkshire

#16 Re: music production

Post by Nick »

So, using your response, highlighting why there might be a discrepancy, I conclude that my, and most everybody else’s hifi may not be reproducing what the engineer, mastering engineer, or producer intended.
So that begs the question, what is the part (or parts) of your hifi system that is causing the change. It may be that you are in a perfect position to find this out as you can stand on both sides of the line. So to speak.

Likewise how does a commercial recording sound if reproduced by both your studio and hifi system?
Whenever an honest man discovers that he's mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or he will cease to be honest.
User avatar
ed
retired
Posts: 5384
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 4:01 pm
Location: yorkshire
Contact:

#17 Re: music production

Post by ed »

Nick wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 5:11 pm
So, using your response, highlighting why there might be a discrepancy, I conclude that my, and most everybody else’s hifi may not be reproducing what the engineer, mastering engineer, or producer intended.
So that begs the question, what is the part (or parts) of your hifi system that is causing the change. It may be that you are in a perfect position to find this out as you can stand on both sides of the line. So to speak.

Likewise how does a commercial recording sound if reproduced by both your studio and hifi system?
A valid and perfectly logical question...but even if I can detect the difference(which I can) I have no idea what part or parts are causing the difference

As far as a commercial recording is concerned I would have to decompose it and recompose it to to recreate my observation test. I have no way of doing this, and even if I did and there was a difference I still wouldn't know what was causing it.

I could record a commercial recording on the studio machine and listen to it and then listen to the commercial on the hifi. But I feel any perceived differences would be meaningless. As you alluded, one of them would have to be wrong....I have no way of knowing which(other than what I have pointed out before)...and whatever was wrong would be outside my capability to nail down.
There's nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be
Max N
Old Hand
Posts: 1453
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 6:10 pm

#18 Re: music production

Post by Max N »

ed wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 4:41 pm
Max N wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 2:18 pm Revealing my ignorance here, but what is it that has driven the 'loudness wars'?
What are producers hearing that leads them to reduce dynamic range?
Or is it driven by listening habits (in the car or headphones on the bus -> lots of background noise)?
Max,
You may have missed this gem from dtb...it might address your question:
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/phpBB3/view ... tart=12394
Thanks Ed, I had indeed missed that. Or rather I had made a mental note to watch it and then never did!
So if I have understood that presentation, in the new streaming world there is less incentive for the dynamic range to be squashed, which is a good thing?
simon
Thermionic Monk Status
Posts: 5600
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 11:22 am
Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire

#19 Re: music production

Post by simon »

That was my take too Max. But I suspect the mixes for physical formats will still have compression.
Cressy Snr
Amstrad Tower of Power
Posts: 10552
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 12:25 am
Location: South Yorks.

#20 Re: music production

Post by Cressy Snr »

ed wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 5:29 pm I could record a commercial recording on the studio machine and listen to it and then listen to the commercial on the hifi. But I feel any perceived differences would be meaningless. As you alluded, one of them would have to be wrong....I have no way of knowing which(other than what I have pointed out before)...and whatever was wrong would be outside my capability to nail down.
I’ve struggled with this problem for years and I have to conclude that it isn’t that one thing is wrong and the other is right, it’s that every damn thing is wrong. I’m going to make a bold statement and say that in the context of our particular branch of the hi-fi hobby, low colouration is not possible, we just have to work hard to minimise the sonic irritation that arises from that fact, when we play commercial recordings.
In my view, the recording is the recording and we are stuck with it. If we like the music on these often dodgy recordings then we build our system not to irritate, otherwise we might as well collect stamps. But then, unavoidably we get into a circular argument where the way we are trying not to irritate our ears is incompatible with the devices we are using to try not to irritate our ears, and so it goes round and round until we get dizzy and fall over.

The only system I have ever heard sound absolutely dead right, was sometime in the 1990s, at a show at the Holiday Inn, Sheffield, Ross Walker showed a complete QUAD system with a then new ELS that had just come out to supersede the ESL63. It was quite simply stunning in its realism, especially given the small room Mr Walker was using. But then who am I to suggest that the system in question was right and the racket being made by the frantic tap footers in the Naim room was wrong. The QUAD system was dead right for *me* is a better way to put it. But as Ed has said, that is unfortunately, completely meaningless to anyone else, other than those who actually like that particular kind of presentation. You just have to plough your own furrow. Quality is what you like after all....isn’t it?
Last edited by Cressy Snr on Sat Jan 30, 2021 10:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sgt. Baker started talkin’ with a Bullhorn in his hand.
User avatar
ed
retired
Posts: 5384
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 4:01 pm
Location: yorkshire
Contact:

#21 Re: music production

Post by ed »

Nick wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 5:11 pm
So, using your response, highlighting why there might be a discrepancy, I conclude that my, and most everybody else’s hifi may not be reproducing what the engineer, mastering engineer, or producer intended.
So that begs the question, what is the part (or parts) of your hifi system that is causing the change. It may be that you are in a perfect position to find this out as you can stand on both sides of the line. So to speak.

Likewise how does a commercial recording sound if reproduced by both your studio and hifi system?
My second take on this, I have taken this on board...but

at the moment I don't have the means for like for like comparisons, i.e I don't have any means of playing cd on the hifi system and getting exact digital copies to play on both systems entails seperate processing methods so it's not like for like...

coupled with the fact I don't have any far field monitoring on the studio set up at the moment.....

too many variables, or enough to lead me up the wrong garden path....I will come back to this.
There's nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be
User avatar
Nick
Site Admin
Posts: 15708
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:20 am
Location: West Yorkshire

#22 Re: music production

Post by Nick »

That was my take too Max. But I suspect the mixes for physical formats will still have compression.
Well, maybe, Vinyl will need the preprocessing that its always had to keep the stylus in the groove, but we can live with that. Not sure there is need of any other format as CD can have the same dynamic range of streaming, and as CD is no longer a big target it may be its left alone. If we want CD's we could always create them from on line sources I guess.

My take from the presentation was that the streaming services have created actual disincentive to do the compression that was the previous problem. However that still doesn’t mean they find ways ways of gaming the system.
Whenever an honest man discovers that he's mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or he will cease to be honest.
User avatar
Nick
Site Admin
Posts: 15708
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:20 am
Location: West Yorkshire

#23 Re: music production

Post by Nick »

coupled with the fact I don't have any far field monitoring on the studio set up at the moment.....
It may be that that in itself is what you are hearing, the difference between near and far field sound. Which takes us back to the room being the most important thing.
Whenever an honest man discovers that he's mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or he will cease to be honest.
User avatar
Irene Idler
User
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Southsea

#24 Re: music production

Post by Irene Idler »

I ran this thread by a friend of mine who's a multiple Grammy-nominated audio engineer and producer, though mostly retired now. If you're lucky he'll weigh in with his wisdom. He's also got a rather fine recently-rebuilt Thorens and has been making digital copies of some of his collection of out-of-print, impossible-to-get LPs.
"Hey, you know the rules, baby. If you wanna PLAY funky, you gotta SMELL funky." -- Mike Troutman
User avatar
ed
retired
Posts: 5384
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 4:01 pm
Location: yorkshire
Contact:

#25 Re: music production

Post by ed »

Dave the bass wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 1:29 pm :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea:

We should do a forum tune.
scratch band....lockdown lizards...

meanwhile, back at chez moi, I've finally got round to fleshing out one of the unfinished songs waiting in the pending tray....it's probably a work in progress because I had to work out what those black things were on the piano(it's been best part of 10 years since last I tried to play with it)...

anyway, back to the thread, if anybody can be bothered to have a listen I'd be grateful for any thoughts regarding stuff like...it's too quiet or can't hear the gittar or it's all a bit mushy etc...as usual it sounds balanced in the studio but it's subdued on the hifi and wooly on the normal pc speakers...

it should play automatically on mp3 here: www.vitalstates.org/diy/misc/deceit.mp3

or

it should offer download at: www.vitalstates.org/diy/misc/deceit.wma

or

it should offer full fat down load at: www.vitalstates.org/diy/misc/deceit.wav
There's nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be
User avatar
ed
retired
Posts: 5384
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 4:01 pm
Location: yorkshire
Contact:

#26 Re: music production

Post by ed »

My apologies...the links in the previous post have been removed....that particular song was a collection of ideas to support some lyrics I wrote a long time ago...I was a bit premature in exposing it as it requires a lot more work to stand up as a published work.

I will find a better example to show the disparity I experience between studio and hifi....later

by the time the penny dropped I was unable to delete the post.
There's nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be
steve s
Shed dweller
Posts: 2829
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 6:19 pm
Location: east yorks

#27 Re: music production

Post by steve s »

I've played the mp3 and the full fat versions twice on my stereo

Hope I'm not going to be too honest !

In playing order .

1st. Mp3, found it a bit dull..

2nd full fat, much better

3 rd mp3, sounded like the full fat I've just played.. id forgot it takes 5-10 mins for the amp to warm up .. dohhh

4th full fat, subtle texture gains over mp3, enjoyed it.

Quality wise, much better than many 90s cds, not as lifelike as some of my better recorded cds, but never the less, lifelike. Quite dynamic in places.
Cymbals decay nicely etc etc

I was not sure I like the way you record your vocal at first, but its growing on me after 4 listens 🙂
Well done our Ed

Ps I'm sure I've missed your point
The tube manual is quite like a telephone book. The number of it perfect. It is useful to make it possible to speak with a girl. But we can't see her beautiful face from the telephone number
User avatar
ed
retired
Posts: 5384
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 4:01 pm
Location: yorkshire
Contact:

#28 Re: music production

Post by ed »

I've rewritten the song linked in the above post.

It's very much simpler and a bit raw but It's allowed me to creep up on the issue of different sounding masters on different systems.

I've been messing with the interface setting between -10db and +4db which, on the surface, just alters the monitor levels...but in fact seems to change the level of the finished master.

In times past I had to normalise the finished master to up the level to make it sound on the hifi like it sounded on the studio system. This smacks of loudness. I was noticing a similar effect when applying the exciter effect, which effectively up the level, but only on certain frequencies....

so I'm now at the near understanding that the discrepency between the studio set-up and the hifi was a lot to do with level...and hence loudness.

the song linked to above has no processing whatsoever but has been normalised after mastering and sounds(to my ears) similar on both systems... I can't quite grasp how I missed something so simple for so long.

as you were...I'm happy until the next time

I've never read anywhere the reason the interfaces have this -10/+4db switch......I've searched and only found examples of people preferring one way or another, but no explanation of why it's really there.
There's nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be
User avatar
Nick
Site Admin
Posts: 15708
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:20 am
Location: West Yorkshire

#29 Re: music production

Post by Nick »

I think it's -10dBV and +4dBu. Just saying.
Whenever an honest man discovers that he's mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or he will cease to be honest.
User avatar
ed
retired
Posts: 5384
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 4:01 pm
Location: yorkshire
Contact:

#30 Re: music production

Post by ed »

Nick wrote: Sat Feb 13, 2021 4:09 pm I think it's -10dBV and +4dBu. Just saying.
It is indeed, but I'm sure anybody that might be interested would know what I meant......but for completeness the interface just says +4/-10
echo-if.jpg
just saying...snigger
There's nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be
Post Reply