The basic point is this, in most cases the mastering engineer never heard the music being recorded. Therefore his frame of reference is what sounds best TO HIM. Many prefer monitors that are by most standards somewhat bright, in order to be able to pick up everything on the tape. I myself prefer broadcast monitors, in that in most cases they can be easily compared to the performance they are monitoring. In my experience they often sound softer in the top end than the ones used for mastering. I am basing this on my experience with BBC monitors and also with Nelson Reed, which was designed for movie playback and was [ and may still be ] Kavi Alexander's monitor speakers. It would be interesting to compare recording engineer's monitors with mastering studio's monitors. Tony Falkner uses Quad 57s for playback, I doubt if any mastering studio does.
Underestimating the influence of studio monitors?
Every recording gets its final sonic signature from a recording engineer who listens to the recording through a pair (or more in case of mutli-channel) of studio monitors. In the face of that reality, the recordings we listen to at home are shaped by those very studio monitor speakers.
So, if the monitors used are inherently bright, the result in our home systems will sound slightly dull assuming that the engineer is adjusting the mix to sound "real" based on the sound coming from the monitors. If the monitor's bass doesn't extend to the lowest octave, then the result at home is likely to sound overblown in the bottom octave for this same reason. Likewise, if the monitor has a bass hump, then the final result may sound a bit bass-shy. Therefore, unless the studio monitor is completely neutral in tonal balance and covers the entire audible spectrum from low to high, the final recording will have some inappropriate signature based on its defficiencies.
I suppose the skill and experience of the recording mixing engineer can come into play if they know the defficiencies of the monitors themselves and compernsate accordingly in the mixdown but can we really count on this? What do you think?
So, if the monitors used are inherently bright, the result in our home systems will sound slightly dull assuming that the engineer is adjusting the mix to sound "real" based on the sound coming from the monitors. If the monitor's bass doesn't extend to the lowest octave, then the result at home is likely to sound overblown in the bottom octave for this same reason. Likewise, if the monitor has a bass hump, then the final result may sound a bit bass-shy. Therefore, unless the studio monitor is completely neutral in tonal balance and covers the entire audible spectrum from low to high, the final recording will have some inappropriate signature based on its defficiencies.
I suppose the skill and experience of the recording mixing engineer can come into play if they know the defficiencies of the monitors themselves and compernsate accordingly in the mixdown but can we really count on this? What do you think?
- ...
- 11 posts total
It would be interesting to compare recording engineer's monitors with mastering studio's monitors. Stan, You make an excellent point. I know of only one speaker manufacturer that is popular and has consistent products BOTH in recording AND in mastering BOTH as near-field as well as far-field main monitors: ATC. They are not "bright" in the treble sense but they are certainly more forward in the midrange than what most consumers seem comfortable with (as you correctly point out - not comfortable enough for broadcast work). Definitely a tool to hear every microphone placement issue and mixing level details in the recording but still enjoyable enough for compression and final EQ touches in mastering to create a product that translates well to target market. Until ATC came along, speakers typically used to sound completely different from the small monitors to the big bad main monitors used to impress clients and run bass checks - EVEN if they were from the same manufacturer!!! |
One thing that the recording industry here lacks is something like the TONEMEISTER that they have in Europe. Someone who is trained both in electronics and music who is present at the recording session and follows the recording at each stage until it is finished. This ensures some degree of continuity. I had assumed that this was mainly a German practice but I saw recently that the University of Birmingham in England was offering degrees in it so apparently the practice is common there too. ATC has a very good rep., some of the monitors in use in the old days were pretty dire. We now can hear things that the recording engineers could not, what is amazing is how good some of the older recordings sound. Some have suggested that this is because there weren't as many ways to screw up the sound then. Nevertheless, modern recordings done right are amazingly good. |
No speakers sound the same. If you want to hear what the master heard, or wants you to hear, ask him what setup he used, and enjoy. Other then that, just hope he knows his monitors sound and how to adjust to a balance sound. You would hope it has been played on a full range rig, at least once before turning in the final mix. |
If you want to hear what the master heard, or wants you to hear, ask him what setup he used, and enjoy. Good point. Since much of what you can find has been done on ATC then that would be an option I'd recommend investigating (if you go that way and I am not saying it is the only way or even the right way). Here is just the output of one Mastering Engineer that uses ATC (there are more than five pages and you'll find many of your favorite artists like Pink Floyd, Diana Krall, Natalie Cole etc.) Last I heard he still uses Benchmark DAC1 also. |
- 11 posts total