From: chrisc@gold.gvg.tek.com (Chris Christensen)
Subject: Re: Studio monitors/history of turntables
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 13:02:13 GMT


In article <1992Aug24.174905.9491@philabs.philips.com> ytl@philabs.philips.com 
(Ying Tat Leung) writes:

>Re: Studio monitoring speakers

>The issue of using JBL/Yamaha speakers for studio monitoring was
>raised in this group.  I've been wondering for a long time why
>particular speakers made into recording studios big way.  I'd imagine
>or expect studios to have some of the best speakers around for
>monitoring; but apparently this is not the case.  My speculation of
>the requirements of a studio monitor are:
>- reliability: got to work almost continously for a long time.
>- robust: can take possibly frequent abuse.
>- sounds like the system of an "average" intended buyer of the
>recording being made: this perhaps explains why studios don't use the
>best available.  But do classical recording companies expect the
>average recording buyer have B&W 801?

I posted a question to the rec.audio and rec.audio.pro that intended
to explore a problem that I observed with a recording that was
mastered on a particular high-end speaker system.  But since I am
specifically prohibited from cross posting that material here........

The comments expressed in this posting are just my *humble*
observations.  I accept responsiblity for what I say but I will not
attest to the technical, political or grammar/spelling content.  Take
it for what it is,  a posting to the NET.  

The requirements for the monitoring of live recordings and tracking in
the studio are as different as the monitoring requirements in the
mastering studio.

The needs for location/live recording of classical music is that the
speaker monitoring be as wide range and as accurate as possible. The
second requirement is that the system be reasonably portable. From
what I have heard the B&W 801's fill that bill.  I also believe, from
what I have heard of the B&W 801's is that their sound is respectfully
neutral.

I believe that the requirement for good recordings that will be
consistant from playback to playback system,  the recording and
mastering monitoring needs to be neutral sounding.  Additionally the
monitoring for mastering should be exceed the bandwith of the "normal"
monitoring used for tracking.  This allows the final mastering
decisions to be made.

WHAT IS NEUTRAL SOUNDING? you ask.  If I can listen to the recording
on several different systems and the *overall8 sound is the same then
the project was monitored correctly.  This statement doesn't relate to
the measures or subjective accuracy of the monitoring system.

>Do JBL or Yamaha NS10 possess these qualities?  To be fair, the older
>JBL 43xx series did not sound bad in their days from my memory.  They
>had quite a good reputation in SE Asia then.  Why is Yamaha NS10 so
>popular?  Maybe we can all buy a pair and listen to recordings the way
>the recording engineers intended, given its rather low price.  Was it
>designed for studio monitoring?  Ironically, some speakers designed
>for studio monitoring never really made it, e.g. Acoustic Energy AE1
>(which I currently have).

I use the Yamaha NS10 with sub woofers.  I find that the NS10's
reproduce the live recordings that I do accurately with I the limits
of the ear to detect the differences.

DEFINE ACCURACY:

I record a lot of live concerts and I do this with headphones because
of the logistics.  I use the Sony MDRV-6 headphones because when I
am recording I can take off the phones and hear esentially the same
sound I hear with them on....

I get the same effect when I directly compare the Sony's to the
NS10's.

The above two examples define what I mean bu accuracy.  It's totally
dependent on my ablilty to discern the difference in direct
comparison.

NS10's!

I believe that the popularity of the NS10's was initally based on the
mystic and esoteric nature of the recording engineer.  If one produced
did a string of hits using the NS10 with tissue paper over the tweeter
then *everybody* can....

GENERAL BABBLE:

The high-end recording of whatever type of music you like has just as
much magic, folklore and mysticisms that high-end audio has.

I will be interested in what Bill V has to say about this.  I have
forgotten if he has said what monitors were in use in the studio
where he worked.....

There are studios where the monitoring is different, special case.
Not the main stream Urei  or JBL monitor.

I will go on record and admit that I *like* the Urei 813/185C models.

One of the most important quality of a monitoring system is that they
must not fatigue the engineer.  I believe the Urei's are good for
that.  The NS10's are good for that,  I spend hours on end with them and
I don't suffer listening fatigue.

I won't debate the rest of the quality merits of any speaker system.
I do know that a good recording engineer using the speakers mentioned
by model number in this posting can produce recordings that will sound
good on a boombox or on high-end speakers.

Shields up, go to red alert!
-- 
Chris Christensen                  The opinions I express are my own,
chrisc@gold.gvg.tek.com            and sometimes they are wrong!
916-478-3419 FAX 916-478-3887      After all, I *AM* only human.

Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end