Avantone CLA-10 (Yamaha NS-10M Clone) Review

[Travis]

Part II on Bob Katz

He has a mix studio for doing some minor adjustments (Mix Doctor) and that Studio uses Genelec 8260s.

For His main studio for mastering this is what he says, hard to tell he is a tech guy isn't it? Not sure if his room treatments are the ones that @amirm is a fan of, or those that he is critical of.

On the topic of "standards" for mastering, he has written and presented on this at AES. I'm not sure, but based upon his book, articles (numerous) I think a lot of what you see him describe below would be incorporated into standards on mastering, including his K System if he had his way.

View attachment 306006

Studio A - Digido.com

Digital Domain - we ensure musicians, independent artists and record labels get the best sound possible. Bob Katz provides the best in mastering and mixing.

www.digido.com

"Studio A is our mastering room. The first key to good analog reproduction is a transparent signal path. Mastering engineer Bob Katz believes that a short, clean path between your analog tape and digital conversion makes the most transparent, dynamic master. The 1/2" and 1/4" tape machines are highly customized. For example, the "STAMPEX," is a unique hybrid of a Studer C37 transport with custom-made extended response 1/2" head connected to very customized Ampex MR 70 electronics, all-tube. The STAMPEX is quiet, transparent and warm, yet with tight bass."

"Bob Katz's Stereoization Process, embodied in his K-Stereo Processor, actually lets the mastering engineer get a handle on the original reverb returns of the recording. It's been commercialized in several products: the Z System's K-surround processor, the Weiss DNA1, and the K-Stereo Plugin by UAD Audio."

Processors include digital and analog outboard and selected digital plugins. We have developed some custom analog solid state and tube gear such as Bob's Tube Blender and Bob's Solid State Blender. We use hardware and software by: Anamod, API, Bettermaker, Bricasti, Cranesong, DMG, Elysia, Flux, Forsell, Izotope, Maselec, Millenia Media, Pendulum, Prism, PSP, Sonnox, TC Electronic, UAD, Waves, Weiss, and many others, in unique and musical ways."

A custom-installed 100 AMP service feeds power to all our gear. The service is over 20 dB quieter than the standard house power lines and has power to spare. This allows us to run each of the power-hungry amplifiers on dedicated 20 amp lines."

Our stereo monitors, Dynaudio M5P, weigh 300 pounds each. The unique Dynaudio design reduces ceiling and floor reflections by 75% according to the manufacturer. They sit on custom isolators constructed by Norman Varney of A/V RoomService, Ltd. The isolators resonate at 8 Hz, above which the loudspeakers are isolated from the room. The result is an incredibly quiet and tight response. The room is treated with active bass traps from PSI Audio, passive traps from RealTraps, and some custom-made traps."

The center and surround speakers are by Lipinski Sound, designed by Andrew Lipinski."

The Eq of the listening position:
"The mating of satellites and subs is seamless and perfectly calibrated by use of Acourate loudspeaker and room correction software from AudioVero. Acourate corrects phase, impulse response and time alignment. Response is +/- 1 dB to a target from 17 Hz to 20 kHz. It is -3 dB at 15 Hz!"

The Room: "The mastering room is 23' long in the part between the speakers, and 18' long at the sides, by 14' wide with a sloping cathedral ceiling that starts at about 12' high in the front and goes up to 20' high in the rear. 3 out of 4 walls are concrete block with one overlayer of sheetrock, and the back wall is double reinforced sheetrock. The walls are selectively treated with Sonex located at precision points to remove flutter echo. There is a carpet over mat on the floor, which is first floor mounted right on the concrete slab. The room is extremely quiet and the air conditioning is inaudible (all noise-making machinery is in a separate room).

And all of this, get you . . . "Because of the headroom and response accuracy of this system, Bob's work translates to the widest variety of playback systems."

 

[Travis]

Part III of III (hooo ya)

On Katz' website he has a "Honor Roll" of CD's he thinks were very well mastered, a few his, many not. You can go there and see what you think of his selections, if you can hear what he hears, and note the reference system he uses for loudness. A few samples:

Honor Roll - Digido.com

Digital Domain - we ensure musicians, independent artists and record labels get the best sound possible. Bob Katz provides the best in mastering and mixing.

www.digido.com

-1 dB
Crazed Woman - Blazing Red Heads Mastered by Paul Stubblebine. Engineered by Keith Johnson. This CD was recorded with modified (but aging) digital technology before Keith co-invented HDCD. All tracks seem to be recorded with no compression. The monitor level of -1 dB shows what can be done when there are no restrictions or qualifications on a label. Reference Recordings, RR-41CD, ©1991.

Dark Side of the Moon - Pink Floyd Mastered by Doug Sax. Engineered by Alan Parsons. I think the original LP sounds more open, but this is still a good transfer to CD. Great example of progressive rock where the compressor was used for esthetic effect and for the sound, not to achieve a “loud record.” Capitol Records, C2-46001 (several re-releases), ©1973.

Stop Making Sense - Talking Heads Original Master by Jack Skinner and Ted Jensen. CD Master by WC Record Group. Mix Engineering by E. F. Thorngren and others. Monitor gain -1 dB (for loud playback!). Made long before the volume wars, this CD puts most current pop/rock CDs to shame. This 16-bit CD illustrates that there is no noise floor problem at high monitor gains and that it is a myth that 16-bit CDs have to be compressed or limited to fit in the medium! After all, CDs have a measurable 115 dB dynamic range (properly dithered)--noise floor is NOT a problem. Slightly harsh high end due to the weakness of older model A/D converters. Warner Brothers Records/Sire Records, 9 25186-2, ©1984.

-2 dB
The Night Fly - Donald Fagen Mastered by Bob Ludwig. Engineered by Roger Nichols and Eliot Scheiner. What a great digital recording with exceptional production value. Clean, clear transients, and tasty, moderate compression applied to select instruments. This is another example of pre-volume war excellence that we have got to return to. Warner Brothers, 923696-2, ©1982.

Waiting for Columbus - Little Feat Live Recorded by George Massenburg. All other credits nebulous. I think the highest peak is -3 dBfs, so it could have been hotter without any sacrifice in sound quality. The A/D converters used for the analog transfer were obviously 1980’s generation, less than state of the art (a bit gritty), but the transients, purity and clarity of this transfer done without any obvious mastering processing more than make up. A good mix to emulate for the impact and clarity. Warner Brothers, 3140-2, ©1978.

-3 dB
Security - Peter Gabriel No Mastering credit. Engineered by David Lord. DDD. Highest peak may only be around -3 dBFS so this could have been 3 dB hotter without any sacrifice. Amazingly dynamic and atmospheric recording with lots of deep rhythm. Transients are not particularly sharp, but this was an obvious choice of the mixing engineer/producer who were looking for a certain sound. The "remastered" version of Security reportedly is defective and has lost its sonic attributes. The review of this album is based on the original master of Security. Geffin Records, 2011-2, ©1982.

-4 dB

Citizen - Steely Dan Mastered by Glenn Meadows. Engineered by Roger Nichols, Elliot Scheiner, and Al Schmitt. Produced by Gary Katz. Ricky don’t lose that number! Does it surprise you to learn one of your favorite groups of all time is one of the lowest in intrinsic loudness! This master was obviously made without any attempt to compete with the loudness of other CDs. The result is a CD set where good sound was the only concern. This is a four volume boxed set of their work from 1972-1980 that has been digitally remastered. MCA Records, 4-10-981, ©1993.

Innervisions - Stevie Wonder Mastered by George Marino. Engineered by Dan Barbiero and Austin Godsey. I think the original LP sounds much better and cleaner, but this could reflect tape degradation by the time the CD master was made. However, the CD is still an excellent example of clean production, moderately compressed before the volume wars. Motown Records, 3746303262. ©1973.

 

[PeteL]

Part III of III (hooo ya)

On Katz' website he has a "Honor Roll" of CD's he thinks were very well mastered, a few his, many not. You can go there and see what you think of his selections, if you can hear what he hears, and note the reference system he uses for loudness. A few samples:

Honor Roll - Digido.com

Digital Domain - we ensure musicians, independent artists and record labels get the best sound possible. Bob Katz provides the best in mastering and mixing.

www.digido.com

-1 dB
Crazed Woman - Blazing Red Heads Mastered by Paul Stubblebine. Engineered by Keith Johnson. This CD was recorded with modified (but aging) digital technology before Keith co-invented HDCD. All tracks seem to be recorded with no compression. The monitor level of -1 dB shows what can be done when there are no restrictions or qualifications on a label. Reference Recordings, RR-41CD, ©1991.

Dark Side of the Moon - Pink Floyd Mastered by Doug Sax. Engineered by Alan Parsons. I think the original LP sounds more open, but this is still a good transfer to CD. Great example of progressive rock where the compressor was used for esthetic effect and for the sound, not to achieve a “loud record.” Capitol Records, C2-46001 (several re-releases), ©1973.

Stop Making Sense - Talking Heads Original Master by Jack Skinner and Ted Jensen. CD Master by WC Record Group. Mix Engineering by E. F. Thorngren and others. Monitor gain -1 dB (for loud playback!). Made long before the volume wars, this CD puts most current pop/rock CDs to shame. This 16-bit CD illustrates that there is no noise floor problem at high monitor gains and that it is a myth that 16-bit CDs have to be compressed or limited to fit in the medium! After all, CDs have a measurable 115 dB dynamic range (properly dithered)--noise floor is NOT a problem. Slightly harsh high end due to the weakness of older model A/D converters. Warner Brothers Records/Sire Records, 9 25186-2, ©1984.

-2 dB
The Night Fly - Donald Fagen Mastered by Bob Ludwig. Engineered by Roger Nichols and Eliot Scheiner. What a great digital recording with exceptional production value. Clean, clear transients, and tasty, moderate compression applied to select instruments. This is another example of pre-volume war excellence that we have got to return to. Warner Brothers, 923696-2, ©1982.

Waiting for Columbus - Little Feat Live Recorded by George Massenburg. All other credits nebulous. I think the highest peak is -3 dBfs, so it could have been hotter without any sacrifice in sound quality. The A/D converters used for the analog transfer were obviously 1980’s generation, less than state of the art (a bit gritty), but the transients, purity and clarity of this transfer done without any obvious mastering processing more than make up. A good mix to emulate for the impact and clarity. Warner Brothers, 3140-2, ©1978.

-3 dB
Security - Peter Gabriel No Mastering credit. Engineered by David Lord. DDD. Highest peak may only be around -3 dBFS so this could have been 3 dB hotter without any sacrifice. Amazingly dynamic and atmospheric recording with lots of deep rhythm. Transients are not particularly sharp, but this was an obvious choice of the mixing engineer/producer who were looking for a certain sound. The "remastered" version of Security reportedly is defective and has lost its sonic attributes. The review of this album is based on the original master of Security. Geffin Records, 2011-2, ©1982.

-4 dB

Citizen - Steely Dan Mastered by Glenn Meadows. Engineered by Roger Nichols, Elliot Scheiner, and Al Schmitt. Produced by Gary Katz. Ricky don’t lose that number! Does it surprise you to learn one of your favorite groups of all time is one of the lowest in intrinsic loudness! This master was obviously made without any attempt to compete with the loudness of other CDs. The result is a CD set where good sound was the only concern. This is a four volume boxed set of their work from 1972-1980 that has been digitally remastered. MCA Records, 4-10-981, ©1993.

Innervisions - Stevie Wonder Mastered by George Marino. Engineered by Dan Barbiero and Austin Godsey. I think the original LP sounds much better and cleaner, but this could reflect tape degradation by the time the CD master was made. However, the CD is still an excellent example of clean production, moderately compressed before the volume wars. Motown Records, 3746303262. ©1973.

Interesting that all of those where from this era where music was mixed on very flawed speakers. And no, I am not drawing any conclusion from this. Interesting, that's all.

 

[375HP2482]

Part 1

Bob Katz can hear everything, and also measure everything. He patented his K System, stereo and surround.

Bob Katz wrote the Bible of Mastering, which Dr. Toole is referencing, Mastering Audio: The Art and Science (now in its 3rd edition). The 3rd edition covers explicitly "the newest approaches to equalization, monitor response measurement and correction, the psychoacoustics of clipping, an extended discussion of restoration and noise reduction techniques, an extended set of listening examples, and an updated chapter on surround mastering including coverage of Pure Audio BluRay. (Emphasis added).

Browsing through the Bob Katz link, in the discussion about mixing/playback levels, I came across this curious (to me) bit:

"In live concerts, when the symphony performs before intermission and the string quartet after intermission, do we have to
turn down the gain of our ears?"

Seems like a non sequitur to me, as symphony halls like Disney are too large for string quartets to project properly, and in my experience are rarely, if ever, presented on the same program as an orchestra. Instead they generally move across the street to Colburn, a smaller venue less dissipative of their reduced energy.

 

[Robbo99999]

Personalization needs to happen on both the creation and delivery side. SW is specifically working on the creation side.

It seems the standard you're advocating for is intended to create the most accurate result for only a tiny minority of end users, specifically audiophiles with anachoically flat speakers in a well treated room (this has to be less than 1%). As a creator, I'm much more concerned about how the largest majority of listeners will hear my music, in other words on headphones of some sort, most likely AirPods. This makes headphone personalization on both sides equally relevant to the topic (with personalization to an agreed upon target on both ends we've gone a long way to mitigating for the CoC).

Creating your music to Anechoic Flat Speaker standard is most definitely not catering to minority of users, in fact the opposite, that's why Anechoic Flat sounds best on average with all consumer music. But on your point of "headphone personalisation to an agreed target", what do you mean by that? You're suggesting music creators EQ their headphones to an agreed upon target & likewise consumers too? But what do you mean by personalisation? I've already said Harman Headphone Curve is currently as best you can do for a headphone standard, but it's not personalised, how you gonna personalise it?

 

[Robbo99999]

That's alright, Toole back in 2015 was pointing out that EQing for a single seat just based on frequency response is not the proper way to do it but hey if you can convince a whole panel of Standard approval that this simple method should be the standard, by all means.

"In professional audio outside of the movie-sound domain the traditional pink-noise/real-time analyzer (RTA) process of measuring steady-state amplitude response has been superseded."

I think you're confused by what I'm talking about, the method I outlined is the standard method that most ASR members will take re RoomEQ and it's inline with Floyd Toole's research: Anechoic Flat Speakers, and RoomEQ below the transition zone - and of course you do it for one seat if you have just one seat - in fact that's the optimal situation to optimise your EQ for one seat as you get better results than optimising it for many seats. Additionally, as a music creator you only need to optimise it for one seat anyway, and if you want to optimise it for more then you buy more subwoofers to get a more even bass response across multiple seats. I'm starting to think you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Zensō]

Creating your music to Anechoic Flat Speaker standard is most definitely not catering to minority of users, in fact the opposite, that's why Anechoic Flat sounds best on average with all consumer music. But on your point of "headphone personalisation to an agreed target", what do you mean by that? You're suggesting music creators EQ their headphones to an agreed upon target & likewise consumers too? But what do you mean by personalisation? I've already said Harman Headphone Curve is currently as best you can do for a headphone standard, but it's not personalised, how you gonna personalise it?

The tech is still in its infancy, but this is what SW, Dolby, and Apple are working on. Dr. Olive talks about this in his recent presentations and interviews as well.

Listen with Personalized Spatial Audio for AirPods and Beats - Apple Support

With Personalized Spatial Audio, you can use the TrueDepth camera on your iPhone to create a personal profile for Spatial Audio that delivers a listening experience tuned just for you.

support.apple.com

Dolby announce personalised HRTF app

New iOS tool lets you create a personalised head-related transfer function.

www.soundonsound.com

 

[Robbo99999]

The tech is still in its infancy, but this is along the lines of what SW, Dolby, and Apple are working on. Dr. Olive talks about this in his recent presentations and interviews as well.

Listen with Personalized Spatial Audio for AirPods and Beats - Apple Support

With Personalized Spatial Audio, you can use the TrueDepth camera on your iPhone to create a personal profile for Spatial Audio that delivers a listening experience tuned just for you.

support.apple.com

Dolby announce personalised HRTF app

New iOS tool lets you create a personalised head-related transfer function.

www.soundonsound.com

BAH! That link shows nothing of worth.

 

[Robbo99999]

I think I'm gonna be bowing out of this thread soon in terms of the discussions on Circle of Confusion. People aren't engaging properly in the discussion (including our illustrious one albeit that's mostly because he ignored my good intentioned post to try to get the thread on track, ), and the conversations are going round & round without getting to the practical nitty gritty, it's dysfunctional.

EDIT: the site (ASR) is not dysfunctional, just this discussion....I will be bowing out if it doesn't turn itself around.

 

[Zensō]

BAH! That link shows nothing of worth.

Click the second link. You asked what personalization was.

I’ll be bowing out too. The circular arguments are driving me nuts.

 

[PeteL]

People aren't engaging properly in the discussion (including our illustrious one), and the conversations are going round & round without getting to the practical nitty gritty, it's dysfunctional.

I'm starting to think you don't know what you're talking about.

...

 

[Robbo99999]

Click the second link.

I’ll be bowing out too. The circular arguments are driving me nuts.

Sorry, yes, the 2nd link is better. Well, if it works then that's good, because I like the idea of personalisation which is what Smyth Realiser does, and that does it very accurately supposedly because it's based on your own in-ear mic measurements of a calibrated speaker system in a room, and then you do the same whilst wearing headphones to remove the variable of headphone coupling......but this Dolby Atmos Personalised Rendering is trying to do that with photos, which is of course easier, but less accurate. I don't know how that fits within the framework of two channel music, because this is a Dolby Atmos multichannel tech specifically. Also, it's one thing to determine the HRTF through scanning, but it's another thing to determine the speaker frequency response curve that you want to target, so it would have to be linked in to that - which is what the whole Anechoic Flat Speaker thing I was talking about. But in terms of headphones if both consumers & producers could do an easy scan to take their own HRTF's out of the equation (because it accounts for it) then that would be a great thing in terms of headphones. It doesn't totally answer the headphone coupling issue though because scans can't determine exactly how your headphone will couple with your head, seal breach, plus the overall interaction will vary per headphone model, which the scan won't be able to account for. It won't be as accurate as the Smyth Realiser approach with in-ear mic measurements.

 

[Robbo99999]

...

Well, that's the impression I'm getting from you.

(cheap tactics highlighting just part of my post, no discussion, dysfunctional, conversation dead).

 

[Robbo99999]

View attachment 306002

Thanks for bringing a little levity to a thread that has gotten too contentious, like so many here tend to do. You’d think we’re discussing MQA, vinyl, or the sound of DACs!

Not really levity, more like ridicule.

 

[Zensō]

...but this Dolby Atmos Personalised Rendering is trying to do that with photos, which is of course easier, but less accurate. I don't know how that fits within the framework of two channel music, because this is a Dolby Atmos multichannel tech specifically. Also, it's one thing to determine the HRTF through scanning, but it's another thing to determine the speaker frequency response curve that you want to target, so it would have to be linked in to that - which is what the whole Anechoic Flat Speaker thing I was talking about. But in terms of headphones if both consumers & producers could do an easy scan to take their own HRTF's out of the equation (because it accounts for it) then that would be a great thing in terms of headphones. It doesn't totally answer the headphone coupling issue though because scans can't determine exactly how your headphone will couple with your head, seal breach, plus the overall interaction will vary per headphone model, which the scan won't be able to account for. It won't be as accurate as the Smyth Realiser approach with in-ear mic measurements.

Apple's Personalized Spatial Audio is actually doing the same thing as the Dolby Atmos app, using a photo scan to determine a person's HRTF. I read somewhere (can't find the link) that they're working together on this. As I mentioned above, Sonarworks and supposedly Harman are working on similar technologies. In the case of Sonarworks they're focusing on frequency response, not immersive/spatial effects, which could go a long way to solving these issues we're discussing if it works as promised. We'll see, it seems like early days with lots of possibilities but no clear answers quite yet.

 

[Robbo99999]

Apple's Personalized Spatial Audio is actually doing the same thing as the Dolby Atmos app, using a photo scan to determine a person's HRTF. I read somewhere (can't find the link) that they're working together on this. As I mentioned above, Sonarworks and supposedly Harman are working on similar technologies. In the case of Sonarworks they're focusing on frequency response, not immersive/spatial effects, which could go a long way to solving these issues we're discussing if it works as promised. We'll see, it seems like early days with lots of possibilities but no clear answers quite yet.

Good, it still has to fit that framework of personalisation into a standard that relates to speakers, which is what the whole headphone personalisation thing is doing, so they have to choose the right speaker standard to aim for, that combines with that headphone personalisation.

(I think I'm leaving this thread now, disillusioned by the quality/integrity of the discourse - not you though really when it comes down to it.)

 

[Zensō]

Good, it still has to fit that framework of personalisation into a standard that relates to speakers, which is what the whole headphone personalisation thing is doing, so they have to choose the right speaker standard to aim for, that combines with that headphone personalisation.

(I think I'm leaving this thread now, disillusioned by the quality/integrity of the discourse - not you though really when it comes down to it.)

Thanks. Yeah I’m out too. Too much talking past each other in every direction. Have a good evening.

 

[amirm]

Maybe, but you are asking for the industry to propose standards, they try to do that. May or may not be flawed, you seam to dismiss the whole thing. OK then. Still feels heavyly Biased you can't deny that. For me it's all the same industry, but if you are waiting for record producer guys to propose standards I mean come on Amir. They will adopt them they believe in science, but of course the researchers, the scientists will always be linked to the technology development sector, it's easy to understand as 1+1=2. Do you expect Floyd Toole to start making records?

That is total nonsense. What they are proposing is total "land grab" as we call it in the industry. A standard has open specifications allowing everyone who wants to participate in it. That is not all going to happen with their proposal:

"Sonarworks has developed a proprietary measurement process that is available as a service, however, at the end of the day what matters is that the measurements correspond to the human listener experience.
[...]
The measurement process employed by Sonarworks is rather complex and requires access to proprietary tools and data. Multiple measurement tools are used for each headphone measurement and the final result is in-house checked by an expert panel. At this point Sonarworks does not provide the headphone measurement tools as a separate hardware product, however, the corrective EQ data and measurements are provided by Sonarworks as a service. "

Translating, they are the only ones that can make the measurements. And they would be happy to charge you for it. Further, you are not going to know what those measurements are as to assess their efficacy and correctness.

There is no way, no how a single decision maker in the industry is going to go for this no matter what it is. I know, I have decades of experience trying to get content owners and technology companies to adopt new technology.

As I explained to you, this is an advertisement for their technology trying to say, "look, we have done this great work whey don't you king make us and we will be even happier."


So no. Anything we propose here has to be an open process and have no proprietary barriers. The solution to the problems does not need any fancy solution as to give away the farm this way to a single company much less a small one like this. Just imagine Apple going along with what they are doing. Or Major labels. It is not going to happen and hasn't happened.

To be clear, I don't think anything we propose will go anywhere. Folks are not ready to do a thing as evidenced by their proxies here. They think they are king of the world and no snout nosed outsider is going to tell them "how to do their job." I will explain in a later post what I think should happen but it is just for amusement and discussion here.

What I want people to take away though is that there is a serious problem. And one that has been left out there hanging due to apathy and arrogance of the industry to producing quality products. That, as consumers of high fidelity content, we need to be in unison with. And that our job ultimately is more difficult than it needs to be. That no target for a headphone or speaker will ever be absolute because the pro industry has cut our knees out. This is the message.

 

[amirm]

If we parse this problem, we have two issues:

1. Lack of consistency between studios, mastering houses and high-end consumer systems. Without a standard we can't even come close to having a content play close let alone similar in another venue. This must be fixed if just in pro space and high-end consumers.

2. No standard is going to work unless it solves real life problems for the content owners and Pros. As noted before, what butters their bread is mass market. This is where the idea of "translation" was born. It certainly wasn't to have their content play well on another system just theirs as would be the case in #1. This problem, is unsolvable. As Dr. Olive rightly said, consumer playback systems are broken in a million ways. So there is no single music encode that is going to fit them in any meaningful way. And using broken tools like NS-10m is certainly not going to do it. And it worsens the problem #1.

I am going to make some suggestions on how we go about this. It is not meant to be a "standard" but to outline the tools we have to solve these issues. So don't go picking on words and exact proposals. A group of interested parties, hopefully led by Pros and Labels, with supporting cast of technology companies, should go after creating the right outline.

1. For #1 problem above, we need to establish a target curve for the listening seats in the room (if more than one, then they all need to comply). This would be different than a "flat response." I think we need to be sensitive to type of room people have had which no doubt has some type of room gain and high frequency roll off. By creating a more familiar standard, existing content doesn't get obsoleted overnight, and neither will be the parties involved have to learn all over again what to do.

To do this we should perform a few studies of existing, highly prized studios. We can measure them using the technology used in the Harman SMPTE work allowing us to perform quick AB tests of it against other rooms. This would let us establish if there is a target that more or less works. As a reference, this target was found to work for movie sound:

We are talking the dark curve. Note that I am NOT saying that is the correct one. A new one will need to be researched for music production as stated. That said, the above target is pretty close to what many of us use and has been shown in research into consumer preference to get the highest scores.

Strict specifications need to be there on how this measurement is performed and post processed.

If it were up to me, I would create an underlying specifications for the anechoic measurements of speakers to go with this. That would call for more or less flat on-axis and smooth off-axis with controlled directivity of +- 50 to 60 degrees.

When this is done, we would implement it in a few studios and perform a test to see how portable the mix/masters are and how close we have gotten. The goal needs to be 80% although how we capture that metric is a project by itself. FYI in video/photography we also have this variance called Delta-E.

Once we have this system in place and approved, content gets produced and approved on this monitoring system. But this won't be the only deliverable as it is entirely possible we screw up what music sounds like on less than ideal consumer devices such as aforementioned Apple Airpod.

2. The industry comes together and creates either fixed set of profiles or product specific compensation curves for playback devices. The idea would be to create an transform, which when applied to released content above, would create a more optimized playback for that device. Let's say we are targeting Amazon Alexa and the thing buzzes if you play 64 Hz notes into it (I am making this up). Or it sounds bloated if you feed it full bass. We make all of these correction in an EQ curve (or set of PEQ parameters). Then perform controlled listening tests to see if the transform creates a better experience than the stock content we created in #1. My experience in doing this for both headphones and speakers totally some 300+, says that it will absolutely work. I have turned $10 IEMs into amazing sounding devices with a few filters.

As I noted, we could either create product specific profiles which then manifests itself in a very long list, or see if we can come up with 3 or 4 profiles that are "good enough." That is they are far better than no correction but perhaps not as optimal as a device specific one. We would perform controlled listening tests to see if we can indeed do this.

If we go the device specific one, then we would need to host this some place and make it free and easy for anyone to download.

Anyway, think of this as headphone/speaker correction but with buy-in from content/pro industry.

Note that none of this will solve for world hunger. You can still create bad mixes. And we as listeners may disagree with the choices. As long as we take a giant step forward, it would be worth it.

 

[PeteL]

For once I was going to agree with your argumentation. That’s until I read the last paragraph which is the same unfounded rehashed finger pointing that you repeat as a mantra. This part it’s not worth responding to.