Do you need high end speakers for rock and heavy metal?

[SigbergAudio]

This discussion seems to often intermingle "mixing" and "mastering." I'll be the first (maybe) to admit I know nothing about mastering, never having seen it. I've participated in many final 2 to 5 channel mixes for broadcast, but never for music distribution. This distinction may be academic, but I really don't know; some clarification might be useful.

(..)
After the raw tracks from the recording studio have been recorded, the mixing engineer combines all the tracks into a coherent whole. This includes adjusting levels, EQ and even adding compression and adjusting tonality. Back in the day this was a simple process of adjusting levels of the the four or five tracks you had available. On a modern recording there can literally be a hundred tracks. The result from the mixing gives a clear indication of how the end result will be.

The mastering engineer receives a mixed down stereo track, and this is where the final touches are applied. We ensure the mix translates to everything from cheap air plugs via car radios and home stereos. If it's an album we also ensure that all tracks have a similar sound and the same volume. The loudness is also adjusted to work well for publishing to the streaming services and different media.

(from an article containing an interview with a studio owner on our website)

 

[MattHooper]

On a modern recording there can literally be a hundred tracks.

/diversion

In my business - sound design for film and TV - such track counts are routine. Even for a modest little ghost movie I did a while back I delivered something like 170 tracks.

I do not miss working with high track counts on 35mm mag in multiple gangs on physical synchronizers. When you were rolling 6 reels of mag through those things and one strip would pop out of a gang putting things out of sync ….that just sucked.

I gag even just looking at a picture of one of those things:

 

[Newman]

To me, the Spinorama establishes an outstanding engineering reference and should absolutely remain the benchmark. But I don't think that excludes small, well-reasoned deviations when they serve a specific design goal, listening environment, or application.

The Spinorama-related preference data already allows for a fair amount of "small, well-reasoned deviations" especially in directivity. And in direct-sound response, "small, well-reasoned deviations" are far better delivered with EQ, including (a) more precision in adjustment, and (b) ability to deal sensibly and quickly with huge mastering variations, if desired.

So why on earth hard-wire in a specific, locked, off-target variation? The only reason I can see is to pander to the 'wine-tasting method' of audio gear shopping and buying. But that method invariably uses sighted listening, which will simply be dominated by sighted listening effects, even more certainly so for "small, well-reasoned deviations".

After considering the above two paragraphs, the legitimacy of the approach keeps reverting to the idea of "my tweaks, reflecting my taste, which I think makes them rather special and elevated. Try it, you just might like it." In spite of the above two paragraphs effectively making it redundant.

cheers

 

[MattHooper]

The Spinorama-related preference data already allows for a fair amount of "small, well-reasoned deviations" especially in directivity. And in direct-sound response, "small, well-reasoned deviations" are far better delivered with EQ, including (a) more precision in adjustment, and (b) ability to deal sensibly and quickly with huge mastering variations, if desired.

Generally, that’s quite sensible. (Although of course, not all differences between speakers can be produced just using EQ. And obvious example would be trying to EQ a
Neumann speaker to sound like my MBL omnis).

The only reason I can see is to pander to the 'wine-tasting method' of audio gear shopping and buying.

I’m here to be pandered too

A lot of us find it a fun way to explore and shop for gear.

It’s great that evermore loudspeaker manufacturers are using “ASR approved” methods to develop loudspeakers, and perfectly reasonable to use measurements based on this approach to buy gear.

It’s also great that there are still manufacturers doing more boutique, or bespoke, or out of the box attempts at loudspeakers, which will serve another selection of audiophiles. As I mentioned before, I’ve thoroughly enjoyed loudspeakers that would never have seen the day if the designer had strictly followed the advice above. And I’m glad for it.

But that method invariably uses sighted listening, which will simply be dominated by sighted listening effects,

There’s that exaggeration again. It’s never helpful. Try “less reliable.” (Because you cannot know beforehand that the character perceived will be “dominated” by SLE. I’ve listened to plenty of speakers and later, seeing the measurements, which showed that my informal listening impressions were generally accurate and not “ dominated” by SLE. Erin of Erin’s audio corner also has plenty of such experience).

After considering the above two paragraphs, the legitimacy of the approach keeps reverting to the idea of "my tweaks, reflecting my taste, which I think makes them rather special and elevated. Try it, you just might like it."

Sounds good to me.

I have “ tried and liked” plenty of interesting loudspeakers that were not designed to the standards you prefer (and for which there are no spin measurements). And that would certainly include the MBL omnis which provided me many amazing listening sessions, despite the fact you have earlier pronounced them “wrong, wrong, wrong…”
If they were wrong, I don’t wanna be right

 

[Satanica]

Do you need high end speakers for rock and heavy metal?
Answer: We don't need high end (high performance) speakers for anything including rock/metal, want yes, need no.

• Why are so many (even expensive) speakers struggling with this genre?
  Answer: Because they are no better than mediocre speakers. As implied, rock/metal is a serious test.
• Do great speakers really "reveal bad recordings", or is it the other way around? Do the recordings reveal bad speakers?
  Answer: Much more so the latter.
• What makes a speaker work well with rock and metal?
  Answer: I know this is a really boring answer, but a good speaker is a good speaker. Also, rock/metal (dense audio) doesn't give a speaker much of a let off to not expose flaws/limitations.

 

[JohnnyNG]

I'm obviously (from my designs) an avid supporter of "overkill" capacity in this range (80-500hz). I am going to be a bit careful in implying exactly why it is needed as we know the required excursion falls dramatically as frequency rises, and we have measurements of competent 2-ways playing with relatively low distortion in sweeps across this range.

Despite this, it's my clear opinion and experience that it certainly is, especially at elevated levels. If we look at the energy of the aforementioned rock where you have wideband transients from drums and distorted guitars, and you're at 100dB and beyond at the listening position - well, let's just say I'll confidently stick to my philosophy of dedicated midbass capacity. To my ears this capacity pays dividends by presenting the music with effortlessness and scale even at moderate levels, but that's where we cross over in subjective country.

I find this to be very true but it's tough to know what's missing in a typical setup if nothing's obviously distorting.