Have you achieve a listening system that reach that mix engineer, master engineer or producer intended production quality?

[Ricardus]

If a large segment of your intended audience listens primarily on headphones (which is certainly the case with some kinds of music these days), then wouldn't it make some sense to at least check the sound on a couple of the more popular and widely used head or earphones?

This is a fair question, and since I've been making records I never had a mix that didn't sound fine in a good pair of headphones. I don't really feel the need to check since everything so far has translated fine. In fact, I don't know what you would have to do wrong to make a mix sound bad in a decent pair of headphones if you're observing good mix practices and you have any mixing chops at all. The problem might be with the home engineer generation who thinks they know how to make a record because they have a cheap Behringer interface and a $20 SM57 knockoff they bought on Amazon.

I will never mix for earbuds, Beats (brand) headphones, or any other obscure listening devices like that.

 

[Longshan]

On the extremely rare chance that no one has yet said this, music is mixed, mastered, and produced in such a way that it will sound 'decent' on any equipment, because music gets played on all kinds of equipment. So it's a bit of a meaningless question, I think.

 

[MattHooper]

well of course. People like all kinds of different sounds and distortions. The problem is, those distortions are often presented in the audiophile world as being warmer, more musical...in fact more real. In other words, those things are presented as though they are revealing the true musicality of the recording. In a way, those distortions and preferences are sometimes presented as though they are actually the more accurate representation of the recording.

Yes that's what I've said before really bugs me in the audiophile world.

Among audiophiles there is still this sort of "Straight wire with gain" holy grail, the idea that if you can just keep purifying the signal chain (often mistaken with making it shorter or 'simpler') you will be led "closer to the music," the sound quality automatically becoming richer and also more "revealing" of the sound and music.

This background mythology is why manufacturers never want to come out and just say "We are selling you a coloration you might like." It has to be couched somehow in marketing terms as being "more truthful to the musical source, more revealing of what is actually there!" This has been carried on through the subjective review trade to quite a degree too. (Though not always).

But I'd also be careful not to mix up colorations some may say to sound "more real" with claiming it's "more accurate" (to the source). I think it could be valid to say in some cases a deviation from accurate can sound "more real." (In fact, it's obviously the case which could be demonstrated by re-equing an artifacty or artificial source to sound more natural. I do this all the time in my work as a sound editor).

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

But I'd also be careful not to mix up colorations some may say to sound "more real" with claiming it's "more accurate" (to the source). I think it could be valid to say in some cases a deviation from accurate can sound "more real." (In fact, it's obviously the case which could be demonstrated by re-equing an artifacty or artificial source to sound more natural. I do this all the time in my work as a sound editor).

Sure fair enough. But we're talking here primarily about musical recordings that are built to be played back on 2 channel stereo systems. We aren't really in the sound editing realm...we're playing back recordings that are presumably released in what was considered to be a finished state. Is it a "well-produced" recording? Maybe, maybe not. But the point is, when it comes to putting together a system to listen to those recordings, you can't build it to try and make bad recordings sound good. You want it to make good recordings sound good and the bad recordings can rot ftmp...if your system is "hard-wired" such that bad recordings sound good, what's it doing to the good recordings - which really represent the vast majority of recordings?

 

[MattHooper]

Sure fair enough. But we're talking here primarily about musical recordings that are built to be played back on 2 channel stereo systems. We aren't really in the sound editing realm...we're playing back recordings that are presumably released in what was considered to be a finished state. Is it a "well-produced" recording? Maybe, maybe not. But the point is, when it comes to putting together a system to listen to those recordings, you can't build it to try and make bad recordings sound good. You want it to make good recordings sound good and the bad recordings can rot ftmp...if your system is "hard-wired" such that bad recordings sound good, what's it doing to the good recordings - which really represent the vast majority of recordings?

Yes that makes sense on paper, and it's a common theme on this site. However in practice I personally haven't found that to work out so neatly.
And it depends on your specific goals and what you are sensitive to. I have found that a slight bit of overall coloration from my tube amps enhances the sound of virtually everything I play through the system, whether it's lower quality or very high quality recordings. I can hear things that a bit more accuracy brings to the table with some tracks, but even then I tend to prefer some slight additional sauce which makes it sound even a bit more "natural" and pleasing to my ears. I don't project this to any claim someone else will automatically think the same if they hear it.

YMMV of course.

 

[ADU]

It's an inherently bedeviling subject because whatever arbitrary objective goal we define - which can be useful - the ultimate goal is subjective impressions...

I think you and Sgt. Ear Ache both make some interesting points, Matt. And I'll have to re-read both of your posts a couple more times before trying to offer comment.

The SQ I was referring to would be mainly for the home audio system though, as opposed to the recording, just to clarify that.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Yes that makes sense on paper, and it's a common theme on this site. However in practice I personally haven't found that to work out so neatly.
And it depends on your specific goals and what you are sensitive to. I have found that a slight bit of overall coloration from my tube amps enhances the sound of virtually everything I play through the system, whether it's lower quality or very high quality recordings. I can hear things that a bit more accuracy brings to the table with some tracks, but even then I tend to prefer some slight additional sauce which makes it sound even a bit more "natural" and pleasing to my ears. I don't project this to any claim someone else will automatically think the same if they hear it.

YMMV of course.

Can you be sure that the preference you have isn't just something you've learned to prefer over a period of years as a tube guy? I don't want to trot out the old "blind test" bugaboo because it's such a cliche at this point, but what if you were to compare two systems blind and you picked the "neutral," non-tube one as sounding better? I guess what I'm getting at is the notion I referred to before about how it's good to have an objective baseline that doesn't rely on our hearing to work from. Due to the fact that hearing is an adaptive system and all that...it's sort of inherently un-trustworthy. It can and will fool us if we let it and lead us off into the weeds at times.

Not that you're off in the weeds mind you...we're just having an intellectual discussion about the nature of our hobby here lol. I mean we all know how it is right? I'm certainly not immune to it. You get your new system home and all hooked up and you start playing music through it and it's just bliss! Everything sounds incredible! For weeks or months you can't wait to get home and listen to some tunes. But then, as time goes by you start to think "meh...maybe there's something more out there..." Then you start browsing the forums and reading stereo review sites and so forth and before too long you find something that you think "yeah! That's the thing!" and for a while it is. But then that thought creeps back in - "hmmmm...maybe?" Perhaps at some point it's a tube amp and that then becomes the path you're on. If you're just going by ear and subjective impressions, every step in the game can be a move in a different direction and it's pretty tough to know where you've gone or where you're going.

 

[MattHooper]

Can you be sure that the preference you have isn't just something you've learned to prefer over a period of years as a tube guy? I don't want to trot out the old "blind test" bugaboo because it's such a cliche at this point, but what if you were to compare two systems blind and you picked the "neutral," non-tube one as sounding better?

Yeah, that's the inherent problem with referencing something like tube amp coloration. Insofar as blind testing hasn't been done in the specific case, neither of us can say that there even IS a difference being distinguished. It could be one of those cases where it's just imagined, sighted bias.

That's why I only ever use the example in a "for the sake of argument" fashion: On the question why would anyone prefer some distortion added continually to a system?, if we are willing to accept-for-the-sake-of-this-argument something like tube amp distortion, and for sake of argument that I'm hearing real differences introduced by my tube amp, THEN I can explain why I like the addition in my system. Just as a way of talking about "how would it makes sense to want some overall coloration added to everything?" It's not established as true, but given it isn't implausible...lets allow it as assumed to discuss the subject. Some people don't want to even go that far in accepting it for sake of argument, which I understand. I often mention tube amps in these "hi-fidelity vs adding pleasing distortion" debates simply because they have often been used as a touchstone in such debates - tube amps are one plausible way to introduce such distortion. Also because tube amps are the "coloration device" I've had the longest experience with in my system.

And on the subject of granting the audibility of the tube amp distortion: As to whether it is only pure familiarity on my part, that's always possible. I can only say that I have had solid state amplification in my system numerous times over the years, sometimes for long periods between using tube amps, and when I compare them I always favor my tube amps. And one reason I favor my tube amps is that I'm always comparing live vs reproduced sound, and there is something in the character my tube amps seem to impart that is a wee bit more consonant with some of the aspects I care about in live sound (a combination of textural presence, richness, body, warmth - clarity and detail but 'relaxed' sounding).

(BTW, I think I might be able to pull off some blind testing soon between my tube preamp and my solid state benchmark pre-amp).

All of which is worth what you just paid for it

 

[BDWoody]

In other word, you are having hi fi system near studio quality.

I use these in my main system.

Mixing the World’s Biggest Artists with JBL 7 Studio Monitors –

Whether it’s crafting a chart-topping single, multi-tracking a live performance or mixing a stadium concert, today’s top producers and audio engineers are

pro.harman.com

 

[ADU]

This is a fair question, and since I've been making records I never had a mix that didn't sound fine in a good pair of headphones. I don't really feel the need to check since everything so far has translated fine. In fact, I don't know what you would have to do wrong to make a mix sound bad in a decent pair of headphones if you're observing good mix practices and you have any mixing chops at all. The problem might be with the home engineer generation who thinks they know how to make a record because they have a cheap Behringer interface and a $20 SM57 knockoff they bought on Amazon.

I will never mix for earbuds, Beats (brand) headphones, or any other obscure listening devices like that.

I'm sure you're correct on most of the above, Ricardus. And know yer business.

Headphones have a different kind of presentation though. And can reveal quite a bit more detail than an in-room setup, due to their lower distortion and more direct coupling with the eardrum.

 

[clearnfc]

In other word, you are having hi fi system near studio quality. For me, I have met some hit song producers. They never mention what kind of system to enjoy their production. Even in studio where the hit songs were made. Never read, listen or come across from these people you need a reproduction system of that kind. Only sales representation and marketing that you need reproduction quality system that the producer or engineer intended for. These messages will pass to customer like us.

My answer is no. And most pple would be no as well.... but i would say its close enough.

The main reason is that most pple simply have no way to know what is the intended production quality and how its supposed to sound like.

Without something thats a reference to compare, there is no way to know. Also, no audio system in this world can recreate the sound recorded in your CD or any audio files/media with 100% accuracy. So, there will always be some minor variations.

 

[goat76]

Sure fair enough. But we're talking here primarily about musical recordings that are built to be played back on 2 channel stereo systems. We aren't really in the sound editing realm...we're playing back recordings that are presumably released in what was considered to be a finished state. Is it a "well-produced" recording? Maybe, maybe not. But the point is, when it comes to putting together a system to listen to those recordings, you can't build it to try and make bad recordings sound good. You want it to make good recordings sound good and the bad recordings can rot ftmp...if your system is "hard-wired" such that bad recordings sound good, what's it doing to the good recordings - which really represent the vast majority of recordings?

Yes that makes sense on paper, and it's a common theme on this site. However in practice I personally haven't found that to work out so neatly.
And it depends on your specific goals and what you are sensitive to. I have found that a slight bit of overall coloration from my tube amps enhances the sound of virtually everything I play through the system, whether it's lower quality or very high quality recordings. I can hear things that a bit more accuracy brings to the table with some tracks, but even then I tend to prefer some slight additional sauce which makes it sound even a bit more "natural" and pleasing to my ears. I don't project this to any claim someone else will automatically think the same if they hear it.

YMMV of course.

I have never understood the argument that says you have to choose between getting a "good" or a "bad" recording sounds good on your sound system. Like MattHooper says, if someone prefers a little bit of coloration to the overall sound it will most likely enhance everything they're listening to, not just the "bad" recordings and somehow ruin all the "good" recordings. Everything will sound equally better to them.

I think we have two different schools here...
Some people have the goal of 'getting as close to/achieving the sound' of how they hear things in the real world, and they want to achieve that no matter if they need to alter the playback of the recorded data, somewhat. And on the other side, we have the ones that do everything they can to get the recorded data to translate as unaltered as possible, no matter how the end-result sounds to them.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

I think we have two different schools here...
Some people have the goal of 'getting as close to/achieving the sound' of how they hear things in the real world, and they want to achieve that no matter if they need to alter the playback of the recorded data, somewhat. And on the other side, we have the ones that do everything they can to get the recorded data to translate as unaltered as possible, no matter how the end-result sounds to them.

Well, if it's a good recording, then the end result of a neutral system should be good sound right? People who want to color their music (even if that color is only imaginary - keep in mind that the whole idea of "tube sound" is pretty unproven still) with other effects are always free to do so..as has been said here over and over again. But if you're going to try and argue that you are getting closer to some sort of reality - that you've "found" the music or something - that's where the debates start. I mean in the end all I'm doing is describing the way I see things. I certainly can't tell anyone else what they should do. But ASR is all about getting down to the real things that matter and tossing all the fluff aside...

 

[ADU]

I think we have two different schools here...
Some people have the goal of 'getting as close to/achieving the sound' of how they hear things in the real world, and they want to achieve that no matter if they need to alter the playback of the recorded data, somewhat. And on the other side, we have the ones that do everything they can to get the recorded data to translate as unaltered as possible, no matter how the end-result sounds to them.

Yes. I think this is right, goat76. And I was also trying to think of some way to describe the difference.

Some folks (like me, for example) want to hear a recording essentially "as is" with most or all of its warts intact. While others seem to be more interested in reproducing the experience of being at the actual performance or event where a recording took place. I could be wrong, but I think most so-called audiophiles would probably fall more into this 2nd category.

In the 2nd category, distortion of the recording is not only permissible, but also desirable, if it brings you closer to the feeling of actually being there at a live performance.

I'm sorry for flipping the order of the two in my examples though. Because my 2nd category would be equivalent to the first category in your description.

 

[kongwee]

I use these in my main system.

Mixing the World’s Biggest Artists with JBL 7 Studio Monitors –

Whether it’s crafting a chart-topping single, multi-tracking a live performance or mixing a stadium concert, today’s top producers and audio engineers are

pro.harman.com

That great!

 

[MattHooper]

Well, if it's a good recording, then the end result of a neutral system should be good sound right? People who want to color their music (even if that color is only imaginary - keep in mind that the whole idea of "tube sound" is pretty unproven still) with other effects are always free to do so..as has been said here over and over again. But if you're going to try and argue that you are getting closer to some sort of reality - that you've "found" the music or something - that's where the debates start. I mean in the end all I'm doing is describing the way I see things. I certainly can't tell anyone else what they should do. But ASR is all about getting down to the real things that matter and tossing all the fluff aside...

Agreed.

I have an on-going fascination with live vs reproduced sound. I even used to do recordings of my family's voices and instruments we play at home and do live vs reproduced comparisons with various speakers I'd have in the house. It wasn't scientifically controlled blind testing, but just listening for the differences "what is it about the live sound of my wife's voice or our acoustic guitar that is different from the recording through the speakers?" seemed illuminating. I still do this type of comparisons more causually all the time.

But it's not with the goal of achieving perfect realism in my hi fi system - that way lies madness, it would never be achieved. I just take certain cues from live sound and see if I can nudge my system in that direction. That can even mean just playing with acoustics - I have some good flexibility in terms of modulating the reflectivity of my room, so I can adjust the reflections to where I'm really mostly aware of the specific acoustics in the recording - in which case it's sort of like "looking through a portal between the speakers" in to a difference acoustic space.
Or I can drastically increase the reflections which makes everything more lively and sounds more like "the musicians are playing in my room."
Or I can find a balance in between where the acoustics of my room interact just enough with those of the recording that it "livens up" or "blends" the recorded acoustic with my room, giving me more of the feeling of "being there, sharing the acoustic space of the recording." Which can be pretty wild.

One pair of speakers I cherish are my old Spendor S3/5s which seem to recreate the "gestalt" of the human voice more than most other speakers I've owned - the way a well recorded voice will occupy space with a sense of body and density, but "made of soft human flesh" not artificially squeezed, hardened stuff like most sound reproduction. Whenever I hear a high quality vocal track on those spendors and then immediately compare it to one of my family's speaking voice, the comparison doesn't fall apart like with most speakers. It's amazing how close it sounds. And yet when I borrowed a friend's solid state Bryston 4B3 amp for a couple of months and played vocal tracks on the spendors I was a bit shocked because that illusion faltered. Now, though the voices were still quite clear, there was that slightly "squeezed/hardened" sound - no doubt more accurate to the recordings - that was subtle but there enough to always cued my mind "this is a recording of a voice, not the real thing." It didn't survive that direct comparison in the same way, to my ears, which reminded me of why I like my tube amps so much! They just relax the sound a bit, fill it out so a voice sounds dense, has body, but softness - it slightly blurs the edges a bit, to make some of the more artificial electronic-sounding aspects of recordings a bit less obvious. It seems to tonally slightly "lighten" things giving a voice more "it's there" presence, and slightly blur the acoustic of the recording so the voice sounds a bit more like an object projecting in 'free space.' All subtle, but just enough to help the illusion of "real" for me.

I can't offer any objective evidence that I'm right or discovered anything of worth. I'm just having fun playing with my own impressions.
If one is interested in this live vs reproduced stuff there isn't much help around (especially in regards to the objects in the recording themselves - e.g. voices, sax, tubas - vs the surrounding sense of acoustics). It's not like much science was ever done on this as far as I'm aware, and most of the science we encounter on, for instance, loudspeakers are of the Harman Kardon type which evaluates preferences among loudspeakers not blinded live-vs-reproduced testing. And the more technically oriented audiophiles and sites (e.g. like this) tend to be focused on extracting the sound file with maximum fidelity, not "live vs reproduced" fidelity.

So I just muddle along on my own, noting what I note about live sound, carrying those memories to my system, and seeing what changes do or do not seem to bring about some of those characteristics.

 

[MattHooper]

Yes. I think this is right, goat76. And I was also trying to think of some way to describe the difference.

Some folks (like me, for example) want to hear a recording essentially "as is" with most or all of its warts intact. While others seem to be more interested in reproducing the experience of being at the actual performance or event where a recording took place. I could be wrong, but I think most so-called audiophiles would probably fall more into this 2nd category.

In the 2nd category, distortion of the recording is not only permissible, but also desirable, if it brings you closer to the feeling of actually being there at a live performance.

Yes, if we are talking about audible distortions than (lacking extensive, controlled group studies giving definitive answers) it can be quite subjective as to what an individual might find to be "more realistic." One person may listen to a Zue speaker and with it's wonky frequency response and emphasis on dynamics, may find aspects make the sound more present and "real" sounding, while someone else may cue in on the tonal colorations making it "less real" sounding than a speaker with a smoother response.

I love a wide variety of music which includes lots of acoustic instrumentation but I also adore electronic music (being an ex keyboardist myself), so I listen to lots of flavours of electronica. I have found that the same colorations I enjoy for enhancing acoustic music - my tube amps - also enhances the sound for everything else including electronic music.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

I don't have the same affinity for the effort to achieve "live sound" in my system. In my experience, live sound is rarely something I really want...I've been to very few live shows that I thought really sounded very good at all. I suppose if we were talking about chamber music or small ensemble acoustic performances maybe, but once you add amps and P/A systems and racks of speakers pointing every which way in arenas and venues full of concrete and metal...meh. The few really great-sounding shows I've seen over the years actually sounded much closer to the sort of sound I get out of my system rather than further from it.

otoh, I play guitar - both acoustic and electric - and am reasonably familiar with those sounds and I'm constantly blown away by how good my neutral setup with the HE-400i headphones gets those right. I often feel like I have my ear pressed up against the front of my tube guitar amp when I'm listening to music...it's incredibly life-like.

 

[MattHooper]

I don't have the same affinity for the effort to achieve "live sound" in my system. In my experience, live sound is rarely something I really want...I've been to very few live shows that I thought really sounded very good at all. I suppose if we were talking about chamber music or small ensemble acoustic performances maybe, but once you add amps and P/A systems and racks of speakers pointing every which way in arenas and venues full of concrete and metal...meh. The few really great-sounding shows I've seen over the years actually sounded much closer to the sort of sound I get out of my system rather than further from it.

I get that and I see a lot of audiophiles say "most live shows have crap sound compared to my home system, so why would I care about live?"

I feel differently. Certainly I've been to shows with truly terrible sound (and some of those have been the giant concerts - in fact they are more prone to that IMO). But even when instruments are amplified, I still find live sound generally more compelling in character.
I used to play keyboards and sometimes bass in a very large funk band - up to 15 members sometimes, including percussion, horn sections, 4 singers etc. We had some pretty good PA systems and I used to marvel at how great it sounded - whether it was the horns or my keyboards through the system, there was a liveness and even timbral richness, not to mention dynamic quality - that outdid any "hi fi" system I knew.

I live near a strip of clubs and bars with tons of live music - folk, pop, country, rock, jazz, everything in between. Whether it's mixes of live instruments and amplified, or when they've amplified everything, I still find more richness in the live sound.

I think if you play an instrument that is usually amplified - keyboards or bass in my case, or electric guitar - the sound coming from your cabinet is "the sound" of your instrument, and that direct sound has quite a lot of timbral character and richness. But once you go in to the recordings studio and record it, and then mix it in with other stuff, it gets diluted in every way - complexity, dynamics, presence. It's just limpid compared to the real thing, even though the real thing was amplified. So I hear more richness in someone playing an amplified Fender Rhodes, or Hammond, or modern keyboard, or their guitar or even amplified drums, in many live gigs, than I do from hi fi systems. IMO of course.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

I think if you play an instrument that is usually amplified - keyboards or bass in my case, or electric guitar - the sound coming from your cabinet is "the sound" of your instrument, and that direct sound has quite a lot of timbral character and richness. But once you go in to the recordings studio and record it, and then mix it in with other stuff, it gets diluted in every way - complexity, dynamics, presence. It's just limpid compared to the real thing, even though the real thing was amplified. So I hear more richness in someone playing an amplified Fender Rhodes, or Hammond, or modern keyboard, or their guitar or even amplified drums, in many live gigs, than I do from hi fi systems. IMO of course.

Then we come around again to the notion that we can hear what the artist or engineer "intended." I would assume that part of the challenge of making the recording is to try and get "the sound" that the various artists/musicians have achieved down on tape so to speak and to mix and blend those in a successful way. Presumably, if a recording is good it will have managed to capture that magic. So to me, that's what I'm trying to hear. Not Angus Young's guitar with an extra layer of something on top...and the vocals with that same layer of something on top...etc etc. So once again, I don't really know what the intention was. I just have the recording. If it doesn't do a good job of capturing that magic, I don't really know how I can fix that at the listening end in a way that means anything.

But on a sort of basic level...I just don't feel like I'm not getting that complexity and dynamics really. I mean I've heard a lot of recordings on a lot of different systems over the years and my (reasonably) neutral setup sounds great just like many of them have.