How do you prefer to hear your music?

[Multicore]

I voted for all three. I add the word "then" between each statement and it all makes sense together.

 

[Chrispy]

There are many stages between recording, mixing, and mastering. But in the end, the final product the CD, LP, or high-res digital file is the actual reference point. That’s what the artist and producer have approved as the definitive version. For me, that’s the benchmark I try to keep my playback as close to as possible.

Yeah, its just that that reference point varies somewhat and in the end the best you can do is have an accurate playback system, perhaps tweaked to your preference or for the volume you're listening at.

 

[analogonly]

Not ti be "that guy", but you left out "live". I do listen at home--room treated for first reflections, analog, all tube. No subwoofer, but if I did it would be line level crossover to solid state powered swarm; might need bass traps then.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

nobody knows what anyone else's "intent" is, even if they purport to tell us (which is rarely the case). Some records may have been made with maximum care and ended up full satisfactory to all involved; most weren't; you and I will never know which is which.

Either way, I want to hear the record, not some distortion of it, so I want audio equipment that demonstrates very strong adherence (high fidelity, hifi) to the source recordings. Obviously I also have to take my practical reality into account (budget, available space) and most people have visual aesthetic preferences. But all else being equal, as someone who loves recorded music, I want to reproduce it as accurately as I can.

 

[Snarfie]

Yeah, its just that that reference point varies somewhat and in the end the best you can do is have an accurate playback system, perhaps tweaked to your preference or for the volume you're listening at.

I agree accuracy matters, but you have to define what that means. I aim for neutral flat ±2–3 dB response reverb time around 0.5 seconds, like a reasonable treated studio controll room. Since my room’s only partly tamed, DSP room EQ helps keep it flat. Neutral recordings shine, but quirky ones? This setup throws their flaws under a spotlight sometimes harshly. Makes you favor the “perfect” recorded neutral tracks/music, but hey, that can shrink your playlist music choises

It’s a balancing act how do you handle it?

The mancave artic for near an farfield listening

 

[WXfreak]

Id agree with the flat playback listening system if we were listing to to a final studio mix because studios are set for accuracy. But mastering and distribution ensures the song “translates” across phones, earbuds, car stereos, TVs, and hi-fi systems.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

Id agree with the flat playback listening system if we were listing to to a final studio mix because studios are set for accuracy. But mastering and distribution ensures the song “translates” across phones, earbuds, car stereos, TVs, and hi-fi systems.

Wait, you think an inaccurate, colored playback system that alters the information provided by the source recording--is better because of..."mastering and distribution"? And a flat, neutral playback would make sense for only music that hasn't yet been mastered or distributed?

Or am I misreading your post?

 

[WXfreak]

Wait, you think an inaccurate, colored playback system that alters the information provided by the source recording--is better because of..."mastering and distribution"? And a flat, neutral playback would make sense for only music that hasn't yet been mastered or distributed?

Or am I misreading your post?

I certainly think that when it is perfected for the wider audience, there will be a trade-off in dynamic range and frequency balance, as adjustments are made that cater to different music styles. The focus is on translating the sound accurately instead of achieving a completely flat playback. Therefore, home audio enthusiasts aren't the intended audience, making the idea of ruler-flat playback unnecessary.

 

[goat76]

I certainly think that when it is perfected for the wider audience, there will be a trade-off in dynamic range and frequency balance, as adjustments are made that cater to different music styles. The focus is on translating the sound accurately instead of achieving a completely flat playback. Therefore, home audio enthusiasts aren't the intended audience, making the idea of ruler-flat playback unnecessary.

There are some illogical things in what you just said, and I think you're confusing a thing or two...

First of all, while it's certainly true that the frequency balance may look a bit different between different music styles, how do you mean the nature of that would change depending on playing the content on a flat playback system vs a non-flat playback system? Just think about that for a minute. What would you change if you were the mastering engineer, and how would you even know what to change in the frequency balance to cater to the sound of many different non-flat playback systems out there?
I'm sure you could ask that same question to pretty much any mastering engineer, and I'm quite sure (s)he wouldn't be able to answer what such frequency balance catered to a non-flat playback system would even look like, either.

The second thing is about the "trade-off in dynamic range". That has not much to do with translating the sound "accurately" to a non-flat playback system; that is mostly about making the sound mix work better in noisy environments, and/or competing in the loudness race with other commercial acts. If you take out those two "outside factors", a music mix with less "trade-off" in the dynamic range will likely sound better on both flat playback systems AND non-flat playback systems, at least as long as volume capacity is there to handle the dynamic range.

 

[WXfreak]

There are some illogical things in what you just said, and I think you're confusing a thing or two...

First of all, while it's certainly true that the frequency balance may look a bit different between different music styles, how do you mean the nature of that would change depending on playing the content on a flat playback system vs a non-flat playback system? Just think about that for a minute. What would you change if you were the mastering engineer, and how would you even know what to change in the frequency balance to cater to the sound of many different non-flat playback systems out there?
I'm sure you could ask that same question to pretty much any mastering engineer, and I'm quite sure (s)he wouldn't be able to answer what such frequency balance catered to a non-flat playback system would even look like, either.

The second thing is about the "trade-off in dynamic range". That has not much to do with translating the sound "accurately" to a non-flat playback system; that is mostly about making the sound mix work better in noisy environments, and/or competing in the loudness race with other commercial acts. If you take out those two "outside factors", a music mix with less "trade-off" in the dynamic range will likely sound better on both flat playback systems AND non-flat playback systems, at least as long as volume capacity is there to handle the dynamic range.

Mastering engineers might often boost mid-range frequencies because smaller speakers can’t handle deep bass or very high treble. This can help vocals and main instruments stay clear on phones, laptops, and car stereos, though it might sound less balanced on high-end systems.

An audiophile-style master would likely use less compression and a wider frequency range to preserve detail and depth, which can sound great on premium gear but thin on small speakers.

Overall, mastering is a balancing act aimed at making music sound good across many playback systems. Extra loudness often comes from compression and limiting, where attack and release times not only raise the volume but can also change the tone and feel of the track.

I'm not an expert, any corrections or insights are very welcome.

 

[goat76]

Mastering engineers might often boost mid-range frequencies because smaller speakers can’t handle deep bass or very high treble. This can help vocals and main instruments stay clear on phones, laptops, and car stereos, though it might sound less balanced on high-end systems.

An audiophile-style master would likely use less compression and a wider frequency range to preserve detail and depth, which can sound great on premium gear but thin on small speakers.

Overall, mastering is a balancing act aimed at making music sound good across many playback systems. Extra loudness often comes from compression and limiting, where attack and release times not only raise the volume but can also change the tone and feel of the track.

I'm not an expert, any corrections or insights are very welcome.

No, they don't "boost" midrange frequencies; they just make sure that everything in the mix is heard and not drowned out in the midrange, as that makes a sound mix translate well to both limited and full range systems. A mix that translates well means that it not only sounds good on a really great sound system, but it also works within the limits of a more limited sound system, and when it does, it also means that it will most likely also sound better on the best full-range systems. Mixing translation goes both ways; otherwise, it can simply not be called a "good translation".

 

[WXfreak]

No, they don't "boost" midrange frequencies; they just make sure that everything in the mix is heard and not drowned out in the midrange, as that makes a sound mix translate well to both limited and full range systems. A mix that translates well means that it not only sounds good on a really great sound system, but it also works within the limits of a more limited sound system, and when it does, it also means that it will most likely also sound better on the best full-range systems. Mixing translation goes both ways; otherwise, it can simply not be called a "good translation".

Okay thank you