How NOT to test studio audio equipment

[computer-audiophile]

Yes, I have been in a studio. For the past 30 years.

When did you tidy up last time?

 

[Deleted member 60987]

The idea of also looking at the age cohort that such YouTubers are targeting is certainly not wrong. It's not mine, that’s for sure. I can't imagine encountering this young man in a classical music concert. Different worlds, probably with different demands on studio monitors, depending on the preferred program material. (Yes, I have been in studios and sound labs more often).

For the same reason you would test a camera on a colorful landscape instead of a Jackson Pollock painting. For a point of reference. Why you test speakers on headphones on a good singer with a wide range rather than Kanye West or any other heavily treated electronic voice like Will I Am. A point of reference.

 

[Deleted member 60987]

I should have used a different title from the start. The guy in the OP is testing studio monitors on synthesized sounds and treated voice. In fact not even singing but rapping with electronic treatment. You test studio equipment on accuracy not how good Daft Punk sounds on them. An Audiophile just wants something that sounds good. Listening on music they would listen to is not necessarily wrong. But in studio monitors or headphones it is. In fact if I had good enough equipment I would take a digital readout of the volume of every piano note on a 61 note keyboard because you can be sure they went to great pains to sample them at the same volume. That would tell me if speakers or headphones boosted or peaked on a given frequency, like 256 for middle C. In that case what the sample is doesn't matter. Boops, beeps, whatever. As long as they sit on a keyboard at the same volume for 61 frequencies.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

For the same reason you would test a camera on a colorful landscape instead of a Jackson Pollock painting. For a point of reference. Why you test speakers on headphones on a good singer with a wide range rather than Kanye West or any other heavily treated electronic voice like Will I Am. A point of reference.

A point of reference is ONLY something you know. Nothing to do with taste. Which is what you are saying.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

I should have used a different title from the start. The guy in the OP is testing studio monitors on synthesized sounds and treated voice. In fact not even singing but rapping with electronic treatment. You test studio equipment on accuracy not how good Daft Punk sounds on them.

LOL why can't Daft Punk be reference? Please explain that.

 

[Deleted member 60987]

LOL why can't Daft Punk be reference? Please explain that.

They use heavily treated or altered voices.

 

[mhardy6647]

When did you tidy up last time?

Before he/they took that photo.

 

[Deleted member 60987]

A point of reference is ONLY something you know. Nothing to do with taste. Which is what you are saying.

Yes. There is nothing wrong with testing equipment on music you commonly listen to for casual listening. The video is for studio monitors. Those are used by people who might have 48 tracks of sounds and the most important thing is knowing if the output sounds like the source and the frequencies are accurate so they know if their sliders are in the right position because any boost in frequencies is going to have them overcompensate and lower a slider for bass, guitar, or whatever is sitting in that channel. Something that is a bit treated and I happened to mention in another post was the first 30 seconds of "Ooops, I did it again." Listen to the things happening in the right or left channel. That demonstrates how miniscule and detailed some of those mixes are. Different headphones will lose some of those sounds. Good, expensive headphones will lose some of those sounds the way they can lose hi hats. I often fill 18 tracks so I want to know if headphones or speakers are "lying to me" as the saying goes for reference equipment. Otherwise you could put out something with insanely loud bass, or a snare too quiet to sound good on a lot of systems. In fact I will sometimes take a quick snapshot of a board before moving on, in case I want to get back to that song. Minute volume changes and a track can disappear in the mix

 

[Zensō]

In fact if I had good enough equipment I would take a digital readout of the volume of every piano note on a 61 note keyboard because you can be sure they went to great pains to sample them at the same volume. That would tell me if speakers or headphones boosted or peaked on a given frequency, like 256 for middle C. In that case what the sample is doesn't matter. Boops, beeps, whatever. As long as they sit on a keyboard at the same volume for 61 frequencies.

What you’re describing is effectively the anechoic response of a speaker. Why not just read a frequency response graph?

 

[Deleted member 60987]

What you’re describing is effectively the anechoic response of a speaker. Why not just read a frequency response graph?

View attachment 285265

I do. That's half the reason I want certain headphones and monitors. T5V is next on my wish list. Not only are Adam accurate, they sound awesome. At the time, I based it on multiple videos where people kept recommending KRK. Had I known Guitar Center had a room with KRK, M-Audio, JBL, Yamaha and Adam Audio in different sizes in a room I would have went there and picked up T5Vs. Those are amazing for their size. My point is rather than a sine wave, I would like to see notes broken down to see if a system is boosting or losing anything. More digital than wave like.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

They use heavily treated or altered voices.

That's not an explanation of anything.

 

[Deleted member 60987]

That's not an explanation of anything.

There would be no way to tell how speakers or headphones are reproducing a normal singing voice using something heavily treated. Plus it doesn't hurt if the singers has a wide range and can actually sing. Of course this one is treated with reverb. But not colored with autotune:

 

[Deleted member 48726]

There would be no way to tell how speakers or headphones are reproducing a normal singing voice using something heavily treated. Plus it doesn't hurt if the singers has a wide range and can actually sing. Of course this one is treated with reverb. But not colored with autotune:

How do you know it's not altered?

My point is that you can't ever rely on sounds you don't know how sounds in real life then. Only true reference is known music on neutral speakers in anaechoic chamber.
So out the window goes that reference.

 

[Ricardus]

I can't take most youtubers seriouslly these days just because at this point they're looking for clicks and income. Video content barely matters. Just put up a ridiculous thumbnail with a weird expression and then a stupid hyperbolic title like "I went to the music store to buy monitors and then THIS happened!"

 

[Deleted member 60987]

How do you know it's not altered?

My point is that you can't ever rely on sounds you don't know how sounds in real life then. Only true reference is known music on neutral speakers in anaechoic chamber.
So out the window goes that reference.

I trust my ears more than measuring equipment. That's the intangible that can't be taught in engineering school. You know who produced Meat Loaf? Todd Rundgren. Boston? Tom Schultz made the first two albums in his basement. Dark Side of the Moon and Abbey Road? Singer songwriter, Alan Parsons. Charts and graphs help but are only a tool.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

I trust my ears more than measuring equipment.

Oh. Okay. That's all I need to know..

 

[Deleted member 60987]

I can't take most youtubers seriouslly these days just because at this point they're looking for clicks and income. Video content barely matters. Just put up a ridiculous thumbnail with a weird expression and then a stupid hyperbolic title like "I went to the music store to buy monitors and then THIS happened!"

Plus they're barely musicians. They use MIDI interfaces. I play guitar bass, drums and keys. Different generation. I only use the computer to turn CDs of a new track into MP3s. But it's messy and expensive compared to the world of aps like autotune and quantizers. Additionally the people on YouTube TEACHING music basically teach people how to make lounge music. There aren't many that can write anything anyone is interested in hearing because they are basically jazz snobs. In fact I was annoyed to see a couple record an original fast and just use a descending major progression. Because I was thinking, "Yes. It sounds good. But where are all those A9th augmented chords you love talking about?" They mock modern rock and pop music then resort to the exact same thing when put to the test. But I didn't comment on their video. Why bother? The fact is, of the people making popular music the past 50 years about 15 or 20% can even read music. They are not the mathletes who joined the marching band. They were the stoners and fuck ups. Average and poor students who picked up instruments and started bands. And know a little theory.

 

[Deleted member 60987]

Oh. Okay. That's all I need to know..

I literally have charts and neutrality ratings of my headphones. I don't totally trust them. For example RTINGS uses additional measures for neutrality like distortion. That's picked up with meters on initial recordings. Mixing mainly involves the volumes of tracks so frequency response is all we care about as far as neutrality. I suppose if you know virtually nothing about music or recording and mixing charts and articles seem more useful than actual hearing. https://www.querytools.net/Images/HeadphoneNeutrality2.jpg

 

[Deleted member 48726]

I literally have charts and neutrality ratings of my headphones. I don't totally trust them. For example RTINGS uses additional measures for neutrality like distortion. That's picked up with meters on initial recordings. Mixing mainly involves the volumes of tracks so frequency response is all we care about as far as neutrality. I suppose if you know virtually nothing about music or recording and mixing charts and articles seem more useful than actual hearing. https://www.querytools.net/Images/HeadphoneNeutrality2.jpg

Yeah yeah. Subjective kind. I get it.

 

[Deleted member 60987]

Yeah yeah. Subjective kind. I get it.

Right, because who would bring subjectivity into music? Newsflash, it's an art, not a science. If it were a science virtually every album artists make would be an improvement over the previous one because they know more. That isn't the case. In the least. In fact almost all of them peak in their 20s and 30s. Subjective. What an idiotic attempt at an insult. "So, what made you spend $1,500 on headphones? Did they sound amazing?" "I didn't actually hear them. I read articles and saw charts. Besides, the point isn't listening to music or enjoying it. It's bragging to people about my equipment. It's stating I have the best because that reflects on me and my self worth as an individual. I take great pride in my consumerism."