Is the only true reference in audio to compare your system to the original mastering system?

[tomelex]

Well my other quibble with how you are defining a reference is this. For a reference to be useful you have to have the ability to "refer" to it. The reference as being the sound as done at a studio is one that is never available to refer against another version. Such a reference is at best a ghost.

So of course my definition of a reference is not the absolute sound, that being that is not the sound of the actual event but the recording of the event we are listening to at the studio it was recorded at. After all, that is the recording that is being made for us to "enjoy". At any point where we listen to the "artificial" reference of the recording itself, on our systems, reference is lost. So, your audio reviewers wax on about how on one power amp the bass sounds more like bass than on another one, and yet there is no reference to refer to, bass can sound many different ways at many venues even the same band attempting to play the same way, and it could have sounded and did sound different at the studio.

So, what is the reference in audio. Is it a ghost as you say, and if so, is it the ghosts daughter the recording, and if so, since the daughter recording is played in all kinds of different systems and rooms then it will not "sound" the same across these rooms when fully measured or for many instances just listening by ear, even old ears will hear the differences.

That is the issue, we, the public, have what reference in audio, realistically and practically speaking. So, what is all this going on about reference gear and reference recordings and reference sound or state of the art audio systems.

 

[Inner Space]

The origin of "reference" was in manufacturing, way long ago. Suppose you made weights for scales in butchers' shops. You cast a set and took them to a distant town where a government assay man certified them as accurate. You took them back to your workshop, put them on a shelf, and never sold them. They were the standard against which you measured all subsequent production. They were your reference.

Thus a reference was always a thing, and always in-house. The nearest you could get in domestic audio would be to run a room curve every day, and compare it to a master curve stored permanently on your laptop. I think what the OP is asking is, "What exactly should we be aiming at?" My answer is, I'll accept delivery of the master file, for better or worse, and I'll turn it into sound waves in my room with as little alteration as possible. I have no reference for anything, not even hardware - that's on the manufacturer's shelf, or more likely as data on his hard drive.

 

[Alexanderc]

In my opinion, live performance must be the reference. I have had words with more than one recording engineer when a recording didn’t match what I heard in my performance. I spend weeks working on things like balance and then the recording engineer decides to change it? It’s infuriating when that happens. The reference is what the performance actually sounded like. I realize that even the best recording equipment can’t capture that perfectly, but that should be the goal. As far as playback, we know how things have to measure in order to be perfectly transparent to the recording, so that part is easier.

 

[tomelex]

The origin of "reference" was in manufacturing, way long ago. Suppose you made weights for scales in butchers' shops. You cast a set and took them to a distant town where a government assay man certified them as accurate. You took them back to your workshop, put them on a shelf, and never sold them. They were the standard against which you measured all subsequent production. They were your reference.

Thus a reference was always a thing, and always in-house. The nearest you could get in domestic audio would be to run a room curve every day, and compare it to a master curve stored permanently on your laptop. I think what the OP is asking is, "What exactly should we be aiming at?" My answer is, I'll accept delivery of the master file, for better or worse, and I'll turn it into sound waves in my room with as little alteration as possible. I have no reference for anything, not even hardware - that's on the manufacturer's shelf, or more likely as data on his hard drive.

Hi, I am actually not aiming at anything but asking what is the reference, as in can someone describe it other than what my interpretation of it is, and I think most would agree with your idea that the master recording is the only "reference" they can attain. If we strictly go by the recording as the reference, then our goal is the left and right speakers put out as little distortion as possible, so we are reproducing the "reference which is the recording" concept. Of course, the master file you play at your room is not going to sound like the one I play in my room, unless our rooms and equipment are identical.

Is there a reference, or just your reference.....

 

[tomelex]

In my opinion, live performance must be the reference. I have had words with more than one recording engineer when a recording didn’t match what I heard in my performance. I spend weeks working on things like balance and then the recording engineer decides to change it? It’s infuriating when that happens. The reference is what the performance actually sounded like. I realize that even the best recording equipment can’t capture that perfectly, but that should be the goal. As far as playback, we know how things have to measure in order to be perfectly transparent to the recording, so that part is easier.

If the live performance is the reference, then the recording is not. So, the recording or the playback is just a facsimile , a very weak one, of the reference, is that your position as best I can tell?

 

[Inner Space]

Is there a reference, or just your reference.....

We're the butcher, not the guy who made the weights. We have no reference. We take what we're given, we trust it weighs a pound, and then we take good care of it, so it doesn't get scraped and chipped until it's an ounce light and we get busted.

 

[tomelex]

We're the butcher, not the guy who made the weights. We have no reference. We take what we're given, we trust it weighs a pound, and then we take good care of it, so it doesn't get scraped and chipped until it's an ounce light and we get busted.

Is your position the live event is not the reference, the recording studio room/set up is not the reference, and the recording is not the reference, there is no reference realistically for us consumers at home? Or, the recording is a reference and we try not to change it too much?

 

[North_Sky]

The one that is even more expensive than the previous model.

Not necessarily I think.
Of course not because money has nothing to do with reference.

I recommend this short article read, and it's free.
▪ https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/coarse-accurate-reviewers-view-audio-ideal#8PDuWAqtycwZJAhh.97

P.S. I'm experiencing a very slow time response in typing each letter ...

 

[Thomas savage]

What happens if the mastering engineer comes round and prefers the sound at your house .., is your house the new reference.

It would be interesting to have some kind of calibration file you could apply that's formulated by some calculations of how the mastering room sounded .

Translation is important as Dennis mentioned, when mastering you might have a sound profile in your head that your catering to , this may differ slightly from what your physically hearing as your providing for a different playback system .

So the reference is in the mind of the engineer, it might not be a actual thing at all. All we can do is respect the music file and tame our room modes imo.

More useful would be a list of the drugs the band were on when making the record.

 

[North_Sky]

Just for you Thomas ...

• https://www.psiaudio.swiss/

 

[Inner Space]

More useful would be a list of the drugs the band were on when making the record.

I used to divide my jazz CDs between "heroin" on the left and "weed" on the right.

 

[North_Sky]

Also, it's best to have the original audio analog master recording, on tape.

 

[North_Sky]

In my opinion, live performance must be the reference. I have had words with more than one recording engineer when a recording didn’t match what I heard in my performance. I spend weeks working on things like balance and then the recording engineer decides to change it? It’s infuriating when that happens. The reference is what the performance actually sounded like. I realize that even the best recording equipment can’t capture that perfectly, but that should be the goal. As far as playback, we know how things have to measure in order to be perfectly transparent to the recording, so that part is easier.

Today live is often in front of a computer playing with Pro Tools.

And also a live rock music concert @ the local stadium under a thunderstorm.

...A classical opera ballet in a Vienna concert hall acoustically calibrated.

...A Memorex live event @ a jazz festival in Montreal.

...

 

[richard12511]

In my opinion, live performance must be the reference. I have had words with more than one recording engineer when a recording didn’t match what I heard in my performance. I spend weeks working on things like balance and then the recording engineer decides to change it? It’s infuriating when that happens. The reference is what the performance actually sounded like. I realize that even the best recording equipment can’t capture that perfectly, but that should be the goal. As far as playback, we know how things have to measure in order to be perfectly transparent to the recording, so that part is easier.

Wouldn't that only work for a few genres? Most music doesn't have a live unamplified reference, and is created that way on purpose.

 

[Alexanderc]

Wouldn't that only work for a few genres? Most music doesn't have a live unamplified reference, and is created that way on purpose.

That’s a fair point and something I’ll have to think about.

 

[Alexanderc]

If the live performance is the reference, then the recording is not. So, the recording or the playback is just a facsimile , a very weak one, of the reference, is that your position as best I can tell?

I wouldn’t say “a very weak one,” but otherwise that’s a good summary of my opinion. Similar to a photo or video of a place. You’re preserving a moment in time. It isn’t the same as being there, but if you’ve actually been there or can go visit you can tell whether the picture or video matches the real place. The real place is the reference.

It seems to me that it’s possible to recreate the sonic image of an event more accurately than something you view, although VR might be changing that.

 

[QMuse]

In my opinion, live performance must be the reference. I have had words with more than one recording engineer when a recording didn’t match what I heard in my performance. I spend weeks working on things like balance and then the recording engineer decides to change it? It’s infuriating when that happens. The reference is what the performance actually sounded like. I realize that even the best recording equipment can’t capture that perfectly, but that should be the goal. As far as playback, we know how things have to measure in order to be perfectly transparent to the recording, so that part is easier.

Recording done when musicians are playing in the studio will differ greatly from the recording done when they are playing on the stage, even if they perform exactly the same.

 

[QMuse]

3) Expansive and Diffuse
- dinner/cocktail party, tea reception where listeners will be dispersed randomly throughout a room
- a live string quartet or jazz band typically will energize the room broadly
- omnipolar MBL, dipoles like Steinway Lyngdorf, Magnepan, Martin Logan electrostat hybirds, Canon wide-imaging-stereo, JBL Paragon
- some people claim that cheap Sonos or Amazon speaker will do, but that's not necessarily true.
https://www.technologydesigner.com/2019/09/05/entertaining-with-sound/

Electrostats are not really known for their expansive and difuse sound. It's actually quite the opposite, they beam at a very narrow horizontal angle producing a sweet spot practically only at a single seat.

 

[solderdude]

That actually depends on the electrostat in question. There are stats with trickery to make the beam wider.
Personally I prefer the beaming one but indeed you have to sit in one specific spot with those.

regarding the OP.
reference for playback gear = the file/recording is the reference and needs to be reproduced as closely as possible to the recording/file.
You can season it yourself.

Since OP knows about studios. The vast majority of recordings have been manipulated in so many ways it is hard to describe.
On top of that the reference product from that studio is based on the equipment used, the studio, its effects, their monitors, the engineers and sometimes the customer. It usuallu sounds nothing like what the mics picked up. So there is no 'reference' to original sounds.

When the actual sound is the reference then the question is in what room/acoustics is that, what mic distance, the FR of the microphone used (most instrument mics are anything but flat). So there is no reference here either because of the endless possibilties here.

This leaves the only reference point the file/recording as a product. Basically what @Blumlein 88 already said in post #2

Whether or not the entire reproduction system is reference quality is another matter. Also whether one personally would like a true reference is another matter. Then, the most important aspect, the quality of the recording/file itself.

I have heard crap recordings and excellent ones. Both on crap systems (my own ), cheap systems, expensive systems and reference systems.
Good recordings generally sound very good even on crap systems but excellent on good/better/best systems.
Crap recordings may sound decent on crap systems but the better the system becomes the more the crap quality is showing itself.

 

[QMuse]

That actually depends on the electrostat in question. There are stats with trickery to make the beam wider.

Sure, not all of them are beaming equally narrow, but putting electrostats in the "expansive and diffuse" cathegory simply sounds wrong. (Pun intended)

Personally I prefer the beaming one but indeed you have to sit in one specific spot with those.

I am a fan of modern MLs, I like the magic they make at the sweet spot.