Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[Rja4000]

How come it's only for audio that amateurs believe they're as skillful as a pro? Wouldn't you expect working with audio 8 hours a day learns you a thing or two about sound? Can you for example call the frequency of feedback for example, accurate to 1/3th of an octave? When audiophiles describe the tonality of sound it's very clear they're missing that knowledge and training.

Another example is that tests show that I (as a pro sound engineer) am far better in detecting distortion than average. I also attended different blind tests where I immediately called out issues with the test material. It took measurements to convince others of the issue. It has nothing to do with superiority. It's just 30 years of experience working with sound, which is totally different than passively listening to music.

Harman determined 'experienced listeners' can more reliably analyze and describe perceived sound, see Toole's studies. As a result they've setup a training program for their testers. There you have the evidence people can be trained to analyze audio. The same for musicians, who are proven to be better in timing and pitch. Imagine what a pro sound engineer who's also a musician can do.

I guess we are confusing a few things here.

1. Trained people will, luckily, be able to identify REAL differences earlier, with more words to describe them, and, possibly, have an idea of the cause, since they are trained, indeed.

2. There are more pro audio or musicians with earing issues than within random audiophile crowd.

3. Some differences are not real. If you ask a pro or any skilled person, to tell if they hear them, they are as likely to be fooled than anyone. Maybe more so, because they may think they have to prove their superior skills.

Some differences are very subtle, and they may be able to hear them or think they hear them. Anyway, it doesn't matter if they are real, since it's part of their creative process.
Some might be. Some might not.


Checking gear capabilities is a very complex matter. But basically, it is a solved issue, fully covered by measurements, for more and more layers in the audio chain.
DAC, ADC, power amplifiers, line level preamps: if they measure good enough, they'll sound good.

What is very Imperfect, for sure, is the transducer level: microphones, phono needles (and the whole vinyl production/reproduction chain), headphones, loudspeakers,...
And, therefore, the audio device imediately attached to it should be able to support perfectly the most difficult use cases (as we see more and more for the HP and LS amps) OR to adapt (as an example, with EQ or impedance tuning for phono preamps, or with impedance adaptation in some mic preamps).

 

[Galliardist]

Thank you all for reply, and, yes I'm a mastering engineer, but no need to boost own ego here, quite opposite I think. For sure you can get an AI mastering as a service todays modern world, but I consider them still mixbusses, and they are actally useful for that reason if you leave a desent amount of headroom for your print. Mastering is art you should know, and it incluldes the knowledge of some math and theory behind creativeness. But, most important it is a vision of the engineer, not vision of numbers. Dont get fooled yourself. By knowing your monitoring system means that you can trust it will translate to real world, so it enables you to trust your ears and the vision. Measuring comes important on gain staging and for final peak and it is done by simple VU meter. Some spectrum analyzer will help as well.

Unfortunately, your post reeks of ego. I'm afraid that, whatever you actually meant to say, your words elevate your "vision" to the most important thing in the process. Now, I get that skill - and we can call that art - is important in the mastering process, but - just like our systems aren't supposed to make the music - your role is as an interpreter of the artist's vision within the context of the recording, not to stamp your own vision onto the music.

As for mastering engineers trusting their ears - the next time I hear a popular release compressed into heavy distortion, or something as simple as a fortepiano or classical guitar release with obvious distortion on the "loudest" notes, I'm going to be reminded of mastering engineers having a "vision" more important than the musican's, because they "know their monitoring equipment" so they can "trust their ears". I'm sure you've never committed such atrocities, but that is exactly what your belief system leads to. There has to be an objective standard of some sort behind each stage of the recording process, surely?

 

[Mart68]

How come it's only for audio that amateurs believe they're as skillful as a pro? Wouldn't you expect working with audio 8 hours a day learns you a thing or two about sound? Can you for example call the frequency of feedback for example, accurate to 1/3th of an octave? When audiophiles describe the tonality of sound it's very clear they're missing that knowledge and training.

Another example is that tests show that I (as a pro sound engineer) am far better in detecting distortion than average. I also attended different blind tests where I immediately called out issues with the test material. It took measurements to convince others of the issue. It has nothing to do with superiority. It's just 30 years of experience working with sound, which is totally different than passively listening to music.

Harman determined 'experienced listeners' can more reliably analyze and describe perceived sound, see Toole's studies. As a result they've setup a training program for their testers. There you have the evidence people can be trained to analyze audio. The same for musicians, who thanks to training are proven to be better in timing and pitch. Imagine what a pro sound engineer who's also a musician can do.

Being a trained listener and being a sound engineer are not necessarily the same thing though, are they? There are trained listeners who are not sound engineers, and sound engineers who are not trained listeners. You tick both boxes, that's good, but it's not a universal thing.

In any case my comment was aimed at the people who like to justify nonsense with some anecdote about how their concert pianist friend remarked on the improved musical flow with the fancy power chords in place (etc). I wasn't stating that there is no-one who is trained to listen for pitch, distortion etc.

 

[presence]

Unfortunately, your post reeks of ego. I'm afraid that, whatever you actually meant to say, your words elevate your "vision" to the most important thing in the process. Now, I get that skill - and we can call that art - is important in the mastering process, but - just like our systems aren't supposed to make the music - your role is as an interpreter of the artist's vision within the context of the recording, not to stamp your own vision onto the music.

As for mastering engineers trusting their ears - the next time I hear a popular release compressed into heavy distortion, or something as simple as a fortepiano or classical guitar release with obvious distortion on the "loudest" notes, I'm going to be reminded of mastering engineers having a "vision" more important than the musican's, because they "know their monitoring equipment" so they can "trust their ears". I'm sure you've never committed such atrocities, but that is exactly what your belief system leads to. There has to be an objective standard of some sort behind each stage of the recording process, surely?

Practice make masters. Theory has its role in the beginning. As a master you will learn that the vision for mastering engineer means to best out the artistic vision, not to do any harm. For that you need very sensitive ears, which will find very subtle changes and couple decades of experience by technical vise so you act partly in subconscious level based the intuition. Its a lot of feeling the music and all its nuances.

 

[Geert]

guess we are confusing a few things here.

1. Trained people will, luckily, be able to identify REAL differences earlier, with more words to describe them, and, possibly, have an idea of the cause, since they are trained, indeed.

2. There are more pro audio or musicians with earing issues than within random audiophile crowd.

3. Some differences are not real. If you ask a pro or any skilled person, to tell if they hear them, they are as likely to be fooled than anyone. Maybe more so, because they may think they have to prove their superior skills.

Indeed there's some confusion as I responded to the argument that there's no prove for certain people being more capable in analysing sound, while non of your points address that.

Regarding point 3. I expect pro sound engineers to be more aware of the limitations of their hearing. Every pro has been in situations where he misjudged what he heard. He learns and adapts, that's how you become a pro. Persist, and you will be out of a job soon. Audiophiles carry zero responsibility when it comes to judging sound quality.

 

[Rja4000]

I expect pro sound engineers to be more aware of the limitations of their hearing.

Me too.

But that doesn't mean that all are willing to admit this limitation in public.
That's a business. They are pros.
So "marketing" is part of the picture.
(This is not criticism)

 

[Newman]

Practice make masters. Theory has its role in the beginning. As a master you will learn that the vision for mastering engineer means to best out the artistic vision, not to do any harm. For that you need very sensitive ears, which will find very subtle changes and couple decades of experience by technical vise so you act partly in subconscious level based the intuition. Its a lot of feeling the music and all its nuances.

I think you missed something, or didn't understand it.

As for very sensitive ears, please post your hearing test results for ‘sensitivity’, and the same test result for a ten year old for comparison.

I accept the likelihood that you have developed a skill at making successful audio productions, and that a sensitivity to the nuances of musical communication should be a part of that. No argument.

I don’t accept that your hearing is better than average — it is probably worse — nor do I accept that you are better at assessing the sonic qualities of audio reproduction gear. See link (4th time) or admit that you don’t understand it.

cheers

 

[jaymusic]

How come it's only for audio that amateurs believe they're as skillful as a pro? Wouldn't you expect working with audio 8 hours a day learns you a thing or two about sound? Can you for example call the frequency of feedback for example, accurate to 1/3th of an octave? When audiophiles describe the tonality of sound it's very clear they're missing that knowledge and training.

Another example is that tests show that I (as a pro sound engineer) am far better in detecting distortion than average. I also attended different blind tests where I immediately called out issues with the test material. It took measurements to convince others of the issue. It has nothing to do with superiority. It's just 30 years of experience working with sound, which is totally different than passively listening to music.

Harman determined 'experienced listeners' can more reliably analyze and describe perceived sound, see Toole's studies. As a result they've setup a training program for their testers. There you have the evidence people can be trained to analyze audio. The same for musicians, who thanks to training are proven to be better in timing and pitch. Imagine what a pro sound engineer who's also a musician can do.

Wouldn't an 'experienced' listener only learn how to differentiate sound signatures more effectively and then only determine what sounds best to them?
I don't see how they could measure any better than the methodology used on this website.
Then, even if they could differentiate sound signatures more effectively, are they not then stating preferences based on their own likes and dislikes?
Measurements are objective. Subjectivity is still important but I can absolutely guarantee you that I am the worlds greatest expert - bar none - on what sounds best to me. No one, no matter how experienced, comes close to being better than me on that score.

 

[Galliardist]

Practice make masters. Theory has its role in the beginning. As a master you will learn that the vision for mastering engineer means to best out the artistic vision, not to do any harm. For that you need very sensitive ears, which will find very subtle changes and couple decades of experience by technical vise so you act partly in subconscious level based the intuition. It’s a lot of feeling the music and all its nuances.

As I recall it, nobody over the age of 30 was involved at any stage of the production or original mastering of Dark Side of the Moon. It must have sounded bloody awful.

I get that mastering is an important skill to us as listeners to recorded music. We’ve all heard what happens when mastering is done badly.

I don’t doubt that listening plays a role in mastering. But I don’t buy the romantic nonsense, Tell me mastering is a technical skill and i’ll buy that.

 

[presence]

I think you missed something, or didn't understand it.

As for very sensitive ears, please post your hearing test results for ‘sensitivity’, and the same test result for a ten year old for comparison.

I accept the likelihood that you have developed a skill at making successful audio productions, and that a sensitivity to the nuances of musical communication should be a part of that. No argument.

I don’t accept that your hearing is better than average — it is probably worse — nor do I accept that you are better at assessing the sonic qualities of audio reproduction gear. See link (4th time) or admit that you don’t understand it.

cheers

I do understand what you mean, I guess the issue here is you referring to apples and I'm for oranges. The sensitivity is not only the absolute hearing test but more, because your hearing is different from mine. Above average means also you sense the balance better than average so it will translate as wide as possible, so thats why your monitoring will be calibrated to your ears only and for setting it up takes usually years or decades. Thats how you train your ears beside other characteristic of sound. Its all about being confident that what you hear make sense and is correct above average. That enables you to focus the sound only. Everything you hear I will hear more likely same, because it will translate. Thats why you can find very well mixed/mastered songs sometimes. The same records will sound excellent to most ears. With gear its all about manipulating sound sonics and complex combos of many many different gear, today usually hybdrid solutions with software combined. Every 0,2 dB gain change make drastic difference and usually 'clean signal' 0dB already can change the sound and its emotion quite a lot, especially with analogue gear.

 

[presence]

As I recall it, nobody over the age of 30 was involved at any stage of the production or original mastering of Dark Side of the Moon. It must have sounded bloody awful.

I get that mastering is an important skill to us as listeners to recorded music. We’ve all heard what happens when mastering is done badly.

I don’t doubt that listening plays a role in mastering. But I don’t buy the romantic nonsense, Tell me mastering is a technical skill and i’ll buy that.

Music is related to your emotions, its not just math and tecnics. There are AI services available, which are based pure math, but usually they change the emotion and artistic view from original, even they could be tecnically okay.

 

[DonR]

We humbly remain the Mr Collins to your Lady Catherine, basking in your condescension.

 

[ahofer]

Music is related to your emotions, its not just math and tecnics. There are AI services available, which are based pure math, but usually they change the emotion and artistic view from original, even they could be tecnically okay.

No doubt the engineer needs to work with the artist to realize their vision, just as cuts/color etc. are part of the director's vision for a film.

But in order to do that properly and effectively, the equipment must be measured and calibrated. Otherwise, the final product might NOT match the artist's vision.

To draw the analogy further, the choices and actions the editor makes with the equipment are art, but they generally rely on measurements, specs, and simple utility to pick the editing hardware and software. And they probably use Pantone screen-calibration as well.

 

[DonR]

especially with analogue gear.

...and you were doing so well up until this point. Shame.

 

[Waxx]

I know quiet a few mastering engineers, and some are even top level (Jerboa), but they all know they are not experts in acoustics and rely on measurements, mostly by specialists in it, to tune their room and monitoring system so it's as neutral as possible, and translate well to the real world systems of the target public.

Mastering is largely a technical job, with an artistic part in the sense that you need to understand the artistic choice of the music (the musicians, the mixing engineer and the producer) and translate that right to the media of choice of the record company. That include some processing, and make sure the whole album, if it's an album is fitting the same format level and so. It's not magic or art, it's a technical skill that needs artistic understanding. But if you want to push your artistic view on a mastering, your not a good mastering engineer.

 

[danadam]

Every 0,2 dB gain change make drastic difference

I won't hold my breath, but... could you provide some samples?

 

[Geert]

Wouldn't an 'experienced' listener only learn how to differentiate sound signatures more effectively and then only determine what sounds best to them?
I don't see how they could measure any better than the methodology used on this website.
Then, even if they could differentiate sound signatures more effectively, are they not then stating preferences based on their own likes and dislikes?

The judgement of trained listeners is indeed personal for a large part, although successfully identifying distortion artifacts is more than preference only. The main value of trained listeners is that they are more critical and more consistent in their judgement, and they've learned to speak the language of the engineers designing the equipment. Research has shown their sound preference is no different than that of other people, so for Harman it's more efficient to work with trained listeners.

(Note I didn't suggest trained listeners hearing is better than measuring equipment).

 

[presence]

I know quiet a few mastering engineers, and some are even top level (Jerboa), but they all know they are not experts in acoustics and rely on measurements, mostly by specialists in it, to tune their room and monitoring system so it's as neutral as possible, and translate well to the real world systems of the target public.

Mastering is largely a technical job, with an artistic part in the sense that you need to understand the artistic choice of the music (the musicians, the mixing engineer and the producer) and translate that right to the media of choice of the record company. That include some processing, and make sure the whole album, if it's an album is fitting the same format level and so. It's not magic or art, it's a technical skill that needs artistic understanding. But if you want to push your artistic view on a mastering, your not a good mastering engineer.

Measured reference level is a good starting point, and it takes some time to calibrate your ears to reference room better, because it has to be done manually. There are also a lot of clients that avoid 'technical only' engineers for that reason. And again, no, engineer is not an artist, except for own material, but there are many ways of enhance sound. Some ways sound better, depending the material. The key is to know what will work in which case. You can mix/master perfectly calibrated and measured room and wonder why your result sound desent but not excellent. Some clients pick an engineer for the artistic view as well, if they share the same view.

 

[presence]

...and you were doing so well up until this point. Shame.

Yes I'm shaming now.

 

[Galliardist]

...and you were doing so well up until this point. Shame.

Fair go - we don’t know what mastering work @presence is doing. Analogue tapes remain analogue, LP mastering remains analogue at least at the pointy end, and a freelance engineer may well find themselves working with a client’s analogue equipment.