Omnidirectional speakers

[watchnerd]

This translation business is tricky.

A supposition. Not a well thought out one either.

Record with two omni mikes and play back over omni speakers (MBL's though more of a pole source are close enough).

Record with two figure 8 mikes and play back over panel speakers.

Record with two cardioid mikes and play back over cone and box speakers.

Record with more mikes than there are channels and play it anyway you want it as it is all chaotic imagination anyway.

Aside from the logistical complexity, that might be great in a purist "direct to disc" method where there is no mixing.

But once mixing and monitoring comes comes into play, things change as tracks and EQ get adjusted according to the transducers (speakers, headphones) used for monitoring.

 

[watchnerd]

Translation is what mixers and mastering guys talk about. "Man these XBZ 123 mk3 monitors translate everywhere". Meaning earbuds on an iphone, car speakers, high end headphones, and the finest playback not in Mike Lavigne's lair will all work with the final recording if it was mastered on monitors that translate well. If translation were poor you might love the sound in the mixing/mastering studio, but many real world music listeners would not like the result.

I think it partly is a myth, and partly misconceived. For one thing the optimum mix for headphones will never be optimum for speakers. Full stop. Anything that works for both will be less than the best for each.

Nevertheless, obviously mixing decisions over a highly colored unusual speaker may instead sound highly unusual when other people listen over their own systems. MBL's would not be good translators. So obviously as well mixing over fairly clean mid size monitors won't stray as far from a general good medium solution for many different possible playback systems. Still I don't think there is some optimum translator so your tweaked studio work sounds greatest over everything everywhere.

Correct.

Esoteric speaker types lead to mixes that sound weird elsewhere. I've tried mixing on Martin Logans and it only sounded good on them. Played elsewhere the spectral balance, imaging, soundstage depth, etc, were way off. Re-mixed again on monitors and headphones, played back on electrostats, sounds good everywhere (although only 85% as good on the electrostats as the mix made on them).

 

[watchnerd]

What does that mean?

(looks it up)

Oh. A mix someone think sounds good on one set/class of speakers sounds bad to someone when played through a different set/class of speakers.

Generally, yes, although it's more nuanced than just a binary "good" vs "bad". It means the artistic intent, balance and emotional content of the mix is preserved across different playback systems with differing fidelity. It's enhanced on good systems but still foot-tapping and enjoyable on lesser systems.

Phil Spector was notorious for making mixes that had horrible translation due to an esoteric monitoring choice (mono transistor radios).

 

[RayDunzl]

I don't remember ever having the thought "Oh, this recording doesn't translate well with these crappy speakers. I must find another mix."

It's enhanced on good systems

How do "good systems" enhance a recording?

 

[watchnerd]

I don't remember ever having the thought "Oh, this recording doesn't translate well with these crappy speakers. I must find another mix."

Have you never had a re-mastering that you liked better, or less, than another mastering of the same recording?

How do "good systems" enhance a recording?

One of the most obvious ways is to hear stuff in the mix that is at a lower level, either at an absolute level or is masked.

An example that comes to mind recently is the pop song "Cake By the Ocean". During beat count-down and drum sticks calling time at the very beginning of the song, there is a comment by the guitarist. You can hear that on better systems, with the same mix, but can't hear it on less resolving systems.

 

[RayDunzl]

I guess I don't use the word"enhance" in the same way.

If I put an antenna on the roof, and I get better reception, I didn't "enhance" the transmitter.

Though we do live in Bizarro World so I can't really be absolutely certain of that.

 

[watchnerd]

I guess I don't use the word"enhance" in the same way.

Enhance means "to better'.

In this case, it means "to better experience the artistic intent."

Take the example I just gave where the vocal comment from the guitarist was left in the mix:

Obviously, they could have edited that comment out. The artists chose to leave it in the mix on purpose as some kind of creative touch.

Having a more resolving system that is better able to make that comment audible comes closer to exposing the original intent of the artists than one that doesn't.

This shouldn't be a strange concept; it's one of the reasons people pay more for better playback systems.

 

[watchnerd]

If I put an antenna on the roof, and I get better reception, I didn't "enhance" the transmitter.

You enhanced your reception.

The original comment was about enhancing playback.

 

[fas42]

An example that comes to mind recently is the pop song "Cake By the Ocean". During beat count-down and drum sticks calling time at the very beginning of the song, there is a comment by the guitarist. You can hear that on better systems, with the same mix, but can't hear it on less resolving systems.

Interesting one yesterday, on the tiny Tannoy Mercurys - jazz piece, from Charles Mingus(??) - you could hear the spittle rattling around the mouthpiece of the trumpet(??), as he tried to play soft - a charming effect!

 

[watchnerd]

Interesting one yesterday, on the tiny Tannoy Mercurys - jazz piece, from Charles Mingus(??) - you could hear the spittle rattling around the mouthpiece of the trumpet(??), as he tried to play soft - a charming effect!

Well, Mingus was a bass player so that would have been quite unusual!

 

[fas42]

Well, Mingus was a bass player so that would have been quite unusual!

I agree - it was an ensemble, the name Mingus was mentioned, I don't know the jazz world intimately - so, whoever was playing that instrument wasn't quite on the game ...

 

[Blumlein 88]

Interesting one yesterday, on the tiny Tannoy Mercurys - jazz piece, from Charles Mingus(??) - you could hear the spittle rattling around the mouthpiece of the trumpet(??), as he tried to play soft - a charming effect!

I wonder if that would have been noticeable in a fuller range speaker. The Mercurys don't do much below 80 hz. They also have a resonant area above 1200 hz according to Stereophile measurements. Hearing that effect might have been due to a speaker without real low end plus a resonant peak. On higher fidelity gear the effect might have been less or even lost. Hearing more in one range is not always hearing better. One can hear such an effect using octave wide PEQ to mimic a resonance. Slide it up and down band to uncover hidden things. Yet this isn't better fidelity.

 

[watchnerd]

I wonder if that would have been noticeable in a fuller range speaker. The Mercurys don't do much below 80 hz. They also have a resonant area above 1200 hz according to Stereophile measurements. Hearing that effect might have been due to a speaker without real low end plus a resonant peak. On higher fidelity gear the effect might have been less or even lost. Hearing more in one range is not always hearing better. One can hear such an effect using octave wide PEQ to mimic a resonance. Slide it up and down band to uncover hidden things. Yet this isn't better fidelity.

Or you can drop a PK EQ at 5khz, -5 dB, Q=4.0 for the classic "B&W filter" that increases "tranparency", AKA reduces masking in our most critical range.

 

[fas42]

I wonder if that would have been noticeable in a fuller range speaker. The Mercurys don't do much below 80 hz. They also have a resonant area above 1200 hz according to Stereophile measurements. Hearing that effect might have been due to a speaker without real low end plus a resonant peak. On higher fidelity gear the effect might have been less or even lost. Hearing more in one range is not always hearing better. One can hear such an effect using octave wide PEQ to mimic a resonance. Slide it up and down band to uncover hidden things. Yet this isn't better fidelity.

Part of the reason it was clearly audible was that the speakers were playing loud, and we were only a few feet away - not realistically loud, but a decent clip. The system was in the "studio" - and we moved outside, into the yard to cook a barbeque - the sound ticked the Listening Outside The Room box, filtered through the partially open windows and door - it had the "zip" of satisfying sound.

 

[fas42]

The Mercurys don't do much below 80 hz. They also have a resonant area above 1200 hz according to Stereophile measurements. Hearing that effect might have been due to a speaker without real low end plus a resonant peak. .

I think that is the V1 model, and probably quite different characteristics. I just noted this review page, http://www.audioreview.com/cat/speakers/floorstanding-speakers/tannoy/mx1/prd_124350_1594crx.aspx, and the comments there are pretty indicative of how they come across.

 

[watchnerd]

Why do we think omni is cool when MBL does it but think it's crap when it looks like this?

 

[Thomas savage]

Why do we think omni is cool when MBL does it but think it's crap when it looks like this?

Because life's not fair..

 

[fas42]

Why do we think omni is cool when MBL does it but think it's crap when it looks like this?

Because they're not omni - you're listening mainly to reflected, very little direct sound.

 

[watchnerd]

Because they're not omni - you're listening mainly to reflected, very little direct sound.

Oh, we're taking the word 'omni' literally?

Well, the MBL's are not that, either.

 

[RayDunzl]