Oops! Not fatigued by B&W speakers

[DSJR]

Abbey Road's B&Ws are part of a deal with B&W, so there's money involved. But more importantly, they are heavily customized and almost certainly in order to have a flatter, more neutral FR.

Not sure there's any money involved at all There certainly didn't appear to be when Decca were at London's Belsize Road before Polygram moved it all out, as I was told they were placed there for promotional purposes. One of the 'pop' rooms doing compilations used NS1000s I recall and at Abbey Road, one of the analogue to digital and vinyl mastering rooms uses PMC.

I know PMC don't get a good vibe here either, but Fluid Mastering - https://www.fluidmastering.com/ - have done some really great sounding digital re-issues to my ears and they use PMC double-box models, as well as a Rega 3 turntable with wildly canted off tonearm at rest Hey Ho...

 

[BobbyTimmons]

As I recall, speakers that objectively measure well are also more often preferred subjectively, which makes sense. You will also get a group that enjoys the "house sound" of a brand, partly due to some level of confirmation bias via the marketing and all that. People hate to think they suffer any bias that was put int their minds. No one is immune to bias.

True if you read the study there was a very strong statistical preference for the best measuring two speakers over the worst one when they're listening blind. How this pans out to the smaller differences in measurements. The worst speaker was an electrostatic speaker with a very narrow listening window and unusably jagged frequency response. The middle speaker also had a bad frequency response or excessive BBC dip in the most sensitive area for human hearing. The speakers with a reasonable frequency response were rated almost the same.

 

[mglobe]

View attachment 531681

View attachment 531682

Bowers and Wilkins HTM81 D4 Center Channel Speaker Review

Bowers and Wilkins HTM81 D4 Center Channel Review

www.erinsaudiocorner.com

Here are some measurements made by B&W

 

[tmtomh]

For many years I had a pair of the B&W 705 (the originals from around 2004 I believe). I really liked them - but I had them EQ'd to knock down their treble peak. Without that, they weren't so great. Once EQ'd, though, they sounded very nice and I appreciated their imaging. I got them used for about $700 and for that price they definitely gave me my money's worth during the years I used them.

 

[goat76]

As far as B&W are concerned, I have not seen them used by recording engineers, and I have not seen them used for mixing or mastering. I have not seen them used in studios other than as main monitors, and the role of main monitors is to generate SPL and impress clients.

Steve Albini always used B&W Matrix 805 speakers in his studio at Electrical Audio in Chicago, both in Studio A and Studio B. I consider Albini one of the greatest recording engineers of all time, especially when it comes to capturing the raw performance of a rock band playing live in a studio environment.
There's definitely no problem at all using B&W speakers for mixing music.

 

[Jim Taylor]

Steve Albini always used B&W Matrix 805 speakers in his studio at Electrical Audio in Chicago, both in Studio A and Studio B. I consider Albini one of the greatest recording engineers of all time, especially when it comes to capturing the raw performance of a rock band playing live in a studio environment.
There's definitely no problem at all using B&W speakers for mixing music.

View attachment 532010
View attachment 532011

Yes, I remember listening to the Matrix 805s in 1993 or 1994. I thought they were quite good. Of course, that's over 30 years ago. The B&W speakers from that era were engineered to have a flatter response than the more recent ones.

On another note, I wonder how many monitors - B&W or any other brand - are equalized to the satisfaction of the engineer. That little tidbit of information is difficult to find out, but it would be fascinating to know ... at least for me.

 

[goat76]

Musicians are familiar with instrument sounds up close, both the immediate sound of their instrument and the sound of the instruments adjacent to them.
But what about the sound at 10th row center ... or the sound at a table in a nightclub? Is a musician familiar with the sound that their instrument makes to those audiences?

So if a recording engineer wants to record a musician, which perspective does he choose - the perspective of the performer or the perspective of the audience? Isn't the perspective of the audience the standard?

If that is so, then what use is the experience of a musician in evaluating a recording which is made from the perspective of the audience?

Do you suggest that most musicians have never heard their peer musicians playing the same type of instruments they play, and never at any other distances than what they are used to hearing the instrument while playing it themselves?

I don't think we should ever underestimate how much experience many professional musicians have in hearing the type of instruments they play, both played by themselves and by others, and in many different acoustic environments. Many musicians are pretty obsessed when striving for that perfect tone of their fellow instrumental heroes.

 

[goat76]

Based on my subjective experience (so take with as much salt as you wish), I've found a tendency toward slightly exaggerated upper treble in classical recordings compared to what I hear live.

We could hardly blame the popularity of the B&W speakers (in that genre) for the exaggerated upper treble, as their speakers are already blamed for having an exaggerated upper treble on their own. Or may it be so that the recording engineers for classical music are extreme suckers for high treble energy, and want to add extra treble energy on top of that when listening to their B&W speakers in the studio?

 

[kidprofessor]

I'd suggest reading that article more carefully. The studies cited generally found either no significant difference in thresholds between the musicians and the general population, or only slightly worse NIHL in the musicians. Also, mild NIHL in no way explains having/preferring "terrible sound systems".


A fixed deviation from neutral being "more realistic" on average would require that most recordings are colored in a specific way. Based on my subjective experience (so take with as much salt as you wish), I've found a tendency toward slightly exaggerated upper treble in classical recordings compared to what I hear live.

I've noticed a similar problem but more with the high mids, sometimes called the "ice pick" frequencies, are exaggerated compared to hearing music live. Screechy violins seem to be the norm. What one would expect if there was a hole in the upper mids in the monitor.

 

[pablolie]

Studio engineers are like all professionals - they adhere to stuff that has some name cache because "you never get fired" for picking a known brand. If a studio engineer goes with -say- Ascilabs and his output sucks, they'll get told they don't know what they're doing... we get that a lot in our industry, the silly "no one got fired for picking XYZ" or "sorry the boss is a huge proponent of XYZ and it's political".
I actually could not care less what studio engineers use if the output of their work pleases me. And, given the music production process, the fact one person involved uses a certain speaker means nothing, actually.
I should note I have never been offended by B&W sound, they wouldn't be in business if it was really "bad". The B&W 800 series used to be a benchmark for me, but as I downsized, I found stuff that pleased me more for less money than an 805D4 (and check the price progression of the B&W 800 series over time in general...).
In any case. it's a ridiculous game in the audio hobby to seek universal approval of our opinions or equipment choices... and vive la différence!

 

[pablolie]

.... Or may it be so that the recording engineers for classical music are extreme suckers for high treble energy, and want to add extra treble energy on top of that when listening to their B&W speakers in the studio?

But shouldn't they then be extremely aware their final mix will sound quite dull and lacking in high treble with any other end device (if it's really *that* exaggerated, which from personal perception I don't entirely agree with)?

 

[goat76]

But shouldn't they then be extremely aware their final mix will sound quite dull and lacking in high treble with any other end device (if it's really *that* exaggerated, which from personal perception I don't entirely agree with)?

If we assume that @bmc0 is right about most classical recordings having an exaggerated energy in the upper treble region, while listening to it with a neutral speaker. Do you mean that this is caused by the studio engineer knowing his B&W monitors already have an exaggerated energy in that region, which he then wants to compensate for, but overshoots it, which in turn leads to an exaggerated overcompensation of energy in the upper treble region of the programme material?

 

[Sokel]

If we assume that @bmc0 is right about most classical recordings having an exaggerated energy in the upper treble region, while listening to it with a neutral speaker. Do you mean that this is caused by the studio engineer knowing his B&W monitors already have an exaggerated energy in that region, which he then wants to compensate for, but overshoots it, which in turn leads to an exaggerated overcompensation of energy in the upper treble region of the programme material?

I have analyzed the spectrum of more than 200-300 classical recordings to see if there's a particular pattern or trend.

Nope, they look pretty much the same as any other nicely recorded music, and God forbid, no elevated highs whatsoever.

 

[Sokel]

If we assume that @bmc0 is right about most classical recordings having an exaggerated energy in the upper treble region, while listening to it with a neutral speaker. Do you mean that this is caused by the studio engineer knowing his B&W monitors already have an exaggerated energy in that region, which he then wants to compensate for, but overshoots it, which in turn leads to an exaggerated overcompensation of energy in the upper treble region of the programme material?

For example, here's a super dynamic work with lots of energy up high, Carmina Burana by LSO (so relevant to the studio) , look at the peaks spectrum:

 

[goat76]

I have analyzed the spectrum of more than 200-300 classical recordings to see if there's a particular pattern or trend.

Nope, they look pretty much the same as any other nicely recorded music, and God forbid, no elevated highs whatsoever.

And if we turn it the other way around.
Have you noticed any trend of lack of energy in the highs in classical recordings, which you know are produced with B&W speakers?

 

[Paul7777x]

Studio engineers are like all professionals - they adhere to stuff that has some name cache because "you never get fired" for picking a known brand. If a studio engineer goes with -say- Ascilabs and his output sucks, they'll get told they don't know what they're doing... we get that a lot in our industry, the silly "no one got fired for picking XYZ" or "sorry the boss is a huge proponent of XYZ and it's political".
I actually could not care less what studio engineers use if the output of their work pleases me. And, given the music production process, the fact one person involved uses a certain speaker means nothing, actually.
I should note I have never been offended by B&W sound, they wouldn't be in business if it was really "bad". The B&W 800 series used to be a benchmark for me, but as I downsized, I found stuff that pleased me more for less money than an 805D4 (and check the price progression of the B&W 800 series over time in general...).
In any case. it's a ridiculous game in the audio hobby to seek universal approval of our opinions or equipment choices... and vive la différence!

They were never inexpensive, but when they were bought by a venture capitalist concern thingy B&W prices became increasingly laughable for no increase in value.

Oddly, exactly what you’d expect from such an owner.

 

[Sokel]

And if we turn it the other way around.
Have you noticed any trend of lack of energy in the highs in classical recordings, which you know are produced with B&W speakers?

To tell you the truth, the only speakers from the studio side I only cared to have a look is the 1950's RCA big ones, and that just because I was curious how Lew Layton made such masterpieces.

 

[Jim Taylor]

Do you suggest that most musicians have never heard their peer musicians playing the same type of instruments they play, and never at any other distances than what they are used to hearing the instrument while playing it themselves?

I don't think we should ever underestimate how much experience many professional musicians have in hearing the type of instruments they play, both played by themselves and by others, and in many different acoustic environments. Many musicians are pretty obsessed when striving for that perfect tone of their fellow instrumental heroes.

My post was in regards a post by @DavidM1. That concerned, specifically, classical musicians.
My experience with classical musicians (which is previous to 2010) is that they are obsessed with the sound of their own instruments. I admit that this was more obvious with violinists (the prima donnas of orchestral torture), but I never got the impression that any classical musician sits around at audience distance listening to other musicians.

Of course, I could be wrong. Everyone is .... occasionally.

 

[bmc0]

We could hardly blame the popularity of the B&W speakers (in that genre) for the exaggerated upper treble, as their speakers are already blamed for having an exaggerated upper treble on their own.

I made no claims about the cause. My point was only that—contrary to the OP's suggestion—I don't seem to perceive a treble lift as "more realistic" with the majority of classical recordings I've heard.

and God forbid, no elevated highs whatsoever

And how did you determine the correct (neutral) spectral shape for each recording? It surely varies a lot for different works and even different venues.
Do note that I'm not claiming that my perception of slightly elevated high treble is objectively correct in any real sense; it's only my subjective impression of the average recording versus what I've heard live. All the caveats of such a wildly uncontrolled subjective impression obviously apply (bias, limitations of auditory memory, etc., etc.).

 

[DavidM1]

I never got the impression that any classical musician sits around at audience distance listening to other musicians.

In which case you are mistaken. Perhaps you have to go through the process to understand the level of time and commitment that goes into becoming an elite classical musician. We are talking hours a day in the pre-tertiary and tertiary training years, including soaking up relevant live performances and masterclasses at every opportunity. My undergraduate music school also included the city’s main concert hall and there was a blanket policy of allowing performance students free access to all concerts where seats were available. Many players continue to have easy access to concerts when they aren’t on stage themselves. Many professional musicians also teach in university music schools and serve on juries for competitions and exams, and then there is the most obvious point - classical musicians are music lovers. They are not dilettantes and they have highly developed critical listening skills.

It is bizarre to think of classical musicians as inexperienced audience members. I think I’m still in shock. Lol!