Studio Monitors & The Circle of Confusion- What We Know/Don’t Know

[Rettica]

a chance to listen to a recording as it was indented to sound if desired so

intended by whom? when my client listens to the mixed track on his smartphone or ****** homepod and says its 'perfect' - is this how it's 'intended' to sound?

 

[lowkeyoperations]

Your claim has no science behind, mine comes from scientists like Toole and Olive.

Post the study or paper then. All you’re posting is opinion.

 

[Mart68]

Yeah It is hell. One recording sounds amazing on my 8361 + W371 combo, then the next track sounds like shit. One recording has the most impactful bass I could ever imagine while the other one sounds limb and weak.

I can't say I experience such large swings myself, but I agree that bass varies a fair bit from recording to recording. I have multiple loudspeaker systems, (these are what are usually in use http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/Faital-3WC-15.htm ) and that is the case with all of them.

I doubt that is a result of the circle of confusion though. It may be an artistic decision. It may be they mixed with radio play in mind. It may be they mixed with vinyl replay in mind - especially for recordings made prior to digital replay taking over.

I just take each recording as a given. It is what it is.

 

[Mart68]

intended by whom? when my client listens to the mixed track on his smartphone or ****** homepod and says its 'perfect' - is this how it's 'intended' to sound?

A band I know recorded an album in what was then a state of the art facility. They wanted bass, so they doubled up the bass guitar with a bass synth.

All the band were given copies of the mix to take home to listen to. Everyone liked it except the singer, who complained there was way to much bass and it sounded boomy and distorted.

Curious, the band and the engineer went round to his house to hear for themselves. The singer's replay system consisted of a 1980s Amstrad midi system with its crude, tiny, single driver speakers sat on the floor, right next to each other, against the wall, in a corner alcove.

You can please some of the people, some of the time...

Also for those thinking flaw in monitors equals flaw in recording, it isn't unusual for everyone involved to take the ongoing mix home and listen to it on their home system and in their cars. There's plenty of cross-checking goes on.

 

[Geert]

What you guys basically saying is that, there is a chinese text and people translated it to English, Danish, French and German. Because people from all these nationalities enjoyed, things should be fine. We would believe you if this wasn't the result:

View attachment 460610
These are calibrated, expensive, and supposedly neutral monitors used in professional rooms... yet the variation is massive, especially below 1 khz.

The study: A Survey Study Of In-Situ Stereo And Multi-Channel Monitoring Conditions Aki V. Mäkivirta and Christophe Anet Genelec 2001

Some nuances:

• 26% of the speaker setups were not measured at the listening position of the engineer. For the one that were, 10% were not measured on their acoustic axis
• 32% of the setups had the speakers higher than ear level without applying a vertical tilt
• 70% of the speakers were free standing, which potentialy makes them subject to speaker-boundary interference
• For more than 50% of the setups we see the reverberation time increase substantialy below 300Hz, indicating that these rooms might have inadequate treatment of low frequencies
• Nevertheless, when we focus on the setups that were measured on axis; we see that 50% of them shows a frequency response variation within +- 5 dB
  • 
• When we focus on stereo setups (most of the setups in the study are multi-channel setups) and look at the frequency response variation the results are even better, 90% of the setups has a variation of less then +-4 dB @ >150 Hz, and 50% manages to do ±2 dB above 1kHz:
  • 

Conclusions:

• Most of the study is about multi channel setups, often in control rooms that are to small for a good setup. Lots of issues with these setups are not relevant to stereo recording
• For a lot of rooms we see issues with the measurements itself (not measured in the listening position or on-axis), the speaker setup (vertical tilt or SBIR issues), or acoustics (low frequency reverb time and measurements influences by room modes). Obvious issues a SOTA stereo recording studio can avoid
• Nevertheless, when we focus on stereo monitoring setups (most relevant to this discussion) more then 50% of the setups is doing fine
• The study dates back to 2001. No REW, DSP or digital room correction at that time.

So the situation is totaly not as bad as that spectacular one slide that people always share suggest, on the contrary.

Most SOTA recording studio's will probably fall within that 50% that has a frequency response variation of less then +-2 dB. They will have large 3-way monitors flush mounted. For a user it's easy to see if they're aimed at you and if they're installed correctly according to a stereo triangle. And when it's a real SOTA studio, the acoustic design will have been done by pro's and their name will be known. As a pro sound engineer this is where you select and review your reference tracks. (I've been using the same reference tracks for more than 25 years, and heard them on hundreds of systems. These tracks were probably mixed on monitors that would get totally destroyed on this forum, and they still stand the test of time).

 

[Blockader]

The study: A Survey Study Of In-Situ Stereo And Multi-Channel Monitoring Conditions Aki V. Mäkivirta and Christophe Anet Genelec 2001

Some nuances:

• 26% of the speaker setups were not measured at the listening position of the engineer. For the one that were, 10% were not measured on their acoustic axis
• 32% of the setups had the speakers higher than ear level without applying a vertical tilt
• 70% of the speakers were free standing, which potentialy makes them subject to speaker-boundary interference
• For more than 50% of the setups we see the reverberation time increase substantialy below 300Hz, indicating that these rooms might have inadequate treatment of low frequencies
• Nevertheless, when we focus on the setups that were measured on axis; we see that 50% of them shows a frequency response variation within +- 5 dB
  • View attachment 460614
• When we focus on stereo setups (most of the setups in the study are multi-channel setups) and look at the frequency response variation the results are even better, 90% of the setups has a variation of less then +-4 dB @ >150 Hz, and 50% manages to do ±2 dB above 1kHz:
  • View attachment 460617

Conclusions:

• Most of the study is about multi channel setups, often in control rooms that are to small for a good setup. Lots of issues with these setups are not relevant to stereo recording
• For a lot of rooms we see issues with the measurements itself (not measured in the listening position or on-axis), the speaker setup (vertical tilt or SBIR issues), or acoustics (low frequency reverb time and measurements influences by room modes). Obvious issues a SOTA stereo recording studio can avoid
• Nevertheless, when we focus on stereo monitoring setups (most relevant to this discussion) more then 50% of the setups is doing fine
• The study dates back from 2001. No DSP or digital room correction at that time.

So the situation is totaly not as bad as that spectacular one slide that people always share suggest, on the contrary.

Most SOTA recording studio's will probably fall within that 50% that has a frequency response variation of less then +-2 dB. They will have large 3-way monitors flush mounted. For a user it's easy to see if they're aimed at you and if they're installed correctly according to a stereo triangle. And when it's a real SOTA studio, the acoustic design will have been done by pro's and their name will be known. As a pro sound engineer this is where you select and review your reference tracks. (I've been using the same reference tracks for more than 25 years, and hearded them on hundreds of systems. These tracks where probably mixed on monitors that would get totally destroyed on this forum, and they still stand the test of time).

Every non-linearity in the chain contributes to the total error in the circle of confusion. It’s a cumulative problem: room issues, inconsistent monitoring, poor translation, subjective biases, they all add up.

We might not be able to control every variable, but at the very least, we can make sure the speakers used for mixing aren’t the least of the problem. That’s one factor we can take out of the equation.

So instead of staying quiet about potential flaws in something like ATC’s design, why should we let another non-linearity slide through unchecked? Silencing valid criticism only keeps the circle spinning. This is the context of this conversation. In the context of ATC's design, the way I see it, ATC's designs are outdated(still ok but not great), however ATC fanboys still wants us to believe they are superior for music production over all the other options. I am basically doing my best to provide information to build an agreement around how wrong this is. As for me, I used to have ATC SCM20ASL, they were fine but not great. Would I use them for music listening? Yes. Mixing? No.

Going back to dfuller's example: This research was done with Genelec speakers. There are control rooms with Quested speakers...

 

[thewas]

intended by whom? when my client listens to the mixed track on his smartphone or ****** homepod and says its 'perfect' - is this how it's 'intended' to sound?

Well if that is your target group then please go ahead and mix them on his smartphone...

 

[lowkeyoperations]

By “recordings” are you referring generally to classical music performed live in halls? The micing and rooms have a big impact in the sound in those cases. If you’re comparing recordings from different halls that could play a part. I think there is more variations in the recordings of classical music than there is in other types of music for sure. But I think that comes down to what has been recorded, not the mixing in front of speakers.

Outside of classical or acoustic, there’s not much of the original “recordings” that are heard without being altered. EQ, compression, fx. If you heard a mix of stems prior to any processing you would be surprised just how much the sound character is changed in the process. For the better.

As an example, how loud a snare is in the mix for example. I recall a thread here at ASR being told that the snare in Weeknd Blinding Lights was too loud, and an example of poor monitors obviously being used. That exact song is the highest played song on Spotify with close to 5 BILLION plays.

So I don’t know. It’s either poorly mixed because an audio scientist didn’t like the aesthetic decision that was made, or it’s the most popular song of all time :lol:

 

[thewas]

Post the study or paper then. All you’re posting is opinion.

Here you are, Sean Olive:

Audio's Circle of Confusion

Audio’s “Circle of Confusion” is a term coined by Floyd Toole [1] that describes the confusion that exists within the audio recording and r...

seanolive.blogspot.com

Floyd Toole:

So long as they measure similarly and well, there is no problem. Loudspeaker design is a mature science, with similar-measuring loudspeakers sounding extremely similar. Unfortunately that is not a universal truth, and there remain remnants of the "bad old days" of highly colored monitor loudspeakers being used to create the recordings we listen to. If everyone had timbrally neutral loudspeakers we might have a chance of hearing what the artists created. Chapter 18 and other references in my book show horror-story examples of professionally "approved" monitor loudspeakers, as well as their consumer equivalents.

All loudspeakers, professional monitors or consumer products, should aim to be as neutral as possible. If they play loud enough and long enough for the intended purpose, they qualify. If everyone followed this principle, the circle of confusion would be less of an issue. In our loudspeaker evaluations there have been pro monitors and high-end audiophile loudspeakers that end up in statistical ties in terms of sound quality, not sound quantity. A good loudspeaker is a good loudspeaker. All electronics are fundamentally neutral and always have been. The best studio microphones are almost as accurate as measurement microphones (there are other types that are used as equalizers of a special kind). The entire sound record/reproduction path should have neutrality as its baseline. Then recording engineers and musicians can create whatever art they like, realistic or abstract, and consumers might have a chance of hearing it as it was created. That is my kind of "equivalence".

Now who is posting opinion?

 

[Sokel]

There are control rooms with Quested speakers...

JBL 4350A pushed by electrocompaniet, all the way

 

[thewas]

Going back to dfuller's example: This research was done with Genelec speakers.

Also the main deviations are in the bass region where room correction has to be used, while above EQ cannot correct directivity issues.

 

[Blockader]

Also the main deviations are in the bass region where room correction has to be used, while above EQ cannot correct directivity issues.

And let’s not forget: in-room response problems may stem from nonlinear, uneven absorption. something that’s surprisingly common even in control rooms. The best in room response I ever measured was with my KH 310s in a completely empty room. On paper, it looked great. But in reality, there was no clarity, no imaging, just a soup of sounds.

 

[lowkeyoperations]

Here you are, Sean Olive:

Audio's Circle of Confusion

Audio’s “Circle of Confusion” is a term coined by Floyd Toole [1] that describes the confusion that exists within the audio recording and r...

seanolive.blogspot.com

Floyd Toole:





Now who is posting opinion?

um. You are. You’re posting Tooles opinion. It’s a thesis.
There is no study that a Toole approved monitor provides a better outcome than say a pair of NS10s and soffit mounted mains.
Equally there’s no study about at what point a speaker is “neutral enough” to produce on.

 

[Blockader]

um. You are. You’re posting Tooles opinion. It’s a thesis.
There is no study that a Toole approved monitor provides a better outcome than say a pair of NS10s and soffit mounted mains.
Equally there’s no study about at what point a speaker is “neutral enough”.

He was the first person who mentioned about the problems in NS10's design, in fact Yamaha invited him to ask for his opinions. He even has a chapter about it where he explains how NS10's harmed the sound reproduction.
It is funny, before you make such wrong claims, maybe you should start reading the book first. Because the more you talk, the more you fail.

 

[lowkeyoperations]

He was the first person who mentioned about the problems in NS10's design, in fact Yamaha invited him to ask for his opinions. He even has a chapter about it where he explains how NS10's harmed the sound reproduction.

And yet that monitor has been used on countless hit records that sound great :lol:

If you’re talking about mid field listening for pleasure, yes Toole has the research to tell us what the preferences are.

For mixing in studios he doesn’t.

NS10s highlight particular frequencies that many mix engineers find useful, particularly when working with vocals. Toole doesn’t grasp that “as a job to do”. He only relates to listening pleasure.

Mix engineers are generally not listening to NS10s for enjoyment

 

[Blockader]

And yet that monitor has been used on countless hit records that sound great :lol:

Can I see the paper that approves this opinion?

 

[Geert]

So instead of staying quiet about potential flaws in something like ATC’s design, why should we let another non-linearity slide through unchecked? Silencing valid criticism only keeps the circle spinning.

The only thing I want to silence is the constant misuse of that 24 year old Genelec study.

I used to have ATC SCM20ASL, they were fine but not great.

I sold ours, I posted that earlier in the thread.

 

[thewas]

um. You are. You’re posting Tooles opinion. It’s a thesis.

A rationally trival thesis from someone who has dedicated his life to this topic, while you don't nothing even by far close for yours.

There is no study that a Toole approved monitor provides a better outcome than say a pair of NS10s and soffit mounted mains.
Equally there’s no study about at what point a speaker is “neutral enough” to produce on.

That's why all serious loudspeakers converge to neutral direct and reflected sound and more and more manufacturers publish broad measurement sets.

Its really funny how few people in audio still think no standards are needed while nobody doubts those in other fields like video, graphic & document production.

 

[thewas]

He was the first person who mentioned about the problems in NS10's design, in fact Yamaha invited him to ask for his opinions. He even has a chapter about it where he explains how NS10's harmed the sound reproduction.
It is funny, before you make such wrong claims, maybe you should start reading the book first. Because the more you talk, the more you fail.

Yes, here is one of several posts of Toole about it:

The NS1000 was an exceptional loudspeaker at the time, and not embarrassing even now. See Figure 18.3. The only problem was that they were designed for a flat sound power target, so they were slightly bass shy - turn up the bass and/or turn down the treble for better balance. The NS-10 was also designed for flat sound power, and in a two-way that was most regrettable - although inexplicably many recording engineers got sucked into what can only be described as a "fashion". Truthfully it was an Auratone with more bass. The designer visited me at the NRCC and went away swearing never to do it again. He didn't, and subsequent Yamaha monitors were flat on axis. Section 12.5.1 in the 3rd edition discusses this and shows measurements.

 

[Rettica]

Well if that is your target group then please go ahead and mix them on his smartphone...

you didn't answer my question