The folks at Gearslutz are almost exclusively focused on music production. The reason they are interested in transformers is that producing good sounding recordings is very hard, and there is an endless search for anything that might help.
Most producers “mix in the computer” and apply insane amounts of signal processing to the various signals. There is a whole category of DSP distortion algorithms, which attempt to help “glue” multichannel recordings together, and add euphonious effects.
Of the many challenging aspects of producing recordings is that you have no control over the listening environments. The goal is to create a recording that “translate” across the myriad of playback environments. This is somewhat magical, but there are objective elements to this. (Relating primarily to the smoothness of dynamic levels across the frequency response.)
This presents a dilemma for both producer and listener. Producer tries to guess what a listener might be using. The listener needs to pick a playback system that is somewhat similar to the expectations of the producer.
As both a music producer and listener, this is a fascinating dilemma, which I am constantly learning.
If there was a product that, all things equal, made most recordings in genre the listener preferred sound “better” by introducing distortion, then this would be a desirable product.
I’m not sure whether this is possible, but nevertheless this is what the market for playback systems is producing on the consumer level. The ubiquitous small speaker systems that are so popular are using DSP to create a uniform and “exciting” sound. To my ear anyway. For example, the modern Bose speaker systems sound like they have all sorts of DSP trickery to make them sound “spacious.”
Frankly, it’s a mess.
I have one more comment related that fascinates me. When it comes to studio monitor speakers, they have a different task than regular listener speakers. They are intended to give the producer a listening environment to work in, which allows them to hear clearly, and hopefully results in an effective recording.
This is a hopelessly complicated subject, but one anecdotal observation I’ve had is that some monitors are “easy to please” meaning they tend to make for a pleasing listening experience, even when there are “flaws” in the mix. Generally, this is not a good thing. On the other hand, a speaker, or playback system, with this characteristic would likely be a better choice as a listening system.
Mostly I work on near field, bi amped, active monitors. These get the job done, but I find them very unpleasant to listen to. For example we have a Genelec nearfield system with active sub in our main studio, which is remarkably transparent. Meaning it reproduces the sound of an instrument in the recording space relatively accurately.
But for listening, I find the sound “clinical” and too controlled. For listening I prefer speakers that have a “coloration” that I happen to find pleasing. I generally like have a “boxy” sound, with some amount of resonance coming from the cabinet.
I’m not sure what accounts for this, but my current theory is that since I listen to mostly multitrack recordings, the speaker cabinet “integrates” the sound, providing the final “mix” to the sound. A strictly accurate speaker can result in a listening experience where the sounds are kind of “superimposed” over each other. This is an unnatural experience. Generally, if we hear sounds in a space, a collection of instruments, all of the sounds affect each other.
For example, in an orchestra every instrument generates resonance in its neighbors. Then the ensemble excites the room that they are in.
If you have captured this with a simple stereo mic setup, then it might be desirable to have a very accurate playback system. But in a case where the instruments are captured separately, in the controlled space of a studio, this interaction is lacking, and must be simulated by the mixer.
At the “mastering” stages further attempts are made to “integrate” the sounds, and the use of various pieces of analog gear with distinctive characteristics is practically a religious subject.
In this sense, listeners experimenting with tubes or other distortion producing devices like transformers are simply extending this process, and trying to create a system that sounds “good” to them.
Most producers “mix in the computer” and apply insane amounts of signal processing to the various signals. There is a whole category of DSP distortion algorithms, which attempt to help “glue” multichannel recordings together, and add euphonious effects.
Of the many challenging aspects of producing recordings is that you have no control over the listening environments. The goal is to create a recording that “translate” across the myriad of playback environments. This is somewhat magical, but there are objective elements to this. (Relating primarily to the smoothness of dynamic levels across the frequency response.)
This presents a dilemma for both producer and listener. Producer tries to guess what a listener might be using. The listener needs to pick a playback system that is somewhat similar to the expectations of the producer.
As both a music producer and listener, this is a fascinating dilemma, which I am constantly learning.
If there was a product that, all things equal, made most recordings in genre the listener preferred sound “better” by introducing distortion, then this would be a desirable product.
I’m not sure whether this is possible, but nevertheless this is what the market for playback systems is producing on the consumer level. The ubiquitous small speaker systems that are so popular are using DSP to create a uniform and “exciting” sound. To my ear anyway. For example, the modern Bose speaker systems sound like they have all sorts of DSP trickery to make them sound “spacious.”
Frankly, it’s a mess.
I have one more comment related that fascinates me. When it comes to studio monitor speakers, they have a different task than regular listener speakers. They are intended to give the producer a listening environment to work in, which allows them to hear clearly, and hopefully results in an effective recording.
This is a hopelessly complicated subject, but one anecdotal observation I’ve had is that some monitors are “easy to please” meaning they tend to make for a pleasing listening experience, even when there are “flaws” in the mix. Generally, this is not a good thing. On the other hand, a speaker, or playback system, with this characteristic would likely be a better choice as a listening system.
Mostly I work on near field, bi amped, active monitors. These get the job done, but I find them very unpleasant to listen to. For example we have a Genelec nearfield system with active sub in our main studio, which is remarkably transparent. Meaning it reproduces the sound of an instrument in the recording space relatively accurately.
But for listening, I find the sound “clinical” and too controlled. For listening I prefer speakers that have a “coloration” that I happen to find pleasing. I generally like have a “boxy” sound, with some amount of resonance coming from the cabinet.
I’m not sure what accounts for this, but my current theory is that since I listen to mostly multitrack recordings, the speaker cabinet “integrates” the sound, providing the final “mix” to the sound. A strictly accurate speaker can result in a listening experience where the sounds are kind of “superimposed” over each other. This is an unnatural experience. Generally, if we hear sounds in a space, a collection of instruments, all of the sounds affect each other.
For example, in an orchestra every instrument generates resonance in its neighbors. Then the ensemble excites the room that they are in.
If you have captured this with a simple stereo mic setup, then it might be desirable to have a very accurate playback system. But in a case where the instruments are captured separately, in the controlled space of a studio, this interaction is lacking, and must be simulated by the mixer.
At the “mastering” stages further attempts are made to “integrate” the sounds, and the use of various pieces of analog gear with distinctive characteristics is practically a religious subject.
In this sense, listeners experimenting with tubes or other distortion producing devices like transformers are simply extending this process, and trying to create a system that sounds “good” to them.
MCSUT2
DSC_4219 (2)
