• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Which speakers are the Classical Music Pros using?

Joined
Oct 13, 2022
Messages
50
Likes
98
I'm a sound engineer but classical music is not my line of business, I never had to mix on B&W's. Do you have any insights on why studios who specialise in this genre seem to like them? Or is it B&W's marketing machine who wants to makes us believe so (meaning they're less common than the pictures you find on the internet suggest)?
I have no idea actually. I never really worked on them, IMO they are not accurate enough not to make wrong decisions. They sound polite and laid back, everything sounds a bit further. some incarnation even had the tweeter polarity reversed, which was even featured in their PR brochure ! That makes it a no go for professional use !

My first surround mix was made in a very compromised mixing room and five of my little speakers. When I went to Polyhymnia (featered in this thread), listening back on their highend b&w 800 surround setup I was not blown away. It sounded as we intended, just a bit more distant and less “present”. At that time that was like a 12K 5.1 setup against a 120K setup.

I also grew up with the “mixed on B&W” paradigm. It was always in the liner notes. One must assume it must be marketing ?
I know from a fact they are VERY common, but some of my collaegues are really not in favor. Most do not say this openly, as they are really almost like the NS10 decades ago, an industry standard.
Even a lot of highend mastering rooms use them as their main system.
I have had masters coming back slightly worse, and colored.

Mind you, I am not saying they are bad speakers. In my book they are simply not good enough. But probably I do not have first hand experience to be 100% sure about this.
 
OP
tuga

tuga

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
3,984
Likes
4,281
Location
Oxford, England
I think this charming performance is a good example of the perils of overly-simple recording techniques:


Obviously in a situation like this the live performance takes priority and they didn't want loads of equipment messing up the spectacle. It's beautiful music, but you're mostly hearing the chamber reverb.

Over simple will by definition produce a bad recording.
A bad example
 

Geert

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
1,938
Likes
3,526
I know from a fact they are VERY common, but some of my collaegues are really not in favor. Most do not say this openly, as they are really almost like the NS10 decades ago, an industry standard.

Then it will remain the best kept secret in pro audio I guess ;) For NS10's we at least have some understanding of their purpose.
 
OP
tuga

tuga

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
3,984
Likes
4,281
Location
Oxford, England
I'm a sound engineer but classical music is not my line of business, I never had to mix on B&W's. Do you have any insights on why studios who specialise in this genre seem to like them? Or is it B&W's marketing machine who wants to makes us believe so (meaning they're less common than the pictures you find on the internet suggest)?

This topic is by no means a thorough investigation but B&W speakers seem to be the most common in classical music monitoring and mixing/editing rooms.

Why that is so wasn’t really on my mind when I started the topic but it is an interesting question, particularly when the tonal balance of the 800-series changed from flat on-axis and smooth off-axis to its current response characteristics.
 
OP
tuga

tuga

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
3,984
Likes
4,281
Location
Oxford, England
When I went to Polyhymnia (featered in this thread), listening back on their highend b&w 800 surround setup I was not blown away. It sounded as we intended, just a bit more distant and less “present”.

I would probably enjoy this sort of “presentation” as an end user but for the production stage there’s some risk of overcompensation and ending up with an overly forward and present mix.
 

Geert

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
1,938
Likes
3,526
Why that is so wasn’t really on my mind when I started the topic but it is an interesting question, particularly when the tonal balance of the 800-series changed from flat on-axis and smooth off-axis to its current response characteristics

That was going to be my follow-up question ;) Studio monitors are supposed to be reference equipment, but B&W is constantly changing the reference.

Take for example the 804 Diamond versus the new D4 version:
913B804fig4.jpg

1221BW804fig4.jpg

And indeed, also the directivity has changed.

(Measurements by Stereophile.com, "The peak in the upper bass, which is due in part to the nearfield measurement technique").
 

Duke

Major Contributor
Audio Company
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 22, 2016
Messages
1,523
Likes
3,745
Location
Princeton, Texas
I had a discussion years ago with the designer. My view when I designed my mastering room was to get a "ideal" listening room. Well, let's say I arrived at 90% and then decided to finish the last 10% next month ...
My room is not dead. It has polycylindrical diffusers. It has polycylindrical diffusers in first reflection points - which is a deadly sin.

My understanding is that polycylindrical diffusors do not alter the frequency response of the reflection (by reducing short-wavelength energy) as much as other types of diffusors do. Imo altering the spectral balance of the reflections is questionable. So I can definitely seen an argument for using polycylindricals.

When I asked, if the diffusers in a non-environmental room aren't per definition first reflection points (even when not physically in the position where normally the first reflections would be), there was never an answer.

Well those reflections would no longer be specular, though I suppose in arrival time they would technically still be "firsts". But these diffuse first reflections would send less energy towards the listening position, with one effect being that this would push the effective "center of gravity" of the reflections back in time a bit. My understanding is that when the playback room's signature is "disrupted" by things like removing or minimizing the early reflections (which indicate distances to reflective surfaces) and pushing the center of gravity of the reflections back in time (the temporal center of gravity of the reflections being an indicator of room size), the net result is a less plausible "package" of room signature cues. In other words, I think these things make the acoustic indicators of the playback room's dimensions and acoustics somewhat indistinct. Imo this is highly desirable because then it becomes more likely that the ear/brain system will accept the recording's venue cues as being the more plausible package of cues, such that your perception shifts to recording venue's acoustics instead of the playback room's acoustics.

I know of the design that the ceiling diffusers are angled, I am quite sure the speakers can hardly "see" them. The back side is another story. I always wonder how much more significant a floor bounce becomes in the absence of everything else ?

This is just speculation on my part: I THINK the other in-room reflections help to fill in the floor-bounce dip. When all of the other reflections are removed - such as when you have a conversation with someone outdoors - I think the floor-bounce dip has more of an audible effect than it normally has inside a room.
 
Last edited:

youngho

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2019
Messages
486
Likes
799
I had a discussion years ago with the designer. My view when I designed my mastering room was to get a "ideal" listening room. Well, let's say I arrived at 90% and then decided to finish the last 10% next month ...
My room is not dead. It has polycylindrical diffusers. It has polycylindrical diffusers in first reflection points - which is a deadly sin.
Actually, maybe not. https://www.stereophile.com/content/nwaa-labs-measurement-beyond-atomic-level-page-2. Also, Toole noted in one of the editions of his book that a single poly is actually quite effective. Problems arise from multiple polys of the same radius,.
When I asked, if the diffusers in a non-environmental room aren't per definition first reflection points (even when not physically in the position where normally the first reflections would be), there was never an answer. I know of the design that the ceiling diffusers are angled, I am quite sure the speakers can hardly "see" them. The back side is another story. I always wonder how much more significant a floor bounce becomes in the absence of everything else ?
The usual answer is that the mixing console blocks the floor bounce in a control or mixing room setting.
Anyway, these type of very expensive diffusers act mainly as absorbers, so maybe further discussion is moot...
This is an interesting discussion where meaningful data may not be readily available.
Personally I have never heard this type of room, supposedly they sound great. But I wonder if one can make the right decisions in such rooms which are so far from the typical listening room. As Mr. Toole wrote somewhere above, listening to a stereo or even 5ch setup in an anechoic room was a big disappointment. Sounds were getting locatlised inside the head ?
Different listeners have reported different experiences.
So, there should be a thread about which speakers in which room are the pros using ?
My uneducated guess would be that although classical music listeners might be broadly dichotomized into strong/reverberant/wide vs clarity/definition (https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-on-readings-of-lokki-bech-toole-et-al.27540/), classical music mixing engineers may be more likely fall into the latter category (Toole, also the RT preference from Laukkanen in the above link).

Young-Ho
 

charleski

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 15, 2019
Messages
1,098
Likes
2,239
Location
Manchester UK
A perfect example of a poorly mic'ed recording, yes. What is the point you are trying to make?
The point is quite obvious. There are many situations in which resorting to simple distant pair will inevitably fail.
 

Igor Kirkwood

Active Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2020
Messages
109
Likes
238
Last edited:

Keith_W

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 26, 2016
Messages
2,531
Likes
5,803
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Sound Engineer specialized in Classical Music

Wonderful to have you here! I listen to only classical music. Which label do you work for? Also, I was wondering if you would be interested in explaining some details on the recording and editing process? (Maybe in a separate thread). If you don't have time, perhaps a link to some resources.
 
OP
tuga

tuga

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
3,984
Likes
4,281
Location
Oxford, England

Phorize

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 26, 2019
Messages
1,533
Likes
2,060
Location
U.K
Wonderful work! Welcome:)
 
OP
tuga

tuga

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
3,984
Likes
4,281
Location
Oxford, England
Here's the fixed link to Igor's topic about his system:

 

Sokel

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 8, 2021
Messages
5,845
Likes
5,787
Will it be too much to try to know in which speakers and electronics the nice recordings of Fritz Reiner and the Chicago Symphony Orchestra were made?
There are amongst my absolute loved ones (ok,it's the performance mostly,but... ).
 

amadeuswus

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
277
Likes
265
Location
Massachusetts
Will it be too much to try to know in which speakers and electronics the nice recordings of Fritz Reiner and the Chicago Symphony Orchestra were made?
There are amongst my absolute loved ones (ok,it's the performance mostly,but... ).
If you love that period of RCA Living Stereo more generally, this 2-cd set from the 1990s may be of interest. Mohr/Layton were behind some of the best Reiner/CSO recordings, but Pfeiffer also produced his fair share.

51mLGfl0hRL._SX425_.jpg
 
Top Bottom