IMO, there is a another factor that also effects the fidelity of the final mix. Recording engineers want the final mix to sound best over the playback system that it is most likely going to be heard. Hence newer pop recordings have lots of extra effects and is overly compressed to sound best as a MP3 file being played through some ear buds.
Loudspeaker Cross-Overs and the Recording Arts
Lately,
I've been thinking about mastering and the history of the recording industry and the effect on cross-over trends such as no cross-over at all, 6 db, 12 db, 50+db?
I'll bet if you track the history of the loudspeaker you'll see the recording mastering industry follow just a little retrograde.
If you've ever wondered why some heavily filtered speakers sound dead and boring with poor dynamics you might blame the big fat juicy cross-over network with its 100's and 100's of feet of signal killing components: polypropylene, tin, copper, c-boards, etc.. sucking up the loudspeakers potential fidelity many of these super complex cross-overs use sub par components too: just to keep the physical size down (as well as the price). So why do many loudspeaker manufactures use them? I believe it's because many of today's recordings are recorded to accommodate heavily truncated sound. Therefor, the recording itself is too bright and too hot so that it may seem like Hi-Fi once emitted from a loudspeaker with too much filter.
Different studios use different monitors hence different recordings.
I know of a Mastering studio in North Carolina which only uses fab Dunlavy loudspeakers for his mastering and well the sound is fantastic with one of today's minimally filtered loudspeakers because for the most part Dunlavy only used a 6db-12db cross-over and only driver with exceptionally clean roll-off character were chosen. The same music played through a fat cross-over is less than sublime with a loss in detail.. but is sublime with a highly sensitive monitor in other words the music was recorded to be optimal on Dunlavy type loudspeakers just like the ones used at the studio to master the recording.
I think we can see true fidelity improve in the industry once we get mastering up to snuff with more pure reproduction from their monitors.
Q
I've been thinking about mastering and the history of the recording industry and the effect on cross-over trends such as no cross-over at all, 6 db, 12 db, 50+db?
I'll bet if you track the history of the loudspeaker you'll see the recording mastering industry follow just a little retrograde.
If you've ever wondered why some heavily filtered speakers sound dead and boring with poor dynamics you might blame the big fat juicy cross-over network with its 100's and 100's of feet of signal killing components: polypropylene, tin, copper, c-boards, etc.. sucking up the loudspeakers potential fidelity many of these super complex cross-overs use sub par components too: just to keep the physical size down (as well as the price). So why do many loudspeaker manufactures use them? I believe it's because many of today's recordings are recorded to accommodate heavily truncated sound. Therefor, the recording itself is too bright and too hot so that it may seem like Hi-Fi once emitted from a loudspeaker with too much filter.
Different studios use different monitors hence different recordings.
I know of a Mastering studio in North Carolina which only uses fab Dunlavy loudspeakers for his mastering and well the sound is fantastic with one of today's minimally filtered loudspeakers because for the most part Dunlavy only used a 6db-12db cross-over and only driver with exceptionally clean roll-off character were chosen. The same music played through a fat cross-over is less than sublime with a loss in detail.. but is sublime with a highly sensitive monitor in other words the music was recorded to be optimal on Dunlavy type loudspeakers just like the ones used at the studio to master the recording.
I think we can see true fidelity improve in the industry once we get mastering up to snuff with more pure reproduction from their monitors.
Q