2. misc-audio
  3. 129359-231

Recording Studio sound Vs. Audiophile system

Has anyone had the opportunity to compare what they hear in a recording studio vs. What they hear in their own system?

i recently had a friend come over and Listen to the album they had just recorded and mixed with a fantastic NYC engineer. The drums were recorded analog in a large studio (the way top albums are) while the rest was recorded digitally.

I was was quite impressed with the sound as the engineer captured the full envelope and dynamic shadings (for a rock record, that is). In fact the engineer doesn’t even allow people to take pictures of his mic positions or Pro tools session settings- I can hear why he’s protective of his secret sauce.


I pushed her for a comparison of what she heard in the studio vs. What she was hearing in my system. She commented that she could hear much more in my system vs. The studio, and would have mixed the vocals diferrently!

I cautioned her to make sure the mastering she was planning on having done doesn’t squash the life out of the tracks, or introduce subtle distortion in an attempt to win the "loudness wars."

I’m getting ready to do a blumlein Stereo recording for another friend in my space and Tonight I played some tracks the Rupert Neve company uploaded comparing seperate guitar and vocal tracks with 2 difference mic pre amps, so perspective buyers can compare. (One I own and one is a newer design/flavor)

https://m.soundcloud.com/rupertnevedesigns/sets/shelford-channel-and-portico-ii-channel-comparison

In an interview The engineer that recorded the demo tracks seemed to prefer the newer preamp over the one I own, as he felt it emulated some of the Classic Neve units and had a bigger sound.

Upon listening to the naked tracks in my system ( Tad cr1’s + PS Audio/Atmasphere electronics and top power conditioning) it was so obvious the newer (retro) design was glossing over the details the older more transparent Portico II design easily revealed.

In fact I could hear lots of flaws in the recording, eq, breath pops, ) with the more transparent pre amp.

My point is that often listening to recordings on my system I think " if only the engineer / producer could hear their work on a system of this level (and in a big room) their aesthetic and technical choices would provide much better recordings.

I often hear to me what sounds like mic pre amp subtly distorting or hitting their dynamic threshold (gain set too high or low) , which makes the sound brittle or hard.

Anyone else with studio vs. Audiophile experience who can chime in?

I know hearing a multi track master can be an incredible and dynamic experience but I’m referring more to the final mixes.
emailists

Showing 1 response by desktopguy

desktopguy
334 posts
 
I'm not a music pro, but I've researched pro monitors very extensively in past 2-3 months, preparing to purchase a pair for use in my desktop audio system (not many do this, but some users of big-$$ studio monitors are music lovers, like me).

I've learned 2 things from all my reading:

1. People who record music and produce the finished product are very concerned with their mix (or final master) "translating" to regular, everyday audio systems owned by John and Jane Q. Public. They know their recordings will be consumed on everything from shitty earbuds to wifi speaker to megabuck audiophile speakers. So their goal is that the recording "translate" to everybody else's gear. That's a hard thing to do.

2. The monitors they use are designed to help make those judgements easier. Design emphasis is put on flatness of frequency response, detailed/accurate soundstaging, and in every possible way, reproducing the input as clearly & faithfully as possible. These are not the same goals we use for desktop audio or big living room system.

Some pro monitors are said to actually sound pretty fine for music appreciation. I've spent a lot of time identifying the ones that are spoken of in this manner--and in a couple months, will buy a pair to upgrade my current desktop speakers.
More to discover