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 shadorne

shadorne's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
shadorne
7,467 posts
 
I have not had the experience but at home I have used similar gear to the main monitors used by many studios/artists ...Doug Sax, Pink Floyd, Sting, Jack White, Mark Knopfler, Coldplay, Rolling Stones, Diana Krall, Tom Petty, Telarc etc. Etc.

I would say audiophiles are often more interested in impressive coloration (usually boosted muddy bass, euphonic distortion and scintillating highs) and a sound show (lots of speaker weird directionality making sound highly variable from one position to another but also exciting as different sounds can suddenly come from left field)

I would say artists/studios are more interested in accuracy (sounds like the timbre of the real thing), balance, consistency (sounds good over a large sweet spot and in a variety of venues) and realistic dynamics. The word most often used by professionals is a "translatable mix" - meaning that a setup should be neutral enough so that the final result will sound good on most other systems (only possible if the original setup is extremely neutral right across the frequency range and at all SPL levels)

IMHO Your setup is more like a high end studio than the typical audiophile.
More to discover