@bikeboy52 Yes you nailed it I don't think the vast majority is serious about sound they are serious about feeling good about music and enjoying it satisfying their own preferences. You seem very confident in your assertion tell me why I'm wrong. Don't forget I'm talking about having the most accurate playback system.
If you were serious about sound you would...
If your audiophile quest is to get the best sound then buy the best equipment used to make the recordings originally. One of the few things nearly every audiophile agrees about is that you can't make the signal better than the original. So:
Solid State Logic 2 channels preamp 5k$
Meyer Sound Bluehorn powered speakers 2x 140K$
Pro Tools MTRX system 10k$
Mac Studio Computer 8k$
Total about 170k$
How is it possible to get better sound than the best recording studio gear?
- ...
- 107 posts total
@p05129 Just go to TAS and see what amps the editor uses in his reference system BHK 600, he could use and have used practically every amp there is but he chose that one, they don't suck. I do have to say the BHK Preamp is noisy I've had 3 of them and I can't get rid of it because it sounds nice (not accurate) but nice and it has 5 XLR input channels. The new DAC is a work in progress but has potential to fight way above its price, the SACD Transport is great. PS Audio is interesting because they are right on the edge of being great with most everything they make. |
To answer your question: The reasons why we don't use the same equipment are many, including size, cost and esthetic considerations, but more importantly, what the studio and producer consider perfect is often at odds with the hearing preferences of the end user who may choose to tailor the sound with digital frequency adjustments or simple tone controls as well as their choice of either solid state, vacuum tube or class D amplification. Humans have very specific tastes in everything, so it's hard for me to believe that this wouldn't have occurred to you. |
I don’t believe in the deification of studio engineers, producers, or mastering technicians. Many are very good but plenty of recordings for whatever reason aren’t. Also, often live music is mixed badly so there’s that issue for your reference needs (sat through a disturbingly bad sounding otherwise major players jazz show a couple of years ago, and thought..."Did the live sound tech pass out?"). I recently bought a Schiit Loki Max for this exact reason (recordings of course, although years as a pro live sound mixer has been a guilty pleasure), and although it’s usually out of the mix, I can put the Max in the mix if I think I need to. Also, most here likely don’t have any pro studio mixing or live mixing experience, and to say you need to listen to playback on what the studio used is silly...you going to buy a huge mixing board and hook it up to dozens of effects boxes and run it through a shipping container for reverb with Pro Tools on board and then send the mix to a mastering lab? Nope, you’re not gonna do any of that. I just read the previous post so consider this one el redundo...maybe roxy54 and I are the same person... |
@roxy54 The reason to use studio equipment is because it produces the original recording and you can't do better than that. The name of this discussion is "If you were serious about sound you would.." Because of that I don't care about hearing preferences of the end user the preferences of the producer musician and engineer are the important thing, tone controls no, a person who cares about sound puts money into the room not tone controls, vacuum tube or class D have nothing to do with this discussion. |
- 107 posts total

