> This makes a ton of sense. Wish I could hang out in a good
> audio store for days on end... If we ever get to build/remodel
> the smallish home of our dreams, we'll try to dedicate a room
> to music and film, based on studio designs, only smaller and
> simpler of course... - Phil
I've been working in pro-audio for over 20 years now and for a
few of those years worked for a manufacturer of broadcast and
studio equipment. The big thing was how much of an improvement
digital is over analog in audio quality. Yeah right. Talk
about marketing lies. This cat learned his way around the test
gear and analizers and proved things opposite. 96/24 is
definitely better, that's for sure, but anything less is "just
good enough". It's like High-ISO sensor performance--digital is
quieter, but there are many other factors to consider. One day,
while producing a demo CD, I noticed something flaky. I
discovered an error in the algorithm for MPEG "Joint" mode.
Seems that it was one sample out of phase. Unfortunately,
nearly all implementations of MPEG in streaming applications
utilize "burned" chips to do the heavy lifting. By this point
all satellite uplink systems for network broadcast had been
converted over to digital and almost without exception the
"Joint" mode was used. A change was made to the "official"
algorithm shortly after, but to this day, most of the major
networks are still using the old gear and settings.
So, back to the discussion, along the way, I had learned a lot
about studio environments. Anybody who has been in the audio
facilities at WGBH knows what a VERY GOOD environment is like.
I'm pretty anal about acoustics and speaker positioning. Even a
cr*ppy speaker can sound ok if the position and acoustics are
right.
I get a kick out of high-end hifi gear. The professional studio
stuff is usually less expensive and more accurate. However, I
can say on good authority that you don't necessarily want that
in your own system. Why? Mastering. When a song is "Mastered",
it is polished and glossed up to sound right for the following
purposes: Radio, Album, On-Line, TV/Video, Dance. Each of these
receives different types of processing and eq'ing. The music is
mastered not for the "ideal" audio system, but for the normal
system in normal listening environments. When you listen to it
in an "ideal" system, you'll get an entirely different imaging
and dynamic response than the mix is intended to provide. Take
a "Dance Mix", for example, you'd be committing suicide if you
tried listening to one of those on your uber-homesystem for more
than a few minutes. The compression is so high, and the sonic
undertones so pumped up that your ears will fatigue out right
away.
If you want to save a FORTUNE on speakers and amplifiers and get
what is nearly perfect for critical listening, get yourself a
set of Genelec self-powered studio monitors. Too ritzy? Then
the absolute bargain, which is what the people in the know,
know, is the Mackie HR824 self-powered studio monitors. These
are relatively affordable and "speak the truth". If it sounds
good on these, it'll sound good on almost anything. (like the
old Yammys). If it sounds crummy, you know that it was mastered
by a moron using Alesis or Beringer garbage in his basement.
Oh, if you are into absolutely the cat's meow in gear, check
into Earthworks. Truely time-aligned speakers mean nothing
until you've checked their stuff out.
Oh, and what about "Monster Cable"? The unbiased scientific
tests don't lie, but marketeers and home-audio geeks...
AG
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|