ef37a wrote:ONCE upon a time... the quality of speakers, both in the upper echelons of 'hi fi' and studio monitors was compared to REAL acoustic instruments!
I would say the ideal of becoming 'imprinted' on a set of speakers would be totally alien to the old guard that I was brought up with? People such as John Crabbe, Angus McKenzie (Hi Fi News) Hugh Ford (Studio Sound) Peter Walker (Acoustical 'Quad') Percy Wilson and many others that went to CONCERTS!
Comparing speakers to 'speakers' is to me a Zanzibar fallacy.
Ok, apart from that rant Arp'. Having a "less than perfect room" is to me no obstacle to getting some highly accurate monitors. Surely the listening experience can only be enhanced and at least you know you have a solid baseline from which to consider treating the room? Cannot have a silk room with pig's ear speakers!
Dave.
I’m happy though, with my speakers, if not I wouldn’t be using them, my recordings are OK, I can hear what I’m doing fine. What I’m saying is that there isn’t such a big difference between certain speakers, in the real world of my studio.
There are various schools of thought, like you say, comparing with the natural sound of acoustic instruments as a reference point, that’s fine, and I agree, if you’re working a lot with acoustic instruments, or making classical recordings, that’s a good way of judging things, but I don’t work with acoustic instruments most of the time, and I have no real world reference, as the sounds I make haven’t been heard before, largely, so there’s nothing to be compared, in this scenario, I go for a speaker that sounds best with my music or the type of music I make, that’s where comparing speakers with speakers comes in, what else am I supposed to do?
When I record piano and Marimba here, it sounds fine on my speakers anyway, this whole thing about reference points, the whole monitor shebang, is all a bit of a joke sometimes, you just have to go with what you like, and that’s it.