Reference Recordings

[Keith]

Hello Mark, hope you're not getting bored with tecchie questions, but here goes...

I have read a bit about "reference" recordings, i.e. those that people use to test their hi-fi equipment. Usually these are things by The Blue Nile, but also Brothers In Arms by Dire Straits, and also The Final Cut by Pink Floyd (holophonics and all that jazz, but that's another thing entirely  ) have been mentioned.

My personal "reference" recording is The Seeds Of Love by Tears For Fears which is far more powerful and beautifully recorded than anything else I have ever heard (present company excepted).

Can you tell me what make a reference recording, and if engineers/producers aim for this, or if they just use darn expensive equipment?

Cheers

Keith

[Liam Schwilik]

Hi Kieth,

Good question this - most engineers or producers will have an armoury of reference recordings to hand.

I normally have about twenty CDs that cover all genres from folk to heavy metal and classical.

These are very helpfull when for eg. A drummer says he wants his drums to sound like John Bonham's. If I don't think he, or his drums sound like Bonham's, I will play some Zeppelin, (Kashmir is favourite) and ask the drummer if he thinks he sounds like the Zeppelin track? 

This may appear to be challenging, but direct reference is a great way of placing a perspective around what you are attempting to achieve.

It's also good to compare tonality and volume when mastering and mixing.

The point you make about expensive equipment... I feel there is one school of thought with hi-fi, and another in professional recording.

For over 20 years nearly every studio in the world had either a pair of Auratones or Yamaha NS10m monitors. They are what are called near field monitors, because they are for nearfield, quiet listening. Well, in the case of a Producer like John Leckie, they are and have been a quintessential element to his sound. Costing only a few hundred pounds, they offer a sound that to some may fell is rather unpleasant, but to myself and millions of other people, they are  "THE" speaker to work on. I may use bigger monitors, providing they are set up correctly. I like Genelec monitors also. The louder you listen the more the room you are working will effect the sound, so often nearfields are great practice (if not challenging to a large ego).

The Yamaha NS10s sound great when they are powered with 1000 watts (or more!), as opposed to the 60 watt rating they advise. Believe it or not, if you are working with drums and loud music, like metal, you are far less likely to blow your tweeters or drivers when using a huge amp than if you were using a tiny one. The damping factor of a large amp is greatly increased, so, if you pile a bass drum in at full level, it's less likely to square waveand peak the amp. As a result, this will send distortion to the speakers, which is what cooks them to a crisp!

Hi-fi boffs get hung up on all manner of things, like Silver speaker cables that cost a fortune. I've never seen those in a studio. Nor anything hi-fi for that matter (other than the standard (listen) hi-fi system). On occasions when I have entered a hi-fi shop and listened to many systems, there are very few that appeal to me. This is simply because most systems colour the sound. This is often caused via the speakers rather than the amps. Strange but true!


Mark.

[Keith]

Thanks Mark.

I think there's another Mark on here that will have something to say about your thoughts on hi-fi, haven't seen him around for a while though...

[Liam Schwilik]

Hi kieth,

He's not that "other" Mark Tucker is he?

 

Mark.

[Andy]

Good griefl, I drop "Yamaha NS10m" and found a writeup that explains nearfield speakers really well. (In my opinion)

Just thought I'd share that url.

[Mark]

Thanks Mark.

I think there's another Mark on here that will have something to say about your thoughts on hi-fi, haven't seen him around for a while though...

If you are talking about me Keith, I agree with Marks views. There are great "HiFi" speakers and great "studio monitors" for every application, just as there are p*ss poor ones. The important thing to remember is that studio monitors and HiFi speakers are designed for different purposes.

Everyone's perception of the worth of their HiFi system is different. Generally speaking fans of different types of music apply different parameters to decide their listening preferences - Hard rock fans tend to mind less if their systems have emphasised bass and treble response whereas lovers of  acoustic music or the human voice tend not to be so bothered by roll off in the lower registers. With home HiFi, unless you have huge amounts of cash to spend, you pays your money and takes your choice.

Like Mark, I too hate the sound produced by most HiFis that you can audition in the high street, they do colour the music they are meant to be accurately reproducing.

If truth be told the search for "perfect" sound is irrelevent at home for most of us (particularly if you have a partner in your abode who insists on having all of life's irrelevencies - like windows in a house, furniture, flat walls etc) unless we have enough money to build a perfect listening room. The room actually makes one hell of a difference to the sound - I moved house two years ago, and am still looking for the right solution for my main system that has gone from sounding (IMHO) great to pretty poor overnight.

Unless I win the lottery I guess I am stuck on a trail of slow improvement.





 -

[Keith]

Cheers Mark, yes it was indeed you, but I know you have expensive speaker cables 

Personally I have so little time to listen to proper hi-fi music - it's all on the iPod and we all know how awful that sounds, but at least I can now listen to lots of music which is the main thing for me. Nevertheless, some albums even sound good on an iPod!

[Mark]

Cheers Mark, yes it was indeed you, but I know you have expensive speaker cables 

Personally I have so little time to listen to proper hi-fi music - it's all on the iPod and we all know how awful that sounds, but at least I can now listen to lots of music which is the main thing for me. Nevertheless, some albums even sound good on an iPod!

Actually I am not so fussy about speaker cable. I do use something more expensive than plain old copper wires, but that is only because of their design - flat enough to run under carpet and shielded to prevent them picking up interference from nearby electrical appliances.

Interconnects is a different matter - they do make  a difference to the sound and can be used to "tune" various components (CD player, tuner etc.). One thing that is for sure is that the interconnects supplied free with most HiFi components are detrimental to the performance. I was a sceptic until I took part in a DBT (Double Blind Test) and found that I could tell the difference between some interconnects by ear alone. I have found that price bears no relation to performance though - so I always "borrow" bits and pieces to try before I buy.

Luckily I have a specialist store near me who are quite happy to do this!

Mark

[Liam Schwilik]

Hi Mark,

Your comments about the room and how it effects the sound is soooooo right. Unfortunately it's always the lower frequencies that are more of an issue and that can really throw things.

Andy, I read (briefly) the review on what constitutes a good monitor. I have to disagree with that article. Am I looking to achieve a neutral average, or am I looking for equipment that I think sounds good, and can achieve good results using?

My point on a past  thread about 5:1 and domestic setups. We talked of the complications of compatibility and setting up the equipment properly. I could go crazy in trying to find a great new sounding system. As far as I'm concerned, I have one already, and have done (the same one) for years. Therefore I don't need to keep trying different things. I listen to compressed music (MP3), CDs, records, Tape of all descriptions and they are all sounds worthy of using. If everything was flat, it would get pretty boring. I like colour.

Why do you think there are so many people (In pro audio) using what is old technology? Valves rule! Big old Bakelite knobs! 

There will always be someone trying to sell you the next best thing. And often it's ****.

NS10s are really funky in the mid range. That's where it all happens. Some monitors are just too nice, and nice does not rock!

Yes, we have extended the frequency range somewhat over the past 30 years! Better signal to noise maybe...? That's a misnomer anyway.

Elvis still sounds wicked to me?
 

P.S. Kieth, If it sounds good on a iPod, then they got it right!

[David Andrews]

Why do you think there are so many people (In pro audio) using what is old technology? Valves rule! Big old Bakelite knobs! 

This I don't doubt.

I have a short film of James Taylor talking about his album, "October Road" (a classic already in my not-right-humble opinion), and he mentions that it's "a Pro-tools album" ... after which he tells that they recorded it all as a band in a studio with real reel tape ('scuse the homophonics there)... even with something as good as Pro-tools, he went for the tape sound, and there's definitely a reason for this.

Basically, analogue recording - by virtue of the technology involved - colours the sound slightly.  Partly it's the magnetic properties of the heads, and partly the responsivity of the oxide on the tape, not to mention the electronic characteristics of the components in the circuitry.  Well, I s'pose the circuitry variables are still there to some extent in digital hard disk (or non-tape) media, but the head and oxide characteristics are gone.  You get a very clean and crisp sound, but the warmth has gone.

So those get preserved by recording on tape and then transferring to hard-disk digital media and you can have the flexibility of new technology and still keep some of the warmth available from the technology of analogue tape.

Nice.  May just try that myself in my home studio set up.

[Liam Schwilik]

Hi David,

Yes, I agree. I've been experimenting with tracking to 2" and then transferring to hard disk. making comparisons from 16bit to 24 bit, and making every effort to get similar results to tape for years now.

I feel for drums and electric guitars tape is best. But there are ways of emulating the sound of tape with various compressors and limiters. The digital eqs are definitely not as good as analogue. I love Pultec passive valve eq the best. The same could be said for compressors. Analogue rules!

I would be interested if any of you can tell me how the current Pentangle was recorded. Tape/dig, or dig/tape or maybe just dig or tape? When and if anybody buys a copy, I would love to know your thoughts?

Mark.

[David Andrews]

Hi David,

Yes, I agree. I've been experimenting with tracking to 2" and then transferring to hard disk. making comparisons from 16bit to 24 bit, and making every effort to get similar results to tape for years now.

Hi, Mark....

This is the thing that Teemu Aalto and I did with the recent set of demos for the Finnish pop band, Guava.  I took my poxy little mobile studio (based on a Portastudio 414 and a Nanoverb!) to their rehearsal space, and we set up (just one mic on drums, above the bass drum and between the ride cymbal and the tom), and I took the backing tracks straight down on four tracks, and we transferred later to the Hard Disk on Teemu's computer studio in his flat (my studio being in my flat, two floors down.... our neighbours don't like us....)... I used dbx, so I was able to get the meters into red without there being too much problem noise or distortion, and the separation was good (mics about 6 inches from amps for guitars and bass).  The vocals were to be done on Teemu's computer studio.

I feel for drums and electric guitars tape is best. But there are ways of emulating the sound of tape with various compressors and limiters. The digital eqs are definitely not as good as analogue. I love Pultec passive valve eq the best. The same could be said for compressors. Analogue rules!

Yes... absolutely.  I think also for acoustic guitars... dynamic mic pointing to the sound hole from the direction of the neck gets me a fine enough sound... I have messed about with Sound Forge's Vegas on a trial copy, but - like you say - digital EQ and other FX are not that good compared with the real things.

I would be interested if any of you can tell me how the current Pentangle was recorded. Tape/dig, or dig/tape or maybe just dig or tape? When and if anybody buys a copy, I would love to know your thoughts?

Does Gerry ever come on here?  If so, maybe he'd be able to enlighten you on that one... I've heard very little Pentangle, and I say that to my semi-eternal shame.

Mark.

All the best to you, Mark...

David

[Chris]

I would be interested if any of you can tell me how the current Pentangle was recorded. Tape/dig, or dig/tape or maybe just dig or tape? When and if anybody buys a copy, I would love to know your thoughts?

Does Gerry ever come on here?  If so, maybe he'd be able to enlighten you on that one... I've heard very little Pentangle, and I say that to my semi-eternal shame.

I think Mark is probably fishing for our opinions - I believe he was the engineer on this album....

[Liam Schwilik]

Thanks Chris,

At least somebody is keeping up to speed.

Mark.

P.S. We also need a "scratchy head" smiley  - just like your picture Chris?

[Steve]

A few months ago my amp expired, and I had to resort to the cheap micro system we have in the bedroom. This got me down, and in the end I decided that it was time to treat myself to new speakers too rather than just replace the amp. My system dated from the '70s (yes, it still includes a turntable) and money was very tight then so I reckoned it was due for an update.  I've mostly kept up-with music since then, but not with hi-fi fashions.

First I read the hi-fi mags to find out who made what these days. It's changed a bit since the '70s! Some of the old favourites are still there, but ther are many new names. One thing that has not changed is the total and utter b*****s they write.

This will get on-topic in a moment...

After getting confused by the magazines I went off to a hifi specialist shop. I imagined I would need to spend as much as 300-400 pounds to get a decent pair of speakers, and that anything more expensive would be wasted on me now that I've reached the ripe old age of 50. High frequency response degrades with age, as does sensitivity. I thought my ears were getting past it.

The first system I listened (which was just the one they had set-up at the time) cost more than I was planning to spend, and I thought it sounded horribly wrong! I couldn't really put my finger on the problem and I suddenly felt a little bit of sympathy for the hifi journalists. I couldn't find the words to explain to the salesman what was wrong.

We moved up to the next system, and this sounded better but it was still wrong to my ears. Now we were getting into very silly money so I went home to think about my next step.

Next I tried a different shop, but this time I took my own Cd's. One of them was "I can Explain" by our very own DH. And Mark. I tried the same speakers I heard in the first shop, but this time with different CD player and amp. Still no good. They offered another make. Different, very different, and still very wrong. It was the bass. I like my music loud at times, and so far all the speakers I had tried made a mess of the bass when turned up loud. It wasn't simply too loud for the equipment, in fact most of the time the sound was wonderfully clear, but odd things were going on with the bass.

The tracks I used were "Two Stroke" from "I Can Explain", "Eastern Eyes" and "Rainfall" from "Human" by Nitin Sawhney and various tracks from Mezzanine by Massive Attack.

Eventually I managed to explain what sounded wrong to me, and the sales man said he thought he knew what I needed. The next system sounded wonderfull. Still not perfect - by now I had realised that my hearing was much better than I thought, and I was never going to find a system I was completely happy with at a price I could afford  - but this system had none of the strange effects of the others.

And the main difference was was that these speakers were sealed. The others were bass reflex.

Then I read this post from Andy, and followed the link :

Good griefl, I drop "Yamaha NS10m" and found a writeup that explains nearfield speakers really well. (In my opinion)

Just thought I'd share that url.

A fascinating set of articles, and they explain what is wrong with bass reflex speakers when the volume is turned up high.

Anyway, to get back onto the topic, "Two Stroke" sounds really good on a really good system . Gerry's drums are a real test. The track has a great atmosphere, and sounds better and better the louder it is.

And I spent more than I expected to, but it was worth it. I could have spent even more if I'd swallowed the b/s about needing special mains cables... oh and the interconnects that are unidirectional...

Even the 33's sound good.

[Liam Schwilik]

Hi Steve,

thanks for your kind words.

Yes, I chuckled as I read your words about testing speakers. The trouble is, everybody wants to improve on things, even if things are fine as they are. I draw the analogy with speakers and sound systems to that with guitars. When the guitar was invented way back, they got it right. Particularly with the electric guitar - nothing has really changed in 50 years, and probably will not ever! Same could be said for music and sound. The only thing that has improved is the amount of distortion and frequencies we get to hear now. But that in itself means we are like to hear more problems. Like colouration of tone, any distortion that is there etc.

Bass reflex  - dreadfull! if you are ever at a gig and you see martin Audio cabs. Big booming great boxes. Normally the first words muttered over the mic explain it all. Muffled and *****! Never buy reflex speakers - it's an attempt to enhance the bottom end. Anything with enhance on it, switch it off, or better still, don't go there in the first place!...

The human voice is always my reference. Pianos and natural sounds that the human ear can relate to.


Cheers,

Mark.

[Steve]

Hi Mark

What really puzzles me about hifi speakers now is how common bass reflex is, when it really isn't neccessary.

I tried a pair of B&Ws for £2000, but ended up with a pair of Linns for less than 1/2 that. The bass is just as deep and it's far better controlled.

Perhaps I ought to explain where I was coming from. For the last 30 years my main speakers were a tiny pair of Philips Motional feedback speakers. They are about 1 ft cube, with bass/mid unit and tweeter, and have a piezo-electric transducer on the bass driver cone. In a sealed box... of course! The signal from the bass cone sensor is fed back into the amp, which is built in.

Now they don't sound anything like as good as the Linns, but they are great for such a small size.

Enough typing. I'm off to listen to the Freak Zone on 6, then see how many people get killed in MidSomer..

See ya.

Steve

[Liam Schwilik]

Hi Steve,

I've always liked Tannoys, and even use a pair of old Lancasters still. Not perfect but for their day, pretty fine. Mid frequency definition is always good.

Cheers,

Mark.