View Full Version : Are Vinyl Recordings Better than Digital?
I always listen to Brian Dunning's Skeptoid podcast, so thought it was particularly interesting that he do a hifi related topic, and I wanted to share. What are your thoughts on his opinions/findings?
You can listen to the podcast here if you want: http://skeptoid.com/audio/skeptoid-4303.mp3
Or read it at http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4303
Some intersting comments below the article particularly from the recording engineer who freely admits they mix and master so it will sound best on 'someone's mobile phone' - and we wonder why so many modern productions are rubbish. Doesn't have a clue...
Am listening to it now.
As was mentioned above, worth reading the comments too.
bobbasrah
07-04-2012, 15:53
However sad the recording engineer's comments were, that is what the market wants, so that is what they aim for.
Shame....
Chuckled at the comment about the NS10s though.......
Hmm...it doesn't contain anything I haven't 'heard' before (even the subsequent comments).
Hmm...it doesn't contain anything I haven't 'heard' before (even the subsequent comments).
Yeah he doesn't really bring new and ground breaking information, as that's not the purpose of his site. He does a weekly show on a wide wide variety of topics. It's aimed mostly for the (slightly discerning?) layperson. He's by know means an expert in any of the topics, but he draws upon expert knowledge I suppose.
However sad the recording engineer's comments were, that is what the market wants, so that is what they aim for.
Shame....
Chuckled at the comment about the NS10s though.......
It is a self-defeating argument though. Anyone who only listens to music through a phone does not care about the sound quality. So why mix and master for them? They'll accept anything they are given. Mix and master to give best overall reproduction then at least the people who do care will get some benefit.
Recording Engineer = Cloth ears
probably uses an I-pod dock at home and thinks its the business - if he ever listens to music for pleasure which he almost certainly doesn't I suspect. And NS10s are not used because they are crap, which they are not. There are various legends about how they came into use (e,g they liked the white drive units) just pick yer own...
bobbasrah
07-04-2012, 17:26
It is a self-defeating argument though. Anyone who only listens to music through a phone does not care about the sound quality. So why mix and master for them? They'll accept anything they are given. Mix and master to give best overall reproduction then at least the people who do care will get some benefit.
Recording Engineer = Cloth ears
probably uses an I-pod dock at home and thinks its the business - if he ever listens to music for pleasure which he almost certainly doesn't I suspect. And NS10s are not used because they are crap, which they are not. There are various legends about how they came into use (e,g they liked the white drive units) just pick yer own...
If there is anything which epitomises dumbing down society's perceptions of what music SHOULD be and can be this is. :steam:
iTunes take 2?
Don't get me wrong Martin, I totally agree with what you have said.
:)
We get what we deserve, but I would dispute your contention that it is the fault of the Engineers. It is Client and the entourage of consultants who should be strung up IMHO. These guys get paid for meeting the Client's requirements. Think Simon Cowell and his ilk :steam:
The role of marketing guys used to be to guage what the public perceived. It is not so big a step to dictating it really....:doh:
Should keep the vinyl lobby happy enough until the gurus decide that Rigonda is the average deck....:mental:
It is a self-defeating argument though. Anyone who only listens to music through a phone does not care about the sound quality. So why mix and master for them? They'll accept anything they are given. Mix and master to give best overall reproduction then at least the people who do care will get some benefit.
Recording Engineer = Cloth ears
probably uses an I-pod dock at home and thinks its the business - if he ever listens to music for pleasure which he almost certainly doesn't I suspect. And NS10s are not used because they are crap, which they are not. There are various legends about how they came into use (e,g they liked the white drive units) just pick yer own...
He doesn't actually say he mixes and masters for mobile phone market. He actually says that he mixes and masters so that it sounds good to the average person with their average gear - the music is heard well, the important instrument lines are heard, the rythm and beat comes across as intended - and not mixed so that these are only heard well on the best equipment. He only gives radio and mobile phones as quick examples.
That is going to mean that the finer details and subtlties are hidden in order to make sure the main bits are heard by the majority. It's up to the artist at the end of the day if that's what they're happy with and if not, go with a different label and use different engineers.
I think it's perfectly reasonable for this to be the case but I like to seek out people, artists, labels etc who care about the sound and not too interested in large sales.
The NS-10's aren't cheap rubbish, that's the odd thing. They're built extremely well, and are really punchy in the bass and have lots of detail.
Unfortunately they can make your ears bleed with their hard upper end..
I never really thought they were used as main monitors - I always see them next to other pairs of regular monitors. Only maybe 90s dance engineers and home studios (people who have heard that they're used in every studio) that seem to use them for a final mix.
He doesn't actually say he mixes and masters for mobile phone market. He actually says that he mixes and masters so that it sounds good to the average person with their average gear - the music is heard well, the important instrument lines are heard, the rythm and beat comes across as intended - and not mixed so that these are only heard well on the best equipment. .
I do not go along with the idea that this is necesary, except fot the Engineer to justify his chargs to the client. Plenty of high quality recordings have made a lot of popular sales - Pink Floyd had a number one in 1980 IIRC - or did they do a remix of Another Brick in the Wall especially for replay on crap equipment?
Bob - you have a point about it being the client's choice but I would be surprised if Cowell et al spend hours in the studio personally supervising the recording. I mean they don't, do they, lets face it. It probably gets e-mailed to him once it is done and he e-mails back 'okay' and then they stick it out. You could send it him half done and he probably wouldn't notice. I don't think he is that bothered about anything but the bottom line.
Pal of mine recording at the moment, spending thousands on studio time. I pointed out that for what he is spending he could buy all the kit he needed and never pay for time again. It's not like the old days when it was £20K for a desk. But he is bedazzled by all the banks and racks of kit in the studio, 90% of which is just there to make an impression on the rubes.
Okay rant over - you can tell I've not had ny beer yet :lol:
I never really thought they were used as main monitors - I always see them next to other pairs of regular monitors. Only maybe 90s dance engineers and home studios (people who have heard that they're used in every studio) that seem to use them for a final mix.
Agree it is a trend or a fashion rather than anything special about the speaker itself which is just a bog standard 2 way with no low bass and a bit of treble lift.:) They are handy for a second opinion over the 'proper' desk monitors though.
Agree it is a trend or a fashion rather than anything special about the speaker itself which is just a bog standard 2 way with no low bass and a bit of treble lift.:) They are handy for a second opinion over the 'proper' desk monitors though.
Ah.... I've just been reading about the NS-10 and an analysis of why it is used. Says how it's not really bog standard either as its mid cone is fairly unique in the way it's made which they attribute to some of it's qualities.
Seems it is actually a superb speaker mainly in its speed and timing. It's just not a speaker that always sounds good because it kind of reveals too much that may be smoothed over on other speakers.
Here's the article which includes a link to an academic paper on the subject:
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep08/articles/yamahans10.htm
Pal of mine recording at the moment, spending thousands on studio time. I pointed out that for what he is spending he could buy all the kit he needed and never pay for time again. It's not like the old days when it was £20K for a desk. But he is bedazzled by all the banks and racks of kit in the studio, 90% of which is just there to make an impression on the rubes.
Okay rant over - you can tell I've not had ny beer yet :lol:
Yep.. I guess it's the space and studio treatment that is harder to do. STill, build a garage and put a small studio in..
Interstign article although I don't know if they are making a bit much of it :eyebrows:
This is what I use which is slightly larger cab, soft dome tweeter and 8'' bass mid - still a sealed box - although at the moment they are front speakers for the home cinema:
http://i903.photobucket.com/albums/ac233/Macca_photos_2009/002.jpg
LoL - Now that is cynical of studio spares, just make the driver white.
They make a deal of it in that article because the NS10 causes such debate and people everywhere saying how crap they are and how they are used just because they are crap. If you hear a pair, you know they're not crap. They just have properties that aren't overall pleasing in a listening for pleasure way. If any speaker is worth talking about and getting to the bottom of is the NS10.
Actually, I have to admit that I haven't actually heard NS10s specifically, it was the domestic versions that I borrowed for a bit.
Reid Malenfant
07-04-2012, 18:36
As I understand it the NS10 is a nearfield monitor & as such it should in no way be used to judge the final mix of a recording :eyebrows:
As I understand it the NS10 is a nearfield monitor & as such it should in no way be used to judge the final mix of a recording :eyebrows:
I don't really understand that - distance you sit from the monitoe shouldn't determine a speaker's use. In fact I'd have thought sitting closer would be more revealing.
It is used to judge the final mix because it reveals a lot of stuff in the vital midrange that full range monitors might not (due to being of a different design to the NS10). Unless you have a multi-box full range system.
Users often say, you check the final mix on the NS10 and if it sounds good on that you will know that it will sound good on anything, because it is so revealing it is hard to get right on the NS10.
Still, it is very much a trend thing as many people don't know why the hell they have them other than they've seen them in some other studio or in photos of their heros.
Reid Malenfant
07-04-2012, 18:46
Sounds like a load of cobblers to me. With a low frequency rolloff of about 50Hz if pushed there is no way the thing can do any bass, so why have something compromised having the final say?
I can think of more revealing speakers than the NS10 :)
Maybe you can today. The yamaha ceased production in 2001 anyhow.
Could you have thought of a more revealing speaker in 1978 and throughout the 80s when it gained it's status as a standard? And one that was affordable of course to the expanding number of frealance engineers not in multi-million dollar studios?
By all means judge below 50Hz on something else because you wont hear it on the NS10s..
Judge the mids on the NS10s first (midrange it the most audible to the human ear as it covers human communication) from which you branch out into the top and bottom in order to get the mix balance right. Once what you can hear on the NS10 is right then move to some thing more full range to tweek the other parts..
As I take this thread completely off topic - hehe - I should say I've not listened to the OP's link yet...
Stratmangler
07-04-2012, 19:04
It's probably a lowest common denominator thing - if it sounds good on the NS10s then it should sound even better on superior speakers.
IIRC a lot of studios used to use cheap 'n' nasty Auratone speakers for checking out mixes because they were akin to the speakers most members of the record buying public would have used.
Reid Malenfant
07-04-2012, 19:04
Could you have thought of a more revealing speaker in 1978 and throughout the 80s when it gained it's status as a standard? And one that was affordable of course to the expanding number of frealance engineers not in multi-million dollar studios?
Yes, & probably quite obviously the NS1000M :D Ok, so more expensive than the NS10, but in no way out of the reach of anyone setting up a recording studio.
Anyway, I like yourself am going to desist :cool:
PaulStewart
12-04-2012, 16:48
I can think of more revealing speakers than the NS10 :)
The two things about NS10s was that, with a bit of tissue paper to tame the eardrum slashing treble (2 layers of Andrex laid loosely, taped at the top would do it), they were a good approximation of average sound. Also, along with Auratones, which really did sound crap, they were ubiquitous. Whereas the main monitors and the control room acoustic changed, the Ns10s and/ or the 'orrortones were nearfield, so not so coloured by the room and they were constant always availabe as a reference, hence a great check on he mix, even if only to say "That's crap and it will be the same crap everywhere":lol: The other great speaker for this was the original, made in Japan by JVC, Realistic Minimus 7s. I still have 2 pairs, one in use and a spare pair:)
Reid Malenfant
12-04-2012, 17:28
Yes, that is precisely what I said earlier Paul ;) The NS10 is a nearfield monitor...
I'm glad I'm not the only one that thought they were :lol: Cheers!
PaulStewart
12-04-2012, 17:41
Yes, that is precisely what I said earlier Paul ;) The NS10 is a nearfield monitor...
I'm glad I'm not the only one that thought they were :lol: Cheers!
In the many, recording studios I've worked in and/or visited, hey have never been anything but nearfields.:)
Jac Hawk
17-04-2012, 11:35
Ah.... I've just been reading about the NS-10 and an analysis of why it is used. Says how it's not really bog standard either as its mid cone is fairly unique in the way it's made which they attribute to some of it's qualities.
Seems it is actually a superb speaker mainly in its speed and timing. It's just not a speaker that always sounds good because it kind of reveals too much that may be smoothed over on other speakers.
An engineer once told me the reason NS 10's are used isn't cos they are the best sounding or the most expensive, but that if the music sounds good on them, then it'll sound good on just about everything else. the bass cone by the way is a very odd design, apart from it being white, it's actually made from a sheet of flat paper, so unlike any other cone i can think of, the cone itself has a seam or join in it, i also heard somewhere that this likens it to a bell with a crack in it i.e. it doesn't ring.
Stratmangler
17-04-2012, 11:40
An engineer once told me the reason NS 10's are used isn't cos they are the best sounding or the most expensive, but that if the music sounds good on them, then it'll sound good on just about everything else.
Ahem....;)
http://static.rateyourmusic.com/album_images/af444d95f117d8b89b5e1bf24fa0d47b/3823990.jpg
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.