Re: [ARSCLIST] Aren't recordings original sources?

[Tom Fine <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Also, it used to be (maybe not, in general, anymore) that a professional studio's control room WAS 
designed for CRITICAL LISTENING. That was the whole freakin' point! In fact, one of the big 
evolutions I saw in NY rooms in the late 70s into the 80s was moving all the noisy tape machines out 
of the control room into an isolated machine room or machine "closet" so one could listen MORE 
carefully. Given the levels I've heard most professional engineers listening at, I can't imagine the 
tape machines would be audible but perhaps this was helpful for a client seated toward the back of 
the control room. Anyway, let's not forget history here! Do some reading about the evolution of 
studio monitors. And the tuning of control rooms, etc. Yes, perhaps today when every "musician" with 
a Mac and a mic thinks he has a "studio," what passes for a recording studio may not be a critical 
listening environment, but this was certainly not always the case!

And by the way, here's a big irony. Go back and look at most of the mastering rooms where the 
"golden age" records were cut. Those were usually TERRIBLE listening environments! This is all very 
different over the past couple of decades, mastering suites have evolved to be "super-fi" listening 
rooms. Has the net quality of the end product evolved upwards? I would say this is a very arguable 
point.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rob Poretti" <r.poretti@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 5:31 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Aren't recordings original sources?


> <SNIP>
> > A few of these facilities use those $1000+ AC cables.  I did not have the
> > balls to ask them to swap to a standard cable for my own curiosity, but I
> > can tell you *none* of the mastering engineers described the differences
> as
> > "major improvements".
>
> Again, the studio environment... these are not listening studios, these are
> recording (or mastering) studios.
> <SNIP>
>
> RP)  I'm sorry, but I beg to differ and I believe most audio professionals
> won't agree with that statement.  Mastering rooms are built for critical
> listening.  I agree that the design criteria (neutrality with excellent
> translation to the outside world) might be different then in a personal
> listening room. (personal preference often based on a preferred music
> genre.)
>
> If you really feel this way, then we have a serious void in our individual
> point of reference, to even continue the debate.... IMHO.
>
>
>
>
> <SNIP>
> Besides, I've never claimed that differences are instantly detectable.
> They're not, usually. They get to you over an extended period.
>
> RP)  That's an interesting comment.  I was reacting earlier to your
> statement "wrought major improvements".
>
> I would think that "wrought major improvements" are also "instantly
> detectable."  Would you mine defining "an extended period"?  Was it hours,
> days, weeks?
>
>
> >  Do I understand by your comments that the "major
> > improvements" that you discerned did not require ABX listening tests?
>
>
> "Require"? As stated earlier, ABX only blurs the distinctions.
>
> Someone locally here once told me he'd done a DBT that proved to the 99%
> confidence level, that insertion of the ABX box was audible. I chuckled, as
> I might hope everyone would.
>
> Who elected the ABX box as our arbiter?
>
>
> RP)  First, I meant to say DB ABX.  My mistake.  Second, you can build very
> transparent ABX boxes and the nice thing about them is they provide the same
> lens for both "A" and "B" - that's why they are valid in critical listening
> tests.  Unless you are saying that all DB ABX listening tests are not valid?
> Do you have a more definitive listening test procedure?
>
> My comment about "requiring ABX" was that I was trying to determine how
> audible the difference was - was it instant or was it difficult to
> determine? I think you could see the intent of my question.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
> Rob Poretti
> Sales Engineer - Archiving
> Cube-Tec North America
> Vox.905.827.0741
> Fax.905.901.9996
> Cel.905-510.6785
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/