Should Amplifiers Be Transparent?

[kanwar]

Hi Kanwar


Most of the studios where the recording and mastering happens typically have standard amplifiers. I mean the likes of Mcintosh, Krell and even tube amps like Wavac. Even mastering experts like Steve Hoffman use a Wavac when mastering. If according to you these amps are flawed, the mastering itself is then flawed. I am confused. Am i missing something here?

As far as i know Mcintosh , Krell are very reputed amps are known for their quality and i no where said they are flawed.

If an amplifier is sounding good at moderate levels, its not necessary that it will sound the same at high volume or not, but the thing is that average home audio enthusiast or studio engineer would never push the amp beyond that level which is comfortable for his/her listening. Thats the real difference.

In otherwords, A home audio amp which is sounding good at moderate level , may sound good at high level, but a pro-amp has to and must sound the same in terms of quality at low , moderate or high levels........as simple as that.

One more thing studio recording is done mostly with microphones and mixing consoles and amps are used only for listening at moderate levels for evaluation, i never heard a studio performing high volume testing.


Cheers,
Kanwar

 

[arj]

Hi Kanwar


Most of the studios where the recording and mastering happens typically have standard amplifiers. I mean the likes of Mcintosh, Krell and even tube amps like Wavac. Even mastering experts like Steve Hoffman use a Wavac when mastering. If according to you these amps are flawed, the mastering itself is then flawed. I am confused. Am i missing something here?

true and Abbey road used to use B&W matrix series and Pink Foyd used to use ATCs..and the PMCs are used by so many.
I agree with DrBass post. in the end what we want is a neutral system and the system includes the Room, and IMHO should alo include the ears of the person listening.

A system which sounds "neutral" to someone at 30 will sound dark to the same person if he were 40

in the end it is the neutral tones which we like to hear..but in the process of conversion from a neu(t)ral electrical impulse in the Brain to Emotion in our mind there is just too much indivudual colouring with cultural conditioning and memories

 

[arj]

...
In otherwords, A home audio amp which is sounding good at moderate level , may sound good at high level, but a pro-amp has to and must sound the same in terms of quality at low , moderate or high levels........as simple as ....that.

you have a valid point. are these for closed studios or also for Open concerts etc ?

 

[kanwar]

you have a valid point. are these for closed studios or also for Open concerts etc ?

Closed studios usually have hi-end amplifiers, open concerts mostly have pro-audio amps because of large audience to cater.

 

[no1lives4ever]

Hi Kanwar


Most of the studios where the recording and mastering happens typically have standard amplifiers. I mean the likes of Mcintosh, Krell and even tube amps like Wavac. Even mastering experts like Steve Hoffman use a Wavac when mastering. If according to you these amps are flawed, the mastering itself is then flawed. I am confused. Am i missing something here?

When mastering your a album targeted at the general audience, the mastering engineer will also listen to how the mastered version sounds on low fi equipment.

This is because the mastering engineer wants to have the best quality output on the studio monitors, but also have a mix that is listenable on cheaper equipment. Most of the experienced mastering engineers know how their rigs sound and how that sound translates when played on variety of equipment, so you will see them use a very specific setup most of the time.

One thing that we might also think about is the use of compressors, eq & reverb in the music chain between the source mic and the loudspeaker/headphones used to listen to it. In fact the choice of the mic is where the fun starts. Almost all mics used in live concerts and recording studios are used because of their signature sound. And none of them have anywhere close to flat response.

Go to any decent sized live concert playing through a PA and see the tools used by the sound engineers. You will find decent doses of EQ, reverb and compressors between the mics and the output of the mixing console. Then there would be additional EQ and other electronic components before the signal is fed to the PA amplifier stack.

IMO when we are looking at modern music recording and playback, weather it is from a live or a studio source, there are lots of changes done to the signal after it leaves the source instrument or person and before it reaches our ears.

So when we are looking at playback of the same from recorded material, we can only expect to approximate the listening room of a mastering studio where a particular recording was mastered. Every mastering studio will have a different setup and every mastering engineer will have different tastes.

Another thing to consider is that when we hear a symphony, the auditorium's acoustics make a big contribution when we are listening to an unamplified orchestra.

-- no1lives4ever

 

[vivek.saikia]

When mastering your a album targeted at the general audience, the mastering engineer will also listen to how the mastered version sounds on low fi equipment.

This is because the mastering engineer wants to have the best quality output on the studio monitors, but also have a mix that is listenable on cheaper equipment. Most of the experienced mastering engineers know how their rigs sound and how that sound translates when played on variety of equipment, so you will see them use a very specific setup most of the time.

One thing that we might also think about is the use of compressors, eq & reverb in the music chain between the source mic and the loudspeaker/headphones used to listen to it. In fact the choice of the mic is where the fun starts. Almost all mics used in live concerts and recording studios are used because of their signature sound. And none of them have anywhere close to flat response.

Go to any decent sized live concert playing through a PA and see the tools used by the sound engineers. You will find decent doses of EQ, reverb and compressors between the mics and the output of the mixing console. Then there would be additional EQ and other electronic components before the signal is fed to the PA amplifier stack.

IMO when we are looking at modern music recording and playback, weather it is from a live or a studio source, there are lots of changes done to the signal after it leaves the source instrument or person and before it reaches our ears.

So when we are looking at playback of the same from recorded material, we can only expect to approximate the listening room of a mastering studio where a particular recording was mastered. Every mastering studio will have a different setup and every mastering engineer will have different tastes.

Another thing to consider is that when we hear a symphony, the auditorium's acoustics make a big contribution when we are listening to an unamplified orchestra.

-- no1lives4ever

+1 to that.

A friend of mine owns a recording studio in Mumbai and is quite talented with his compositions.
The first time I visited his studio, I was impressed by his Genelec studio monitors and at the same time was shocked to the Philips (so called) hifi system in his studio. On being asked, he explained me that he makes music for the masses who generally have the off the shelf music systems offered by the likes of Sony, Philips, Samsung etc etc. So he uses the Philips system to do some tweaks so that his recordings sound better even in the normal music systems after mixing the final composition using the Genelecs!

 

[kanwar]

When mastering your a album targeted at the general audience, the mastering engineer will also listen to how the mastered version sounds on low fi equipment.

This is because the mastering engineer wants to have the best quality output on the studio monitors, but also have a mix that is listenable on cheaper equipment. Most of the experienced mastering engineers know how their rigs sound and how that sound translates when played on variety of equipment, so you will see them use a very specific setup most of the time.

One thing that we might also think about is the use of compressors, eq & reverb in the music chain between the source mic and the loudspeaker/headphones used to listen to it. In fact the choice of the mic is where the fun starts. Almost all mics used in live concerts and recording studios are used because of their signature sound. And none of them have anywhere close to flat response.

Go to any decent sized live concert playing through a PA and see the tools used by the sound engineers. You will find decent doses of EQ, reverb and compressors between the mics and the output of the mixing console. Then there would be additional EQ and other electronic components before the signal is fed to the PA amplifier stack.

IMO when we are looking at modern music recording and playback, weather it is from a live or a studio source, there are lots of changes done to the signal after it leaves the source instrument or person and before it reaches our ears.

So when we are looking at playback of the same from recorded material, we can only expect to approximate the listening room of a mastering studio where a particular recording was mastered. Every mastering studio will have a different setup and every mastering engineer will have different tastes.

Another thing to consider is that when we hear a symphony, the auditorium's acoustics make a big contribution when we are listening to an unamplified orchestra.

-- no1lives4ever

Yes i fully agree with what you have said, but my emphasis was on the regular recordings[songs] made in studio rather than in live concerts.

In concert the ambiance and acoustics are very different if its open air concert. Also with any sound engineer , there are some particular tastes with setting up of his rig which he would follow. This adds considerably to the type of sound he is preferring and wants his audience to listen it.

Nowadays we have compression junk everywhere due to MP3 which is so much popular because it exploits the physio acoustics phenomena of brain to select only the info which our brain senses at top priority and leave all other micro details thereafter. Also due to mini-compos in the market which lack in dynamic range, compressed peaks are easily handled by them. Therefore every sound engineer prefers to tame the music in such a way that it should sound good even on a normal hi-fi system.

Lot of aspects are around and different varieties are present every where.


Cheers,
Kanwar

 

[square_wave]

+1 to that.

A friend of mine owns a recording studio in Mumbai and is quite talented with his compositions.
The first time I visited his studio, I was impressed by his Genelec studio monitors and at the same time was shocked to the Philips (so called) hifi system in his studio. On being asked, he explained me that he makes music for the masses who generally have the off the shelf music systems offered by the likes of Sony, Philips, Samsung etc etc. So he uses the Philips system to do some tweaks so that his recordings sound better even in the normal music systems after mixing the final composition using the Genelecs!

This is correct. This is a standard procedure for the final mix for mainstream popular music. Almost all film and pop music are victims of this procedure. One more reason why this kind of music should never be used to validate a hi-fidility system.

 

[kanwar]

Almost all film and pop music are victims of this procedure. One more reason why this kind of music should never be used to validate a hi-fidility system.

Exactly....!!!

 

[ajay124]

Earlier, I used to buy symphony recordings based on the composer who had originally written them. Then I moved on to buying recordings of the conductors I found good and who seemed to have greater empathy for a particular composer. Currently, after extensive surfing on the net, I have become more familiar with the great orchestras of the western world. The quality of their string, horn, keyboard, percussion, wind sections, the acoustics of the venue in which they normally make their live recordings (all have meaning). The recording is the 'source' from which everything stems. Therefore, the acoustics of the venue, the capabilities of the recording engineer, the fact that the original mastering was analogue or digital, the quality of remastering, the intentions of the label issuing the recording - whether they opted for 'pure sound' or 'pleasing sound' - all these things will 'colour' the sound (that emanates) from our 'transparent' amps.


Ajay, please refer to my PM, and I sure you will understand what I have attempted here. Cheers. VenkatCR . Consider this a gentle positive nudge.

 

[arj]

Closed studios usually have hi-end amplifiers, open concerts mostly have pro-audio amps because of large audience to cater.

true and since there are no walls, and distances of the audiences being so high, amps need to be at least 20-30 times more powerful

 

[square_wave]

Earlier, I used to buy symphony recordings based on the composer who had originally written them. Then I moved on to buying recordings of the conductors I found good and who seemed to have greater empathy for a particular composer. Currently, after extensive surfing on the net, I have become more familiar with the great orchestras of the western world. The quality of their string, horn, keyboard, percussion, wind sections, the acoustics of the venue in which they normally make their live recordings (all have meaning). The recording is the 'source' from which everything stems. Therefore, the acoustics of the venue, the capabilities of the recording engineer, the fact that the original mastering was analogue or digital, the quality of remastering, the intentions of the label issuing the recording - whether they opted for 'pure sound' or 'pleasing sound' - all these things will 'colour' the sound (that emanates) from our 'transparent' amps.


Ajay, please refer to my PM, and I am sure you will understand what I have attempted here. Cheers. VenkatCR . Consider this a gentle positive nudge. Corrected - 'am' added after it was pointed out to me.

Completely agree.

The question is whether we want the amplifier to further color that existing color in the recording. The existing color is intended and adds to the beauty of the music. It is part of the reality of the music. What we want to hear is what the recording engineer intended.

There is absolutely nothing wrong in tweaking ones music system to sound best with the kind of music one listens to. The moot point is that such a system is technically wrong and will sound distorted when you play a technically correct recording. Somethings gotta give !

 

[ajay124]

Earlier, I used to buy symphony recordings based on the composer who had originally written them. Then I moved on to buying recordings of the conductors I found good and who seemed to have greater empathy for a particular composer. Currently, after extensive surfing on the net, I have become more familiar with the great orchestras of the western world. The quality of their string, horn, keyboard, percussion, wind sections, the acoustics of the venue in which they normally make their live recordings (all have meaning). The recording is the 'source' from which everything stems. Therefore, the acoustics of the venue, the capabilities of the recording engineer, the fact that the original mastering was analogue or digital, the quality of remastering, the intentions of the label issuing the recording - whether they opted for 'pure sound' or 'pleasing sound' - all these things will 'colour' the sound (that emanates) from our 'transparent' amps.


Ajay, please refer to my PM, and I am sure you will understand what I have attempted here. Cheers. VenkatCR . Consider this a gentle positive nudge.

@venkatcr
I am in complete agreement with you that posts should be neatly written with due thought being given to grammar,punctuations and the formation of sentences and paragraphs.But when I see so many badly written posts on the forum going 'scot free' I feel mildly pained at being one of the rare few whose posts require copy editing

 

[Hiten]

@venkatcr
I am in complete agreement with you that posts should be neatly written with due thought being given to grammar,punctuations and the formation of sentences and paragraphs.But when I see so many badly written posts on the forum going 'scot free' I feel mildly pained at being one of the rare few whose posts require copy editing

Ajays posts are fluid, precise and to the point. One can tolerate a little grammatical mistakes. just my opinion no offense to any one.

Ajay, please refer to my PM, and I am sure you will understand what I have attempted here. Cheers. VenkatCR . Consider this a gentle positive nudge.

Sorry couldn't help but point it out.
warmest regards

 

[venkatcr]

But when I see so many badly written posts on the forum going 'scot free' I feel mildly pained at being one of the rare few whose posts require copy editing

Because I am sure you will understand and do the right thing so that I can look at others also. More important, you write a lot of important stuff that, I am sure, you will want people to read properly and understand.

Cheers

 

[Dr.Bass]

As I said, instruments can measure sound, not music.

On a similar vein, instruments can measure speed (of CDPs, TTs) etc., and things like jitter way before human ears can even comprehend them.

The idea is not to look at measurements and hearing as competing factors, but rather as complementary references that can give us units that we can really enjoy with a high degree of confidence that what we are hearing is really good.

I have consistently seen units with questionable specifications deliver poor results. To a designer, measurements form the base platform on which he can set the design. After that it moves in realms that differentiates a Ken Ishiwata and John Curl from the rest of the crowd. But if you think these people base their designs purely on their ears, you are wrong. They use large amounts and physics and measurements to design and improve their design.

Cheers

And then there are many examples where an equipment measures well but sounds bad, how do you explain that ?

I dont say measurements are not required, I just objected to the statement you made as below

Given the level of science and sophistication of instruments we have and their capability to 'hear' way beyond the capacity of the human ear, it would be strange not to accept that, today, we can measure sound to a very large degree of accuracy. This could be many aspects of the sound, - wavelength, frequency, SNR, THD, Jitter, and so on.

Clearly this statement is bringing in comparison between scientific devices and human ears !! The difference is, you are trying to measure parameters like THD, SNR, Dynamic Range, Frequency Range etc which are all related to measuring "sound". I am trying to measure PRAT, Harmonic Completeness, Timbral Accuracy, Cohesiveness, etc. All of these are related to "music" for which there is no measurement tools except for our sensory system.

In the end everyone knows, knowledge of Physics is required to make an electronic audio gear (that is common sense) but then there are also various ways to attain SPECS. An average AVR also has amazing specs. Guys like JC and KI attain those specs using methodologies, whose impact on "music" they measure by their ears. While specs definitely serve as basic guidelines but its relationship with musicality is "art".

 

[venkatcr]

Clearly this statement is bringing in comparison between scientific devices and human ears !!

If you had read my statements carefully, you would have understood what I have always been maintaining. That measurements are the building block of a good design that ensures that the product meets certain specifications. The designer then builds up from there to get the sound that he wants. I have always maintained that measurements and hearings (or sound and music) are complimentary, not contradictory, nor opposing. But, if you say measurements are meaningless and only hearing matters, then I am afraid you are wrong.

One of the issues with hearing is that the outcome is very subjective. For example if I blindfold a man, and make him hear a amp that has a measurable high noise to signal ratio, and he says he likes the music and that it is good - what do we conclude? That he does not know music or that he is lying? That is the reason most blindfold tests have consistently failed.

Even seasoned auditioning experts have consistently come to wrong conclusions when they have undergone blind tests. Every time you change your source, amp, speakers, or even cables, you hear a different sound, even if the variations are very minor. But the sound is different. Which is better? What you hear before or what you are hearing now? You will look like a fool if you say the wrong thing. So what do you do? You end up making mistakes.

Add this to the fact that we all have different tastes for music and ways to listen to it. I like to play my music softly is a quiet room. Someone else may like to blast his ears at 90dB. I like drums to be tight. Someone else may like drums to be boomy and rolling.

Measurements (whatever they measure) have no such biases. They truthfully tell you what they are 'hearing' and, in that sense, are more consistent and reliable.

Cheers

 

[venkatcr]

Sorry couldn't help but point it out.
warmest regards

If you count the number of mistakes I make, you will also have noticed I always acknowledge my mistakes and correct them. It is not with pride or arrogance, but I know I am certainly within the top ten of people who write well in HFV.

What gets me all the time is the lethargy in many of us to improve ourselves, when these improvements are so simple. I will certainly keep nudging people. Whether you want to (or not to) make the change is your option. Remember, you are being watched and read by a huge number of people. If that is not motivation, I have no idea what is.

Cheers

 

[sidvee]

Guys - being a late entrant into this discussion - I want to contribute my 2 paisa as well.
1. I think comparing pro amps that serve large venues to audio/home amplifiers that are used in closed environments is just academic. They have completely different backgrounds, environments, purposes and requirements.
2. There are many pro-amplifier companies - like Crown (now owned by harmon kardon), Pyle, Carvin, Behringer, QSC and many more and honestly AFAIk none of them have been able to cross over to home audio. Yes there are a few applications in large home theaters etc. but more an exception than rule.
3. Based on point 2, measurements while important are not necessarily a deciding factor in the musicality of any amp.
4. Case in point being - Tube amplifers - that measure horribly in THD tests but, in many cases, are preferred over solid state (by a certain segment of population and are extremly popular in some of the largest home audio markets - US, Japan etc)
5. On a personal note I have had the opportunity to listen to some of the aforementioned pro amps and while they had huge power reserves and superb specs. sounded clinical and lifeless, while some of the flea watt SET types that I heard (with nasty THD ratings) sounded warm and lush and entirely musical.
So IMO both specs and actual listening are important to determine whether an amp. sounds good and just going by specs. can prove detrimental.
Cheers,
Sid
(PS: I am only a humble listener and do not have much technical or audio knowledge compared to the gurus here and these are just my simple observations)

 

[shershah]

here is my two paisa-
I mean no offense to anyone, just making a few observations-

the delicate relationship between the human middle ear, the inner ear, the neurons, the nerve centers, the "hearing" cortex of the brain and it's (immensely complex) connections with the "emotional" and "thinking" and "associative" and "memory" areas -

is still beyond the scope of our limited intelligence.

Yes, we have science, tools for validation of presumptive ideas, and we also have the wherewithal to put together things that amaze our (limited) intellect.

but, to think that we have the tools to surpass what the human ear can "do" and hear -? seems strange this thought?