Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)
TonyP wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:IP6dnSdQi_yD2C7d4p2dnA@comcast.com...
>>> But how are they audible, only when doing a direct comparison with
>>> something else?
>> It's often apparent without comparison.
>
> Not sure how you would know whether it's the equipment or the record?
Keep the equipment properly tuned up.
> If they put test tones on every record you may have a shot.
I do have a number of test records, spanning decades.
>>> Which then is the more accurate?
>> The one you get when you get the FR of the playback equipment right.
> Not necessarily. If the record has say 3dB droop at HF compared to the
> master tape,
That would be an artistic choice made by the mastering engineer.
>then the cartridge/pre-amp with a 3dB rise will be more
> accurate for that record.
That would be a FR error I seek to eliminate.
>>> How do you know? Does it matter if it sounds good to you?
>
>> I find that if you get the FR of the playback equipment right, more
>> different recordings sound good to me.
> I already stated that you should set the response flat using a good
> test record. Then you can ignore the 1-2 dB variations from RIAA that
> your cartridge/pre-amp might have, safe in the knowledge that the
> records you play will be far more than that anyway. Compensate with
> EQ as necessary.
Works for me, but I want to minimize the need for added eq.
>>> Not at all, since the records frequency variation will be all over the
>> place.
>> Right, but I find that there is a natural centerline out there
>> someplace.
> I don't, but getting as flat as possible with a test record, is a
> good place to start anyway.
We kinda-sorta agree.
>>> Simply adjust tone controls to taste. That's what the mastering
>>> engineer does anyway!
>> It's nice to be able to play a stack of recordings without constantly
>> fiddling with the gear.
> Of course you can, but that doesn't mean they will all sound similar
> in tone, or similar to what the mixing or mastering engineers heard.
I can if I presume he set up his playback system competently, and I do the
same.
> You can't even expect that from CD's.
I surely expect that from CDs.
>>> I don't usually ABX them to the master
>>> tapes. So I have no idea which pressings are more accurate. Only
>>> which sound better to me at the time.
>> Yes, but if you can tune the playback system so that it is closer to
>> the median without adjustments, it takes less individual adjustment
>> to sound right with a variety of recordings.
> Of course, but that was never the argument.
I'm happy to be in agreement. ;-)
>>> IME the mixing/mastering, total EQ will be *MUCH* greater overall.
>> Not necessarily. While I'm not shy about applying eq, I often make
>> recordings where many tracks if not the whole mixdown has minimal or
>> zero eq.
> Sure, but that would be the exception, not the rule.
As I tune up my recording setup, its getting to be more of the rule.
>>> And not flat to any reference whatsoever.
>> We all carry a reference around in our heads - it's the composite of
>> everything we've ever heard.
> Yep, and everybody's is different. To be a reference, you need a
> common standard.
Well yes, but common experiences can be the basis for an approximate ad-hoc
standard.
TonyP wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:IP6dnSdQi_yD2C7d4p2dnA@comcast.com...
>>> But how are they audible, only when doing a direct comparison with
>>> something else?
>> It's often apparent without comparison.
>
> Not sure how you would know whether it's the equipment or the record?
Keep the equipment properly tuned up.
> If they put test tones on every record you may have a shot.
I do have a number of test records, spanning decades.
>>> Which then is the more accurate?
>> The one you get when you get the FR of the playback equipment right.
> Not necessarily. If the record has say 3dB droop at HF compared to the
> master tape,
That would be an artistic choice made by the mastering engineer.
>then the cartridge/pre-amp with a 3dB rise will be more
> accurate for that record.
That would be a FR error I seek to eliminate.
>>> How do you know? Does it matter if it sounds good to you?
>
>> I find that if you get the FR of the playback equipment right, more
>> different recordings sound good to me.
> I already stated that you should set the response flat using a good
> test record. Then you can ignore the 1-2 dB variations from RIAA that
> your cartridge/pre-amp might have, safe in the knowledge that the
> records you play will be far more than that anyway. Compensate with
> EQ as necessary.
Works for me, but I want to minimize the need for added eq.
>>> Not at all, since the records frequency variation will be all over the
>> place.
>> Right, but I find that there is a natural centerline out there
>> someplace.
> I don't, but getting as flat as possible with a test record, is a
> good place to start anyway.
We kinda-sorta agree.
>>> Simply adjust tone controls to taste. That's what the mastering
>>> engineer does anyway!
>> It's nice to be able to play a stack of recordings without constantly
>> fiddling with the gear.
> Of course you can, but that doesn't mean they will all sound similar
> in tone, or similar to what the mixing or mastering engineers heard.
I can if I presume he set up his playback system competently, and I do the
same.
> You can't even expect that from CD's.
I surely expect that from CDs.
>>> I don't usually ABX them to the master
>>> tapes. So I have no idea which pressings are more accurate. Only
>>> which sound better to me at the time.
>> Yes, but if you can tune the playback system so that it is closer to
>> the median without adjustments, it takes less individual adjustment
>> to sound right with a variety of recordings.
> Of course, but that was never the argument.
I'm happy to be in agreement. ;-)
>>> IME the mixing/mastering, total EQ will be *MUCH* greater overall.
>> Not necessarily. While I'm not shy about applying eq, I often make
>> recordings where many tracks if not the whole mixdown has minimal or
>> zero eq.
> Sure, but that would be the exception, not the rule.
As I tune up my recording setup, its getting to be more of the rule.
>>> And not flat to any reference whatsoever.
>> We all carry a reference around in our heads - it's the composite of
>> everything we've ever heard.
> Yep, and everybody's is different. To be a reference, you need a
> common standard.
Well yes, but common experiences can be the basis for an approximate ad-hoc
standard.
/home.earthlink.net/~yatescr
Facebook
Twitter