Many people mistake the use of the word cohesive where they actually meant coherent.
Frustrated with Cymbals
- Thread starter jenkinsontherun
- Start date
Many people mistake the use of the word cohesive where they actually meant coherent.
Many posters on Head-Fi use confusing and often irrelevant words to describe sounds they like/hate. Reminds me of this sketch:
Apparently cohesion only applies between substances of the same kind. Adhesion occurs between substances of different kinds. Tbh I was rambling, but hey, now I've learned something. Plus I was sorta correct.
Coherence would be a funny one... that would be if the music 'makes sense.'
Coherence would be a funny one... that would be if the music 'makes sense.'
It's a fancy word just describing that the sound is adhering to their preferred tonal balance
redrol
Headphoneus Supremus
No it is a description of being able to hear different drivers or having them all sound like one driver.
Should have titled this thread "Vex Cymbals" 
Which in turn results to preferred tonal balance (harmonics/distortion profile included)
I am listening to music with Studio Reference Monitor and i have not had issues with cymbals yet. They sound how cymbals are supposed to sound.
There is a reason why Mixing/Mastering Engineer do not use consumer equipment for their work, it makes things sound work.
Especially thanks to Harman an theoretical experiments based on speakers in anechoic chambers and Ear Simulators we are getting more and more overly bright IEM that make everything sound like cardboard cutout.
It seems like most IEM companies are just unable to afford a set of flat studio monitoring speakers and place them correctly.
I've seen an image on how Moondrop created their target and they used Near Field Monitors in an Far Field placement... it just hurts. It is shocking how IEM makers forcefully ignore how Music is made and just completely focus on theoretical experiments, graphs and ear simulators.
But luckily, not all companies do that. Surprise Surprise, all IEM makers who let their IEM tune by Mixing/Mastering Engineer, all sound very similar and measure completely different than Harman
I created an target based on how these professional Studio Reference Monitors are sound. It is not finished yet (its more complicated than you'd think, the limitations of ear simulators are much bigger than i expected) but the result looks roughly something like this
And if you look at the difference how Professional Studio Reference IEM are tuned and Harman, you can imagine why cymbals start to sound rubbish.
There is a reason why Mixing/Mastering Engineer do not use consumer equipment for their work, it makes things sound work.
Especially thanks to Harman an theoretical experiments based on speakers in anechoic chambers and Ear Simulators we are getting more and more overly bright IEM that make everything sound like cardboard cutout.
It seems like most IEM companies are just unable to afford a set of flat studio monitoring speakers and place them correctly.
I've seen an image on how Moondrop created their target and they used Near Field Monitors in an Far Field placement... it just hurts. It is shocking how IEM makers forcefully ignore how Music is made and just completely focus on theoretical experiments, graphs and ear simulators.
But luckily, not all companies do that. Surprise Surprise, all IEM makers who let their IEM tune by Mixing/Mastering Engineer, all sound very similar and measure completely different than Harman
I created an target based on how these professional Studio Reference Monitors are sound. It is not finished yet (its more complicated than you'd think, the limitations of ear simulators are much bigger than i expected) but the result looks roughly something like this
And if you look at the difference how Professional Studio Reference IEM are tuned and Harman, you can imagine why cymbals start to sound rubbish.
Last edited:
Ghoostknight
Headphoneus Supremus
harman target is a preference curve, not a "reference" curve
i prefer the harman target also as a starting point but i wouldnt personally use it "as is" compared to flat measuring speakers at the listening position you get:
- less topend above 10khz
- more bass under 200hz
- maybe a tad more peak around 1-6khz
tho, flat measuring speakers dont sound good/perfect either.... imo it very much depends on preference and how it sounds to you personally to make it "sound real"
i prefer the harman target also as a starting point but i wouldnt personally use it "as is" compared to flat measuring speakers at the listening position you get:
- less topend above 10khz
- more bass under 200hz
- maybe a tad more peak around 1-6khz
tho, flat measuring speakers dont sound good/perfect either.... imo it very much depends on preference and how it sounds to you personally to make it "sound real"
There is indeed, although it seems like you don’t really know what that reason is. When we’re in the studio, we’re working, we’re not there for our own entertainment, even though we often love our jobs. In other words, our work environments are designed to enable us to efficiently produce audio/musical products, they are not designed to satisfy our entertainment preferences! My work environments/systems are either flat or employ a “house curve” for that purpose. My home system, for my personal entertainment, is not flat and other engineers are commonly the same. Your assertion is also incorrect in that it’s not true that we “do not use consumer equipment for our work”, at least in intent ….
There’s two problems with that assertion:
Firstly, and continuing with the previous paragraph, I’m not sure you know what “Reference Monitor” means, it just means a monitor that is providing a reference to something. The audiophile community has misappropriated the term to mean specifically a reference to some hypothetical ideal but in the commercial studio world it can be the exact opposite! Typically a commercial studio has 3 sets of monitors:
1. The Main Monitors, for which the room acoustics have been designed and which therefore can be said to be a reference to as much of an “ideal” as practical.
2. The Near-Field Monitors, for which the room acoustics have not been designed and do not reference anything.
3. The crappiest speakers/monitors we can find, typically consumer laptop or TV speakers, to reference the worst quality playback consumers are likely to encounter. These are the ones typically referred to as the “Reference Monitors”, which we use to check our mixes to see how much is lost, if the mix still works and if there’s anything we can alter to improve the reproduction on this reference that isn’t too detrimental to the reproduction on better equipment.
Secondly, it’s strange that “they sound how cymbals are supposed to sound”. Cymbals are often heavily processed, are deliberately altered to not sound how cymbals are supposed to sound and therefore it would be strange if they did! However, this is not true of all genres, it tends to be more true of genres from the last 30 - 40 years. In this particular case though, closed hi-hats are not supposed to sound anything like splash, ride or other types of cymbals.
OMG. In pretty much a world first, you have “hit the nail on the head”, are absolutely correct and I agree entirely!! How did you arrive at this conclusion/assertion and if it wasn’t just pure chance, is it possible you could apply that to all your other assertions?
G
The Mixing/Mastering engineers I know, and this does include me, use flat monitors like the Neumann KH 120 II (just a random example, there are much more) and, after calibrating them to measure flat in room, mix/music master that it sounds best on these.
I am pretty sure there are people who do it different, but there are several famous Mixing/Mastering Engineer and Studios who do exactly that and do recommend to listen with flat studio reference monitors for the best result/to hear the music exactly how it is supposed to sound. There are also several artists who value being directly involved in the mixing/mastering step during production (like the singer/leader of サカナクション) and they test their music, again, with flat references and demand that it sounds best on these.
This "Flat Studio Monitors are boring and not meant for listening" is a myth that probably comes from the pride and the "I am something better and do it better than the average consumer" mindset from audiophiles who want an more wow sound. Who wants to hear "You paid 7000$ for your setup and your cymbals still sound wrong while you can have correct sounding ones for 1/5 of the price"? Of course these people will tell you that their 7000$ sounds perfect and music is not supposed to be listened with flat reference speakers. But that is just my assumption
And I am well aware that there are people who do not like the result because they either want more/less bass or more/less treble and there is nothing wrong with that. But you can not modify the music and complain it no longer sounds correct.
But in my experience, that includes Platinum Album, if you want correct sounding cymbals, you need to listen with flat references. The recordings I have sound perfect and exactly how they should with my Studio Reference Monitors.
Pretty sure there are people who work different, but the album I own are made that way (the big/famous Studios in Japan all work like that)
I am pretty sure there are people who do it different, but there are several famous Mixing/Mastering Engineer and Studios who do exactly that and do recommend to listen with flat studio reference monitors for the best result/to hear the music exactly how it is supposed to sound. There are also several artists who value being directly involved in the mixing/mastering step during production (like the singer/leader of サカナクション) and they test their music, again, with flat references and demand that it sounds best on these.
This "Flat Studio Monitors are boring and not meant for listening" is a myth that probably comes from the pride and the "I am something better and do it better than the average consumer" mindset from audiophiles who want an more wow sound. Who wants to hear "You paid 7000$ for your setup and your cymbals still sound wrong while you can have correct sounding ones for 1/5 of the price"? Of course these people will tell you that their 7000$ sounds perfect and music is not supposed to be listened with flat reference speakers. But that is just my assumption
And I am well aware that there are people who do not like the result because they either want more/less bass or more/less treble and there is nothing wrong with that. But you can not modify the music and complain it no longer sounds correct.
But in my experience, that includes Platinum Album, if you want correct sounding cymbals, you need to listen with flat references. The recordings I have sound perfect and exactly how they should with my Studio Reference Monitors.
Pretty sure there are people who work different, but the album I own are made that way (the big/famous Studios in Japan all work like that)
Last edited:
And many I know, which also includes me, do not. I have a slight tendency to make my mixes a little bass heavy, I can mentally compensate when working in flat studio but in my own I have a curve which adds a couple of dB of bass, so that I don’t have to mentally compensate. Many engineers I know are the same. There are some commercial studios that have “house curves” and for cinema sound a non-flat curve is mandated (the X-Curve).
And several who don’t do exactly that. One of the most famous mastering engineers is Bob Katz, like me he can compensate and work in a flat studio but prefers a house curve, although he uses a curve with a slight roll-off in the treble. And as he’s arguably been the most influential mastering engineer in history, due to his many publications and his book that is almost a ubiquitous text book, it’s not surprising that many follow his example. In addition, many of the mix and mastering engineers I worked with, used playback levels that I found uncomfortably loud, so in order “to hear the music exactly how it is supposed to sound” but at a level that is comfortable to me, I would need to add several dB of bass (due to loudness contours).
All the above is without preference really coming into the equation. There are plenty of valid reasons for not having a flat playback environment, even when it is practical to do so.
G
Last edited:
I've read this argument before (maybe even here on head-fi), but why not just add the bass to the music? If you want bass in your music, put bass in your music, not in the speakers.
Everyone who will listen to your music with flat references will hear an lifeless/baseless rendering. I am pretty sure that is not what you want... i guess.
I recently had an conversation with someone else who bought a flat reference and we both noticed that music that was mixed/mastered in Japan just sounds normal while music that was mixed/mastered in the US had a 50:50 chance of an substantial lack of bass with some songs where the bass even completely disappeared.
Maybe that is an cultural difference, but this approach feels just weird to me personally. If you want bass in your music, put as much bass in your music as you want. It doesn't have to "sound" flat on reference speakers. The speakers have to sound flat, the music is supposed to sound how the music is supposed to sound on these.
I see nothing that speaks against that.
@maegnificant Sorry for tagging you out of the blue but i assume, your mix/master your music that it sounds how it is supposed to sound when you listen back on a flat reference, right?
Last edited:
Because I’m a professional, I’m not making music for myself, I’m making it for others.
Huh, I stated I’m adding a couple of dB of bass to my monitoring, where did I say I was removing all the bass and rendering it lifeless/bassless? What everyone who will listen to my music with flat speakers will hear is a mix with the appropriate/correct amount of life/bass, instead of the slightly too muddy/bassy mix they would hear if I didn’t have my house curve (or compensate mentally).
You think/guess I don’t want my clients and consumers to hear the appropriate/correct amount of bass?
G
I assume we are talking not about the same thing/there is an misunderstanding.
When i would listen to music mixed/mastered by you, it would sound correct/as it should with flat references, but you personally would like to have it more bass and hence you listen to the mix with a secondary monitors with a house curve that represents the music how you personally would like to hear it, is that correct?
When i would listen to music mixed/mastered by you, it would sound correct/as it should with flat references, but you personally would like to have it more bass and hence you listen to the mix with a secondary monitors with a house curve that represents the music how you personally would like to hear it, is that correct?
Users who are viewing this thread
