[PiccoloNamek]

Quote:

Truly, I do not. I am afraid it may be not optimal with the most of recordings, which are not mixed so as to sound best in "flat freq." environment, but to be listened to with our "uneven freq. response" equipment.

Well, this can be true with some kinds of music, but I find a flatter response sounds good with most types of music most of the time and gives the most faithful reproduction of the source material. If you're listening to higher-end stuff from labels like Telarc or Mapleshade, it is almost essential, IMO, since these labels record and master their music to far higher standards than normal.

 

[gregorio]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, this can be true with some kinds of music, but I find a flatter response sounds good with most types of music most of the time and gives the most faithful reproduction of the source material. If you're listening to higher-end stuff from labels like Telarc or Mapleshade, it is almost essential, IMO, since these labels record and master their music to far higher standards than normal.

I think you may have misunderstood the nature of mastering or the process of creation for a music product: A recording studio records and mixes the music. Recording studios are designed to have as as good a monitoring environment as possible and have as flat a frequency response as possible. So what comes out of the recording studio is a mix which will (hopefully) sound brilliant in the recording studio. However, a home listening environment is usually a long way off the environment of a recording studio. This is where the mastering process comes in. The studio mix is passed on to a mastering studio. The mastering engineer uses various processes, usually compression and EQ (mainly) to change the sonic characteristics so that the mix will sound brilliant (hopefully) on a range of consumer equipment in an average home listening environment.

I'm not saying that you should not EQ your system to be flat, that is your personal choice. What I am saying is that if the music you are listening to has been mastered, then by definition it is not designed to be listened to in an environment which is "flat".

G

 

[PiccoloNamek]

Quote:

I think you may have misunderstood the nature of mastering or the process of creation for a music product: A recording studio records and mixes the music. Recording studios are designed to have as as good a monitoring environment as possible and have as flat a frequency response as possible. So what comes out of the recording studio is a mix which will (hopefully) sound brilliant in the recording studio. However, a home listening environment is usually a long way off the environment of a recording studio. This is where the mastering process comes in. The studio mix is passed on to a mastering studio. The mastering engineer uses various processes, usually compression and EQ (mainly) to change the sonic characteristics so that the mix will sound brilliant (hopefully) on a range of consumer equipment in an average home listening environment.

Yes, I understand all of this. Perhaps I just made a poor choice of words in my previous post. Also, the response changes present in my headphones are probably much greater than what you would find even in a typical low-end home or car stereo setup. IMO, equalization was necessary to restore fidelity.

Although a lot of the music I listen to is minimally or even completely unmastered. Like this, for example: http://www.mapleshaderecords.com/rev...tesatchmo2.mp3

In this case, it actually would make the most sense to have the flattest possible response.

 

[vvanrij]

Hah, thats some great music

!!

 

[gregorio]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek /img/forum/go_quote.gif Although a lot of the music I listen to is minimally or even completely unmastered. Like this, for example: http://www.mapleshaderecords.com/rev...tesatchmo2.mp3 In this case, it actually would make the most sense to have the flattest possible response.

I can't be absolutely sure without doing some research but I would be most surprised to learn that this track has not been mastered. Generally, all good quality commercial releases are mastered. It's only usually the very cheap end of the music production scale which isn't mastered and some live performance recordings (although even many of these are mastered).

G

 

[PiccoloNamek]

Mapleshade records performs no post production or electronic manipulation of any kind on their music. Their motto is: "NO mixing board, NO overdubs, NO noise reduction, NO multitracks, NO EQ, NO reverb. Nothing BUT the excitement of live music."

The man who records the music uses no more than 3 or 4 specially modified Crown PZM plate microphones, and records directly into an old Sony reel-to-reel tape recorder. The results are than transferred directly to CD.

This is why it sounds so good. Because it wasn't mastered. Studios like Telarc or Chesky have the same basic philosophy, although I believe they do perform some mastering.

 

[Quaddy]

that mp3 sounds like a small live club venue, just how i like it, no added affectations, to some it will sound flat and to some extent it is, in a good sense, but theres a raw live quality to it, which i appreciate, sounds like i am at the back of the club

 

[gregorio]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek /img/forum/go_quote.gif The man who records the music uses no more than 3 or 4 specially modified Crown PZM plate microphones, and records directly into an old Sony reel-to-reel tape recorder. The results are than transferred directly to CD.

They must use a mixing board, how else are you going to get a stereo mix from 3 or 4 mic inputs? Also, there is no way in a live venue using PZMs that you are going to get a flat response recording. PZMs by definition are not flat but record reflected sound.

Their motto sounds like marketing hype. For example, you say their motto is "no EQ", how do they get it into the digital domain then? And isn't mic'ing, pre-amping, tape recording and digitising all electronic manipulations?

I'm not knocking it, there are many who like the raw, live sound and it's no bad thing that there are labels supplying this demand. Shame there has to be untrue hype to accompany it though.

G

 

[PiccoloNamek]

He has been in operation for many years, and there have been many articles about Mapleshade and interviews done with him. I don't doubt what I've read, because the music speaks for itself.

Perhaps you should try reading this to learn more about exactly how he operates:
Mapleshade Records - About Us

I really like this part:

Quote:

Sprey's microphone of choice is Crown's extremely responsive PZM, a palm-sized, plate-mounted unit. He centers one on each outside face of a V-shaped plexiglass baffle to approximate the pickup pattern of the human ear. The PZM's stock power supply/transformer box is replaced by two nine-volt batteries and a passive response-shaping network, which are spliced into the mic line to the preamps to prevent distortion. He keeps cable lengths in his system under 25 feet to minimize signal loss. The baffle is attached to a modified mic stand, which, for the Blake session - a quartet rounded out by electric guitar, acoustic bass, and drums - is placed in the curve of Sprey's restored 1911 Steinway Model O, whose soundboard is positioned in the middle of the 15x20x10-foot studio. (Sprey removed the Steinway's lid and casters for a better sound.)

From another article:
Quote:

His approach to equipment is to customize it, and his hand crafted arsenal includes Crown PZM and Josephson condenser microphones, short cable runs, a Sony open reel tape deck, battery powered electronics (wherever possible), lead weights for damping applications, and amplifiers and preamps of his own design. His comprehensive work on the microphones alone would be truly enlightening to many engineers, were he willing to reveal those secrets. Interestingly, no EQ, compression, or noise reduction is employed, nor is anything like the common mixing board seen. Tell me how much simpler you can get!

And this:

Quote:

In the connecting doorway itself resides a small white table. Upon that table are Pierre's own hand built microphone pre-amps (remember, he doesn't use a mixer), which like nearly everything else in the chain is battery powered, and whose outputs feed directly into the Sony 10" reel tape deck. They are the meat of a nice vibration/resonance control sandwich. A lead brick resting on three tip toes provides the base for the pre-amp, with another three tip toes toped by another lead brick poised on top of the pre-amp.

Quote:

Their motto sounds like marketing hype. For example, you say their motto is "no EQ", how do they get it into the digital domain then? And isn't mic'ing, pre-amping, recording and digitising all electronic manipulations?

Well, what I was actually trying to say is that they do not load the music up into a DAW and manipulate it digitally, or anything of that nature. Obviously, all recorded music is manipulated electronically because it has to pass through some form of electronic device.

Anyway, we're kind of getting off topic again; perhaps this should be split into a new thread too?

 

[leeperry]

to get back ON topic, here's a pretty interesting article on wiki : Headphones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

closed cans do resonate even more than opened ones, for obvious reasons...there's no such thing as "free lunch"

tomorrow I'll be experimenting w/ dampening again

the 770Pro benefited a lot from wooden dampening as its cups are made of cheap plastic, but the 770 Premium is made of ABS resin....which is apparently very good for this purpose : http://www.promenademusic.co.uk/details.asp?sku=3586

ABS is actually sound absorbent : http://link.aip.org/link/?RSINAK/69/1724/1

Quote:

Under the resonance, the acoustic impedance of the sound-absorbent plastic layer .... Basic properties of sound absorbent plastic, type-P (ABS resin).

but this link says ABS is meant to resonate anyway

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache...&hl=en&ct=clnk
Quote:

plastic resin, commonly "resonite," which is an Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) resin.

EDIT: ok, wood beats ABS...end of story

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...9111526AAOER3q
Quote:

You get a better tone and resonance out of a wood clarinet (usually grenadilla is used, sometimes rosewood), but if you're just looking to play as a hobby, ABS is a fine choice

 

[PiccoloNamek]

You can't make a comparison between the wood used in an instrument and wood used in a headphone. With the instrument, the wood plays a very large part in creating the proper sound of the instrument. With a headphone, all of the sound is created by the transducer, and a wooden cup will not resonate in the same way as say, a violin made of wood will resonate.

 

[leeperry]

sure, but I guess top of the line phones use wood for a very good reason...like the JVC DX1k.

anyway, I got some wood-like dampening handy, I'll try tomorrow

 

[PiccoloNamek]

They use wood to make them look more attractive.

Truly top of the line headphones such as the STAX Omega II or the HE90 aren't made of wood. (All though some of them may have wood on them.)

 

[leeperry]

humm, you think so?

that's not what their site says:
Closed mold headphone HP-DX1000 for music|Victor
Stereo headphone HP-DX700 |Victor

Quote:

the unnecessary vibration and resonance are held down, adjusting to the natural sound and after effect of the natural wooden pure housing

and apparently the Denon 2000/5000 share the same drivers, only diff are the wooden cups on the 5k and 7N-OFC cable instead of 5N

another link: http://www.lawtonaudio.com/page7.html

 

[cotdt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vvanrij /img/forum/go_quote.gif The dac can never perfectly recreate it coming from this 'imperfect' source. Else there would never be a need for a better quality source (eg 24 instead of 16 bit etc.)

You lie!