Dave, I think you know what I mean. I've made mistakes in the past trying to get an older recording to sound natural, only to find that when I played the recording in another environment, it didn't sound natural at all. I was only saying that sounding natural has to be balanced against what the original sounded like. Sometimes, for example, noise reduction causes a slight loss of highs. Adding a little in the upper ranges will put back what was lost, but one has to be careful. I find that some aspects of recordings can only really be picked up on headphones. It is easy, when making a recording sound natural, to alter it substantially from the original and one may not realize it is happening until one hears the recording in another environment. Therefore, whatever you decide on monitors, a good set of headphones and the ability to switch between your recording and the original is important, just so you know what changes you have introduced.
Best regards, Steve Jacobson On Sat, 06 Aug 2011 21:46:45 -0600, Dave Bahr wrote: >that's true, they are kind of one in the same in my mind for what I'm >doing. that is, to make the sound as natural as I can is to hear the >detail that wil aproximate what I think the original may sound like. >That's one way to look at it. The other is to say that you want to hear >the mix as the mixer intended it, but they kind of overlap too. Am I >reading your message right at all? >Dave c. bahr >On 8/6/2011 6:27 PM, Steve Jacobson wrote: >> Dave, >> >> I don't know exactly what kind of restoring you are thinking of doing, but >> one thing I will throw into the mix is that your >> goal probably isn't going to be to get the most natural sound from any set >> of speakers, it is probably going to be to >> make the sound as close to the original as you can. That means that what is >> most important is that your speakers can >> reproduce sound with enough detail so you can hear subtle changes you might >> be introducing when you apply noise >> reduction and such. . Of course, if you are making recordings, then the >> need is different as you will be modifying the >> sound to make it sound best and it is much more subjective. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Steve Jacobson >> >> On Sat, 06 Aug 2011 15:47:35 -0600, Dave Bahr wrote: >> >>> Hi folks, >>> I'm looking for a pair of studio monitors, or monitors that can deliver >>> me a flat frequency response, no enhancement of the frequencies so that >>> I can hear the original mix as it was done, for restoration and >>> mastering purchases. I have it narrowed down to two, maybe 3, I'll put >>> all three options below, was wondering what sorts of systems people had >>> and why, whether active or passive, what sort of config they had, room >>> size and setup, things of that nature. I realize that the bottom line >>> comes down to what the individual sees as the ideal setup. I haven't >>> listened to any of them and will of course do so before making my final >>> decision. >>> 1. the neumann kh 120 >>> 2. adam audio, a7x >>> 3. the maybe. the blue sky one 2.1 system. >>> I've been talking to the folks at >>> www.vintageking.com >>> and they sell all three setups, the blue sky they weren't too keen on >>> and the adam audio one sounded, according, to this guy, not as natural >>> as the neumann speakers. >>> -- >> >>> Dave c. bahr >> >>> To unsubscribe from this list, send a blank email to: >>> [email protected] >> >> >> >> >> To unsubscribe from this list, send a blank email to: >> [email protected] >To unsubscribe from this list, send a blank email to: >[email protected] To unsubscribe from this list, send a blank email to: [email protected]
