I thought that some of the audio enthusiasts here might be interested to know
that quite a few major recording studios in the 1980's and 90's, including
the one I was employed at (a major one by Chicago's standards), were using
Urei Time Align speakers as studio monitors. Each cabinet contained one 15"
2-way coaxial speaker with a frequency response that sloped off after 17khz
and one 15" subwoofer. If they were ever marketed in any high end consumer
audio establishment I can only imagine that they would have been mocked and
labeled as "boom boxes", sorely lacking in the high frequency end of the
spectrum. They certainly lacked a "designer" cabinet, being basically a
4'x4'x4' flat black painted box. What they did provide was a relatively flat
response curve and exceptional stereo imaging, a speaker that could be
listened to for hours at a time without listener fatigue. These were the
speakers used to produce many of the recordings consumers listened to. All
the decisions related to reverberation, timing delays, stage placement,
depth, compression, equalization, etc. were made by engineers using these
monitors or something quite similar, not the designs made by Bose and others
like them.
In our $500,000 Neuman cutting lab where the 1/2 track stereo masters were
played back and cut to lacquer disks, a set of pro JBL 15" 4-way speakers
were used as monitors. They were chosen due to their neutrality and
frequency response. The mastering lab environment was specifically designed
to reduce reflection to an absolute minimum thus insuring the neutrality and
creating a "sound" that I believe most of you would describe as boring but
one necessary for a critical listening environment. Actually, more attention
was paid to the physical design of the control room of the recording studio
as well as to the mastering room where tens of thousands of dollars were
spent than to the choice of speakers to be used. Poor room acoustics would
color the sound of any loudspeaker adversely.
My point to all this? I'm not so sure there is a point. :) I guess I just
feel that there is more manipulation, half truths and nonsense in the
marketing of most high end audio gear than you would ever find at your local
used or new car lot. If you really want the "perfect sound", I feel you
would have a better chance of finding it by purchasing a couple of tickets
(for you and a loved one) several times a year for seats in the "sweet spot"
of a well designed concert hall.
Richard
On Saturday 06 March 2004 03:12 pm, Winsor wrote:
> Just to correct some of my mistatements or omissions. The designer of
> the original Snells was Kevin Voecks. The fade away of Snell I
> referred to must have been my active interest in audio. Snell is still
> around and apparently doing fine. Interestingly Snell was among the
> first to use the revolutionary Canadian testing facility which
> revolutionized loudspeaker design.. Voecks went to Revel where he
> continues to push the envelope. There is an interesting interview and
> discussion of their design goals here:
>
> http://www.soundstage.com/yfiles/yfiles200104.htm
>
> Followed by the interview with a disagreeing point of view from the
> designer at Thiel:
>
> http://www.soundstage.com/yfiles/yfiles200107.htm
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|