Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
Crinacle Is Wrong About Artistic Intent!
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 01. 2023
- @crin made a video claiming that reproducing the artistic intent in headphones is 'IMPOSSIBLE.' In this video, I completely debunk him and explain why he is wrong.
Sources:
S. Olive, T. Welti, and E. McMullin, "Listener Preferences for In-Room Loudspeaker and Headphone Target Responses," Paper 8994, (2013 October.).
Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms by Floyd Toole
Erin's Audio Corner Kii Three Measurements: www.erinsaudio...
Support the channel by donating through PayPal to gonuya1@gmail.com, CZcams SuperChat, becoming becoming a channel member, or joining / sharur !
Apple House Sound Discord Server: / discord .
#headphones #audiophile #iems #earphones #audio #speakers
As someone who creates soundtracks and is actively learning audio engineering off hours, this is correct.
In fact most “reference” headphones and speakers used in studios, are really mean’t to be as cheap as possible because of studio operating costs and are mainly used to hear the audio levels.The only time proper neutrality is important is when you’re EQ’ing and compressing individual audio tracks for mastering.
yup
creating a master involves cleaning up the recordings through compression (commonly 7:1 and 8:1 compression ratio) and reducing certain frequencies through EQ, then sending it through a bus to effects (reverb is really common), then merging the recordings into a singular audio waveform, and further compression and EQ’ing until the artist is satisfied.
Edit: mainly to dumb it down for individuals who aren’t into audio engineering.
It is also why anything above lossless audio is worthless, since the song is already compressed by the end of mastering. Recommending uncompressed files above lossless is one of the snake oils in the audiophile hobby.
Edit: to add stuff.
The only way one would use uncompressed files is mainly to ether: record a live event, sending through bluetooth, or for mastering (which the end point for a song ends up being compressed).
Edit: to add stuff and brackets.
crin checks under his bed to make sure sharur isnt there before he sleeps
true
Will you ever get ear surgery to replicate a measument ear
nah
Nice! Let me add some details and corrections since I'm in the industry.
Back in the days, all studios had a pair of massive main reference monitors capable of high SPL (3 way, multiple drivers per way, horn loading...), some even custom made for that control room, installed flush with the wall, PLUS a pair of Auratone (single 10 cm fullrange cone in a sealed box) on the mixing console bridge. The mixing was done all on the big boys, the Auratone were used for phase checking and compatibility checking for mono and small speaker systems (car, TV and radio). If the bass can't be heared on the small cones you need more saturation (yes, distortion!) to enhance some harmonics so the human brain can "reconstruct" the bass fundamental even if can't be reproduced on tiny cones (interesting psychoacoustic effect: if you low pass a sound the brain can't reconstruct upper armonics; if you high pass a sound the brain can reconstruct the fundamental from the upper harmonics. For the same reason some open back headphones like SRH1440 and 1840 can sound more bassy than they measure due to the massive distortion in the lows). This mixing approach (main + small and mixing for the largest audience that doesn't have big speakers in a nice room) is used still today with the addition of a small Bluetooth speaker like the JBL Go, 'cause that's the lowest quality and most diffused end user device today. Only audiphile labels mix and record for an end user with a good to excellent system.
The NS10 came out in 1978 as a home bookshellf model but without success. Some famous engineers noticed that it had a peculiar dry sound and started using that as a familiar reference when touring from studio to studio that all had different main monitors and acoustics (so much for flat is flat! :-P). The modern near field amplified monitors where not invented yet: the NS-10 is passive so they lugged around even a power amp. So from the mid '80, on the console bridge you'll find the Auratone AND the NS10. The NS10 is bright, so bright that you can see hystorical studio pics with toilet paper on the tweeter (putting a resistor in series was too difficult ;-P). It also lacks bass but the boudary effect of the mixing board helps a bit. So why was, and is still used? Because it's a closed box design (no bass reflex) with a very short decay time so ideal for phase checking and timing, like the Auratone but with wider frequency range. Having bass frequencies time alligned with the rest of the spectrum is important beacuse otherwise the bassist will sound always a bit off time (the back wave of the cone takes some time to make a U turn and get out of the bass reflex conduct) or as if he was playing a few meters behind the rest of the band: 1 foot about 1 millisecond. Recent models can sound excellent even if bass reflex (cheap: Kali; not cheap: Neumann and Genelec) becasue they have internal DSPs that perform FR and timing correction as standard (every unit is factory calibrated to match any random one, no need for matched pairs, components tollerances can be wider, the rest of the spectrum is slowed down to "wait" for and be in sync with the back wave of the bass reflex) and to adapt to the listening room with a calibrated mic and software kit.
Some guys like it even today (Chris Lord Alge has a signature model CLA10), some just use a better, more complete near field like the Neumann KH310 (3 way, closed box, fast decay, goes very low) plus the mandatory JBL Go and one Auratone. The majority of near field monitors today is bass reflex (everybody wants more bass, or better, that goes lower) and all the under 500$ models are targeted to home studios: they would sound better (fast decay, phase coherence) with no bass reflex but people want MOAR bass and it's easier to reach high SPL with ported designs, so the industry goes where the market (of uneducated people) wants. Never forget the most important part of the music industry, is the word industry! For more infos read "The Yamaha NS10 Story" article on Sound On Sound.
Regarding mastering, people think it's way more important than it is. The record has to sound right already when the mix is closed, the mastering is just a refining to:
- reach a specific LUFS level across all tracks of an album and for the specific medium (streaming platforms have a recommended LUFS devivery, TVs and Radios have laws for maximum LUFS and you'll pay a fine if you break the limit!);
- make it fit on a specific medium (LP, CD, 7.1, streaming...): CDs can use less dynamic compression (if the artist or the label is not pushing for loudness war), LPs can't modulate very wide stereo in those grooves so if the mix is very wide (high phase decorrelation) it gets "monofied" a bit to allow proper tracking, also bass is turned to mono for the same reason.
- make it adaptable (make the mix translate) to as many listening devices as possible. Basically, extreme care to the first 2 octaves and last octave with compressors and limiters to make them audible, as best as possible, even on the damn JBL Go, mono compatibility... thinking of the target usage: a soft louge jazz record might have to be compressed more than a wild free jazz one because the first is likely to be played at low volume during a fine dinner, so a generous ammount of compression is desired to avoid the low volume passages to fade under the chattering and munching.
Lately stem mastering has taken on. Basically, home studios deliver a pre mix with all parts mixed but still separated: vocals, stereo drums, stereo guitars, stereo keys... and the mastering engineer has to balance all tha parts and do the final mastering. This is due to sub optimal home studio acoustics for critical decisions.
Regarding "as the artist inteded" I can't remember in what paper, but Dr. Olive showed that "circle of confusion" thing that also Floyd Toole pointed out: studios and home hi-fi are tested with finished records as if they were test signals, but they're not, they have their own personality (thank God!), not all of them are following the reference of pink noise spectrum for cumulative loudness: some are darker, some are brighter, some have even single bands in the middle sticking out! The current trend is to level match and EQ match every record to make it sound like every other of the same genre in an attempt to gain the same success, but that's boring! Want a taste of how diverse mixes can sound? Listen to the Gummo OST: all metal but all in technicolors! You will need to change headphones for every track, not just turn the volume up and down XD
You didn't mention that tonal balance is not realized until mastering. Bob Katz discusses this in detail in his book: media.discordapp.net/attachments/998467300460073040/1069952348773949440/IMG_9410.png
Dr. Olive's research showed that different program material from major mastering studios do not have a significant effect on listener preference.
@@Sharur1 Yes but the tone of single instruments is done in mixing, if the mastering engineer receives a 2 track the tonal balance gets applied globally, not very differently to what can be done with the tone controls on home hi-fi, back when home hi-fi had tone controls, or EQ in a media player. Of course multi band compressors can apply more drastic changes than a simple "bass-high" tone control or simple EQ.
A mastering can also ruin a good record. For example the 2001 remastering of Painkiller by Judas Priest has massive grungy bass to appeal to newer listeners, whereas the original 1990 recording was bright and airy. Which one is the correct "as the artist intended" version? Sometimes the artist doesn't even care, or has poor judjing and taste, sometimes it's better to let the engineer decide, sometimes not. "And Justice For All" by Metallica with the bass guitar buried in the cellar and the weird drums is another example that comes to mind: Lars Ulrich (the drummer) instructed the mixing engineer to have that sound and later complained that there was no bass. Sometimes the artist doesn't even know what he wants XD
I also have that book 💙
With all due respect to Dr.Olive, I don't think his record selection for that test was vast and diverse enough. If you take a track from Madonna, David Guetta and Eminem, then yes, they will have almost the same cumulative FR profile. If you go back in time and wide enough to reach indie avantgarde productions you'll find records that will sound too bassy or even too bright with Harman target. It's a good start but minor tweeking for individual preferences might be needed, and I still would like to have my tone knob for that occasional wild produced record not mastered by Bob Kats XD
@@_innerscape_ that's possibly the best set of comments I've ever read on YT and I'm here since 2009.
@@xantraz you're welcome! I had time and felt like giving something after receiving a lot, you know... Karma.
@@_innerscape_ I don't think sharur is a musician or ever worked in a mastering studio. You can only learn so much by reading about it and sh*tting on other people. Tonal balance. Lol
what about autistic intent
Crinacle is right, and your channel is basically now just a place where you desperately try to sniff the sweat from Crinacles' taint and pretend you don't love it
watch my latest video destroying him
i once got a 1hr 30min youtube ad on my phone from theheadphoneshow where andrew talked about the focal clear and also diffuse field and shit he clearly stole. good times. but yeah he's gonna steal this too banger video btw
yup. sad times
This whole topic is just dumb. Sorry. I was a pro musician AND a sound engineer and I can tell you this often can't happen. Many musicians have no idea what they want or don't know how to use recording equipment and unless they are 100% happy and have enough money to pay for adequate studio time. it's rarely "as the artist intended". Unless you were there or ask the artist personally you really have no idea what corners were cut. No idea whatsoever
Nope. The mastering is delegated by the artist to the mastering engineer.
Again... I don't think you've really been there. Most artist's only point of reference is what their band practice was like or what the song sounds like in their head. The vocabulary and expertise is just not often there to convey or they would do this themselves. This is like explaining eyesight to the blind. Many mastering engineers have said that if a song was mixed well enough they do nearly nothing and its about 2% of a bearing on the final product. Like the other commenter said, often mastering engineers make things worse or even less so "as the artist intended". again, its a loaded statement that only applies on a case by case basis. Your not gonna learn it by reading about it alone. Edit: forgot to mention artists often don't get a say in their own music because of their contracts and the record company wanting a certain product and couldn't care less what the artist wants. They often have entire tracks they don't want to release and only do because of pressure for a "hit single". I've seen these people with my own eyes and dealt with them personally but believe what you want
@@cattheshredder It's not really about what the "artist" wanted because an artist is not the most qualified mastering engineer. The singer is not the only "artist" in the song creation process. The mastering engineer is a part of the "artist."
The mastering engineers are not who the beats ad were referring to.@@Sharur1
I wish you would start reviewing speakers as well, preferably those within a reasonable budget that most of us can at least strive for.
ikr
@@Sharur1 are svs ultra tower speakers good?
Is the artist always approving the final version through stuff tuned to harman? If not the "as the artist intended" isn't accurate, it's as the person they hired to mix and master intended. Which is completely fine by me, I just don't like misleading marketing.
The artist trusts the engineers he or she delegates to master the song.
There's few artists that engage with the mixing engineers especially vocalists who like a certain signature sound to their voice but most of other musicians just send it up to their mixing and mastering engineers because they themselves don't have that qualification or they're not as confident in their own skill as they are in their favorite mastering engineer.
As the artist intended is still marketing bs. When a song is being worked on the main goal is to get it to sound as good as possible on all audio devices that it will be listened to on. If the artist Intended for you to listen on an specific beats model they wouldn't be making any good money and it's a stupid idea because there's thousands of audio devices out there that can achieve the same sound or even better. And no educated mixing engineer uses that beats headphone for mixing or mastering
"aside from the quarks dsp having some phase issues"... that's a little more than "some"😂
yes
Really informative stuff, so far I think this is one of your most professional youtuber looking videos you've ever made.
thanks
NEWS: new project red is slightly worst variations with 10k peak
yes
i think you really should make a video about mixing in iems, because i think that they will be the next step in the audio workflow because of isolation and portability.
since we all have the ability to correct any iem to any target we want we can make any iem sound objectively good. maybe the difference will be the in the transient response for compression purpose but a video clarifying it will be very useful
The purpose of correcting different iems is to habit the ear to listen the same target and then be able to work anywere immediately without listening half an hour of music befor making any choice in mix.
for example using personal unit measurements, inverting them in some random graphic eq plugin such as voxengo curveEQ and then summing the target that we want (for example loudspeakers in room flat.
if we want also we can simulate speaker crossfeed with any random stereo width vst (such as izone V3 or Goodhertz midside 3) and then we have the objective 100% of stereo image positioning (Left and right at 45° angle from center and the side at 90° left and right).
Make a video about this comment because other people have asked the same question in other channels and i think it will be VERY useful in my honest opinion 😉
no
What do you think about akg N5005. It looks like it follows harman better than quarks but not as good as variations. Price dropped to 200 dollars.
it's a waste
Real mastering studios use NOT some home 20k$ speakers but north of 100K$ like Genelecs or ATCs. And yeah i do know my stuff, learned music production in uni 3.000.000€ soundstudio..
yeah
I feel like your starting to learn a lot about this whole hobby, good video
"starting"?
😂
Disclaimer : Did not watch the crin video. Everything I say is solely regarding this video alone.
The only thing I would Like to say is that you're not wrong, but companies should not use 'As the artist intended' as a marketing gimmick. I see way too many poorly tuned headphones and IEMs that just put this sticker on and charge sky high prices. Something like the MoonDrop Variations (to my knowledge) does not say 'As the artist intended' instead it actually relies on proper tuning and stuff. I completely agree with your video from a scientific and practical perspective but after so many incidents in the past every time I look at a product that says 'As the artist intended' and I just go 'That's probably a marketing gimmick'. I remember my friend buying a pair of beats back in the day because of this and it was like the worst thing i put in my ear.
I say this because I cannot remember a single headphone, speaker or IEM (aimed at consumers) that said the 'As the artist intended' and actually performed good.
Also a question- won't different mixing and mastering setups affect the conditions mentioned in the video (as in different pair of speakers that are not the ones mentioned in the video)?
mixing setup doesn't matter and all songs from major mastering studios perform similarly since the speakers perform similarly
At what specific frequency the bass goes omni-directional? 80Hz? 100Hz?
u can see it on a directivity plot
Around 80 Hz, but it's not a clean cut and even above the mids can be omni, at least due to reflections. Stay behind a speaker: only the highs are severily attenuated, the mids and bass are coming through, the bass has such a long wavelenght that the speaker is not an obstacle. The human head starts to became an obstable (acoustic shadow) around 1KHz and up. Also the omni bass effect, being related to the wavelenght, is present only in small venues: at big concerts you can hear the direction of bass if it's not in mono, like you can hear the direction of fireworks, explosions, thunders, loud machinery, open air disco...
Mixing is more important than mastering, mastering is just the final touch.
kind of
Actually mastering is mostly at the forefront when dealing with audio, mixing is mainly used for the recording phase. Most of the time when working with audio it is mainly working at a desk, at a computer with the audio software (mainly pro tools and ableton)
I didn’t see the Crin video. I like Crin, not really sure where all this vitriol comes from. Artist intent is a huge subject. But suffice it to say that we rough mix in the recording studio (here you will often see the Yamahas). Send those roughs to a mixing engineer. Approve those mixes. Then send to a mastering engineer. By the time the tracks reach the mastering engineer they should be nearly perfect and only need some polishing. Funny, I almost always prefer to hear the rough playbacks in the studio which are ballsy and imperfect played too loud, still warm from the mics. After that everything gets nipped and tucked, frequencies are forced to behave and get along, instruments get panned, vocals come to the fore. The artist intent goes into the mics, after that it’s anyone’s guess what the final product will sound like. But no one I know listens to their own albums. It would be unnerving. Recordings never get it right. When you tour the material you kind of take it back and play it the way you wanted in the first place. It’s not that big a deal, Crins mistake. That said, you diagramed some other useful info.
he does live rent free
There's no way to know actual artist's intent unless you put said artist through a thorough interrogation in an NKVD style ancillary room
no
@@Sharur1 That's what he said
@@Sharur1 I'll get the waterboard
Can you compare Sony IER-Z1R to variations
escapando da ideia de um "audio perfeito" e todos os santos graal dos audiofilos foi uma decisão muito boa ter fugido dessa ideia, justamente pra acalmar a minha mente (tenho t.o.c e já criei mais de 600 perfis de equalização tentando gostar de um em específico) isso se encaixa na metáfora do supermercado que possuía todas as marcas do mundo, e que o cliente acabou morrendo pois não sabia qual escolher. Estou usando um fone baratinho que equalizei basicamente com filtros em 200hz até 9500hz... e posso dizer que consegui fazer ele soar IGUAL a todos os fones com dd que eu possuo na minha coleção, eu acho que a qualidade de um fone a pode melhorar uns 80% apenas com equalização, as únicas coisas que vão ser subjetivamente impossíveis vão ser mudar a velocidade do driver e a resolução da imagem, além do timbre, mas isso pode ser feito artificialmente com alguns truques de tuning e soa bem parecido de um fone mais caro.
english please
when iem ?
idk
really good video!!
thanks
This new camera angle really suits you, you look CHAD
thanks
hey sharur, is the hbb khan not on par with the quarks dsp? In relation to being close in magnitude response to those speakers, like you said in this video. it seemed like you really enjoyed it in your review, should i not buy it? i dont have money for the variations
for tonality it is not on par but for phase it is better
I have the Khan. It sounds bad. The Tin C3 is much better. Even the Tangzu Wan'er sounds better.
@@jari121 why do you think that, can you elaborate?
@@Sharur1 Oki thanks I'll look into it
@@mylostisaac6452 It has a slow and slightly boomy bass. The mid-bass is too emphasized. The mid-tones are muffled and there is not much air in the treble. The nozzle is too thick, so it does not fit well in the ear. The resolution, soundstage and dynamics are quite good though.
nothing is done to benefit the consumer......It's all about making a buck !!!!
rip
you look pretty handsome today
thanks
Looks like you need *TURBO BASS*
no
Cool.
yup
true
yes
At last new content which trashing others.. Lfg
yes
2:47 which main speakers? in his home or studio?
presumable studio A
@@Sharur1 So in studio you don't hear diffuse field?
did you even pay attention to the video
@@Sharur1 I did but I'm not confident that I understood it properly
you didn't
And I thought it was gonna be another troll video...
ok
You reminds me of Leonid Brezhnev (eyebrows mainly).💁
Ok
bro shitposted his way to actually destroy crinacle with facts and logic 💀
lol
I get insane SIMP-Vibes when watching your videos
ok
You are literally bullying other audiophile CZcams like this, didn't you? Stop!!
yes
sharur vs crinacle is like tesla vs edison
lol
More like Turner versus hooch
@@michaelcorcoran8768 ur a noob
This guy is making me doubt which headphones and iems are good.
variations is good
You should shave bro
I will
Beard kinda suits you Sharur ngl
Do you dislike Crinacle ?
dislike is a strong word
@@Sharur1 so do you ?
I always test any audio with flaming lips pink robot that why B and w via oppo dac or Cd amerzon has a pile iems that been destroyed I’ll stay with moded fostex my fav
nope
more reason to not buy his future project red
true
crinacle = wrong
yes
Nice vid 👍
thanks
50th
nice
Non coincident speakers and di bumps 🤮
ok
Damn u don like him at all lol
true i guess
Sharur, get into reviewing and discussing speakers, the world needs you
true
I knew wut were crinalce sayin' But u r goin Too deep on engineerin measurement WTF.. I'm an artist.. Wut the last instrument bein mix in the last stage?.. Ha.. Its vocal dear.. Dun be suprise if u only newbies theory man. peace!
from what i gather, if we ignore all the measurements, this video is simply saying that Crinacle confused mixing with mastering, and mastering is done with audiophile speakers closely adhering to the Harman target with some tweaks.
ok
So , Moondrop Variations for the 🏆 win!
That being said why then are so many modern recordings junk ?
I think it just comes down to not just the equipment but the care and how much input the artist actually has , if the artist is just a gigantic bass head and all they want is that ……well guess what are you going to get … gigantic bloated bass and they think it sounds fine ….but when you play back on like something as good as the variations, you realize it’s a piece of Garbage .
It at all comes down to care and love of what you do at either end of the spectrum ….user and producer😮
most recordings are good unless from random artists
First
nice