Once upon a time on usenet Phil Allison wrote:
Graham. wrote:

-----------------


I thought a monitor was a speaker that was pointed at the performer
rather than the audience. What's the correct name for that?



** Correctly called an "on stage monitor" or "foldback wedge."

The boxes are typically wedge shaped to sit on a stage with the front
baffle at 45 degrees to the horizontal.

Yep, here in NZ back in the 80s they were reffered to as 'foldback monitors'
and were placed on stage just in front of the mic stands, angled to face up
at the mic position. They usually just contained one or two 6" midrange
drivers, at least the ones I worked with did. (No tweeter as that would
cause more of an issue with high frequency feedback.)
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)

Those are foldback monitors surely? Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Graham." wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Jul 2017 09:30:41 +0100, Ian McCall wrote:

On 2017-07-23 07:53:31 +0000, "Brian Gaff"
said:

I always thought that the generic term of monitor speaker was one that
sounded like it was the real sounds. It certainly seems to have meant
that
in studios. However speakers that on paper are flat can often sound
awful
and speakers with lumpy responses can sound nice.

That's the point though. Nipping in from my music writing side (i don't
have the audio experience people on this group have), the purpose of a
monitor speaker is exactly that - to monitor the sound levels and mix.
It's not to sound nice, it's to get the flattest and most neutral
response.

I've no doubt it's developed into marketing speak and there are plenty
of 'monitor' speakers about that are just ordinary speakers, but the
idea is to get the truest reflection of what you're actually doing so
that you're not fooled that you've e.g. put plenty of bass in the mix
just because your speaker overemphasises bass.


Cheers,
Ian


I thought a monitor was a speaker that was pointed at the performer
rather than the audience. What's the correct name for that?

--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%

In article ,
Graham. wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2017 09:30:41 +0100, Ian McCall wrote:

On 2017-07-23 07:53:31 +0000, "Brian Gaff" said:

I always thought that the generic term of monitor speaker was one that
sounded like it was the real sounds. It certainly seems to have meant that
in studios. However speakers that on paper are flat can often sound awful
and speakers with lumpy responses can sound nice.

That's the point though. Nipping in from my music writing side (i don't
have the audio experience people on this group have), the purpose of a
monitor speaker is exactly that - to monitor the sound levels and mix.
It's not to sound nice, it's to get the flattest and most neutral
response.

I've no doubt it's developed into marketing speak and there are plenty
of 'monitor' speakers about that are just ordinary speakers, but the
idea is to get the truest reflection of what you're actually doing so
that you're not fooled that you've e.g. put plenty of bass in the mix
just because your speaker overemphasises bass.


Cheers,
Ian


I thought a monitor was a speaker that was pointed at the performer
rather than the audience. What's the correct name for that?

Foldback.

--
*Be nice to your kids. They'll choose your nursing home.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

It does seem though that in the 70s we had mixes for some recordings with a
definite middle to top emphasis. I suspect this might well have been added
by the cutting engineer to overcome some of the problems of analogue systems
perceived at the time. This was why CDs made from the vinyl masters sounded
so toppy and bass light.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Ian McCall" wrote in message
...
On 2017-07-23 07:53:31 +0000, "Brian Gaff"
said:

I always thought that the generic term of monitor speaker was one that
sounded like it was the real sounds. It certainly seems to have meant
that
in studios. However speakers that on paper are flat can often sound awful
and speakers with lumpy responses can sound nice.

That's the point though. Nipping in from my music writing side (i don't
have the audio experience people on this group have), the purpose of a
monitor speaker is exactly that - to monitor the sound levels and mix.
It's not to sound nice, it's to get the flattest and most neutral
response.

I've no doubt it's developed into marketing speak and there are plenty of
'monitor' speakers about that are just ordinary speakers, but the idea is
to get the truest reflection of what you're actually doing so that you're
not fooled that you've e.g. put plenty of bass in the mix just because
your speaker overemphasises bass.


Cheers,
Ian

sunnuntai 23. heinäkuuta 2017 17.36.49 UTC+3 Brian Gaff kirjoitti:
It does seem though that in the 70s we had mixes for some recordings with a
definite middle to top emphasis. I suspect this might well have been added
by the cutting engineer to overcome some of the problems of analogue systems
perceived at the time.


Go on, please.

Apart from the problem with bass excursion, cured easily by Bass Phase (everything below 100Hz sent equally to both channels - hence mono and greatly reduced vertical excursion when cutting) the main problems were
with sibilence, and getting instruments such as cymbals, glockenspiel,orchestral bells, chimes, etc to reproduce cleanly. Exactly the reverse of what you state above.

This was why CDs made from the vinyl masters sounded
so toppy and bass light.

What do you mean by a vinyl master? Nothing except vinyl pressings can be made from the stamper.

The studio mix master (analogue or digital) was/is the source for vinyl, cassettes, eight track cartridges and CD production.

Iain

On Sun, 23 Jul 2017 18:04:01 +0100, Iain Churches wrote:

sunnuntai 23. heinäkuuta 2017 17.36.49 UTC+3 Brian Gaff kirjoitti:

This was why CDs made from the vinyl masters sounded
so toppy and bass light.

What do you mean by a vinyl master? Nothing except vinyl pressings can
be made from the stamper.
The studio mix master (analogue or digital) was/is the source for vinyl,
cassettes, eight track cartridges and CD production.

As I understand it, some record companies had the cutting engineer make a
tape copy of the audio sent to the lathe so that they could send the same
master to be cut elsewhere or to make another identical copy at a later
date. Some of these masters also included the RIAA eq.

I remember hearing a Heaven 17 CD back in the 80's that sounded like it
came from an RIAA eq'd master. I already had a vinyl copy so didn't buy it
so can't check whether it was really RIAA eq'd or just odd.

--
JRP Music - http://www.jrpmusic.co.uk

sunnuntai 23. heinäkuuta 2017 17.36.49 UTC+3 Brian Gaff kirjoitti:
It does seem though that in the 70s we had mixes for some recordings with a
definite middle to top emphasis. I suspect this might well have been added
by the cutting engineer to overcome some of the problems of analogue systems
perceived at the time. This was why CDs made from the vinyl masters sounded
so toppy and bass light.


Can you really make such a sweeping statement without stating specific instances or carrying out level matched AB comparisons vinyl to CD?



Iain

sunnuntai 23. heinäkuuta 2017 17.36.49 UTC+3 Brian Gaff kirjoitti:
It does seem though that in the 70s we had mixes for some recordings with a
definite middle to top emphasis. I suspect this might well have been added
by the cutting engineer to overcome some of the problems of analogue systems
perceived at the time. This was why CDs made from the vinyl masters sounded
so toppy and bass light.

Mastering in the vinyl days was somewhat different to what we do now. In analogue disc cutting, the object of the exercise was to cut a lacquer which when played back in rough sync with the master tape was as close a match as technically possible. Any fool could make it different:-)

Most recording/mixing engineers knew exactly what was and was not possible in stereo disc cutting. Many were working in studio complexes companies that had their own cutting rooms, and so had worked in disc cutting as a part of their training.

So the objective was to make a cut that sounded as close as possible to the master tape. This continues even to the present day with classical and jazz recordings in CD mastering. Gradually in pop music the mastering stage has become a separate step in the creative process in which considerable changes are made in EQ and dynamics so that the end result was no longer the same as the studio master (although all enhancements should be approved by the recording team)

Iain

sunnuntai 23. heinäkuuta 2017 10.53.32 UTC+3 Brian Gaff kirjoitti:

Most rock engineers like a forward mid to treble as they are deaf. Then
they get the balance right for the rest of us.

Top posted for Brian

So you think most rock engineers are deaf ? LOL.

May I continue with your hypothesis? A classical work by Anton Bruckner (a symphony orchestra with double brass, French horns and woods, with a choir of 120 may well be just as loud as any rock title, and will almost certainly have a greater dynamic. Classical recordings are not normally compressed and so for the producer and engineer to hear the passage where the string basses play arco piano-pianissimo (ppp) - very softly, the monitoring level will need to be fairly “robust� It is not common practice either to alter the monitoring level either, so that when the full orchestra plays sfffz this will be impressively loud. Does that mean that most classical engineers (such as myself) are deaf also?

Come to think of it, a jazz orchestra, (big band) with five trumpets, four trombones, tuba, five saxophones, four rhythm and percussion can also be impressively loud. In a multi-mic recording you have thirty mics each placed within 10 cms of a their own 100dB sound source. Does that mean that most jazz engineers (such as myself) are deaf also?

Who does that leave? Maybe the young lady who records the shipping forecast:-)

I have always been interested in audio perception - what people can and cannot hear. One of the most interesting experiments with which I have been involved is the black box three-band parametric equaliser, which has two rows each with three rotary controls, and a bypass switch. The controls are not marked, but people soon realise that the top row of three controls are cut and boost for the three frequencies selected by the three controls below the second row. People are asked to start by listening with the bypass switched in, and the to switch it out, and adjust the controls to their personal taste. Children, who you would expect to have the best hearing of any age group, often add a mid lift, say 3dB at 3 to 8kHz, just as the rock'n'roll engineer does, because so much critical information is contained in this band. Interesting too is the fact that a small group of people whose choice of music often coincides with the the type of music they are listening too, decide after a few minutes twiddling that they can add no improvement.


Iain

In article ,
Andrew wrote:
Other than that, what is the difference between one
and a 'normal' speaker.

Just the name.

It's basically a US term. It wasn't used for speakers when I started my
career in broadcast. A monitor produced pictures. ;-)

Just about any type of speaker has been used as a so called monitor at one
time or another.

One term was 'average quality monitor'. That would be used to give a rough
idea of what people heard at home - as opposed to the speakers in pro use.
Aurotone being one example - just a single driver in a small box.

You'd hope that any speaker called a monitor would have tight quality
control - so that all of the same make and model sounded the same.

But then in a recording studio they may be custom made units anyway - just
for that studio.

--
*They told me I had type-A blood, but it was a Type-O.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.