Jump to content

moo-fi

Wammer
  • Content Count

    1,299
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

514 Excellent

About moo-fi

  • Rank
    Wammer
  • Birthday 28/05/1970

Personal Info

  • Location
    Doncaster
  • Real Name
    Fred

Wigwam Info

  • Turn Table
    NA Spacedeck
  • Tone Arm & Cartridge
    Rega and VDH Frog
  • SUT / Phono Stage
    Project
  • Digital Source 1
    Linn DS
  • Digital Source 2
    Rega DAC
  • Integrated Amp
    Krell 300il
  • My Speakers
    JM Lab 936
  • Trade Status
    I am not in the Hi-Fi trade

Recent Profile Visitors

2,680 profile views
  1. Even in America successful prosecutions have been about file sharing and/or public performances using ripped music. The case that springs to mind is in Minnesota, but there has been a few others.
  2. Genelec's tend to highlight everything wrong in your music recording, great in the studio, not so good at home. Distance for these is no particular issue, we use them as mid-fields along with big Quested mains which are soffit mounted. They both work well together as the Quested produce a massive sound with loads of drive , whilst the Genelec's are forensic in their detail retrieval.
  3. Genelec do a distance calculator online which may be handy to browse when considering their models. I use 8351 and W371, but I wouldn't want them at home, whilst the Hedd 20's I would be more than happy with. Another monitor which translates well to home environments are the Event Opal which may well be worth considering (I used to have these, but replaced them with the Hedd's as our tracking engineer wanted them).
  4. Another thought is that in professional applications monitors tend to sit on the mixer bridge or on high stands behind the mixer. If the speakers are larger, such as main monitors then they are usually buried in to the walls, soffit mounted which improves the low end performance greatly due to the increase baffle size.
  5. On my canal boat I use LS3/5a which are ideal for small spaces and a pair of Temple audio mono-blocks, which are happy with the sometimes variable voltages that living off grid brings.
  6. Most speakers are not designed flat as most people don't like a flat sounding speaker claiming they are harsh or bright. The BBC did a lot of research in this area which resulted in a slight hump in the bass and a slightly rolled off top end. Here is the paper for those who want to did in further: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1976-29.pdf Below 200Hz your room will be the biggest factor in the sound you hear if you are listening in the mid/far field. Linkwitz did a load research in this area which resulted in his open baffle designs which try to minimise the room in
  7. I think this reveals some important things. There is more to reproducing sound than just a perfectly flat system, our rooms are a large part of the equation, and I question whether anything is perfectly flat. We use a combination of Genelec's and Hedd monitors in our mixing and tracking rooms, but we out source the mastering. Surprising how different two studio monitors can sound, particularity when both are calibrated. I might get around to investigating the reasons why one day, but work has taken off in a big way again so time is rather precious at the moment.
  8. I think MQA is a solution looking for a problem. When we were limited in storage and bandwidth I could see a case for MQA, but with the data rates available even using mobile devices alongside the amount of cheap storage options for data really render it obsolete. As a replacement for MP3 perhaps, but with Hires files it isn't even close. An area to watch closely is how they are going to package files for 8K televisions, how this rolls out for internet streaming at 300 Mbit/s a is going to interesting.
  9. My official role is Senior engineer and production manager. I make sure it all happens. As for live recordings being better, they tend to be less compressed and therefore alot more dynamic as the end result isn't mixed to sound good through a pair of ear buds.Again it is about the intended audience and generally this is to sound good in the venue.
  10. It is a really good point. My normal view is that we are recording a moment in time, but my work is live sound and can be quite rough and ready in approach. We generally don't have time to mess around with the end result.
  11. Ego in the music industry! A lot of my role is peace keeping between artist and producer. As for shocking venues, try the iconic but awful Sydney Opera House. Worked there a couple of times and it makes the RAH sound brilliant.
  12. One of the key reasons why live broadcasts use lots of microphones is to migrate against problems. You don't have four months to record the piece. There will be a set of secondary microphones in case of equipment failure, mono microphones for key areas and then ambient microphones. This will all be balanced by a sound engineer who will also be sight reading the score and anticipating volume peaks which may well need gain riding to prevent overloading of the gain structure. It all has to be fail-safe as there are no second chances. If something fails you had better have a back up pl
  13. I didn't mention music types, what I talked about was how the music is listened to. The statement about providing the most realistic window is also quite bold and I know many producers would certainly argue that one.
  14. Depends on how the two microphones are configured, some configurations are better than others and then you will also run in to problems with frequency response not being very flat.
  15. What we need to consider is the end user. Stereo pairs are great in some cases, but they have some limitations as well. Some of the main issues are related to the end user, as this type of recording is not great when using headphones or mono sources. The second problem is the increasing demand for various multi-channel mixes with distinct channels for bass mixes which require a completely different approach.
×
×
  • Create New...