SOUND ON SOUND

[Arpangel]

Bling or not, I'm lusting after a pair of the JBL L100 Century reissues.

I still use a pair of JBL 4412's - and - I _absolutely_ adore them. That's not an understatement. I feel _very_ ordinary in all things audio and music - but - the one thing I can claim - and I don't even know why (other than probably through lots of usage) is - I know them. I really do. I, somehow, know the sound of my 4412s.

It doesn't matter how more modern or better other monitoring speakers are - I also have a pair of Genelec 1030A's, a pair of Dynaudio Acoustics BM6's and a pair of K&H O300's - all amazing and love them all too - but there's something 'special' about the 4412's - to me. I can't pinpoint it - but I mix well on them - and trust the sound - but equally love listening to music on them too. A very, very special speaker.

Maybe the word you're looking for is "real" ?
I love that era of "proper" monitors, huge, real world bass response of the massive JBL's is something to behold. Then we started to prefer "near fields" as I guess space became an issue in project studios, but walking into a studio and hearing a pair of these.....

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k3Nj4yzPj8Q

Is still a hair raising and inspiring experience.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Then we started to prefer "near fields" as I guess space became an issue in project studios

The driving forces that made nearfields popular in the 80s came from the facts that few main monitors in big studios were tonally accurate; many (if not most) control rooms had appalling acoustics (which could be mitigated by nearfield placement); and producers and engineers became itinerant instead of being employed permanently by a studio, so they wanted to take familiar, trusted monitors with them when they worked in different control rooms -- which meant they had to be compact!

... but walking into a studio and hearing a pair of these..... Is still a hair raising and inspiring experience.

It's got nothing on a set of Kinoshita monitors in a Tom Hidley 10Hz control room.... :D

[Arpangel]

Then we started to prefer "near fields" as I guess space became an issue in project studios

The driving forces that made nearfields popular in the 80s came from the facts that few main monitors in big studios were tonally accurate; many (if not most) control rooms had appalling acoustics (which could be mitigated by nearfield placement); and producers and engineers became itinerant instead of being employed permanently by a studio, so they wanted to take familiar, trusted monitors with them when they worked in different control rooms -- which meant they had to be compact!

... but walking into a studio and hearing a pair of these..... Is still a hair raising and inspiring experience.

It's got nothing on a set of Kinoshita monitors in a Tom Hidley 10Hz control room.... :D

Yes, that's one way of looking at it, but there are engineers and musicians who still don't believe in a reference point, and like working in "rooms with character" I'm not sure about the whole concept of a "correct room" even in classical music you have to make the jump from recording space, to control room, which are never going to match. I can't really comment anymore, as I've never ever worked in what would be called a treated or correct room, at home or on location. As long as a regording isn't way off the mark and sounds really weird and not how you wanted, that's how I judge my recordings on different systems.
A friend went into a number of different top London studios with a recorder and a good mic, when we played them back they all sounded radically different, and some didn't sound much different to a few domestic hI-fi's we recorded. So which one was "right"?

[Hugh Robjohns]

A friend went into a number of different top London studios with a recorder and a good mic, when we played them back they all sounded radically different...

I remember Mike doing that and we discussed it at the time. It was a very flawed and entirely pointless experiment...

H

[Kevin Nolan]

I actually use my 4412's as Near-field monitors :-)

They are wall mounted (but about a foot out from the wall and not in corners) - in a non acoustically treated room (but with so much suff in itas to at least partially scatter and absorb acoustically).

I play them at moderate levels through an excellent Yamaha studio amp (can't remember which one but at the time it came highly recommended) - and in this environment I feel completely immersed in the 4412 near field. It's an extraordinary feeling.

I am confident there are a hundred things I'm doing technically wrong - but - the sound balance, character, detail, and stereo field all feel totally exquisite to me - and anything I've mixed on them has been balanced across various replay systems, at home, in theatres, and so on.

[Arpangel]

A friend went into a number of different top London studios with a recorder and a good mic, when we played them back they all sounded radically different...

I remember Mike doing that and we discussed it at the time. It was a very flawed and entirely pointless experiment...

H

But they did sound different!
A lot of what Mike and myself did was totally pointless, he'd be the first to admit, but it was fun!

[Hugh Robjohns]

But they did sound different!

Yes, they did. But that wasn't surprising. Different sized and different shaped control rooms with different speakers in different places, different numbers and placement of other listeners in the room and, although the binaural mic array stayed reasonably consistent, the mic was always in different places...

I realise what Mike was trying to do, and it was an interesting idea, but even if the mic had always been placed in the ideal engineer's listening position, and the speakers aligned for a perfectly flat response at that position, every room would still have sounded different on the recordings because they were different!

A lot of what Mike and myself did was totally pointless, he'd be the first to admit, but it was fun!

Absolutely! They don't make them like that any more. I always enjoyed talking with him and seeing and hearing his creations -- both electronic and acoustic.

[Arpangel]

But they did sound different!

Yes, they did. But that wasn't surprising. Different sized and different shaped control rooms with different speakers in different places, different numbers and placement of other listeners in the room and, although the binaural mic array stayed reasonably consistent, the mic was always in different places...

I realise what Mike was trying to do, and it was an interesting idea, but even if the mic had always been placed in the ideal engineer's listening position, and the speakers aligned for a perfectly flat response at that position, every room would still have sounded different on the recordings because they were different!

A lot of what Mike and myself did was totally pointless, he'd be the first to admit, but it was fun!

Absolutely! They don't make them like that any more. I always enjoyed talking with him and seeing and hearing his creations -- both electronic and acoustic.

Ha Ha! Yes, I miss him, as you say, they don't make them like that anymore.