Crown DC 300 Enters TECnology Hall Of Fame

[BMWCCA]

They did have a sense of humor. Recently I was checking out the IC-150A owner's manual to help answer Midlife's questions about auxiliary input and found this gem:

Quickie Tour of the Front Panel Display

AUX 1 and AUX 2: any device which can be connected to the AUX inputs, ie. guitar amp, additional tuner, additional tape recorder, electric razor, etc.

and then they have an entire section detailing examples of Murphy's Law to which they say they do not adhere "hardly ever", such as:

11.7 A fail-safe circuit will destroy others.
11.8 A transistor protected by a fast-acting fuse will protect the fuse by blowing first.

[Bob Womack]

When my company built a new facility toward the end of the '70s, they bought about twenty-two DC300As, along with a pile of DC75s. They served admirably in PAs and other applications through about the year 2000, many running around the clock. I remember throwing PA systems together by rounding up as many 300As as necessary and throwing them in the back of a truck, racked or not. Got an amplification need? Throw a DC300A on it. We rarely had problems (save when a cap can got knocked of or something similar and they were incredibly easy to service. After about sixteen years we began having intermittent problems that couldn't easily be rectified, and began replacing the unstable ones with new QSCs one at a time. By that method, we developed a small stash of "hangar queens" that we scavenged for parts, keeping the others alive. When the active lot became unstable enough that our excellent engineers felt "it was time," they were herded together, de-assetted, and crushed. I wasn't there that day or I would have grabbed a couple out of the jaws of death. The DC-75s lasted longer, but the last went the the crusher a couple of months ago.

Bob

[Bob Womack]

1977 Yamaha NS-10M Speakers

From Yamaha’s consumer hi-fi group, 1977’s most inauspicious audio debut was surely the NS-10M. At the time, no one in pro audio used them, and they didn’t rise to prominence for another five years, when they began replacing Auratones as the most common studio reference speaker. Claiming that it smoothed the monitors’ high frequency response, engineers began hanging tissues over the tweeters, and NS-10Ms so adorned were a common sight during the 1980s

I have read more than once that the Yammys were used mainly because they represented "everymans speaker" - like a lowest common denominator deal- not because they were significantly good.

Many engineers and producers liked them because they felt a product mixed on them translated well to most end-reproduction systems. I took issue with them on two points:
1. I never heard a pair, tissue or no, that wouldn't give me "icepick ears" after a couple of hours.
2. Engineers began forsaking the large monitors entirely and both recording and mixing on them. It became clear that people who worked solely on NS10Ms had NO idea what was going on in the bass because of their limited lower bandwidth. The results were recording with problems below 100hz of either bass buildup or complete absence of bass below there. Those problems often couldn't be resolved when presented at either mastering houses or on film or video mixing stages. I dealt with far to much ugly product that had been both recorded and mixed on them that WASN'T good to be enthused.

Bob

[Bob Womack]

Bob -
wow, someone else who uses that term....takes me back to a WESPAC cruise...we had 2 RA-5C "Vigllante's"....only one ever flew for us, the other was a parts storehouse, when bird1 needed an unobtainable part, bird2 was the perfect donor.

Ahhh, the good 'ole Canoe Club........

My familiarity with the term comes from my years in an Air Force auxiliary and years of studying historical aircraft. The interest came through the blood - my uncle was a Spitfire pilot in WWII. Which was the Navy bird that had its alpha-numerics converted to the nickname "All ____ Dead" because it was one of the last of the Navy jet aircraft without ejection seats? Was it the A-5D?

Thanks for your service.

Bob

[Akira]

2. Engineers began forsaking the large monitors entirely and both recording and mixing on them.

While NS10's became a staple for mixdown, I don't know anyone who used them for bed tracks off the floor...at least in my part of the world.
In this respect the big guys reigned supreme. If you've ever tried to sculpt and shape a kick drum, especially in the glory days of rock, you needed something that could take punishment and reveal the smallest detail. Sculpting involves shaping and 'cone filtering' a frequency range well out of it's normal response. So much so that the selected range reeks havoc on driver excursion--especially on a high velocity low frequency dominated instrument such as a kick. I used to find that when working with even 4311's they couldn't take the beating. A kick would send a wind storm to my face from the port. I burned out two of them just on guitars. When your working off the floor you can use up a lot of SPL that is not necessary on a down mix because you are often wildly manipulating an input source that is so raw an untamed.

Speaking from personal experience, if you mix on large format monitors it sounds fabulous but, often is totally out of perspective when played back on small speakers. If you mixdown on small monitors it often sounds so much better when you blow up the sound on the big guys--the wow factor kicks in.

[BMWCCA]

Speaking from personal experience, if you mix on large format monitors it sounds fabulous but, often is totally out of perspective when played back on small speakers. If you mixdown on small monitors it often sounds so much better when you blow up the sound on the big guys--the wow factor kicks in.

Are you offering another explanation of "fake but fun"?

[Akira]

Are you offering another explanation of "fake but fun"?

Obviously if you can hear a product that sounds great on the small monitors it was created on and even better on monsters, THEN it is very much possible to do the reverse--engineer a fabulous mix on a behemoth that still sounds great on a small guy.

But it's just easier to do the other way around...kind of like mixing on headphones--sounds good to me at the time, but when I play it back the next day on proper monitors I think ??? wtf%*$#!!

There is no fakery on large format monitors but, you certainly can get carried away and it is much easier to fool yourself. I've done mixes where the drums were so loud it impaled you against the back control room wall--you couldn't even look at it. The band thought I was a genius. But, the next day when I played it back on little speakers there were no guts to the sound. That's when you secretly fix it up without the client's knowledge on your own time.

btw: Isn't that why we like these big speakers...I've noticed your no slouch when it comes to size. Dynamic realism--JBL at it's best!

[BMWCCA]

btw: Isn't that why we like these big speakers...I've noticed your no slouch when it comes to size.

Of course, but then I have to suffer through the "engineering" on CDs that were mastered on headphones, small speakers, or in the Mercedes. It makes no sense. Flat should still be flat. Engineering around a response curve, whether it's the monitors', the engineer's ears, or the intended listener's clock radio or ear-buds is a crock. Let the little boxes have a pre-set or selectable compensation. IPods do. So does my laptop. ITunes calls it "small speakers".

Not that any of this is germane to the thread!

[SEAWOLF97]

Are you offering another explanation of "fake but fun"?

even the 4311 and XLR connectors made the list

http://www.mixfoundation.org/hof/04techof.html#18

[Fred Sanford]

Of course, but then I have to suffer through the "engineering" on CDs that were mastered on headphones, small speakers, or in the Mercedes. It makes no sense. Flat should still be flat. Engineering around a response curve, whether it's the monitors', the engineer's ears, or the intended listener's clock radio or ear-buds is a crock. Let the little boxes have a pre-set or selectable compensation. IPods do. So does my laptop. ITunes calls it "small speakers".

Not that any of this is germane to the thread!

I'll lend you a song recorded on a multi-track with a built-in mixer, and you can do multiple mixes using each of your home systems that you're intimately familiar with as monitors. Once you hear how different each of your mixes turns out to be, you'll see (hear) some of the things you're missing with the statements above. You could probably even do multiple mixes on the SAME gear, and they'd come out differently depending on allergies, humidity, whatever.

It ain't just about "flat" frequency response, it's also about dynamics & stereo information & other more elusive aspects. "Flat" is also subject to the volume you're listening/mixing at. It's all about compromise, and the engineer's experience with the gear & volume level they're using as reference. You learn to mix on something (NS-10s, or whatever), and you take note of how changes to what you hear in your reference system translates to how things sound on other systems (big rigs, subs + sats, boom boxes, IPod docks, car stereos). NS-10s just somehow became a standard, so you could walk into an unfamiliar studio & have a known quantity.

I had NS10s & hated them, but I had their cheaper cousin (S8Ms) for years & did pretty well with them. Fatigue was a big issue for me, I couldn't use the NS10s for any long sessions. I've also mixed on sats with a sub, that took some getting used to but I worked it out. The 10" 3-way L110s seem to be the best compromise for me in the end, but I still use a sub sometimes 'cause I know have a tendency to mix bass-heavy without one. I'm liking the freebie RNDigital Inspector, too, for a visual clue while within ProTools.

http://www.rndigitallabs.com/Plug-in...inspector.html

I still use headphones to edit, but not to mix. I do double-check mixes for FX levels & stereo image with 'phones, though.

je

[BMWCCA]

I understand the value of experience and repeatable results. But the statement I was responding to was that a mix created to sound good on small speakers would sound "better" on larger speakers, assuming that "wow" factor is what one would consider "better". Lots of music these days I have to roll off the bottom on my big speakers (or, worse, not play the material at home) but they sound fine in the car! Nearly every John Mayer studio release has that "problem" for me.

We all know there are recordings that don't have this character and many of us refer to those as our favorites!

[Bob Womack]

While NS10's became a staple for mixdown, I don't know anyone who used them for bed tracks off the floor...at least in my part of the world.

Lots o' scoring composers with home studios selected them as their only monitor. Ouch. The usual result was a highly compressed low end with nothing below about 100hz, but occasionally you'd get a lower end with tons of flabby bass guitar, a great kick "click," but no bottom on the kick at all. Thot's a mastering nightmare.

Bob

[DJ Jomix]

Moi j'adore le DC-300A il est super tennace,ses un des meilleur amplis vintage que j,ai eux la chance d'écouté! sa pioche très dure ses SEC et puissant,le seul regret aucune protection intégré à l'amplis,ses dommage car ses un superbe amplis.!

@+

[stephane RAME]

DJ Jomix :
" I love the DC-300A is super tough, one of the best vintage amps I have them the chance to listen! Its very hard pick, the dry and powerful, the only regret no protection built into the amp, such a shame because its a great amp. "

Stéphane

[MikeBrewster77]

Lots of music these days I have to roll off the bottom on my big speakers (or, worse, not play the material at home) but they sound fine in the car!

Just ran into this problem with the new Whitney Houston album (which, is surprisingly good) but very bass heavy. I have the township noise violation ticket to prove it