K. Margaritis 3/28/23 K. Margaritis 3/28/23

Crafting Your Sound: Shaping Classical Guitar Recordings with EQ

Part I - High-pass, Low-Pass Filtering and Shelving EQ

Many guitarists - and I plead guilty - spend a lot of money on new equipment to improve the sound of their recordings. I'm not suggesting that decent equipment isn't helpful, but the truth is that it's certainly easier to buy new stuff than to learn how to make the most of what you already have. In this article, I'm going to focus on a cheaper and more effective way to improve the sound of your classical guitar recordings: EQ.

Equalization is a powerful tool that allows you to boost or cut specific frequencies in your recording, which can drastically change its overall tone and character. Mastering EQ can help you create recordings that bring out the unique qualities of your guitar and playing technique. Instead of constantly buying new equipment, invest in experiences that enrich your musical journey, such as attending concerts or workshops.

Disclaimer: No two Classical Guitars are the same

One of the beautiful things about classical guitars is that each instrument has a unique voice. No two classical guitars are the same, therefore it's essential to choose an instrument that complements your playing style and taste. Besides, different genres require distinct guitars to sound authentic. Take the time to experiment with a diverse range of guitars and find the one that feels and sounds right for you, as, without doubt, it will have the most significant impact on the final result of your recordings - after the guitarist. Likewise, every recording space is unique. Your room will impose its character on the recording, so before even pressing the record button, make sure that your guitar sounds the way you want in your room.

Disclaimer: No one-size-fits-all

While it's helpful to learn from other guitarists and recordings, it's unlikely that you'll get the same results by blindly copying EQ settings or microphone techniques. Instead, it's crucial to develop the ability to identify what EQ is doing to the sound and use that knowledge to shape the recording to your liking. This means listening closely, experimenting, and learning to trust your ears. As you become more familiar with how different frequencies interact, you'll be better equipped to make informed EQ decisions that complement your music.

Also, take a look at the Best Studio Monitors for Classical Guitar guide, as they are essential to make reliable decisions regarding EQ.

Everything should work in tandem

Having a clear artistic vision is essential when using EQ. For example, if you're aiming for an intimate sound, you'll want to choose a microphone placement and EQ settings that complement each other to create a warm and cosy tone. In this case, you may want to experiment with mic placement options that bring the microphones closer to the guitar and EQ settings that emphasize the low-mid and mid-range frequencies. Microphone choice is also critical, as overly analytical microphones or ones designed for free-field use would capture too much detail.

On the other hand, if you're going for a concert hall experience, you'll want to experiment with microphone placement and EQ that gives the audience perspective and create a sense of space and depth. In this instance, you may want to use a pair of microphones further away or employ multiple microphones to capture different aspects of the guitar's response. Then, use complimentary EQ to shape the sound as though your guitar was captured in a larger space.

To get some inspiration take a look at the Three-Microphone Setup for Recording the Classical Guitar.

Using High- and Low-Pass Filters

High-pass and low-pass filters should be the first things you apply, even before you make any other decision on how you want to EQ your recording. Ideally, if your preamp or microphone has a high-pass filter, you should engage it. A gentle roll-off of low and high frequencies will remove unwanted sounds and give you a cleaner recording. Additionally, you will be able to make more informed EQ decisions. In some occasions, no further equalisation is necessary to achieve a well-balanced recording.

For classical guitar, I always start with a mild high-pass filter at about 60Hz (-6dB/Oct) and a low-pass filter at about 18KHz (-6dB/Oct), and then I work from that. You may need to apply sharper high-pass filter settings if your room isn't as quiet and noises such as street rumble creep into your recording. You could either adjust your settings to a higher frequency, use a -12dB/Oct slope, or try both). Similarly, to eliminate some of the finger-moving sounds or chair squeaks, you might need to set a lower low-pass frequency and a sharper slope.

Make sure to find a balance between removing unwanted frequencies and preserving the natural character of the recording. Overuse of these filters can lead to an unnatural, thin sound.

Shelving EQ

Shelving EQ allows us to adjust the amplitude of all frequencies above or below a certain point and is another extremely effective tool in our EQ toolkit. It can be useful for creating a more balanced sound or giving a subtle shape to the recording.

For example, if you find that the low end of your recording is overpowering, you can use a low-shelf filter to reduce the amplitude of all frequencies below a certain cutoff point (usually around 200-250Hz) a couple of dB. Thus, effectively reducing low-end boominess. Conversely, if your recording sounds somewhat thin, a low-shelf filter boost of a couple of dB at around 125Hz should rectify that.

Furthermore, if your recording sounds too bright or harsh, you can cut frequencies above about 3.5 kHz by a few dB with a high-shelf filter. Or boost all frequencies above 8-10Khz if the recording lucks brilliance and air. Be especially careful when boosting high frequencies, because they can expose the poor sound of your room or your playing.

Tip - And while most guitarists don't really like boosing the high-end as this might emphasize mechanical sounds, I find that a subtle boost of frequencies above 2,5KHz in combination with a bit more potent cut of frequencies below 250Hz, under the right circumstances, result in a very classy sound. Provided the recording isn't too sharp or harsh and the playing is short of non-musical sounds.

My Secret Weapon: The FabFilter Pro-Q3

One of my favourite plugins for classical guitar recordings is the FabFilter Pro-Q3. Admittedly, not much of a secret if you have been here for a while (read the Three Most Essential Plugins for the Classical Guitar) . The Pro-Q3 offers precise control over the frequency spectrum with a range of filter types and is easy to fine-tune via the graphical interface.

To make my life easier, I have created a set of custom presets that I use as a starting point for different recording scenarios. These presets are designed specifically for classical guitar and can save me a lot of time when mixing. My custom presets pack “EQ Essentials” is available in the CGT store, so if you also have the FabFilter Pro-Q3, you could use my presets in your workflow. But it's important to remember that there is no one-size-fits-all solution and that you'll need to adjust them for your recordings.

Final thoughts

In conclusion, EQ is an essential and powerful tool for creating professional-quality classical guitar recordings. However, it's important to remember that EQ is just one part of the recording production. Don't underestimate the quality of your recording space and microphone placement. Keep in your mind, creating great recordings is a journey. With practice and patience, these guidelines can help you enhance the sound of your recordings and capture the beauty and nuance of the classical guitar.

In part II of this series, we will delve deeper into the use of Parametric EQ to further enhance your recordings. Parametric EQ offers even more precise control over frequency adjustments, allowing you to zero in on problematic frequencies and carve out a more refined sound. We'll discuss how to identify and address problem areas in your recordings and provide tips for using the parametric EQ to shape the sound of your guitar. And finally, in part III, we will explore some of the more advanced settings of FabFilter Pro-Q3. Stay tuned!

K. Margaritis 12/29/22 K. Margaritis 12/29/22

Best Reverb Plugin for Classical Guitar

Classical guitar performance is meant to be experienced in a natural space; the player, the guitar, the room, and the audience summon an ensemble and create a unique contract. As recordists, we aspire to capture such magical moments, but we don't always have the luxury to operate in fantastic-sounding spaces. As producers, we sometimes record in our homes or bland-sounding studios, in such occasions, the use of artificial reverb is unavoidable.

For a decade or so, I've been a happy user of 2CAudio's reverb plugins, Breeze at first and then Aether, as you can read in my post for the Three Essential Plugins for Classical Guitar. However, I recently got a MacBook Air M2 (review coming soon), and these plugins are not yet compatible with Apple's processors. Thus, although I'm still pretty satisfied with the results I got from both Aether and Breeze, I have to find their replacement.

Note: As I learned after starting this test, Logic can run x86-x64 plugins natively and without having to setup Rosetta. Possibly with a hit on the CPU, but this should only become appartent on more heavy projects that solo classical guitar recordings. This fact make the need to find new plugins a but less imminent.

After an initial market research, I downloaded trial versions of all plugins that caught my eye and are compatible with apple's silicon. Testing software with so many variables can be intensive, therefore I spent enough time with each plugin to understand its interface and try to make it work for my taste and needs.

The reverbs I tested this time:

Neunaber WET Reverberator
Strymon BigSky
Universal Audio Lexicon 224 Digital Reverb (Spark Native)
Universal Audio Pure Plate Reverb (Spark Native)
FLUX IRCAM Verb v3
Apple Chromaverb
RELAB RX480
RELAB RX480 Essentials
FabFilter Pro-R FLUX IRCAM Verb v3
LiquidSonics Seventh Heaven
TC Electronic VSS4 HD Native (Non-compatible with Apple ARM Processors)
2CAudio Aether (Non-compatible with Apple ARM Processors)
2CAudio Breeze2 (Non-compatible with Apple ARM Processors)

My final assessment of the usefulness of these plugins is asserted not only on sound quality, ιntuitiveness and adjustability play a minor but meaningful role.

My least favourite reverb plugins

No matter how much I tried, I couldn't make the Neunaber WET Reverberator Plugin sound decent enough for my uses. I wanted to like the sound, as the WET pedal, that the algorithm originates, is quite popular among electric and flamenco guitarists. In all settings, there is always some chorusing on the reverb tail that I couldn't remove, and the space doesn't sound realistic, natural or with a desirable sound signature.

The price of the WET Reverberator Plugin is reasonable, but considering that there are a few plugins at a similar price (especially during sales), besides the decent sounding free plugins included with most major DAWs, I cannot recomended it even for those on a tight budget.

Another plugin ported recently from a pedal with an almost cult-like following is the Strymon BigSky Plugin. I was looking forward to testing it, however the experience was underwhelming. Not only the sound quality of the Room, Plate and Hall algorithms was not on par with the other reverbs of my test, but the tweakability was also pretty limited. Perhaps the other algorithms included could justify the high praise and price, but for classical guitar, the sounds were not convincing enough. Thus, another hard pass unless you are looking for shimmer reverbs for your classical guitar.

The last of the three not-good-enough reverb plugins is Apple’s ChromaVerb, which is included in Logic's vast plugin collection. The UI is much more intuitive than the "pedal" plugins, and getting a usable sound was not that hard. As expected, the ambience created by the ChromaVerb pales in comparison to the most sophisticated reverbs of the test; it lacks finesse and sounds more like an effect than a realistic space. But given that this is a free option, the results were better than expected.

The good but not-for-me

Another plugin that seems to be loved by many producers is the LiquidSonics Seventh Heaven. LiquidSonics claims to reproduce the algorithms of the acclaimed Bricasti M7. I have never used the M7 in person, so I cannot confirm or deny this. What I can back up is that the Seventh Heaven has a rich and refined sound, and I can see why it is so popular. The interface is pretty modern and intuitive, I was able to get a sound I liked right away. After comparing it to some of the other plugins though, I concluded that it sounds a bit too polished and generic for my taste. It is worth noting that the Seventh Heaven is the only convolution-based reverb of the test.

Moving on, a reverb plugin that will satisfy those who want extreme control over how the space sounds is the FLUX IRCAM Verb v3. The Verb v3 creates the most realistic-sounding room recreation of the bunch, and could be perfect for film production or other uses that realism and accuracy are desired. In addition, the control the UI provides is pretty phenomenal. I needed some time to get to know how every parameter affects the sound, but after a while, the somewhat uncommon layout made total sense, and I was pleased by how much control the Flux plugin offers. Soundwise, the IRCAM reverb lucks a bit of musicality and elegance for solo classical instruments.

A utility reverb plugin

One of my favourite plugin developers is FabFilter. I really like how powerful their various plugins are, love the clean and pristine sound quality, and appreciate the modern and intuitive UI. I own their Mastering bundle and use it almost every day.

I downloaded the trial version of the Pro-R when it was released a few years ago and did enjoy the user interface and sound, but not enough to change the 2CAudio reverbs I have been using almost forever. This time, I got to play more with the Pro-R and even used it in the production of my latest release: 'Will Have Been'. It is a very intuitive and capable reverb plugin, not my favourite sounding of the bunch but very useful and easy to use. So, I'm debating getting it now or waiting for a sale, but FabFilter's Pro-R will definitely find its place in my collection.

Rent or own

A reverb plugin I was happy to see released in native format - without requiring the expensive dongle that is called Apollo - is Universal Audio's Lexicon 224 Digital Reverb. Universal Audio has the resources to create some great plugins, but some of the hype comes from the fact that they were only available through their DSP-powered interfaces. That was perhaps necessary a decade ago, but computers today are so powerful that this business model makes little to no sense. With the release of Spark Native, Universal Audio seems to have realised that.

The Universal Audio Lexicon 224 Digital Reverb sounds musical and manages not to get in a way. Besides, lots of attention has been given on the UI, which looks beautiful but is a bit limited. The Pure Plate reverb sounded perhaps even more musical, albeit less natural for solo classical guitar.

I liked both reverbs from Universal Audio, but if there is one thing I hate more than USB dongles is the subscription model for software - an argument against using Adobe apps as well. Now, $149,99 a year for all the Spark Native plugins is not so bad. But, considering that I don't have any use for any of the other plugins, I decided to cancel my subscription at the end of the trial period and reevaluate later.

Early reflection goodness

When I first got into recording, personal computers were not powerful enough, and native plugin offerings were pretty limited. For that, I used to own a TC Electronic Powercore unit and loved the TC VSS4 algorithm. The Powercore was much of a hustle later on for me to keep using it, and native plugins became capable enough, so I parted ways with it. TC Electronic released the VSS4 HD Native plugin, and although it is not compatible with apple silicon yet, including it in the comparisons can only be constructive.

The VSS4 HD sounds pristine and lush, with some of the most realistic early reflections. It makes any recording sound somewhat more three-dimensional. Oher algorithms may sound more pleasing for longer reverbs, but the VSS4 HD is hard to beat for short realistic reverbs.

Vintage vibes

One of the best-sounding reverbs of the bunch is the RELAB RX480 Dual-Engine V4. It is supposed to be sample-accurate dual engine recreation of the legendary Lexicon 480L. I cannot confirm or deny the claim as I never had the pleasure to listen one in person. The RX480 is truly stunning with its plush, thick sound. A more modern UI could make the RX480 more straightfoward, as the LARC-type graphic control would make more sense to those with experience with the original Lexicon units, but I could live with that. It is much more impreesive than the UAD 224 Reverb and sounds more pleasing to my ears. The Random Hall algorithm especially is impeccable.

Moreover, RELAB has a lighter version, the RX480 Essentials, which packs the same basic 480L sound with a less overwhelming UI and at a burgain price for what you get.

The familiar

I purchased the 2CAudio Breeze several years ago, then moved on to the Aether. I'm using both plugins it tandem sometimes; the Breeze for a more natural space and Aether for a thicker sound. Both plugins are exceptional, with first-rate sound quality and offer plenty of control. I was so pleased with this combination that I stopped looking for other reverbs. I somehow also missed trying the Breeze2 when it got released.

As it is obvious, I'm used to the sound of these plugins. I downloaded a trial version of Breeze2 to conclude this comparison. Both 2CAudio plugins sound admirable, with the Aether being the most versatile, especially for those who are also into sound design. But I was particularly surprised by the Breeze2. The placement of the solo classical guitar in space is very realistic and offers lots of depth. The Breeze2 sounds lush without sounding as much as an effect or too sterile as some of the other plugins.

Although it is not yet compatible with the Apple ARM chips, and perhaps there never will be. Given that I already had the first version, the update to the Breeze2 was inexpensive for me, so I didn't give a second though. Unfortunatelly, due a dispute at 2CAudio, the future of the company is currently uncertain. So, I cannot recommend either one, at least for now.

Some thoughts on convolution reverb

I've tried convolution reverbs in the past and had determined that they don't work for me, but I thought that this time might be different perhaps. In addition to Apple's Space Designer, I downloaded the Inspired Acoustics Inspirata Silver and HOFA IQ Reverb v2. As much as I wanted to like them, I never got them to blend well with the dry tone. Admittingly, impulse respneses sound very natural and realistic, but It always sounds like a cross-fade of room ambience and classical guitar layers than an instrument in a room. Furthermore, the IRs tend to get a bit weird whenever I am pushing them. I understand that the results rely on the specific IRs, but I get satisfying results with algorithmic reverbs to investigate convolution reverbs further at this time.

Conclusions

If who don't have a problem with subscriptions and might have uses for the other UAD plugins, the Spark Native is hard to beat. For a versatile reverb with a clean but superb sound, the FabFilter Pro-R ticks all the boxes. Lastly, for vintagey charachter and thicker reverbs, the RELAB plugins are outstanding.

For me, the Breeze2 will replace the original Breeze for realistic but musical sounding spaces, and the LX480 will replace the Aether for characterful reverbs. And, I’ll keep an open spot for the FabFilter Pro-R.

K. Margaritis 8/7/21 K. Margaritis 8/7/21

Focal Clear MG Professional from the perspective of a Classical musician

Focal is a household name in the audio world, renowned among professionals and amateurs, besides hi-fi and car audio enthusiasts. With over 40 years of history, it is safe to say that they know speakers. Headphones is a relatively recent endeavour for them, but with the introduction of the open-back Utopia some five years ago, Focal shook the industry. Soon after, Elear and Clear follow at more budget-friendly prices.

After four years from the release of the original Clear's, and many developments at their closed-back headphone arsenal, Focal employs all recent innovations and research with a sole objective. The aim is to improve the mid-priced open-back design and assure the purest listening experience at home and the studio.

My usual complaint about headphones is that most are made to either sound too analytical (read bright) or too fun. Either way, the result is an unnatural reproduction; instruments tend to sound false. Whilst I understand the uses of the analytical headphone in the recording environment or the fun element for those who prefer a more produced sound. As a classical guitarist, I'm used to hearing real instruments in the wild, and unfortunately, only a few headphones succeed in replicating them in an honest but exciting way.

In addition, a seamless transition between my monitors and headphones is far more productive in my workflow, along with keeping me sane with tonal decisions. Focal, being first a speaker manufacturer, approached headphones from that perspective. A choice that I appreciate and fully endorse.

The original Clear has been warmly received by producers and audiophiles as it strikes a fine balance of clarity, dynamics and realism. The question is what the new MG version can improve on to be worth the extra money.

Presentation

The box might say "professional" on it, but Focal, having one of its feet in the HiFi world, has learned a few tricks about presentation.

The Clear MG Professional come in a minimalistic black box that feels almost as expensive as some headphones from other manufacturers. Upon opening, a hardshell case covered in some kind of reddish fabric emerges. A (too?) tight zipper allows it to open flat; the headphone is sitting comfortably and safely inside the moulded cavity. There is a bit of extra room for the short and relatively stiff but high-quality cable. I love keeping my equipment secure, especially when travelling, and the provided case is one of the best I've seen. Also, everything smells like expensive french cologne.

Furthermore, a rectangular presentation case holds the extra earpads and the additional coiled cable. I tried to use the coiled cable when I first got the Clear MG about three months ago because I wanted a longer reach for my setup, but it is utterly unusable; heavy, bulky, junky. A second straight but longer or a much less weighty coiled cable would have been much prefered.

At 1.2m the straight cable is quite short for most uses.

With the included cables ranging from inoperable to awkward, I wish that Focal (and other headphone manufacturers) would give us the option to purchase just the headphone and case, without any extras, for a couple hundred less. I know they won't, but I hate to own (and pay for) things that I'll never use.

Are you professional enough?

Similarly to the original, there are two versions of the same headphone; the Clear MG and the Clear MG Professional. According to Focal, there should be no real difference between the two versions other than the aesthetics and included accessories. I bought the MG Professional because I have more use for an additional pair of earpads. I also prefer the subdued red on black aesthetics to the more luxury-looking copper version. Either version is gorgeous, no question.

Elegant honeycomb pattern on the earcups.

Looks and feel

As mentioned the headphone looks stunning. The redesigned grille with the honeycomb pattern, soft genuine leather on the headband and plush matching microfiber cushions for the ears and lower part of the headband make the Clear MG one of the best-looking headphones on the market today.

The headband with perforated microfiber cloth ensures ample wearing comfort.

Apart from the aesthetics, the Clear MG is also extremely well-built. With all metal parts, everything feels solid and premium. The plugs fit snug and with a very satisfying "click". The spring-loaded mechanism on the earcups ensures ample comfort and seal. The perforated earpads also feel very smooth and comfortable, maybe not as luxurious as real leather ones, but they breathe more. There is enough space for medium ears, but people with large ears might find them a bit tight overall.

Although the headphone is quite heavy at around 450g, the weight distribution is such that the Clear MG don't tire me even after hours of listening or mixing.

Listening and comparisons

Build quality, looks and comfort are vital, but what good is a €1500 headphone if it doesn't sound incredible?

While other headphones, like the Sennheiser HD800 or Beyerdynamic T1 series, seduce the listener with a big stage presentation and ample highs, Focal takes the total opposite approach. The Clear MG prioritises realism, tonality, dynamics and intimacy while remaining detailed and transparent. The result is the most realistic listening experience headphones can offer; finely recorded instruments sound as they do in real life.

The high-end sits where it should be for music listening and production. The Clear MG doesn't emphasise recording artefacts or noise like the Beyerdynamic DT1990/880 but doesn't hide anything either. It delivers highs in a more or less unopinionated way. I find the high-end emphasis of the Beyer's to be welcome during some stages of music production, especially early on, and don't plan on selling them. But, I honestly enjoy the balance and purity of the Focal much more.

The headphone sits comfortably inside the carrying case.

There is a lot of misconception about detail retrieval and the typical high-end boost in headphones and speakers. Many people are used to a V- or U-shaped sound, which can be impressive but inaccurate. With acoustic instruments, most things happen in the middle frequencies. If those are not presented honestly, the timbre of instruments suffers. The original Clear's had a slight bit of pointy mids, which forced me to return them eventually. Focal solved that issue with the Clear MG's as mids are phenomenal here; low-mids sound full and defined, and high-mids offer excess detail. Music sounds real.

Lows are also exceptional. Keep in mind that I don't listen to bass-heavy music, but with solo instruments, orchestral music or even jazz ensembles, the low end is much fuller than what you expect from an open-back headphone. It provides essential support but never overwhelms. Not unless the music is poorly mixed.

Although I mainly use monitors (Focal and Geithain) for tonal decisions, this is the first time I can be confident to mix with headphones when travelling or setting up microphones on location. Also, switching between monitors and headphones doesn't make me schizophrenic.

Honeycomb grill inside the earcups as well.

Criticism

There is only one somewhat negative thing I can say about the frequency balance of the Clear MG, and this only applies to music listening. They can be slightly forgiving on the high-end, but if mids or lows are not captured or mixed masterfully, the Focal's will shout out the problems.

The extremely low distortion of the Clear MG reveals compression and muddiness almost to a fault. Incorrectly positioned spot microphones on orchestras were also easy to identify effortlessly. On the other hand, great recordings can sound extraordinary and with such purity that brings tears to the eyes.

Non-fatiguing

With extra-long listening evening sessions during the Covid madness, it became apparent that not only the Clear MG are very comfortable for lengthy sessions but also practically fatigue-free. The even tonality and low distortion don't tire my ears in a way that other more shouty headphones or speakers do.

A clear keeper

The Focal Clear MG is a wonderfully designed headphone with striking resolution and depth; string and wind instruments, guitars, pianos, and singers sound rather spectacular. If I close my eyes, the playback medium disappears, as if I sit next to the performers. That's the greatest compliment I can give to any headphone.

Now, I only need to find a nice aftermarket cable, any suggestions?

K. Margaritis 4/21/21 K. Margaritis 4/21/21

Neumann KH 80 DSP Studio Monitors Review - I'm not thrilled!

Neumann is arguably one of the most influential microphone makers, responsible for numerous classic microphones that have captured some of the most historic performances; Neumann has defined our perception of how great recordings sound and represents the highest class of musical production.

During the last decade or so, things have gradually been changing at the Berlin headquarters. At first with the introduction of more affordable microphones, like the TLM 102 that brought the famous Neumann badge to the home studio, and more recently with microphone preamps, studio headphones and monitors. Neumann aims to cover every need of the recording studio.

Active Studio Monitors

The KH 80 DPS Studio monitor borrows from the design of its bigger sibling, the KH 120, which itself is based on the Klein + Hummel O 110. Apart from the size difference, the KH 80 is made of plastic instead of aluminium to be more portable, but also cheaper to make. Furthermore, DPS is utilised to achieve a flatter frequency response, with finer phase response, and a sophisticated room correction algorithm.

The small Neumann monitor has been warmly received by home and professional engineers alike, many also claim that it is even better than the KH 120 for midrange detail retrieval. Most reviews I could find were very positive, similarly to my experience with the KH 120 and KH 310. Therefore, I was looking forward to trying a pair of KH 80's in my room. Is time for me to buy a new pair of small monitors?

Handling

The KH 80 DSP arrived tightly packed. They are smaller and much lighter than you might expect. Unfortunately, their plasticky build, the thin mains cable with the flimsy plug and the ultra-tight space on the back for the XLR cable don't give the best first impressions. It seems that Neumanneiser cut some corners here, but hopefully, the sound will make me forget these weaknesses.

The space for the connectors is limited; I guess it is a plus for very tight spaces.

As soon as you power on the Monitors, the Neumann badge in the front illuminates in red for a few seconds and then turns to white when they are ready for use. The curvy housing is finished in matt sparkly grey; the black woofer, and the tweeter with its substantial waveguides look pretty cool, I have to admit.

Apart from these nice touches, the KH 80 feel more like an oversized computer speaker than a serious studio monitor. I can see the appeal of compactness and lightness for those who seek a good sounding but portable monitor for location recordings, but for the price, I am a bit underwhelmed.

So, how do the KH 80 Studio Monitors sound?

I had the monitors for almost two months, I used them in different productions, as well as regular listening sessions of a variety of (mainly classical) music. I got familiar enough with the KH 80 to be confident with they sound, but I'm a bit baffled with them.

Don't get me wrong, it is a decent sounding monitor. The greatest feat of Neumann is how tight and defined they managed to get the low end for such a tiny monitor. Bass and low mids provide enough depth, greater than what the size suggests, and good enough accuracy.

The rest of the range is less inspiring though. The midrange has a somewhat boxy quality to it; guitars, in particular, tend to sound harsher than with other systems. It is revealing enough, but If you get the mid frequencies to sound right on the KH 80, they will end up sounding too polite in general.

I was expecting a more revealing presentation on the top end, but higher-mids and highs here sound slightly more laid back than I wished. I like that the KH 80 is a non-fatiguing and relaxed monitor, but it won't display otherwise obvious problematic audio artefacts.

The imaging of the KH 80 is very good for the price and offers plenty of localization from left to right, as well as useful front to back information. Reverbs sound realistic and are it is easy to hear what the different settings affect.

All in all, I could make the KH 80's work for me, but I was not sad when I returned them.

Auto stand-why?

One of the seemingly trivial things that annoyed me with the KH 80's is the auto-standby feature, or rather, the performance of it. The monitors would automatically go on standby after about 90 minutes of inactivity. Then, by running through a relatively loud signal, the monitors would wake up, and after a few seconds, they would be ready for use.

On paper, this is fantastic as it would mean that I have one less thing to worry about when I leave my desk. The issue is that each monitor has a mind of its own. Sometimes, one monitor would go on standby first, or one monitor would need a louder signal to wake up. The result is that I had to tolerate several times loud music for a few seconds until both monitors were awake.

Besides turning this "feature" off, it is possible to change the time before standby mode but as with the other DSP capabilities of the monitors, their implementation is rather quirky and off-putting that I didn't bother. I cannot understand why in this day of age, Neumann couldn't implement a more intuitive solution. I live in Berlin and every second person here is either an artist or a software developer, it wouldn't have been too hard to find the right people for this. Neumann is a hardware company, and software is an afterthought, but they need to take it more seriously.

Conclusion

Overall, the KH 80 is a decent monitor with some desirable attributes, but I think that Neumann hit slightly off-target with a monitor that is neither analytic nor the most fun. It is rather, dare I say, a bit boring sounding. It is an ultra-compact and light monitor, that sounds as big as it looks. Perhaps that is its strongest achievement, or maybe I was expecting a bit too much from Neumann. For a little more money, the KH 120 is a better and bigger sounding monitor; for considerably less, the Focal Shape 40 is hard to beat for the price.

K. Margaritis 1/16/21 K. Margaritis 1/16/21

Ollo Audio S4X Reference Headphone Review

Ollo Audio is a relatively new headphone company, based in beautiful Slovenia. They are not famous, at least not yet; but, they already managed to create some buzz around their two headphones, a closed and an open back. Both designs promise a natural response, while the open headphone, the S4X, is marketed as reference headphone.

My main complaints about most headphones are that they are either too bass-heavy, too harsh in the highs, or too expensive. Therefore, as soon as I heard about Ollo's ambitions to produce a high-quality, reasonably priced open-back headphone with flat frequency response, I knew I had to try it.

From the edge of the Alps

The S4X comes in a rather minimal box, both in size and appearance. Upon opening, one is treated with a canny slogan: "Save the planet, you can't listen to music in space". Along with the headphone, here is a small black paper pouch that protects the removable cable, and a pleather carrying bag. The presentation is simple and imparts a handcrafted feeling.

There is also a black envelope that encompasses various documents. Besides a manual, there is a printed frequency response measurement and a hand-signed certificate of authenticity. Neat touches. Lastly, a caution notice alerts us not to press hard the headphones on flat surfaces, to avoid distorting the membrane of the speakers.

Manufacturing and comfort

Ollo Audio S4X - Velvet and Pleather Earpad.JPG

The headphone itself looks quite handsome and feels very well made. Quality materials have been used throughout; wooden earcups, stainless steel grills and headband, along with memory foam earcups. The weight of the S4X is substantial, but the self-adjusting strap in combination with the plush feeling of the earpads, made of a hybrid of velvet and pleather, make them very comfortable to wear for hours.

Although these are over-ear headphones, the earpads are what I consider as medium-sized. They fit my ears snuggly and are deep enough, but there is not much space around. If you have larger ears than average, you will feel them getting squeezed.

Another nice touch is the removable cable that terminates on a dual 2.5mm TRS for the cups, and 3.5mm TRS that connects to the source. A 3,5mm to 6.3mm adapter is included to accommodate any setup. The cable is 2 meters in length, of good quality and light, so it doesn't weight down the headphone. It has cloth braiding until the Y split for extra protection; then divides into two red rubberized cables that connect into each cup to minimize microphonics.

The cups don't have L/R markings; they become left or right speakers depending on which cable-end you connect to them. This interchangeability makes servicing very easy, but since the lettering on the cable is tiny, it gets a bit annoying to look for it every time. A coloured connector would have been preferable, but that's only a small annoyance and is easy to fix.

Reference(s)

When I received the Ollo's about two months ago, I let them burn-in for about 100 hours and have been using them since almost daily. I've been directly comparing them with the Focal Clear Pro, various Beyerdyanamics, and AKG's, along with PSI and Focal studio monitors.

A fantastic headphone for me doesn't have a sound of its own; it gives me an honest presentation and ensures a seamless transition between it and my monitors, regardless if I use headphones for mixing, mastering, or pure enjoyment.

Reality check

I'm happy to report that Ollo's claim for a flat headphone is not just marketing talk.

The S4X has a full response and shows remarkable depth in its presentation; the instruments feel real. The sound is natural with fast transient response. Also, there seems to be an absence of earcup resonances.

Other than the slightly elevated low-end, no frequency stands out. Bass is solid-sounding and has an excellent extension. Mids are delicate and detailed, and highs are smooth and non-fatiguing. The sound is true to the source. Ollo's have a similar to my monitors' response; much more than my other headphones - other than the Focal Clear Pro.

The soundstage is average with an intimate presentation; the Ollo's put the listener on the stage with the musicians. I also get the impression that the S4X are a bit like a semi-open headphone instead of a fully open design. Detail retrieval is above average, but not in the realm of the Focal Clear or Beyer T1.2.

Listening to properly captured classical guitar recordings, the sound is immersive with every detail presented accurately. If there are problems in the recording or performance, the headphone will show it without shouting at you. This makes it both an excellent tool in the studio and an enjoyable listening experience at home.

In use

With an impedance of 32 Ohm, the headphone is easily driven even by mobile devices. It does sound considerably better with my RME ADI-2 Pro FS or the RME Babyface Pro FS.

Their small size makes them also, great for location work; although Germany is on lockdown since November and I didn't have the chance to test them in that application.

A modular approach

Aside from the sound, what's cool about Ollo is the philosophy behind the designs. They allow their customers to service the headphones themselves, if the necessity arises, as every part is easily replaceable at home. To sweeten the deal, even more, they offer a five-year warranty, and the ability to upgrade the headphones with new drivers and other parts.

In other words, Ollo promises a customer experience opposite to that of almost every other headphone (and not only) company.

Complaints

My only gripe with the S4X is the excessive rining of the stainless steel headband. It only occurs when you put them on or touch it for some reason, so in actual use, it is not a problem, It does give a negative impression on an overall very well thought out headphone.

Honestly, I got used to it and it doesn't bother me anymore, but I wish that Ollo would find a replacement or a way to decouple the headband from the driver.

I would also like to see a hardshell case option, as it would offer better protection when travelling.

Conclusions

Ollo's marketing is quite aggressive and bold, but it is probably necessary at this stage as they need to get noticed. Unlike some of the most popular brands which have flooded the market with numerous models, Ollo seems to listen to their customers and refine their designs.

I don't know if the S4X is a brutally honest headphone, like Ollo claims; but it is an accurate and detailed headphone, without being overly analytic.

The refined and natural sound, coupled with excellent craftsmanship, and the fact that there is no middle man to inflate the prices, make it one of the best headphones in their price range and well above.

Visit the Ollo Audio Website

K. Margaritis 9/22/20 K. Margaritis 9/22/20

Beyerdynamic DT 880 Premium Edition 250 Ohm Review

Natural-sounding headphone for professional mixing, mastering, and home listening. Or is it?

I love listening to music on headphones, I think it is the second-best way to immerse oneself into the music, to get isolated from the "world" around. For engineers, producers and home recordists, headphones can also be invaluable tools for analytical listening and be used as a reference for mixing.

This is my first headphone review on the site. Headphone reviews are usually audiophile-centric (whatever that means), but I don't care much about magic dust.

For casual listening and mixing purposes, I would love my headphones to sound as close as possible to my Focal monitors, for a seamless transition. For analytical listening, I want to hear the air around the fingers as they reach for the strings. If you think this a hyperbole, the answer is yes, but you know what I mean.

The question is if the Beyerdynamic DT 880 250 Ohm can fulfil any or both of these roles. Is it analytical, relaxed or neutral?

Incarnations

Beyerdynamic needs no introduction, they are around since the early 1930s and there is some type of DT headphones in every studio around the world. Noteworthy is that all their professional products are still made in Germany.

Introduced in 1980, the DT 880 is a semi-open design, ideal for mixing and mastering according to Beyerdynamic. There are two distinct versions, the Pro for professional use and Premium Edition for home listening. Both sound the same though, with only some minor visual differences. I bought the Premium Edition because I prefer the straight cable (they are also slightly cheaper), but I would like the headband to be removable like on the Pro version.

The Premium Edition comes with a pleather foamed case for transporting, which is extremely bulky so it gets seldom used. The DT 880 rarely leaves my desk anyway. A slightly smaller and more convenient hard-shell nylon case is also available by Beyerdynamic at a reasonable cost.

Manufacturing and comfort

Industrial design with a mix of metal and plastic

The headphone follows the industrial design aesthetic of most Beyerdynamic products. I find the understated blend of black and grey shades very pleasing, and the mix of metal and top-quality plastic makes it very robust. The manufacturing of the DT 880 is impeccable; I have them since the beginning of 2018 and although it has slid from my desk quite a few times, it looks and functions just like the first day.

The DT 880 sits on my head very comfortable; the large velour ear pads and that thick padding on the headband allow for extended listening sessions without ever getting tired. The cable on the other hand is an aberration; it is thick, permanently fitted on one side, and way too long. The quality is decent, but I wish I could swap it with a smaller one as the RME ADI-2 Pro FS is at hands reach from my sitting position.

Listening

Although I believe that the DT 880 are some of the best headphones in their price range and even well above, I have mixed feelings about their performance. I know, that's not what you wanted to read, but let me explain.

The sound is generally neutral, especially the low-end and mids. They reach deep, but the bass is never exaggerated; if anything it can be quite lean for some tastes. The mids are pure and open, every detail is utmostly portrayed. There is a slight emphasis on the low-mids, but it is negligible.

My difficulty in loving the DT 880 is the high-end, which tends to be unnaturally piercing and sharp. Even some luscious and generally dark David Russel recordings can sound dazzling. The enlarged trebles are useful only when I search for undesired sound in my recordings; for any other listening purpose, it only takes out from the beautiful balance of the rest of the range.

The presentation is transparent and wide, the drivers are fast and the delivery dynamic. The biggest strength of the DT 880 comes from its ability to represent the individual frequencies in a disunited manner, detached from each other. This aspect is invaluable for analytical listening, but as a result, the headphones don't let me forget that I'm listening to a recording; the medium never disappears entirely.

Correction required

Beyerdynamic DT 880 and RME ADI-2 Pro FS

The DT 880 can improve dramatically if you are willing to bother with an equalizer. I had to create a custom EQ preset on the RME ADI-2 Pro FS to be able to appreciate them more. Taming the high-end makes the Beyerdynamics more comparable to my monitors. Still, the headphone remains utterly detailed but much more enjoyable than without any equalization applied.

I wonder if Beyerdynamic could fix the treble response on the production model. Maybe they don't want to tweak such a classic design, or possibly they want you to buy the new T1.3, which seems to be the ideal headphone for people without hearing loss.

Ohmage

My version of the DT 880 is the 250 Ohm. Even if there is a reasonable level for my ears (I usually listen to music at relatively low levels) when I use it even though my MacBook's output, the sound improves significantly when I drive it with the ADI-2 Pro FS. A more power-hungry 600 Ohm version is also available, as well as a 32 Ohm version for mobile use. In any case, you won't hear what this headphone is possible to deliver if you don't pair it with a high-quality amplifier and DAC.

Beyerdynamic’s DT 880 vs DT 770 and DT 990

Mini jack and 6.3 mm screw adapter — Mini jack and 6.3 mm screw **adapter**

Beyerdynamic offers three main alternatives at a similar price range, all with unique strengths. From the three, the DT 880 is the most balanced and natural-sounding, admittingly apart from the treble spike. The DT 990 is a fully open design and exceedingly analytic. To be honest, every time I listen to anything with it, I get dizzy with its excessive high-end. Finally, the DT 770 is closed-back and its main use is in the studio during tracking. It blocks external sounds to creep in and vice versa, but it doesn't sound nearly as nice as the DT880.

Conclusion

The Beyerdynamic DT 880 is clean and balanced for the most part, adequate for any professional use. It responds well to EQ, which can make it much more useful; the analytic Beyerdynamic nature is always present though, so it is impossible to get absorbed in the music. Considering its engineering and performance, the DT 880 is pretty affordable and is probably the best headphone at that price range, especially if you are willing to use some form of correction.

By the way, if you are still wondering; the best way for someone to fully appreciate the music is, of course, attending a concert.

K. Margaritis 9/18/20 K. Margaritis 9/18/20

Three Most Essential Plugins for the Classical Guitar

With the seemingly unlimited processing power of modern computers and affordability of recording equipment, it is not hard to make amazing recordings on location or even at our living rooms; and there is no need to wear a white coat to be able to use a microphone anymore.

Abbey Road recording engineers in white coats

This democratisation of music production brought an abundance of plugins; plugins that we can use to shape our music in any shape or form we can imagine. We don't need to buy expensive and bulky hardware equalizers and reverb units anymore.

Albeit the plethora of plugins, I adopt a minimal approach. There are just a few of them that I use every day and consider to be crucial for my workflow. Here are the three most essential plugins for the classical guitar:

Phase Metering with the 2CAudio Vector

The classical guitar is a rich and complex-sounding instrument, and as one, it can only be fully appreciated when recorded in stereo. Most of the stereo microphone techniques require the microphones to be placed at some distance with each other, and the more microphones you use, the easier it gets to face phasing problems.

Phasing occurs when the wave shapes of two or more microphones are not perfectly aligned in the time domain. This attribute is not entirely undesirable; as the sound begins its journey from the plucked strings and the vibrations of the top of the guitar, our notes travel as sound waves towards the microphones and reach them at slightly different times. Combined with additional waves that reflect on the walls and other objects around us, all with small but not insignificant delays, these slight differences help to create the stereo effect that we experience. Not dissimilar to how our ears and brains perceive and interpret the world around us.

When these differences are augmented to a greater degree, phasing occurs and has a noticeable influence on the sound quality of our recordings. Cancellations and comb filtering can potentially strip fundamental frequencies from our recording, leaving the recorded guitar sound thin and weak. Phase problems can be fixed during mixing by aligning the offending tracks, but it's always preferable to take the extra time and correct this when setting up the microphones.

Here is my process. After finding the desired positions of the guitar(ist) and microphones, I make the first test recordings, then I immediately load the 2CAudio Vector plugin to check for any phase issues. If needed, I move one of the microphones a centimetre or two, closer or further away. Possibly, I need to adjust the angle of the microphone(s). I make small changes and repeat as many times as necessary.

Any result higher with than +70 is acceptable, I strive though for an average of +80 or higher.

Additionally to the phase-meter, the 2CAudio Vector displays a visual spatial meter, a long-term average level, and panning meters. It is a very important tool, and, it is free.

Alternatives - for those who are on a Mac and use Logic Pro X, Apple provides a bare essential but usable alternative; the Correlation Meter, found under the Metering group. If free options are not for you, iZotope offers the Insight 2 metering plugin at a substantial price, which offers a lot of additional metering tools that can be handy.

Filtering, Tone Shaping and Surgical Corrections with the FabFilter Pro-Q 3

Learning how to use an equalizer correctly can transform a good recording to a world-class one. Not to say that it can save your wallet from the need of better guitars, microphones and other gear.

A gentle roll-off of the low (below 50Hz) and high frequencies (above 18000Hz) is my starting point. There is not much if any classical guitar information at these ranges and most speakers (for home, or even pro-audio) will attenuate these frequencies. I don't want my recordings to have much information that I cannot hear, anyway.

Tip: I've created a preset with these filters so that I don't have to set them up every time. Better yet, I have created a logic template with my plugins and panning presets that I load any time I start a new session. Small things can make our lives easier and save a lot of time.

Next, I'll try to see if there is any unwanted frequency or resonance that needs to be tamed or even eliminated. I use a wide Q band when boosting frequencies for the smoothest response, and a narrow Q band when cutting to eliminate the offending frequency without affecting nearby elements.

And finally, I might apply a mild high shelf, boost or cut of a couple of dBs, if I find the need to get a crisper or darker sound. If there is too much body or not enough fullness, I apply a mild low shelf cut or boost. A little goes a long way.

To be honest, most of my solo recordings nowadays have a very limited amount of EQ (needless to point out that all the microphone comparisons on this site have no EQ or other processing). I try to get it right before the signal converts to digital, taking a great deal of consideration on the room and microphone technique, and my fingers on the guitar. Yet sometimes this is not possible for various reasons, and learning how to sculpt your sound with an equalizer can be invaluable.

For example, last year I decided to record my classical guitar at a historic monument in Greece, Zalongo. I took my trusty Sony PCM D100 portable recorder with me... on top of the mountain. The high altitude proved to be very challenging, the wind didn't allow for any normal position of the recorder, so it ended up being too low and on the side. When I returned home, I thought that the recording was ruined, but careful equalization saved the day.

My recent series of articles exclusively focuses on how I utilize EQ. If you are interested in gaining more knowledge about it, these articles are a great resource to refer to: Crafting Your Sound: How to shape your classical guitar recordings with EQ

The FabFilter Pro-Q 3 is one of the finest equalizers on the market. The sound is clean and precise, yet with some extra dimensionality and sweetness. The GUI is as intuitive as is breathing, the possibilities offered are virtually endless. Besides, a convenient real-time spectrum analyser to better judge what your EQ choices are affecting is available, as well as other useful tools. It is not cheap, but it is the best!

Alternatives - any modern DAW would have a decent equalizer built-in, basic filtering will be effortless, but more complicated sculpturing will be somewhat limited. Waves Q10 is an affordable equalizer with somewhat similar functionality and interface.

Telling sweet lies with the 2CAudio Aether

Considering that the performance is excellent, the general tone and attributes of the guitar well captured; anything we add at this point is a lie. Adding reverb to a recording is a necessary lie, as nothing will affect the listener more than the physical space that the music takes place.

Contrarily, nothing is more repulsive than a terrible recording trying to hide behind a wash of cheap "church" ambience.

Tip: As reverb tends to smear the sound to a considerable degree, I make most judgments regarding EQ, microphone positioning, etc. without the plugin engaged. I want to have the best possible result, before applying any enhancing effects. I fine-tune my levels, panning and equalizer choices with the reverb later.

Applying reverb needs to be a mindful process. To some extend it is a stylistic choice; what is appropriate for the music, what expressive and dramatic elements we want to convey. According to these questions, I choose an algorithm or preset, a starting point, but the settings need tweaking to fit the overall character of the music.

Room reverb has the power to make a recording feel real and accessible, friendly, like having a guitarist play for you in the same room. A medium or larger hall sound will present the audience with a feeling that they have attended a professional recital; a formal setting. Lastly, larger halls and churches can distance the musician from the audience, maybe even from the instrument itself, granting an elusive and ethereal mystique.

Some audiences might prefer the intimate warmth of the Segovia's recordings, while others find pleasure in the spaciousness of Julian Bream's recordings, yet others might seek a middle ground; not too dry, not too wet. For me, it primarily depends on the actual music.

When fine-tuning the settings, the tempo and rhythms of the piece must be considered; how much space exists between notes, how quick do they change, how dense is the harmony, etc. Faster pieces need shorter reverb tails or they will sound blurry, slower pieces might benefit by longer ambience tails. I fine-tune these parameters on a song to song basis, a few times I might even add automation to the adjustments.

All rooms have a sound, they accentuate and attenuate different frequencies, like employing a catholic EQ. Any decent reverb plugin will offer some adjustability for regulating the response of its algorithms. Most of the time, I tend to tune my reverbs a little darker so that they are not as obvious. Taming the low end can also be desirable to help the recording be a little clearer. At rare cases, I will use two instances of the plugin with different settings on high and low responses.

Tip: The place of the reverb on the signal chain matters, I sometimes like to put the Reverb before the EQ. Hence the general equalization applies to the recorded sound as a whole, almost like shaping a classical guitar tone recorded in a larger room. I avoid any drastic boosts or cuts in that case though.

2CAudio Aether’s intensive list of presets

The 2CAudio Aether is the most expressive and expensive-sounding reverb plugin I have ever witnessed. It is an algorithmic reverb and can sound quite realistic but always musical and impressive. It has excellent room and hall emulations, suitable for classical and acoustic music, still, it can create any ambience sound you can imagine. 2CAudio provides an enormous preset library for the Aether to get you started, and the adjustability is intense. Right now it is on sale.

Alternatives - I started with the 2CAudio Breeze, before migrating to its bigger brother. Breeze offers a similarly excellent sound, at a bare essential and affordable package. It offers less tweakability, but that might be a good thing as the Aether can sometimes overwhelm the inexperienced. Breeze 2 should be even better than the first version I was using. I have also heard good things about the Exponential Audio PhoenixVerb, but have yet to try it.

I’ve recently tested about a dozen different reverb plugins, to find the Best Reverb Plugin for Classical Guitar.

Closing thoughts

I have and sometimes use other plugins as well, but I try to keep an as-small-as-possible armoury. By limiting my plugin choices, I can concentrate on the music. I want to have to take as few unimportant decisions as I need.

If you are on the market for a new EQ or reverb plugin, this article can give you some fine options. But I also hope that this text might inspire you to learn and use what you already have, use your ears to make mindful adjustments, and finally present your music as you intend.

K. Margaritis 5/6/20 K. Margaritis 5/6/20

Apple MacBook Air i7 2020 from the perspective of a Music Producer

The recent introduction of quad-core processors in Apple’s MacBook Air promises greater performance in the familiar form, but is it capable for any professional work?

I have been using my trusty mid-2013 MacBook Air 13 with an i7, 8GB Ram and 256GB SSD since its introduction. Having produced several albums and videos of my music, as well as of colleagues and friends of different complexities in my home studio and on location, this machine has never let me down.

My silver 2013 MacBook Air; no signs of wear after seven years of abuse

After almost seven years of intense use, it has slowly started to show its age. A progressively unreliable battery, the older screen and the greater CPU demands of modern plugins were making the experience less fun.

I was holding on it regardless, mainly because I was not satisfied with some of Apple's decisions in the latest years. Namely, the removal of the MagSafe and the SD card reader, as well as the limited number of USB ports.

Unfortunately, the 2020 MacBook doesn't deal with any of these issues, but Intel’s 10th generation i5 and i7 Quad-Core processors, the possibility to expand the RAM to 16GB, and the impressive Retina display allowed me to let my old computer finally retire.

Windows Alternatives

First of all, let me state that I'm not an Apple fanboy, I'm perfectly happy with my Pixel 3a and several other Android phones before that. But the truth is that no-one else is doing the trackpad as well as Apple. The integration of the touchpad and magic mouse gestures into Logic Pro and Final Cut Pro are an essential part of my workflow, anything else will be a compromise. I also love how stable and efficient MacOS is besides being a low-maintenance operating system. Having dealt with Windows in the past, I can see their advantages, but Apple provides a seamless experience.

The MacBook Pro

The teardrop shape of the Air is ingenious

I have been flirting with the idea of getting the Pro instead, but the form factor of the Air is superior to me. The teardrop shape is more comfortable to type on and for the work that I typically do, and the slightly less weight can be an important factor for travelling and location work. Furthermore, my work primarily involves recording and producing classical guitar or chamber music, writing articles, making scores and editing simple videos. Except for video editing, none of my other activities requires a lot of CPU power. A light, reliable and snappy computer with good battery life and silent operation is all I'm looking for.

2020 Updates

The new Air comes standard with 256GB of fast SSD storage which is enough for me, since I prefer to keep the system drive relatively clean and work off an external SSD, especially with the large video files. Cloud storage for other types of documents allows me to continue working on different machines, and gives me a peace of mind if anything goes wrong. I opted the i7 version for the extra processing power and future-proofing, Intel's 10th generation quad-core processor should be about four times faster than my old computer.

Another welcome addition is the 16GB Ram option which boosts the multitasking capabilities of the MacBook. A typical daily scenario for me is to have a bunch of tabs open at any given time at three different browsers (Safari, Chrome and Brave) as well as having both Logic and Final Cut loaded with my latest project. Sibelius and Affinity Photo may also run in the background, ready for me to use at any moment. I usually leave everything open with loaded projects, and in that case, the more Ram the better.

My old Air has the classic silver finish, a timeless design choice that doesn't easily show any marks. For a change, I decided to get the Space Gray this time. I hope that it will also take some slight abuse gently. Space Gray is gorgeous while being more subdued, with a more homogenous look in the keys, chassis and display. The less obvious aesthetics let the computer disappear, bringing the work in the foreground. The black and much smaller bezels also help.

Retina display delivers greater resolution and colour gamut — *Retina display* delivers greater resolution and colour gamut

The "new" retina display is a delight to watch, with great colour reproduction and breathtaking resolution. Some people find the slightly wider bezels old-fashioned when compare to competitive ultrabooks, but I think that they might have advantages. They allow for enough space to rest your wrists when writing, a big-enough trackpad, front-facing speakers (for the odd time that I might need to use them) and a full-sized keyboard. Speaking of which, I know that there have been countless complaints about the performance and reliability of butterfly keyboards, I'm happy to report that the new magic keyboard is a joy to type on, and considering the reports from the 16" MacBook Pro, it should be without problems.

I was afraid that I wouldn't enjoy as much the clickless nature of the "new" touchpad, counting on my minimal experience with modern MacBooks, but the smooth glass surface and responsiveness of the touchpad is brilliant and took me only a few minutes to forget the old one. Lastly, TouchID is a godsend, with fast and reliable verification, it saves a lot of time from typing long passwords.

Construction and Connectivity

Apple's engineering and manufacturing are second to none, everything feels very robust, with smooth surfaces and polished edges. A beauty to look and touch. Plugging in the charging cable produces a very satisfying sound. The removal of the MagSafe with all the safety and convenience it provides is really hard to understand though, and I wish there was at least one more USB-C port... and an SD Card reader. Well, at least there is still a headphone jack.

I understand that Apple wants to push wireless connectivity, and I appreciate this philosophy. Sending files with AirDrop between my devices is a breeze, as is the integration of Sidecar. But until my mirrorless camera can send large video files with Bluetooth, and my drives, audio interfaces and DACs can work effortlessly via Bluetooth, I’m stuck with a vastly inelegant solution. Just to do be able to use my RME ADI-2 Pro FS for audio I/O, while charging the MacBook, accessing video files on my SD card and working on my external SSD drive - which is what is connected on my MacBook 95% of the time when I'm at my office - I have to rely on a USB hub, which adds to the cost only to create a mess of cables on my desk. On a positive note, if I want to bring my MacBook with me, I need to remove only one cable.

The Wait

At least we still get a headphone output

I have to confess that even though I was confident with my purchase at first, some of the early reviewers that were reporting thermal throttling and other heat issues due to the removal of the heat pipe had me worrying. Recording subtle classical guitar pieces with ultra-sensitive condenser microphones and spinning fans don't go well together. After all, with almost the same money I could buy a 2019 MacBook Pro with 4 USB-C Ports.

I stayed positive the two weeks that took for Apple to send me my MacBook, due to the pandemic and the great demand for the new MacBooks I presume.

When my machine arrived, I set up everything and installed all the necessary software. After a couple of days of making all the preparations, as well as using the MacBook for regular use, I have yet to hear the fan spin hard, if at all. The chassis would sometimes be warm but stay comfortable. A first relief, but I had to wait and see if it would overheat with my regular use.

Performance

An excellent keyboard and a brilliant touchpad

After everything was set, the first thing I did was to record my classical guitar and see if the fan starts spinning, ruining my precious recording. Of course, as expected, it remained silent throughout. I knew that the real test was to see how well it can handle editing and mixing though.

Without quitting any apps, with all three browsers running in the background, with four-five tabs each while five of them being preloaded YouTube videos on Chrome, I started loading plugins on my project. Since, I usually work on my music all day and also use my laptop for other tasks in between, for convenience, I leave everything running.

As I already stated my needs are very specific and not awfully demanding. For music production, I'm usually dealing with only a couple of audio tracks, equipped with FabFilter's Pro-Q3 plugin equalizer and one or more algorithmic reverbs, namely 2CAudio's Aether or Breeze plugins. On the master bus, the usual suspects are the Pro-L2 limiter, along with the 2CAudio Vector spatial image analysis and Youlean loudness meter plugins. If required, I might use a couple of iZotope's noise reduction plugins to remove any unwanted noise.

My seven-year-old MacBook could handle a similar load but the plugins would drain the CPU, sometimes leading to System Overload warnings. Some plugins have also oversampling capabilities, that boost performance with the expense of bigger CPU loads, which would make my MacBook surrender. I would often only run plugins at top quality only for the mixdown.

After loading all the plugins, I started the playback, after a minute or so there was still no sign of fan spun. I started boosting performance on some of the plugins with oversampling, still, the fan was inaudible. Then I decided to push the CPU harder. I went to Safari and loaded a 1080p video on youtube, after a minute of listening to both my guitar track and the random video, the fan was still inaudible. My last test was to reproduce the same experiment with Chrome, and surely after half a minute or so, the fan kicked in, at a low speed. I let the video play for another minute to check if this would make the fan to spin faster, but no luck, the fan was audible but at a very comfortable level. I stopped everything and took an ibuprofen, a headache form all the chaos was started to kick in instead.

System Overload warnings on my 2013 MacBook when pushed hard

I loaded a similar project at my old MacBook and tried to replicate the test. I started the playback on Logic, I tried to push the CPU with moderate oversampling and then I tried to stream a video on Safari, after a couple of seconds, I got a System Overload warning from Logic and the audio stopped so thankfully I didn't have to go through this emetic experience again.

Large projects are not my regular tasks, but I have used the 2013 Air to successfully produce projects with more than thirty audio tracks, with a bunch of plugins on each one, CPU hungry emulations, and virtual instruments. Granted, the fan would sometimes resemble an aeroplane jet, but it was doable and my old MacBook still works like a charm after several years of such abuse. So, I'm positive that the new MacBook Air would not be different in that regard.

Video Editing

Intel’s Iris Plus graphics should make the 2020 Air a charm to work for light video editing. To get an idea on the performance improvements I loaded 1080p footage from my Fuji mirrorless camera. Editing was snappy and with some basic colour grading and a LUT applied, the playback was perfect. The Retina screen is a big improvement over the old display, with much greater colour depth and spectacular resolution. There is much more detail, with better blacks and richer colour reproduction.

On my next video project, I plan to shoot in 4K. This is a demanding job that was absolutely impossible on my old Air, so I'm excited to see how the 2020 Air performs here. Click here to read my experiences with 4K video editing on the 2020 MacBook Air.

A MacBook for the Music Producer on the go

The new MacBook Air offers a perfect balance of performance and portability

Considering the limitations of the form, the MacBook Air is not the most powerful computer, and it was never meant to be. If you like playing games, or your thing is hardcore video editing and music production with 100s of tracks, you have to look elsewhere. The new 2020 Air will appeal to those looking for snappy, reliable performance that will perform moderately heavy tasks with ease and can be everywhere they go.

Apple’s Air line of ultrabooks has totally eliminated for me any need for a conventional desktop computer with a perfect balance of performance and portability