Recording engineers preferred direct-sound fields partly to mask poor monitor loudspeakers.

Evidence

There are several reasons why recording engineers might wish to be in a predominantly direct sound field. They obviously need to be able to hear the results of their manipulations, including hearing the acoustics of the recording venue with minimal distraction by the acoustics of the listening space. This is part of the artistic creative process. Low reverberation times, absorbing or deflecting early reflections and near-field monitoring all contributed positively to achieving this condition. Not discussed is the embarrassing fact that several of the very popular large monitor loudspeakers had such poor, colored, off-axis performance that it was best not to be heard at all. Several are shown in the following sections. Sound quality was improved by absorbing these corrupted sounds, reducing the sound field to dominantly direct sound. There were multiple motivations for controlling reflections. — Toole, Floyd E, Sound reproduction- the acoustics and…, 339

Categorization

• SEED: An article angle: the history of monitoring practice in recording studios — how technical dogma (near-field monitoring, dead rooms) may have been partly rationalized bad hardware. Engineering culture can adopt practices for reasons no one admits at the time.
• XREF: Connects to ‘Grafting & Growth’ only loosely; better connects to the general theme that technical standards often encode contingent historical accidents — similar to how Milgrom’s law-merchant institutions encoded particular constraints.