best way to retain high end?

Dr ZEE said:
"Maybe The reason why early rock was so interesting and rich when comparing with later and modern rock was because early rockers did not have any rockers to learn from." Another words there were no such thing as "rock music" before them, and so they had to and did base their music on their own "non-rock" musical roots and had to and did it their own way.
/respects
I think this is a good way to approach a mix. That mindset will lead to interesting productions. However, if the listening environment is too flawed, the only place the mix will work is the room it was mixed in. The whole point behind any of this is to have the creativity translate to different environments so you can communicate it to other people. Otherwise it's just masturbation. (not that there is anything wrong with that)
 
Farview said:
The whole point behind any of this is to have the creativity translate to different environments so you can communicate it to other people.
And so you create an environment in your mixing room which non of "other people" (people, you are trying to communicate with) have. So who's masturbating?
The key is not in what environment you are mixing in and not in how to build "correct" or "right" environment, but in knowing how what you hear in what ever environment you mixing in translates from yours to various listening envirnments (covering at least! those environments, which you target (by musical genre as example)). In simple terms - producer's experience.
***********
and,citizenkeith, why don't you go back to your imaginary classroom?....
...ok, I gotta walk my dog, get some fresh air ...and you know. ;)

/respects
 
Dr ZEE said:
knowing how what you hear in what ever environment you mixing in translates from yours to various listening envirnments (covering at least! those environments, which you target (by musical genre as example)). In simple terms - producer's experience.
I agree. However, the fastest and easiest way to do that is by mixing in an environment that doesn't lie to you. I've worked in basements, attics, bedrooms, crappy control rooms and great control rooms, I can get the job done anywhere. It's always much easier and faster in a well controlled environment. There is nothing more maddening than having to mix against what you are hearing.

And to your other point about "mixing in a room that no one else has": That's the point, taking the room out of the equation. You don't have my living room and I don't have your car. I am not a big fan of 'smiley face' EQ settings, a lot of other people are. So, you are always mixing in a room no one else has, why make it one that lies to you?
 
Look,

the point Dr. Zee is trying to make is one I can understand. Ethan's site reads like you HAVE to have this stuff. Which isn't true. You don't have to. Apparently Dr. Zee doesn't have to. I don't even have to. But for me in my current room I prefer it. and Zee doesn't. why is there so much bickering on this board about personal preferences??? why don't we just argue about analog vs. digital too?
 
Farview said:
... the fastest and easiest way to do that is by mixing in an environment that doesn't lie to you.
Right. That's the "model". Who would dare argue with this? The logic here is - get as close as possible to the "wire" (mixer's main out), which we often call - "what really IS in the mix" ("truth"-that is :) )....
The "paradox" is - closer you get to the "wire" - farther you are away from "listener's truth".... what your listener hears.
The way I see it: For a recording engineer the "hunted truth" is hiding somewhere between the "wire" (output of the mixer) and listener's ear. Hope this makes sense ;) How does one single engineer catch that "truth" is always personal experience. Every engineer relies on some specific "reference point" (his/her listening environment). Can this "reference point" be standardized? I guess so... that has been done. But the "hunted truth" is still hiding, whether or not the engineer follows the "industry standards".

What's the point? heh heh ;) Why wasting time to blah blah? - good question.
Here's the point, as I see it...
Say, you have a "problem" while mixing, or maybe you think you have a "problem" with your mixes (just what this thread is about :)), which you realize by "analyzing" your mix at the "listener's end" (radio-play, as example). So in such situation, if you change your "engineer's listening environment" you are not going to solve the "problem", but you simply shift your reference point, and you are at the "start" again.
Can a specific change of "engineer's listening environment" help to locate and/or solve potential problems? To me it would have always a question mark. It may - it depends...

/respects
 
FALKEN said:
the point Dr. Zee is trying to make is one I can understand. Ethan's site reads like you HAVE to have this stuff. Which isn't true. You don't have to. Apparently Dr. Zee doesn't have to. I don't even have to. But for me in my current room I prefer it. and Zee doesn't. why is there so much bickering on this board about personal preferences??? why don't we just argue about analog vs. digital too?

Well put. The way I look at it, if you're having trouble now, it's best to take the time and get your room in order. With basement studios and DIY treatments, it's tough to get it "perfect" (note the quotes), but it can certainly take 90% of the guesswork. It'll save you time in the long run.

Good luck!
 
citizenkeith said:
... if you're having trouble now, it's best to take the time and get your room in order. With basement studios and DIY treatments, it's tough to get it "perfect" (note the quotes), but it can certainly take 90% of the guesswork. It'll save you time in the long run.
Good luck!
Hah! For "DO IT RIGHT or Die"-guys the industry never wastes a day. So no worry! Guesswork is for suckers of the past :rolleyes:
First you get "educated" (brainwashed that is) ;), then you get THE PRODUCT YOU MUST HAVE ... (make sure to keep clicking on "click to continue" there :D - it'll show you the "magic" - it's beautiful :p ).
I was not joking, when I was talking about "some day the software will replace the recording engineer". The first phase of the transformation was already passed: engineers-artists/creators were "educated" and at large have been replaced by industry-professionals/career-engineers.

...anyways, it's kind of fun to watch all this happening :rolleyes: :D :rolleyes:

/respects
 
It's called ringing the room. The only thing new about this is that the speaker does it on its own. Normally, you would use a calibrated mic, an RTA, and a graphic EQ and do it yourself.
 
Dr ZEE said:
The first phase of the transformation was already passed: engineers-artists/creators were "educated" and at large have been replaced by industry-professionals/career-engineers.
/respects
You do realize that recording studios were originally owned by record companies and engineers had to belong to the union. (they also had to have a degree in electrical engineering, you know, education) It was the 70's before independent recording studios started to spring up. Even then, the only people who were running these things were the same people that were running the record company owned studios. Even in the 80's, you had to know what you were doing and had to go through a rigorous 'brainwashing' interning for one of these electrical engineers-turned- studio owners.

It wasn't until the mid 90's that everyone who wanted to could open a studio. That's when things started going down hill.
 
Farview said:
It's called ringing the room. The only thing new about this is that the speaker does it on its own. Normally, you would use a calibrated mic, an RTA, and a graphic EQ and do it yourself.

- Normally?!!! You do all this normally?

- Yes, normally.

- Right.
......
Normally I do not expect to hear any exciting new releases (especially from production point). I gave up. Because everything is under control. And because having everything under control is "normalized".

/respects
 
Farview said:
You do realize that recording studios were originally owned by record companies and engineers had to belong to the union. (they also had to have a degree in electrical engineering, you know, education) It was the 70's before independent recording studios started to spring up. Even then, the only people who were running these things were the same people that were running the record company owned studios. Even in the 80's, you had to know what you were doing and had to go through a rigorous 'brainwashing' interning for one of these electrical engineers-turned- studio owners.

It wasn't until the mid 90's that everyone who wanted to could open a studio. That's when things started going down hill.

I am not talking about degree in electrical engineering, nor I am talking about education in various or specific technical areas.
I am talking about Music Recording/Production. Technical education, knowledge and experience can only be and should only be a base support. And the level of necessity of such base support can be only determined by music producer. Technical knowledge and experience should not drive nor dictate music recording/production process. If the producer for what ever reason unable to sense the independence of music production from technical base, then such producer only serves the wire, and not the music as an art form.
**********
oh!
and "opening" or "closing" a studio has nothing to do with music production process as a subject.
I maybe wrong, of course, but I don't see "things going down hill" in music industry, I rather see "things going nowhere". Thing are done by individuals. The more "system" is organized, standardized, controled - less chances for an individual to get "unnormalized" and thus to be able to drive "things going somewhere". Generic blah blah that is :)

/respects
 
Production trends are market driven. I don't know of any engineer that thinks the 'louder is better' thing is a good idea. I also don't know of any engineers who won't do it when the customer requests it. A lot of the 'sameness that you hear in modern productions is directly related to the volume wars. There is just a certain way things have to fit together to get that sort of volume.


As far as the discussion about getting rid of early reflections and room nodes in your control control room goes: I don't see how having a crappy listening environment lends itself to enhanced creativity. There are standards that just help things along. Do you tune to A430? Would it make you more creative if you did?
 
Dr ZEE said:
oh!
and "opening" or "closing" a studio has nothing to do with music production process as a subject.
My point was that until the mid 90's studios were mainly corporate entities working for the record companies. (movie houses, ad agancies, etc...)

Tuning your room doesn't have much to do with the production process as a subject either.
 
Farview said:
I don't see how having a crappy listening environment lends itself to enhanced creativity. There are standards that just help things along.
One man's "crappy listening environment" - the other's "normal natural circumstance".
Yes, there ARE standards. Wearing white coats was(literally)/is(figuratively) one of them ;)

You can be (or carry status of) a professional technician or a self-professed "lunatic" - either can do (as starting point), BUT!, either way - to excel in recording art you gotta have attitude and ability to see standards as what they really are - transparent entities.
 

Attachments

  • freaks.gif
    freaks.gif
    54.2 KB · Views: 84
Further on Dr Zee's line,
Both fellows in the photos used what came to hand. From the kitchen as control room to the stairs as echo chamber. Pity about a) the shot gun & b) the pyromania.
Both new in their head what they were after and tried to match it & both used whatever was at hand to listen on.
Lee wasn't called scratch for his Hip Hop turntablism & Joe MADE most of his stuff.
Both looney as concievable but both concievably so far beyond their time we still haven't really caught up yet.
From a reel2reel in the kitchen to a System in a dance hall neither had "technically good" environments. In fact lee worked in concrete.
Mind you both dudes channelled the dearly departed in various ways so they may have had an advantage when trying to deal with dead spots in their monitoring set up.
Cheers
rayC
 
Last edited:
rayc said:
Both new in their head what they were after ....
heh heh :D I would not be so fast to assume that :p

I'd say, if you (generic "you") can't see standards and rules being transparent, then at least apply them with humor. It's good for your brain and thus for what your brain can do :)
Here's LSP on good brain from outa' space ... and here's "transformation" ... :D
***********
I'd say, a couple of nice ladies in the control room will positively enrich the listening environment even though most likely they will randomly interfere with acoustic waves travel and will mess up the standardized schedule of their departure and arrival.
And, speaking of "standards", here's one more thing to remember: when choosing a finger to point things out - there are at least four more choices availabe in a addition to the "standard" one :D :
here's Ian (back in time of "Child In Time"):
 

Attachments

  • ladiesout.gif
    ladiesout.gif
    63.3 KB · Views: 79
Farview said:
I give up.
Give up what? "Informing" the dark-minded population of ignorant rabbles from the woods about the "fact" that before "revolutionary"-90s "those who wanted could not"?
...then it's a good thing :)
;)

/respects
 
Back
Top