Is there any use for testing mixes on speakers anymore?
- Thread starter YellowDwarf
- Start date
Keeping it simple. Earbuds are reality. If you are making music for upload to Spotify or iTunes you want it to sound as good as possible for todays medium. Do I still use speakers? Of course, I'm 58. Listen in my car a lot. I have one album ot on the usual streaming sites ans another one coming this summer and I promise there will be an adjustment made for this one.
gecko zzed
Grumpy Mod
If you are putting together something that you want others to hear and enjoy, you want them to hear it how you are hearing it. This is made complicated through knowing that these others will be listening through a variety of devices of varying quality and characteristics. Trying to second-guess the gear your listener will be using is pointless.
When you create something, you track, mix, add effects, re-mix, edit and perform a whole bunch of functions until you get to a stage where you can say, "this is how it is supposed to sound." That is the sound that you want others to hear.
So you need to be certain that that particular sound is the actual sound of the recording, and is not a sound that is a mixture of the mix itself and artifacts of mixing environment, i.e. room acoustics and speaker (or headphone) characteristics.
For example, if your headphones or speakers have an exaggerated bass response, you may have created a mix that is light on the bass, even if it sounds right through your system. That means someone else listening will hear less bass than you intended them to hear (unless their system is also bass-heavy).
Top end studios invest heavily in acoustics to ensure the sonic neutrality of their systems. This is the way they can produce music that translates well on a wide variety of playback systems. That is what home recordists can aim to emulate if they wish to do the same.
When you create something, you track, mix, add effects, re-mix, edit and perform a whole bunch of functions until you get to a stage where you can say, "this is how it is supposed to sound." That is the sound that you want others to hear.
So you need to be certain that that particular sound is the actual sound of the recording, and is not a sound that is a mixture of the mix itself and artifacts of mixing environment, i.e. room acoustics and speaker (or headphone) characteristics.
For example, if your headphones or speakers have an exaggerated bass response, you may have created a mix that is light on the bass, even if it sounds right through your system. That means someone else listening will hear less bass than you intended them to hear (unless their system is also bass-heavy).
Top end studios invest heavily in acoustics to ensure the sonic neutrality of their systems. This is the way they can produce music that translates well on a wide variety of playback systems. That is what home recordists can aim to emulate if they wish to do the same.
YellowDwarf
Dismember
Precisely!
VomitHatSteve
Hat STYLE. Not contents.
Do you think in the early days of home stereo systems, they had this debate too?
"99% of our fans are listening on cheap, mono system. We should mix for them!"
Or other major sea changes in listening technology?
"People are mostly listening in their cars on FM radio, we should mix it in an inconsistent, noisy environment with lots of compression!"
"Kids these days are listening to music on their phonographs, make sure to arrange your symphony so that the highs and lows aren't that important"
"99% of our fans are listening on cheap, mono system. We should mix for them!"
Or other major sea changes in listening technology?
"People are mostly listening in their cars on FM radio, we should mix it in an inconsistent, noisy environment with lots of compression!"
"Kids these days are listening to music on their phonographs, make sure to arrange your symphony so that the highs and lows aren't that important"
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
That was my point too earlier...no one was ever this obsessed or worrying about having playback-specific mix versions back in the day.
They just mixed for a well balanced sound, and those mixes generally translated to a variety of playback systems.
Actually...it was probably harder to do that, to do mixes that translated well on Hi-Fi stereo systems, mono and stereo car systems, boom boxes, Walkman, etc, (plus there was vinyl, tape and radio)...than it is to "just mix for earbuds" or some other single playback system.
If you wanna just mix for earbuds...then don't even bother using studio monitors and then testing on earbuds.
Juts put on a set of earbuds and mix that way.
I think that would certainly give you the best earbud-optimized mix...though I would at least go get a custom-molded set of high-end earbuds (which will set you back about as much as a decent set of studio monitors)...so you can at least hear everything, because you still need the best monitoring in order to get a the best balanced mix which will translate across a variety of earbuds that are out there....from the cheap $20...to the $2k versions.
It's really all about the music, the song.
I remember back in the day the first time I heard Free's All Right Now. It was on a car radio with the mono soeaker on the dash. A metal dash to boot. Not what I'd call an optimal listening environment.
Anyway, it sounded great. Ir was the tune that grabbed me. I couldn't wait to get the album and put it on my dad's stereo. He was into classical and had a pretty nice system.
Bought the record and it did not dissapoint.
My point is this. I believe that true music fans realize the limitations of cheap format listening devices and compensate. No one ever turned off the radio because it sounded lousy, but if it was a shit song, that dial got turned fast.
There always (for me anyway) was that thrill of being able to hear a piece of music the way it was intended to be heard.
So one should mix that way. Not as Miro said earlier, "mix for the lowest common denominator"
That would just be dumb.
I remember back in the day the first time I heard Free's All Right Now. It was on a car radio with the mono soeaker on the dash. A metal dash to boot. Not what I'd call an optimal listening environment.
Anyway, it sounded great. Ir was the tune that grabbed me. I couldn't wait to get the album and put it on my dad's stereo. He was into classical and had a pretty nice system.
Bought the record and it did not dissapoint.
My point is this. I believe that true music fans realize the limitations of cheap format listening devices and compensate. No one ever turned off the radio because it sounded lousy, but if it was a shit song, that dial got turned fast.
There always (for me anyway) was that thrill of being able to hear a piece of music the way it was intended to be heard.
So one should mix that way. Not as Miro said earlier, "mix for the lowest common denominator"
That would just be dumb.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
So one should mix that way. Not as Miro said earlier, "mix for the lowest common denominator"
That would just be dumb.
Of course, I know you know that I was not actually saying people *should* mix that way...
...just commenting that it's what some people seem to want to do, so then do it if you think that's the best approach.I agree though that the song will usually transcend the playback systems...which is why good music seems to always translate across all playback devices.
When people really like a song...they are listening beyond the speakers.
Also...when you hear music that you like on a really good system, and then you later hear it on some dinky little system...you rarely think, "Oh boy, it sounds real lousy here."
I mean...you may be aware of it, but you're not really listening and judging the playback system...you're listening to the music. Plus, you already know how good it sounds, and your mind fills in whatever is missing when you hear it on that dinky system.
Of course...you will always enjoy it more when you hear it on the better playback device.
That's kinda why the earbud and lower grade MP3 obsession is truly a disservice to the music...if that's the only way you always listen to all the great music that is out there. For that subway ride...yeah, earbuds and an iPod playing compressed MP3s is great...it's convenient and small...but I actually feel sorry for the people who never go beyond that. They don't know what they're missing.
So why would anyone want to just mix for that lowest common denominator...? I think helping to raise the bar serves the music, and that benefits the listener.
Of course, I know you know that I was not actually saying people *should* mix that way...
Of course.
But it was a good statement you made. Hence me repeating it.
So much today is geared towards the lowest common denominator.
Its quite sad.
The music AND the playback.
For many the best playback is Spotify or mabye Youtube through the tv via bluetooth.
But, hey I've seen some great concerts on my tv that way.
People today want it all. Variety of choices, visual, audio and most importantly for free.
Haha. You had to go add some common sense to the debate. And you did it in only two sentences.
jimmys69
MOODerator
VomitHatSteve
Hat STYLE. Not contents.
I'd argue that if you're trying to target "true music fans" at any point in your process, you've already failed. You're usually going to get the best results by creating to the best of your abilities and targeting almost everyone.
If you do a good job some subset of music fans will recognize that and enjoy your work, but they're unlikely to be the majority of your listeners regardless.
I don't agree.
A true music fan is one that would like to have the most accurate sound possible. All musicians, producers, engineers are true music fans. The idea is to go towards the highest standard. That may only be recognized by a few. But you gotta shoot for the mountain.
Even if recording on a cassette format, I've never met someone who wasn't trying, or at least desired, to get it to sound like a record.
Most are shooting for professional results even if their skill and eguipment isn't up to the task.
I agree with you about the part of "creating to the best of your abilities"
"Targeting almost everyone" seems more in line with having a hit song rather than getting the best sound possible.
As others have mentioned getting it to sound great in the studio is key. Then it will translate down the food chain of audio systems.
If course there is a big difference between a professional studio and your garden shed or bedroom studio. So checking on multiple systems is required. But thats mostly due to having a lack of trust in what one is hearing.
However, the drive for excellence is still there, or someone wouldn't even bother.
Anyway, enough rambling from me. Don't even know why I bothered to respond.
VomitHatSteve
Hat STYLE. Not contents.
I think we might be saying similar things from different perspectives.
To me, targeting true music fans means that you only listen to your mix on high-end systems because you don't care what casual listeners thing.
Targeting everyone means trying to get it sound good on every system with the awareness that most people will listen on pretty cheap systems. Sometimes, this may even mean compromising the high-end sound.
To me, targeting true music fans means that you only listen to your mix on high-end systems because you don't care what casual listeners thing.
Targeting everyone means trying to get it sound good on every system with the awareness that most people will listen on pretty cheap systems. Sometimes, this may even mean compromising the high-end sound.
Bobbsy
Boring Old Git
Thing is, "high end systems" in a home studio doesn't mean something that makes your recordings sound good. Much more important in the studio is monitoring which gives you your recordings as accurately as possible--warts and all. When you get a mix to sound good on very neutral speakers, it should sound as good or better on everything from an audiophile home system to the CD in your car to iPhone earbuds.
CoolCat
Well-known member
Wasnt that the whole "crappy studio monitor" theory? The Auratone = mono car speaker, then later the NS10= average joe typical hifi speaker in the studio ...I think Clearmountain was quoted saying he had a pair of cheap SONY plastic PC speakers he checks mixes on and goes to those a lot ....
earbuds would be a average joe hifi of today, imo.
cars probably rule as # 1 still, but earbuds replaced the home hifi it seems, and vinyl records,cassettes,even CDs replaced by downloads.
I dont know what "crap monitor" the pro's use for the new listening crowd. maybe some big breakout pro will mention in an article what brand earbud he used on his triple platinum EDM recording and all the studios will go out and buy that brand earbuds...as we did the auratone and ns10.
Gtoboy
Well-known member
The first Beatles albums were mixed on a single Altec speaker. We add "ear candy" for those headphone and audio enthusiasts(and ourselves). A song generally consists of a rhythmic , melodic and lead element. If these elements are balanced properly it should translate the song on anything. My opinion is to mix so that it sounds right to you/the client. The Beatles remixes were done to take advantage of modern technology, but I would be hard pressed to say they were "improved". When digital CD came along the process of transfer caused all kinds of horrible things to the sound that music lovers noticed with alarm but the buying public never really picked up on. Mix for the song.