Monitoring with headphones

[jimmys69]

Most of my mixing are done on headphones, before I'm done with the mix step I make some adjustments (if necessary) using my monitors. Then in mastering I usually start with headphones for a quick ballpark, then back to the monitors for the final say.

Common theme here... monitors aren't used most of the time, but they are used as the critical reference point before anything is considered final.

I mostly fell into this method of mixing/mastering because I can't always use my monitors when I want [shared house, time of day, etc].

You need to get good at knowing your headphones as others have mentioned. I adjust partly based on what I know the track/mix will sound like on the monitors, not relying solely on what the headphones are telling me. I can get things sounding pretty close to 'done' with just headphones now, after a lot of practice.

Luckily I don't have time limitations. I couldn't imagine mixing on headphones myself. I hate the fact that I have to wear headphones while tracking vocals in my control room. I just hate things on my ears period... Ears get fatigued quickly with headphones. That just me tho. I am in process of treating a vocal room so I don't have to do that anymore...

Oddly, I find that I need to press them against my head tight to hear the low end in a mix that sounds fine in my monitors. Maybe it just me. but low end needs to move air for it to feel right to me. It never works out right with headphones. I will check mixes with the monitors/sub on while listening for details.

Props to you Pinky for being able to mix with headphones. I surely would go nuts if I had to do that. I probably wouldn't record bands if I had to use phones most of the time.

 

[jimmys69]

I can see doing edits and sorta pre-mix processing stuff with the headphones...but I wouldn't like having them on my head for any long period of time, no matter what I was doing...'cuz you kinda get "tunnel hearing" when you do that.

'Tunnel hearing' is likely the best term I have heard with listening on headphones ever! Nailed it!

And I hate that! I have to take a break after listening on headphones before my ears recover.

 

[garww]

Ya, head coupling has always been a problem. We don't have dummy heads : )

I think pressing the pads to the head is a normal course of action. On the other hand, I found that many don't get that one can bend the metal headband for a preference fitting. Just horrible, I tell you. Horrible.

I went with comfort as number one, so four hours is just getting bad. In the Music Room, the other day, it was about 2-minutes before being soaked in sweat. Can't do much about that other than go mini.

My four hours is all in the same context (monitor set), so I don't find that but a minor annoyance.

 

[Mickster]

The hd 600 are up +4 in the mud while my $100 is basically 0 from 1k and falling off at 100Hz. The roll-off on both look the same but the HD is +4 over my cheap shit (basically

I'm just saying look for tools that help, and muddy bass is a problem almost universally. The HD should be accomplished enough, at higher Ohm, that I doubt that they get mushy, but there is still a broad range that is hyped

Sort of sounds like you may not have ever tried the HD-600.

 

[garww]

Sort of sounds like you may not have ever tried the HD-600.

Oh, I would like to, but I have no use for them (as far as spending money). The road tests are out there, though.

Sounds like you never put on Stax : )

 

[Pinky]

Fwiw I use a pair of 250 or 300 ohm HD600s, awesome flat/balanced headphones. I don't find any part of their range muddy, but I don't rely on them for anything more than a second opinion on imaging and transients. When I've cranked them for fun listening to other studio mixes they're bright without being harsh and bassy enough that I'm not searching for the kick. Perfect really.

[should note I got them for significantly less than MSRP new from Newegg on sale, like $280 shipped I think]

I grew up listening to music and doing production on headphones, so I guess I'm comfortable with it. I like working with the monitors, but I also like the fact I haven't rattled my GF's nerves with hearing the same song a hundred times while working on it. It's a compromise that works well for me, since I don't do this professionally.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

wide spaced and distant (about 5.5' sides on the equilateral triangle)

And there's a reason for doing it this way. It's the most acoustically balanced setup. You don't get the same balance when scaling the distances down, even if you keep the triangle proportions the same. Head shading and other effects become more pronounced when the speakers are closer, headphones being the extreme case. And with the bigger triangle you need a bigger space to keep the speakers sufficiently far from the walls. You need the bigger room in the first place to give reflections more distance to fall off in volume. Scaling the whole thing down just doesn't work the same as a full size setup.

 

[miroslav]

And there's a reason for doing it this way. It's the most acoustically balanced setup. You don't get the same balance when scaling the distances down, even if you keep the triangle proportions the same. Head shading and other effects become more pronounced when the speakers are closer, headphones being the extreme case. And with the bigger triangle you need a bigger space to keep the speakers sufficiently far from the walls. You need the bigger room in the first place to give reflections more distance to fall off in volume. Scaling the whole thing down just doesn't work the same as a full size setup.

The distance is actually 67.5" ...and that's something I got from Carl Tatz.
There was an interview with him in one of the magazines where he was talking about acoustics and design and studio setups...oh, back around 2010...and he was saying that you needed to have that kind of spread, which at the time seemed rather wide to me, but I already had my monitors close to 5'.
So I emailed him from his address in the article...and sure enough he emailed me back and here exactly what he said....I still have the email.

The apex should be eighteen inches from the front of the console with your head inside that triangle. 60" is wrong and won't work. 67.5" does, and that means at 30 degrees. This is not a suggestion but a mandate if you want great imaging.

He even gave me his cell, and we spoke for about 5 minutes about his perspectives, and he confirmed all that again. Nice guy.
So I pushed them out a few more inches to reach those dimensions...though TBH I don't know if the extra few inches made a big difference, considering I already had mine pretty wide, but yeah, I don't get how people can work all crammed in with the monitors right there in their face, and still make accurate stereo imaging decisions.

 

[Steenamaroo]

The hd 600 are up +4 in the mud while my $100 is basically 0 from 1k and falling off at 100Hz. The roll-off on both look the same but the HD is +4 over my cheap shit (basically

I'm just saying look for tools that help, and muddy bass is a problem almost universally. The HD should be accomplished enough, at higher Ohm, that I doubt that they get mushy, but there is still a broad range that is hyped

Maybe they need to be? Ears over eyes all day everyday, unless you want your record to look great.

 

[garww]

Maybe they need to be? Ears over eyes all day everyday, unless you want your record to look great.

It's, generally, the same hype on Senn. Made for listening pleasure. It is a pretty broad swath of +4 compared to the 280 - and a lot of marketing has a bass bump to satisfy buyers. Maybe, not in broadcast. I think I got a 7506 sweep, here... already in my upload attachments

 

[Steenamaroo]

Is that based on anything, though?

I mean, I know nothing about the development of sound over short distances. Maybe they are bass-hype for all I know but, on the other hand maybe they're meant to be or need to be?

 

[garww]

Is that based on anything, though?

I mean, I know nothing about the development of sound over short distances. Maybe they are bass-hype for all I know but, on the other hand maybe they're meant to be or need to be?

It's still tools and how we use them. My hearing was all ready way down on the right side, when I had my stroke in '99, and it's, even now, more difficult to get a sense of what is going on with the Stereo Effect.

But, trying to get transducers to behave is much older than I and the issues have not changed. If your mixing, something close to flat has to be number one - followed by non-smearing - mostly in the bass. You do what you can : ) A tape deck does +/- 1 from 150 to 10k and 25 to 25 +/- 3db and everyone gets all bent. Now, they can tailor response to a general Loudness Compensation level, but that's pretty iffy the way SPL is presented to the ear.

One headphone day doing some tracks, but mostly samples and loops, I had a little synth sequence I wanted to just pop into perception. Sounds good. But it was 1db under what I needed. 4db is a lot. That will be a more critical range - mids vs bass, but the mixer is the only one who can keep track of the anomalies.

No, the 600 are not engineered for mixing. Nor are my at ath ad700, but I got what I needed in the flat bass.

 

[CoolCat]

Everywhere I read that in the end you should do this with speakers, but headphones can be a useful alternate way to listen. Has anyone ever monitored only with headphones? I'm thinking this is workable with "open" ones. Frankly I'd prefer to avoid the expense of speakers (excuse me, "studio monitors") for various reasons.

I dont know what the various reasons are, but Im thinking with a lot of listening to your favorites through your monitoring chain (whatever that is) you should be able to get a grip on what "pro" stuff sounds like as you do your own through the same.

In theory- If I take monitoring with "X" and listen to a gazillion fav-commerical releases through "X" then that should help when doing your HR stuff in "X".

Its probably going to be a lot of extra work,...extra work, maybe a lot of extra work because you are trying to make headphones replace a million dollar room and million dollar studio speakers. But its already been done so it isnt a question of can it work anymore.

When its done take the mix to the car... I read Gold Star records 1950's would test the new mix on the air , AM, in their car and then remix and then release for pressing. Of course these days the pressing is uploading to ITunes but still its kind of the same mechanics of the biz of recording.

I still think openbacks and a good headphone amp are going to be better than a ass room....but I dont have any good mixes to back that up. lol
George Masenburg or some big name drop supposedly uses crappy pc speakers a lot...so go figure?

 

[steen]

My experience is that my mixes on phones are never as tight as my mixes on speakers. Whenever I am mixing ( e.g. during the night) on phones I have to make real mixing corrections, that means some instrument aren't loud enough.
On cans a signal 20 db less loud than the rest is not such a problem. You will hear it, you will experience it. But on speakers these very same signals aren't loud enough, seemed to disappear.

 

[Jonesey9]

It's been said before, probably on this very thread, but one of the biggest problems with mixing on phones is trying to get the panning right.
On phones, there is no natural bleed of L > R & R > L

Attempting to compensate can and will really screw up your stereo imaging

 

[garww]

That is relatively inconsequential as pan can be set by numbers and soundstage varies by room and speakers, anyway. A lot of monitors have a dome driver on top, which isn't what you want if you are concerned about pan

 

[bouldersoundguy]

That is relatively inconsequential as pan can be set by numbers and soundstage varies by room and speakers, anyway. A lot of monitors have a dome driver on top, which isn't what you want if you are concerned about pan

It's not the panning itself that's hard to do in headphones. What goes wrong is the relative levels of things that are panned versus things that are centered.

 

[Robus]

I dislike spending any time at all wearing headphones and that goes for tracking, mixing and listening, so all that gets done with speakers. The sole exception is tracking vocals where there is no alternative to headphones. However somebody pointed out the importance of crosschecking with headphone as you will notice things you cannot hear as clearly through speakers.

This was brought home to me recently when andrushkiwt, who uses headphones, was pointing out an audio glitch in one of my mixes that turned out to be a sloppy crossfade. I could not hear it, period, until I put on headphones.

Not to mention a lot of younger listeners do most of their listening with earbuds. Yeah, that's sad. But I want to know how my mix is going to sound to them.

 

[garww]

That can all be shooting from the hip and also numbers. Everything is MONO over here up to the; "do I want stereo" jump-off. But ya, if all one has is phones, it is f*ked unless on has a plan.

What are the odds the poster will ever mix anything, anyway : )

 

[bouldersoundguy]

Generally speaking, mixes translate better from speakers to headphones/earbuds than the other way around. Center panned things will drop a little in volume. The main thing to watch out for is panned LF that sounds fine in speakers but can be uncomfortable in headphones. The solution to that is to high pass the difference channel at 300Hz*. But since it's rare to pan LF it isn't a problem that crops up very frequently.

*At home on the cheap I use Tone Projects Basslane. At the studio I use Brainworx bx_digital V2 in M/S mode.