Alternative monitor speakers? What to use?
- Thread starter Dr. Jeep
- Start date
Dr. Jeep said:
Keep mixing with your monitors, but double check with speakers your target
group will most likely use:
- average computer speakers
- in your car
- 'normal' hifi/stereo in a living room
Once you have done this a couple of times you will learn how a mix should
sound with your monitors without (!) the need to double check everything
very often.
But it's still a good idea to check at least once, you never know.
Tom
Nick98338
New member
Most, not all, but most computer speakers lack good bass response. So, if you listen to your recordings through the typical computer speaker, you might think you need to add some bass to your mix. Then you take that mix and put it through a good home stereo system, or a high-class car stereo system, and it will be over bassy.
My thoughts:
There are a ton of people who listen and evaluate music on their computer speakers. Not "critical" listening, but you know what I mean. Whether it is to listen to their CDs at work, or check out some bands new tunes, they listen on computer speakers.
I listened to a guys mix the other day, and the bass was distorting to hell. It sounded like crud on my computer speakers because of this, but it might sounded fine on whatever he was monitoring on.
SO, I would say that a must is to check out your mix on an average computer speaker set up with and without a sub. As it is also a must, to check it out on your car stereo. As it is a must to check it out on a boom box. I figure my Event nearfields represent a fairly high fi set up, just nice and flat and true.
I plan to eventually have a computer speaker set up, and a small boom box along with my nearfields to evaluate all 3 at my listening spot. I will leave the car stereo outside in the drive way
There are a ton of people who listen and evaluate music on their computer speakers. Not "critical" listening, but you know what I mean. Whether it is to listen to their CDs at work, or check out some bands new tunes, they listen on computer speakers.
I listened to a guys mix the other day, and the bass was distorting to hell. It sounded like crud on my computer speakers because of this, but it might sounded fine on whatever he was monitoring on.
SO, I would say that a must is to check out your mix on an average computer speaker set up with and without a sub. As it is also a must, to check it out on your car stereo. As it is a must to check it out on a boom box. I figure my Event nearfields represent a fairly high fi set up, just nice and flat and true.
I plan to eventually have a computer speaker set up, and a small boom box along with my nearfields to evaluate all 3 at my listening spot. I will leave the car stereo outside in the drive way
Mbox mono button
The mono button is to help listen to a mono source.
The mono button for me, comes in handy when I am tracking a mono channel signal. Like when I put in my bass, it comes out of one speaker. I was trying to get it to come out true mono, and it only did when I pushed in that button.
There may be some way around this ? I figured that having the "output" for the mono channel into both Mbox outs 1 and 2, would equally seperate the signal, but it did not. Only that mono button worked.
ProTulz description of that button is pretty darned weak. It says something like, "The mono button is to improve listening for certain monitoring situations." Huh ? Pretty lame.
Dr. Jeep said:
The mono button is to help listen to a mono source.
The mono button for me, comes in handy when I am tracking a mono channel signal. Like when I put in my bass, it comes out of one speaker. I was trying to get it to come out true mono, and it only did when I pushed in that button.
There may be some way around this ? I figured that having the "output" for the mono channel into both Mbox outs 1 and 2, would equally seperate the signal, but it did not. Only that mono button worked.
ProTulz description of that button is pretty darned weak. It says something like, "The mono button is to improve listening for certain monitoring situations." Huh ? Pretty lame.
pipelineaudio
Well-known member
see and you guys keep telling me Im nuts for sticking Jensen 6X9's in an NS-10 box
it works
well
but if you only have ONE pair of NS-10's, dont do it!!!
it works
well
but if you only have ONE pair of NS-10's, dont do it!!!
LeeRosario
New member
Well if you're going to jump at different speakers, then you should know the types of speakers before you dive into something like this.
You have 3 basic types:
Minis, Nearfields, & Mains.
Minis are your "universal reference", meaning that these are usually lower quality mini speakers used to simulate the bandwith of the usual low end mediums out in the world. TV speakers, radios, cheap headphones, outdoor speakers (backyard types or "walmart" types). You might of heard of Auratones, aka "Horror Tones", which serve exactly this purpose. They are shitty on purpose to help check your mixes *occasionally* through these.
Nearfields are your main dogs. They are designed to provide just the right blend of bandwith and EQ response to mix faithfully and neturally. Obviously some are better than others, but they are your main set of ears in any studio.
Mains are good for two reasons. A) they impress the shit out of your customers as they are walking into a studio for the tour. The very reason that you'll usually have music playing on your mains (if they have em) if your checking out a studio for the first time.
B) They are full bandwidth speakers meaning you can switch to your mains to check out the low end response in your mix. Plus it gives you a better idea of the big picture.
They are usually installed in the walls ahead of the console in a wider configuration than your nearfields. Or they can also be installed on custom stands in the same position.
I'd say 90% of the time your probably going to have to rely on your nearfields. When your familiar with them, you tend to trust them more than any other type of speaker. That's why you find some engineers that bring thier own nearfields to sessions, which the studio manager may or may not be more than happy to set the studio nearfields off to the side to set up for you.
I myself first purchased Tannoy Reveal Actives a couple of years ago, and while they are not the best speakers out there, I got so used to them, I know exactly how they react and how to get good sound out of them. I take them everywhere with me.
So I suppose the moral of the story is that if you're comfortable with whatever you got, and you can still create great results, then by all means use them.
Your mono buttom simply converts your mix to mono. It helps you get an idea of how your mix will sound if it ends up on a mono TV or otherwise mediums that compromise the stereo "beauty" of any mix.
For example, engineers on a high class projects level tend to create "narrow" versions of an artists single. Since TV does such a great job of closing your width, they may mix wide sources closer to about 50/50 to help maintain those elements definable.
Not too shabby when you're trying to convince your home audience of falling in love with your guitars over the competition.
Actually, if you want proof of this...try this:
If you have MTV2 and FUSE, try to pick a day to switch back and forth from channels and notice the change in quality. MTV2 translates mixes way better and alot more clearly than Fuse. Which means the system they are broadcasting through is alot better than what Fuse might be able to afford. Who knows, right?
I've also noticed that it might be done in the mastering stage, something that some of the up and comming bands either can't afford, or don't seem to stress upon.
Just for comparison:
Green Day mixes on TV translate well. Fall Out Boy seems to translate well. Avenge Sevenfold translates well. Weezer translates well (naming off some of the shit I've seen a lot of these days).
Yet, My Chemical Romance on TV translates like shit.
So whether it's a marketing tactic to make them sound better next time around, or if they simply can't afford the service on a "new band" budget, is still a mystery to me.
You have 3 basic types:
Minis, Nearfields, & Mains.
Minis are your "universal reference", meaning that these are usually lower quality mini speakers used to simulate the bandwith of the usual low end mediums out in the world. TV speakers, radios, cheap headphones, outdoor speakers (backyard types or "walmart" types). You might of heard of Auratones, aka "Horror Tones", which serve exactly this purpose. They are shitty on purpose to help check your mixes *occasionally* through these.
Nearfields are your main dogs. They are designed to provide just the right blend of bandwith and EQ response to mix faithfully and neturally. Obviously some are better than others, but they are your main set of ears in any studio.
Mains are good for two reasons. A) they impress the shit out of your customers as they are walking into a studio for the tour. The very reason that you'll usually have music playing on your mains (if they have em) if your checking out a studio for the first time.
B) They are full bandwidth speakers meaning you can switch to your mains to check out the low end response in your mix. Plus it gives you a better idea of the big picture.
They are usually installed in the walls ahead of the console in a wider configuration than your nearfields. Or they can also be installed on custom stands in the same position.
I'd say 90% of the time your probably going to have to rely on your nearfields. When your familiar with them, you tend to trust them more than any other type of speaker. That's why you find some engineers that bring thier own nearfields to sessions, which the studio manager may or may not be more than happy to set the studio nearfields off to the side to set up for you.
I myself first purchased Tannoy Reveal Actives a couple of years ago, and while they are not the best speakers out there, I got so used to them, I know exactly how they react and how to get good sound out of them. I take them everywhere with me.
So I suppose the moral of the story is that if you're comfortable with whatever you got, and you can still create great results, then by all means use them.
Your mono buttom simply converts your mix to mono. It helps you get an idea of how your mix will sound if it ends up on a mono TV or otherwise mediums that compromise the stereo "beauty" of any mix.
For example, engineers on a high class projects level tend to create "narrow" versions of an artists single. Since TV does such a great job of closing your width, they may mix wide sources closer to about 50/50 to help maintain those elements definable.
Not too shabby when you're trying to convince your home audience of falling in love with your guitars over the competition.
Actually, if you want proof of this...try this:
If you have MTV2 and FUSE, try to pick a day to switch back and forth from channels and notice the change in quality. MTV2 translates mixes way better and alot more clearly than Fuse. Which means the system they are broadcasting through is alot better than what Fuse might be able to afford. Who knows, right?
I've also noticed that it might be done in the mastering stage, something that some of the up and comming bands either can't afford, or don't seem to stress upon.
Just for comparison:
Green Day mixes on TV translate well. Fall Out Boy seems to translate well. Avenge Sevenfold translates well. Weezer translates well (naming off some of the shit I've seen a lot of these days).
Yet, My Chemical Romance on TV translates like shit.
So whether it's a marketing tactic to make them sound better next time around, or if they simply can't afford the service on a "new band" budget, is still a mystery to me.
Last edited:
peopleperson
I'm so sorry.
giraffe said:
Yeah, I agree big time with that. I usually put S-1 imager on the master fader and set it to mono just for reference. Gotta better way?
