Monitors make that big of a difference

[Schwarzenyaeger]

If you ever get the opportunity to hear high end monitors in a treated room, do it.
You'll notice the difference, I promise.

 

[Rexinator]

Not to belabor the discussion about the utility of monitors, but I have to disagree that my previous comments about the poor translation of mixes from idealistically flat-frequency-curve monitors to real-world listening systems indicates I'm missing the point about monitors. If the objective of an initial mix is to get something that sounds good on conventional monitors but does not translate well onto anyone's car stereo or home stereo, then I guess I am missing the point. Are we making music that is intended to sound good in our home studio, or mainly when our friends/family/customers listen to it on whatever system they prefer? If we can agree that good monitor speakers in a well-treated room typically provide awesome-sounding mixes on that system, but not necessarily on other consumer systems, then it begs the question of why we would orient our mixes in that manner. All I can say is that, if I try to mix on my Behringer Truth Monitors without a sub in the system, my mixes sound good on those speakers but generally suck on everything else, especially on the low end of the frequency curve. The mid-range content is a piece of cake to nail pretty well, but when bass parts are too boomy on consumer systems, the rest of the excellent sound is overwhelmed (not to mention the loss of headroom in the loudness category). Or vice versa, too thin on the bass end results in harsher overall mixes (or whatever term you want to use.....no warmth or fatness). Depending on the song, when I would mix without a subwoofer, sometimes I got lucky enough to nail the low end of the frequency range (mainly by guessing at how much of the barely audible bass to permit in my monitors), but most of the time, the low end was whacked out. I'm good friends with a guy who runs a recording studio in Reno, and he has a monstrous set of monitors that he almost never uses (mainly for show) and another set that is his go-to for the initial mix. But, as a routine practice, before finalizing any mix, he burns it to CD and brings it out to his boombox in a non-sound-treated room to listen to it in the 'real world', then often makes many adjustments. My mixes always sounded great on my Behringers, but largely sucked everywhere else, and I had to spend ridiculous amounts of time burning the mix to CD and playing it in my car (the 'road test') or on various home stereos, then going back to the mix and making adjustments, with repeated iterations until I liked how it sounded across other systems. When I implemented a sub in the system and an equalizer that permits me to switch among EQ curves, my mixing got so much easier. I now can hear what I need to develop mixes that sound pretty good on consumer systems (I actually think they sound better than what my friend produces in his high-end studio). I know these points are repetitious, but I remain convinced that the best mixes (i.e., most translatable) cannot be derived from listening only on relatively-flat monitors (I know they are not really flat, but the product literature always makes this claim). It might be a weird approach on my part, but it's definitely faster and more effective than my original basic (monitors-only) strategy. I also do other strange things, like listen to mixes over a wide range of volumes and even from the next room to get a sense of how well balanced the vocals are relative to the instruments. It just seems to me that there is a little too much dogma about the need for good monitors, and we should keep our minds open to other techniques that work pretty well.

 

[Farview]

Not to belabor the discussion about the utility of monitors, but I have to disagree that my previous comments about the poor translation of mixes from idealistically flat-frequency-curve monitors to real-world listening systems indicates I'm missing the point about monitors. If the objective of an initial mix is to get something that sounds good on conventional monitors but does not translate well onto anyone's car stereo or home stereo, then I guess I am missing the point. Are we making music that is intended to sound good in our home studio, or mainly when our friends/family/customers listen to it on whatever system they prefer? If we can agree that good monitor speakers in a well-treated room typically provide awesome-sounding mixes on that system, but not necessarily on other consumer systems, then it begs the question of why we would orient our mixes in that manner.

When you do it right, it does translate. But it obviously won't sound the same on every system. It can't. If your mixes don't sound good on any other system, then your monitors/room sucks or you haven't learned what something needs to sound like in your room in order to translate to the most systems.

All I can say is that, if I try to mix on my Behringer Truth Monitors without a sub in the system, my mixes sound good on those speakers but generally suck on everything else, especially on the low end of the frequency curve. The mid-range content is a piece of cake to nail pretty well, but when bass parts are too boomy on consumer systems, the rest of the excellent sound is overwhelmed (not to mention the loss of headroom in the loudness category). Or vice versa, too thin on the bass end results in harsher overall mixes (or whatever term you want to use.....no warmth or fatness). Depending on the song, when I would mix without a subwoofer, sometimes I got lucky enough to nail the low end of the frequency range (mainly by guessing at how much of the barely audible bass to permit in my monitors), but most of the time, the low end was whacked out.

The Truths aren't really the gold standard for studio monitors. I'm not surprised that you have translation problems.

I'm good friends with a guy who runs a recording studio in Reno, and he has a monstrous set of monitors that he almost never uses (mainly for show) and another set that is his go-to for the initial mix. But, as a routine practice, before finalizing any mix, he burns it to CD and brings it out to his boombox in a non-sound-treated room to listen to it in the 'real world', then often makes many adjustments. My mixes always sounded great on my Behringers, but largely sucked everywhere else, and I had to spend ridiculous amounts of time burning the mix to CD and playing it in my car (the 'road test') or on various home stereos, then going back to the mix and making adjustments, with repeated iterations until I liked how it sounded across other systems. When I implemented a sub in the system and an equalizer that permits me to switch among EQ curves, my mixing got so much easier.

I now can hear what I need to develop mixes that sound pretty good on consumer systems (I actually think they sound better than what my friend produces in his high-end studio). I know these points are repetitious, but I remain convinced that the best mixes (i.e., most translatable) cannot be derived from listening only on relatively-flat monitors (I know they are not really flat, but the product literature always makes this claim).

The reality is you are using a terrible benchmark to make your assessment of studio monitors on.

It might be a weird approach on my part, but it's definitely faster and more effective than my original basic (monitors-only) strategy. I also do other strange things, like listen to mixes over a wide range of volumes and even from the next room to get a sense of how well balanced the vocals are relative to the instruments. It just seems to me that there is a little too much dogma about the need for good monitors, and we should keep our minds open to other techniques that work pretty well.

It isn't strange to listen at different volumes, the sound changes drastically depending on the volume you are listening. Listening at low volume is a good way to see if something is getting swallowed up. Listening really loud is a good way to see if something sticks out too much or is a little shrill and turns painful.

Good monitors are terribly useful, unfortunately you don't have a set. I'm sure in your case a sub would help. But that has more to do with the deficiency of your monitors than it does the general usefulness of subs.

Also, PLEASE use paragraphs. It is so tiring to attempt to read a giant block of text.

 

[Tadpui]

...giant block of uninterrupted text...

Paragraphs save lives...

But nobody is saying that monitors in a treated room make mixes that only sound good in that environment. The entire point of using reference monitors in a treated room is so that you can accurately hear what your music sounds like. Then you can make informed decisions about how to mix your music. Then it will translate more universally to other listening environments.

Your troubles are most likely caused by the bass frequency response of your mixing/control room. When you mix in a room with an uneven bass response, you're not hearing what those bass frequencies actually sound like. You're hearing them exaggerated or nullified by peaks and valleys of low-frequency interference in your room.

Treat your room with low-frequency absorption and your multi-system runaround will get much, much easier.

 

[kevin6string]

i use Mackie MR5's for mixing and get great results and Sennheiser 280 pro headphones for tracking... i am indeed hearing good things about JBL SLR305 as well the Mackies and JBL are comparable in price ... check the guys out at sweetwater.com they will set you up good and meet or beat anyones price

 

[Farview]

I forgot to add that 98% of my mixes never end up changing after listening in the car. The only thing I get out of listening in the car is the ability to listen to the songs as songs instead of mixes. This is useful before the mixes are finalize. After I get the sounds and the static mix happening, I will make a copy for the car. Then as I'm running errands or whatever, I will notice where the song gets boring or little holes in the arrangement that I need to fill up with something. It's more how I get production ideas.

Keep in mind, I only mix other people's stuff, most of which I didn't record. So after I get it sounding like a mix, I have to absorb it as a song. That's easier to do when I'm doing something else and it's just background.

Back to the point: I know my monitors, I trust my monitors. In the old studio I two sets, the big Urei 813c's and the Genelec 1031's. I could mix equally well on both sets, even though they really didn't sound anything like each other. IN fact, I found that if I got the mix to sound basically the same on both sets, it would translate perfectly.

Now that I have moved, I only have the Genelecs in a much smaller room. Once I got my bass traps up and positioned everything properly, I'm back to being able to trust what I'm hearing in the control room.

 

[JimmyS1969]

I forgot to add that 98% of my mixes never end up changing after listening in the car. The only thing I get out of listening in the car is the ability to listen to the songs as songs instead of mixes. This is useful before the mixes are finalize. After I get the sounds and the static mix happening, I will make a copy for the car. Then as I'm running errands or whatever, I will notice where the song gets boring or little holes in the arrangement that I need to fill up with something. It's more how I get production ideas.

Keep in mind, I only mix other people's stuff, most of which I didn't record. So after I get it sounding like a mix, I have to absorb it as a song. That's easier to do when I'm doing something else and it's just background.

Back to the point: I know my monitors, I trust my monitors. In the old studio I two sets, the big Urei 813c's and the Genelec 1031's. I could mix equally well on both sets, even though they really didn't sound anything like each other. IN fact, I found that if I got the mix to sound basically the same on both sets, it would translate perfectly.

Now that I have moved, I only have the Genelecs in a much smaller room. Once I got my bass traps up and positioned everything properly, I'm back to being able to trust what I'm hearing in the control room.

I think a big part of this is just about getting out of your own head.

I myself also trust what I hear in my room. But nothing like a trip for milk in the van to find a hole in a production...

It is funny how a listen out of the studio can make a difference. Even just a few days away from a project can bring up issues or something that needs addressing.

I have never and will not ever release a mix for clients the same day as tracking. Actually, I actually try to take a couple weeks after tracking to even start final mixing.

I mix as I track so it is usually close already. But that time away to me is very important.

That is just me tho...

 

[ecc83]

The Beautiful South - Perfect 10 - YouTube

Bit of "reverse engineering argument"?

When I worked at the network factory, dozens of benches with people soldering, makling, there was a dozen or so crappy tranny radios and this TOON(!) was played 10 times an hour and drove me mad!
All I got was a riff that sounded like a truncated version of the one from the excellent Run DMC's "Walk This Way" and a guy muttering...er, sommat!

Mentioned it to son who eventually realized I meant Beautiful South and he said *&^%!! "That's a brilliant song!" When he found it on the web and I heard it on the Tannoys he was right!

Mind you, I still can't make out some of the lyrics!

Dave.