Monitors make that big of a difference

I'm going to depart from the crowd here and make some different comments about the necessity for good monitor speakers. I've used Behringer Truth Monitors for about 8 years as my main monitors. They are at the lower end of the expense spectrum, but a friend of mine has a pair of $2K Genelecs, and my mixes don't sound a lot better on his system. The main problem with almost all monitor speakers is the flat frequency curve. When I first started making music, the mixes I would make on the Behringers were completely whacked out when played on my car stereo. That's because my car stereo, like most car stereos, has a smiley face EQ curve that boosts the bass and high end. The bass especially was always way too boomy after generating a mix on my Behringers, almost certainly because I could not hear the bass end properly on those speakers (nor on my friend's Genelecs). So I had to buy a subwoofer to provide low-end feedback. I am thoroughly convinced that a sub is absolutely required to supplement what you can hear with conventional monitor speakers, especially if you are making any kind of EDM or other style with substantial low-end content (below ~ 100 Hz). On most subs, you can dial in the cross-over point, below which the frequencies will be directed to the sub, and I had to play with that over a period of many months to find the proper balance that would give me the feedback I needed to make mixes that sounded balanced in the low end on my car stereo. This problem is not specific to my car stereo, as I had the same difficulty with any car stereo. I should add that my mixing room is pretty well sonically treated, with some rather expensive absorbers that are strategically placed. If I'm honest, the sound treatment didn't make that much difference in terms of generating better mixes. Essentially, I had to learn by trial and error how much bass to permit in mixes when monitoring in my home studio such that the mixes would sound decent on my car or home stereo. I tried various other 'solutions' to adjust for the discrepancy in frequency response curves between monitors and consumer stereo equipment, including putting an equalizer in line with my monitors to configure a partial smiley face curve (that helped) and paying $500 for the IK Multimedia software that supposedly measures and adjust for problems with frequency absorbance in your room (which I found to be entirely worthless, especially in dealing with the low-end discrepancies). On top of this, there is the whole additional consideration about the fact that a lot of music listening these days occurs on computer speakers or ear buds, which presents a new set of challenges to achieve mixes that translate well onto those systems. Over the years, the point has been driven deeply into my brain that it is absurd to spend a lot of money on high-end monitors in the absence of a subwoofer, and even with that kind of set-up, I still have to burn my mixes to CDs and play them in my car and other systems before I can have any confidence that they will translate well into the real world of listening. If I had to do it over again, my monitoring system would be a combination of standard (but perhaps high-end) home stereo speakers, a set of car speakers and a cheap pair of computer speakers, and I would try to find the best balance across all of these systems. Conventional monitors with a flat frequency response plus a sub to provide the low end seems like a very contrived way to mix for real-world listening.
 
Rexinator said:
I'm going to depart from the crowd here and make some different comments about the necessity for good monitor speakers.

I've used Behringer Truth Monitors for about 8 years as my main monitors. They are at the lower end of the expense spectrum, but a friend of mine has a pair of $2K Genelecs, and my mixes don't sound a lot better on his system.

The main problem with almost all monitor speakers is the flat frequency curve. When I first started making music, the mixes I would make on the Behringers were completely whacked out when played on my car stereo. That's because my car stereo, like most car stereos, has a smiley face EQ curve that boosts the bass and high end. The bass especially was always way too boomy after generating a mix on my Behringers, almost certainly because I could not hear the bass end properly on those speakers (nor on my friend's Genelecs). So I had to buy a subwoofer to provide low-end feedback.

I am thoroughly convinced that a sub is absolutely required to supplement what you can hear with conventional monitor speakers, especially if you are making any kind of EDM or other style with substantial low-end content (below ~ 100 Hz). On most subs, you can dial in the cross-over point, below which the frequencies will be directed to the sub, and I had to play with that over a period of many months to find the proper balance that would give me the feedback I needed to make mixes that sounded balanced in the low end on my car stereo. This problem is not specific to my car stereo, as I had the same difficulty with any car stereo.

I should add that my mixing room is pretty well sonically treated, with some rather expensive absorbers that are strategically placed. If I'm honest, the sound treatment didn't make that much difference in terms of generating better mixes. Essentially, I had to learn by trial and error how much bass to permit in mixes when monitoring in my home studio such that the mixes would sound decent on my car or home stereo.

I tried various other 'solutions' to adjust for the discrepancy in frequency response curves between monitors and consumer stereo equipment, including putting an equalizer in line with my monitors to configure a partial smiley face curve (that helped) and paying $500 for the IK Multimedia software that supposedly measures and adjust for problems with frequency absorbance in your room (which I found to be entirely worthless, especially in dealing with the low-end discrepancies).

On top of this, there is the whole additional consideration about the fact that a lot of music listening these days occurs on computer speakers or ear buds, which presents a new set of challenges to achieve mixes that translate well onto those systems.

Over the years, the point has been driven deeply into my brain that it is absurd to spend a lot of money on high-end monitors in the absence of a subwoofer, and even with that kind of set-up, I still have to burn my mixes to CDs and play them in my car and other systems before I can have any confidence that they will translate well into the real world of listening.

If I had to do it over again, my monitoring system would be a combination of standard (but perhaps high-end) home stereo speakers, a set of car speakers and a cheap pair of computer speakers, and I would try to find the best balance across all of these systems. Conventional monitors with a flat frequency response plus a sub to provide the low end seems like a very contrived way to mix for real-world listening.
Click to expand...

[I am typing a reply to this, but I had to break up the block of text first :p]
 
Rexinator, you miss the point of monitors. They are supposed to give you what is actually there, not compensate for the hyped-up stereos that some people have.

The truth of the matter is, you have no control over what playback system your music will be played on. You can't compensate for someone playing it through a mono clock radio any more than you can compensate for someones car stereo with 10,000 watts feeding ten 15 inch subs.

You can only put out a well balanced mix. It sounds like you still want to hear too much low end in the mix, in other words you want the experience of an over-hyped system while you are mixing the song...That isn't what monitors are for.

Your mixes won't sound better on the Genelecs, they should sound worse. The monitors are supposed to be revealing, not complimentary.
 
I just spent an hour typing out a response. Only to be signed out and have nothing saved in the auto saved content. I hate you right now homerecording.com
 
Now I am the last person to cross XLRs with Jay but I have to say I think he is slightly wrong in certain respects?

Whilst I totally agree that a monitor should give you an accurate representation of the sounds, in practice none of them do. If the "perfect" monitor existed then everyone in the top studios would use it. It IS the case I agree that as you move up to multi $1000 monitors they all tend to sound very good and yes, very similar but peeps STILL have favourites!

At the bottom of the foodchain where most of us be, monitors are a long way from "reality". A pair of sub 0.5cu foot boxes are never going to reproduce the full frequency range of an orchestra nor get close to the level of a rock band. Indeed there are very few if any "project" monitors that could compete with a 15W valve amp into a V30.

Then surely the final mix depends upon the final destination? Very few people these days listen to music through a high powered hi fi system and high quality speakers and yet that is exactly what good studio monitors are. I tend to listen to Radio 3 whilst typing here but the other day there was some particularly screechy opera on so I flipped over to Radio 2...Wow! And I thought these Tannoys were bass light! Woof-woof it went, seriously solid bass. I have NO doubt that those songs were mixed to sound "good" on pods and PC speakers.

I also have a personal stake in this. Much TV drama is clearly mixed on super expensive monitors (or the Beeb's cheaper but very good ones) and in a "perfect" control room or editing suite. Not much use to us deaf buggers trying to hear dialogue out of a 32" flat screen TV!

Oh! BTW Rex, did not even try.

Dave.
 
Last edited:
Ok. I don't think I have it in me to type out my earlier response again.
Fortunately it was basically just saying what Jay and Dave said: Rexinator missed the point of monitors, and no monitors are actually flat.

And since I'm frustrated at my original post disappearing I'll just cut to the chase and talk to the OP (Stubby03) like I would with a friend who would be interested in my not unbiased advice, instead of trying to be a diplomatic forum member: Get monitors. Get the best monitors you can afford and learn them. Listen to your favorite music on them, listen to some of your own material that you can trust on them. Don't worry about treatment (...not yet, atleast), because it's not as important as having a good monitoring system (be it speakers or headphones). Don't worry about a subwoofer either. Subwoofers can help people just as much as they can hurt people.
Also - focus on your mids! Don't get caught up in all the talk about lows and highs - it's all about the mids! Every playback system has one thing in common - midrange. If people were to focus on getting the low-mids, high-mids, and mid-mids right the internet would be full of good mixes instead of mixes that sound like I have a pillow over my ears or a high-pass filter on my playback system.

I'm sure I'll elaborate if I need to tomorrow or something when I'm no longer frustrated with the hour I lost earlier.
 
kidkage said:
Ok. I don't think I have it in me to type out my earlier response again.
Fortunately it was basically just saying what Jay and Dave said: Rexinator missed the point of monitors, and no monitors are actually flat.

And since I'm frustrated at my original post disappearing I'll just cut to the chase and talk to the OP (Stubby03) like I would with a friend who would be interested in my not unbiased advice, instead of trying to be a diplomatic forum member: Get monitors. Get the best monitors you can afford and learn them. Listen to your favorite music on them, listen to some of your own material that you can trust on them. Don't worry about treatment (...not yet, atleast), because it's not as important as having a good monitoring system (be it speakers or headphones). Don't worry about a subwoofer either. Subwoofers can help people just as much as they can hurt people.
Also - focus on your mids! Don't get caught up in all the talk about lows and highs - it's all about the mids! Every playback system has one thing in common - midrange. If people were to focus on getting the low-mids, high-mids, and mid-mids right the internet would be full of good mixes instead of mixes that sound like I have a pillow over my ears or a high-pass filter on my playback system.

I'm sure I'll elaborate if I need to tomorrow or something when I'm no longer frustrated with the hour I lost earlier.
Click to expand...

The main point of monitors and room is to give the best mix over the broadest range of speakers and environments. The rest is pure academic and really is good for discussion only. If you can get a mix the people like on headphones, then you are good. If you get it from your stereo in a crappy room, then you are good to go.

Conventional wisdom here and I think it has merit, ti achieve these goals, good monitors, and a well treated room will get you there faster and better. BUT! is doesn't mean it is the only way. Everyone here really knows that, but we do try to get people to the happy medium as fast as possible for as little cash as is reasonable.

P.S. If it sounds good to the person mixing, then it is good. But it might not translate as expected.
 
"Also - focus on your mids! Don't get caught up in all the talk about lows and highs - it's all about the mids!"

The Kid(age) speaks the truth! If you look at the historical development of high quality speakers (and I was "there" for 1/2 of it!) the early days were obsessed with bass, mainly because that is where the technical challenges were and you had to have huge 2-3+cu ft cabs and 12 inch drivers to get decent LF even in a domestic environment. The invention of the long throw cone and low resonance drives solved that one so the next "fad" was tweeters...Ally domes, Titanium, soft fabric, hard fabric even Beryllium FCS (nasty stuff Beryllium!) and in all this the midrange was left to cope for itself. The woofer would get up to 2-3kHz "nicely" wouldn't it? And the tweeter might be a bit hard and distorted being asked to run "down there" but it would do!

There was an odd financial wrinkle here in UK. Purchase Tax. "Luxury" goods attracted PT (33%IIRC?!) and since Hi Fi was certainly a rich boy's toy you got slapped. However, speakers with more than two drive units were deemed "industrial" and were exempt . This was a bit of a double edged sword since a lot of makers just jacked in any old 3-4" unit they had to hand and fitted an extra L and C in the crossover! Still, it was progress and today really top line 3 unit speakers are the norm for the best fidelity.

MUCH! Later in the history of speakers people started to think about "colouration" and whether units could actually sound like the live sounds they were supposed to reproduce. There is no harder test of a speaker than the reproduction of human speech and MALE speech at that.

Dave.
 
I also second or third the JBL LSR series monitors. Phenomenal difference, no exaggerated bass or otherwise, nice adjustments to tweak for what you do and have made me hear things in music collection never heard before and also reveal so many of the nuances in my entirely hardware based synth based set-up. I opted for the LSR308's over the 305's because of a few fully analog synths that really shine with larger woofer driver, but totally without exaggerated anything. My Moogs sound better than ever and DSI Poly Evolver Rack poly chained to a Mono Evolver Keyboard for 5 massive voices that have vast spectral range never ever stress out these JBL's. When I spent a LOT of time at Sweetwater comparing between KRK's, Tannoys, and some Yamaha's...the JBL's simply sound better. I found the KRK's to be exaggerated bass and really wanted as neutral/flat response while allowing me to do synthesis sound design and hear everything. The JBL LSR's have been best investment for 2014 for me. The Focals sounded slightly better but not enough for the extremely higher price range.
 
The mids are everything. that is where most of the music is and most of the harmonics that let you tel the difference between a guitar and a piano.
 
Dogbreath said:
My thoughts are to treat your room first (if that's possible at this stage in your game) with that $350 you've got.
Monitors are going to help, no doubt.
But those same monitors in a treated room are gonna help a lot more.
Check out some DIY bass traps and see if you can swing that.

Not as glamorous as new gear but imo... the best bang for your buck.
Click to expand...

swapping speakers often causes "re-learning" periods all over again. speakers dont hardly matter as long as you have some and have learned them well (which comes from recording alot). thats my current revelation and explains why my mixing never progressed like some of these people I met who record every week for a few short years, and they gain the skills of it all so fast.

I agree with dogbreath though, as for the room, its kind of obvious if your going to have subwoofers and blaring loudness and 8" full sized monitors in your room you will need a lot of room treatment, bass is always the PITA. the more volume the more the sound is crashing and smearing and cancelling itself out.. lol

too bad the Retailers dont sell Fiberglass panels, or has specials "with the purchase of the JBL305's you get 8qty 703 panels!" or something like that.

who wants to spend $400 on things that just hang on the wall?:rolleyes:

RealTraps - How To Set Up a Room
 
Due to a question on another forum (about MIDI timing !) I re-visited some ragtime piano music and found that my Tannoys produce a very fair reproduction of the instruments I heard in front rooms played by my father and uncle and of course in pubs.

Go listen to some Joplin and if you cannot follow the left hand there is something wrong with either your speakers, room or both!

Dave.
 
ecc83 said:
Whilst I totally agree that a monitor should give you an accurate representation of the sounds, in practice none of them do. If the "perfect" monitor existed then everyone in the top studios would use it. It IS the case I agree that as you move up to multi $1000 monitors they all tend to sound very good and yes, very similar but peeps STILL have favourites!
Click to expand...

This is because a monitoring system is the loudspeakers AND the room.

A professional studio will have an acoustics consultant come in and match the monitors and the room.

And - yes - a monitor should be ruthlessly accurate and only sound good when the recording is good.
 
I went with the KRK's. I have done some mixing with these on 3 songs we are working on. Burned a disk to see how they translated to real world systems. It did pretty good. I am a bass player by trade, I did not think they add any more bass then what I naturally heard. They did represent the highs good. I had questioned a mix of one song as having to much highs in the overall mix. Thought maybe I had been at it to long that day. Nope, I had to many highs. Every speaker is different. I am happy. Will save a lot of time with burning so many disks to check my mix. Going to start building some acoustic panels next. Thanks for all of your input.
 
RobbieDames said:
ya dude, plus it's a pain in the ass to have to export the track, go check it on everything that plays music and then go back and fix it, export it again, check it again… invest in monitors!
Click to expand...

But it's also good (on occasion, maybe not on every mix) to do so to keep your ear tuned...especially when you're first starting out.

DM60 said:
Where these made in US? Ft. Worth, TX if I recall correctly or am I getting these confused with another brand?
Click to expand...

Tandy is in Fort Worth. Used to be (well, still is) a leather craft company, but bought out Radio Shack and built computers and stereo kit...

Stubby03 said:
I went with the KRK's. I have done some mixing with these on 3 songs we are working on. Burned a disk to see how they translated to real world systems. It did pretty good. I am a bass player by trade, I did not think they add any more bass then what I naturally heard. They did represent the highs good. I had questioned a mix of one song as having to much highs in the overall mix. Thought maybe I had been at it to long that day. Nope, I had to many highs. Every speaker is different. I am happy. Will save a lot of time with burning so many disks to check my mix. Going to start building some acoustic panels next. Thanks for all of your input.
Click to expand...

Good choice. Forward facing ports are important if your trapping isn't great! I started on Gen 1 Rokit 5s, and absolutely hated them (but I still have them and use them on occasion). The Gen 3s are supposed to be a LOT better. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top