substitute for monitors

C

Captain Ego

New member
I am trying to mix something, just as good a quality as I can get. I had problems last time with headphones being very innacurately bass heavy, leading to the mix being overly harsh tinny. I don't have any 'real' monitors the closest I have is the built-in monitors on a Korg C4 cassette 4-track. I also have a cheap boom box, a set of crusty computer speakers that sound very midzy, and a Roland KC350 keyboard amp (which obviously will just be mono).

Lacking any real monitors, what would the best way to use this pile of assorted stand ins to get at least close to something that is a balanced mix? I have so far tried using each one separately, and tried combining them all. The result of having all of them going was actually really nice sounding; Too nice sounding I am worried about, like I know I am being lied to by my speakers.

Has anyone had to use stand-ins for monitors? Which would be the best of this stuff to do this with?
 
If you ask me I think that it would be a good idea to invest in a pair of decent monitors. It sounds like what your using right now is making your job of mixing difficult because instead of EQing the audio that you are trying to mix you are stuck trying to correct for the system that you are using. My experience is that when you have a decent pair of monitors then when your mix sounds good on them, then the mix will pretty good on nearly every other system.
 
You can only ever hear as accurately as your monitoring chain allows you to hear. By a long shot, the absolute most important tool you will ever have when it comes to recording.
 
Monitors > headphones... Well, not all the time.. Depends on quality of both
 
Well then there's the room.

You can chase your tail for years with this and in the end you will treat your room and by decent monitors.
 
True dat... Let me rephrase my earlier post by adding two of the only actual "rules" of audio (so much for "there are no rules..." which is partially true, but there is still physics and reality).

1) No matter how many years of experience, no matter how acute your listening skills, you will only ever hear as accurately and consistently as your monitoring chain allows you to hear - Period.

2) No matter the quality, accuracy and consistency of your monitoring chain, it will only ever be as accurate and consistent as the room its in allows it to be - Period.

The same can be said about the greatest digital camera body on the planet can only ever "see" as detailed as the glass in the lens - and even in the hands of the most talented NASCAR driver, a 1980 Yugo is still going to top out at 75MPH, even with a tailwind.

I know an awful lot of people who have been doing this stuff for decades who will never make "great" recordings simply because they never had the capability to develop their listening skills. On the flip side, I know several audiophile types who got themselves simple recording setups who are making reasonable recordings on "day one" because they know what to listen for right off the bat.
 
I have chased my tail for years as Manslick said. Even with ok monitors (maudio sp-5b) in a bad room I just get frustrated mixing sometimes. After every trial and error test, and thoughts that my experience with the equipment and room would improve mixes, I'm getting some bigger monitors, and starting to treat the room.

I guess there is no answer to your question outside of get some decent monitors and treat the room. I don't want to sound like a snob, but if you are at the point where you want to make good recordings, not just stuff that sounds like it was done in your bedroom, you have to get the room and monitoring set right. That's where I'm at too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top