Industry professional reckons headphones are the future in mixing.

[miroslav]

If a professional engineer recommends headphones for mixing...

So are you at that point where you're trying to decide if switching entirely to headphones is the way to go because they are becoming more prevalent in the home/project studio world?
Like I mentioned...I was using headphones exclusively as far back as early '80s. It was during my early days of "home" recording, when I first got into it heavily, on a 4-track, and TBH, I never even thought about speaker monitors. We (my band) use to have a dedicated rehearsal space, quite nice considering most young bands had to make do with funky basements and garages...and about the closest I came to a speaker monitoring system, was occasionally using our PA system just to listen to some of my mixes...but when I was recording at home, it was 100% headphones. Back then, it was the Koss Pro4AA...big-n-heavy, but they were pretty much a studio staple in the pro world, but mostly for tracking purposes. For me, they were also my monitors.

I still have about 8 pairs of them...and believe it or not, they are still fantastic for tracking use. They don't have the hyped bass, they are articulate without the mid-high harsh hype of the Sony MDR phones (which were quite common when the home studio boom kicked in...and I always hated them)...plus the Koss are still some of the best isolation headphones. I mean, they will block out the live sound almost as good as the purpose built isolation headphones, but they sound way better. Of course...they were/are also tedious after about 6 hours of constant use...and back in the day, I would record from like early afternoon, well into the early morning hours of the next day on most weekends. When I took them off...it was like a clamp had been removed from my head...but I still think they are great and will always offer them to people when they need more clarity and isolation. With other phones, you have to crank the volume much higher because they don't have that isolation. For their size & weight, they actually felt comfortable on your ears...and for shorter use, not a problem...but me, I would put them on and not take them off for hours.

Anyway...so much for the trip down memory lane.
I think that these days, the entire industry is set up to maintain the gear production. Back in the day, you would rarely see an ad or a promo from any industry insiders, but now they are all in bed with the manufacturers...because it pays. Even when they don't push a specific brand, they still push the need for having the latest new big thing. It's no different than the cell phone nonsense every year. I also don't believe half the promos and ads....that these guys use what they say they use. I also know that it will be along time before you see some pro in a pro studio...mixing on phones, and no monitors anywhere in the room.
IMO...it's a decent Band-Aid for situations where you can't have the monitors...or you don't have the room...or you need the privacy and convenience...but I always come back to what I said earlier...it's unnatural to have sound injected directly into your ear.
I think sometimes new technology drives decision making...it's something new, so it must be the way to go...but it doesn't always mean it's the better way.
Like a discussion on another forum...where someone commented that eventually everyone will stop using real tub amps in favor of things like AxeFX...because it's the new technology. I guess I need to stop buying tube amps.

 

[miroslav]

I think this is actually key to where he is coming from. The video is called something like "What should a studio cost ?" and he recognizesthat the game has changed from the old days. It has changed big time.

.......


The argument is not being framed as a ditching of monitors, rather, that headphones too can do the job.

Well...that's the thing, they have created gear to fit every budget these days...so in that regard, it enables more people to get into the recording thing...but it's no surprise that he avoids making any claims to quality, or suggesting how people should go.
I think the problem is that many people will/do interpret it to mean that now X&Y can replace A&B completely, and it's just as good...but at a fraction of the cost of A&B.

 

[grimtraveller]

I'm not sure who the "we" is in your statement...?

It is the Royal "we." That is, whoever it refers to.

I don't ever check my mixes on headphones. I may use headphones to check something...but it's not the mix for any final decision.
I've checked in the car or on some other speaker system...but not on headphones.

Fair enough, but in the thousands of threads on this site over many years, lots of people have said that as part of checking the translatability of their mixes, they'll use headphones. I don't think it's by any means unusual. As well as the 2 stereos and the boombox and the computer {and the car}, I'll use phones on them too and I'll use buds on my ipod. For me, it's sheer curiosity.

I find that with headphones, the stereo image is not accurately represented

Funnily enough, I find the very opposite. From when I was a teenager, one of the things I liked about stereo mixes and headphones was that stereo image. That doesn't make either of us right......or wrong.

the stereo image is not accurately represented unless you expect that everyone will only listen to it on headphones.

For the record, I mix with monitors. I have done headphone mixes and found no essential difference because I don't regard myself as a good mixer either way. When I'm mixing with my monitors, I have headphones with me and am often listening to how it sounds. I never give a thought to what the person that might listen might be listening on. That's their affair, not mine. Rarely do I find a move made with phones sounds wild and wacky on the monitors and vice versa.

I too mentioned earlier in this thread about the ears being able to hear both speakers (I guess no one picked up on that)...and that is a key thing that doesn't happen with headphones, it's a different stereo image that is IMO somewhat unnatural on headphones. Yeah, it might sound really cool, but it's just not how we naturally listen to sounds in the real world, so why use that approach for music...? Oh wait, I know...convenience and lower cost

When I first started recording, I'd listen to playbacks on the phones. It didn't even occur to me to think in terms of convenience or cost. Or nature. Without getting churlish about it, the simple fact is that recorded music is the 2nd ultimate in artifice {the kingpin being CGI in movies}. Only Kings, Queens, presidents and their ilk have bands playing in their living rooms or gardens. For me the argument about how we naturally hear is a non starter. Almost everything about recorded music, how we capure it and how we play it back, is skating on artificial ice. It has to be. So it's not really a consideration for me. While I might concede that headphones may be more unnatural, it's really a case of potato/potatoe. Headphones have been around longer than I have !
As for it being a different stereo image, well, is it ? The answer to that is nuanced. It is in a way, when one is listening to it because of the way the sound is travelling to you. But that's unavoidable. The question for me is not whether it is different, it's whether it's intrinsically inferior because it was mixed on phones.

So now they are creating processing for headphones that simulates a natural room environment with speakers.
I mean...really, why not just go with the real thing.

I could make exactly the same argument with auto-tuning.
The history of recording is the story of the triumph of artifice. We simulate all kinds of "natural" room and hall ambiances with our usage of reverb and delay. We varispeed {well, I do !} in order to make two backing vocalists sound like 20. We sometimes compress to lop off the peaks of naturally exuberant whacks of a percussionist or natural lack of control of a vocalist. Most of us could fill a bible sized tome with how we manipulate nature {or how someone else has} in our quest to present a recorded statement.

 

[ecc83]

"I could make exactly the same argument with auto-tuning"

And there ^ I think we have the crux of the matter? The fact is there are two basic 'schools' of audio recording.

The 'classical' approach where a group of musicians is recorded using a relatively simple mic setup. CO-I, spaced pair, ORTF, Tree...

The other is a 'construct' and really does not exist in the real world. N very B! I do not say one technique is more valid than the other but I doubt a quartet recording Moz' would be happy with the latter!

So, the sound of the quartet, orchestra, jazz trio whatever exists as wavefronts in the air and gives us massive amounts of spacial information. Very good loudspeakers can, do some extent, recreate those wavefronts and give us a pretty good illusion of the original performance, assuming of course that the mic technique was expertly done.

AFAIK such spacial illusions cannot be created with headpones.With clever software some claim to get close but as has been said, "why bother? Use quality monitors".

For the 'in the box, DI'ed, panned, ****ed about' mass appeal stuff? Yeah, use cans, Tesco Reds, I don't listen or care.

Dave.

 

[miroslav]

There's a difference between "checking" a mix with headphones...and "mixing" with headphones. My understanding is that this discussion is about mixing with headphones instead of monitors...and not along with monitors, etc.

Also...if every discussion about gear and recording is resolved with the "anything goes" or "whatever you prefer" answers, then it's kinda meaningless to even have them, because all perspectives become valid with those comments...and at the same time it's implied that the playing field is leveled, regardless what people use or how they use it...
...but in reality, that is most certainly not the case.

 

[rob aylestone]

I think my views are quite set. Lots of my stuff involves the accurate representation of stereo field - typically choirs, orchestras, quartets, that kind of thing - plus jazz and acoustic sets. Localisation is very important. I can place two violins, viola and cello in a room and have the listener on speakers with eyes closed point to them. I can mix on headphones and do the same thing. It falls over when the speaker mix is replayed on headphones, and vice versa. It doesn't work with totally separate channels with no crosstalk. It's not wider, but a kind of weird stretching and squeezing of the stereo placement. If you sweep a single source left to right on the pan knob at a constant speed on speakers, the pot seems to follow the position in your head quite accurately. On headphones, the in your head position falls behind a little then creeps ahead, and on phones small movements around central can be heard, while on speakers, these movements seem to have no effect until you get to maybe 30 degrees or so? I firmly think the listening environment means we need different versions. I'm old enough to remember how having quad audio meant Mike Oldfield did dreadful things with panning, but it did sound amazing, but totally unreal.

For most genres I guess few listeners are interested in placement at all, just a big sound.

 

[ecc83]

I think my views are quite set. Lots of my stuff involves the accurate representation of stereo field - typically choirs, orchestras, quartets, that kind of thing - plus jazz and acoustic sets. Localisation is very important. I can place two violins, viola and cello in a room and have the listener on speakers with eyes closed point to them. I can mix on headphones and do the same thing. It falls over when the speaker mix is replayed on headphones, and vice versa. It doesn't work with totally separate channels with no crosstalk. It's not wider, but a kind of weird stretching and squeezing of the stereo placement. If you sweep a single source left to right on the pan knob at a constant speed on speakers, the pot seems to follow the position in your head quite accurately. On headphones, the in your head position falls behind a little then creeps ahead, and on phones small movements around central can be heard, while on speakers, these movements seem to have no effect until you get to maybe 30 degrees or so? I firmly think the listening environment means we need different versions. I'm old enough to remember how having quad audio meant Mike Oldfield did dreadful things with panning, but it did sound amazing, but totally unreal.

For most genres I guess few listeners are interested in placement at all, just a big sound.

Ah! Now Rob, one thing you CANNOT avoid with headphones is the fact that the stereo picture (however mangled!) of the entire bloody Boston Symph' moves around with you!

Speakers produce a fixed point in space, much like an acoustic hologram and the better the monitors, the better the 'picture'.

Dave.

 

[rob aylestone]

Indeed - I'm actually having trouble at the moment. I'm working away from home till mid jan and had intended finishing some projects as I have much of my studio here, but I didn't bring the monitors, thinking I could make do with a set of Edirol 5" things - and I cannot make ANY sensible judgements with them stereo wise. the frequency response to get bass out of them seems to make any panning below 100Hz or so just invisible. I'm resigned to headphones and I hate them already!

 

[Steenamaroo]

But what if one can ?

You can't.
It's not about experience; It's about physics.

 

[Mickster]

Also...if every discussion about gear and recording is resolved with the "anything goes" or "whatever you prefer" answers, then it's kinda meaningless to even have them, because all perspectives become valid with those comments...and at the same time it's implied that the playing field is leveled, regardless what people use or how they use it...
...but in reality, that is most certainly not the case.

Hey Miro......love your studio build. I'm hooked on the daily show......and jealous as hell.

Anyway....you left out a very important part of my statement in your reply. If it was left as...."just do what you prefer.".....then you would be correct in your critique. I did say that...but added that the results had to be there as well. Essentially what I was saying is that you could get to good mixing results on "quality" cans if you wanted to or needed to. That's not to say you had to get the results only by using cans.....or that I even recommended that method.......or that you could not check on other systems you were familiar with after mixing on cans. It's also not to say that is easier or simpler to mix on cans. I was just saying that a quality set of cans.....with lots of time spent on familiarization.......could get you acceptable or excellent results. I think I was aiming at those people who don't have good rooms or maybe even any room at all.

 

[ecc83]

You can't.
It's not about experience; It's about physics.

Moot I think? Dummy head recording? Anyone who has tried this will be amazed and SPOOKED by the incredible realism and positioning of sounds. They are truly all around one. In one test in my L room I went outside and tapped on the window. Scared the excrement out of me on playback!

Now, if it were posible to transform DH signals to do the same thing out of speaker (even 4) it would make surround sound a 2 channel system but it seems you cannot. Even the formibable (to me) mathematics of Mike Gerzon years ago could not do it.

'Physics' indeed it seems.

Dave.

 

[Steenamaroo]

Moot I think? Dummy head recording? Anyone who has tried this will be amazed and SPOOKED by the incredible realism and positioning of sounds. They are truly all around one. In one test in my L room I went outside and tapped on the window. Scared the excrement out of me on playback!

Now, if it were posible to transform DH signals to do the same thing out of speaker (even 4) it would make surround sound a 2 channel system but it seems you cannot. Even the formibable (to me) mathematics of Mike Gerzon years ago could not do it.

'Physics' indeed it seems.

Dave.

That's cool and all but on headphones we've no idea what sort of cancellation is going on.
Sure, experience can tell us that doing X/Y/Z is likely to cause problems, but that's no substitute for being able to hear what's really happening.
Not going to name and shame him again but it's not that long ago someone sent me a mix asking how the acoustic guitar sounded.
To the casual listener, on speakers, there was no acoustic guitar.

There was in headphones...

Of course there's a lot of stuff you can do in headphones and lot of stuff that really benefits from that close/detailed listen,
but for general music mixing I don't think headphones and speakers can really be compared.

 

[miroslav]

Hey Miro......love your studio build. I'm hooked on the daily show......and jealous as hell.

Anyway....you left out a very important part of my statement in your reply.

Thanks...I'm trying to keep the show interesting. I just wish it was moving a bit faster.

AFA the comment...TBH, I wasn't replying to you or anyone specifically...it was just something that came to mind because I've heard that kind of blanked statement too many times with audio recording discussions. At some point everything becomes acceptable due to personal prefs...which is a nice thought, but there are realities that don't makes sense for some personal prefs, or dare I say it, simply don't work...but some people these days get insulted when their approach is criticized (it's the new societal norm)...you know, "everyone's a winner" and all that nonsense.

 

[miroslav]

Of course there's a lot of stuff you can do in headphones and lot of stuff that really benefits from that close/detailed listen,
but for general music mixing I don't think headphones and speakers can really be compared.

Right.
If you were sure that only headphones were going to be used by all listeners...it's like an alternate listening reality...or like wearing 3D glasses for a movie...
...but that's not how we normally/naturally see things or hear things.

 

[ecc83]

Right.
If you were sure that only headphones were going to be used by all listeners...it's like an alternate listening reality...or like wearing 3D glasses for a movie...
...but that's not how we normally/naturally see things or hear things.

I would also like to say that headphones/buds are not used quite as much as the perception in this thread would seem to suggest? Families watching TV will use speakers (even though most are THE most appaling crap!) Folks in cars use the often very good ICE sound even if they Btooth YT into it. A small proportion will have modest to stonking 5.1-7.1 systems and SURELY there are a few of us left that listen to quality music reproduced over decent hi fi systems?!!

In any case, For the guy or gal on their phone that bumps into me downtown? I could not give a flying cluck HOW badly their stuff is mixed! Bloody Phombies!

Dave.

 

[keith.rogers]

....

What I find quite interesting is the implication that after having used phones for so much, probably most, of our lives, we'd conclude that one can't mix on them.

I can't speak for anyone else, but like I said, I've concluded that it's more efficient for me to mix on the small monitor speakers. I always listen on headphones, and will go back and make adjustments if something sticks out, but that's just like confirming a mix's ability to translate on other devices. I'm sure there are folks that can do that with just headphones, but I suspect it's driven by necessity as much as anything, and it may be easier or harder, depending on the genre, and maybe where you started from, too.

 

[grimtraveller]

And there ^ I think we have the crux of the matter? The fact is there are two basic 'schools' of audio recording.

You overlook the reality that those two worlds have been colliding and meshing since the 50s and 60s and there are people who are totally at home with both worlds. You present it as a kind of "either/or." Recording engineers have been known to 'doctor' classical recordings, you know.

The 'classical' approach where a group of musicians is recorded using a relatively simple mic setup. CO-I, spaced pair, ORTF, Tree...

The other is a 'construct' and really does not exist in the real world

When was the last time you heard 90 people crammed with their musical instruments inside two wooden boxes in a front room somewhere ?
I'm being facetious of course. Neither exists in the real world. Both are facsimiles. One happens to be a facsimile of sounds and arrangements imagined and can include 'found' objects.
The moment sound was able to be reproduced, it was. And naturally, that led to different sounds, then created sounds, then manipulated sounds. Thing is, it takes a while before new things or ideas or processes or realizations kick in and in that time, what currently exists can take the form of dogma. The recording world has been a classic for that.

I do not say one technique is more valid than the other

But in a way, you do.

but as has been said, "why bother? Use quality monitors".

Why not bother ? Back in the day, black and white TV was fine. It didn't stop anyone's enjoyment of what they were watching. Why bother with colour ?
Because that's what humans do. We explore, we try, we attempt. Sometimes we fail, sometimes we break through.

 

[snow lizard]

one thing you CANNOT avoid with headphones is the fact that the stereo picture (however mangled!) of the entire bloody Boston Symph' moves around with you!

Speakers produce a fixed point in space, much like an acoustic hologram and the better the monitors, the better the 'picture'.

In the Andertons video I posted they were demoing a brand new Boss "Personal Amplification System" thing which is basically a bluetooth guitar amp built into a set of cans. If you don't like the native lack of room you normally get with phones, you can turn on the room simulator and adjust the size of the room and position of the amp within the room through 360 degrees. Through the magic of some kind of GPS, magneto infindimbulized ballast thingy, if you turn your head the position of the amp does not change, but the stereo image does.

Whether or not the new technology can compensate for the physical barrier of being able to hear phase relationships in headphones? I don't know.

Not going to name and shame him again but it's not that long ago someone sent me a mix asking how the acoustic guitar sounded.
To the casual listener, on speakers, there was no acoustic guitar.

There was in headphones...

I've heard a pro engineer recount a story where he neglected to check his mix in mono before finishing. He discovered the rather serious phase dropouts immediately once he heard his mix on TV.

 

[grimtraveller]

So are you at that point where you're trying to decide if switching entirely to headphones is the way to go because they are becoming more prevalent in the home/project studio world?

No.
I personally wouldn't want to mix entirely on headphones. I like mixing with them and I like mixing with monitors but I much prefer monitors. But then, the way I've evolved, I wouldn't mix entirely on monitors either unless there was absolutely no choice.
As I said somewhere earlier, I have never been of the mind that it is not possible to mix with cans. But in the debates, the monitor-only fraternity always had this one ace card to play that always won the game; what pro do you ever hear talking about mixing on cans and why do you think all that money is spent on high end monitoring equipment ? So anyone answering back to that always sounded deceived, a dreamer, a nub, a n00b, not in the real world.
That's no longer the case. Here is a fairly well respected professional not only recommending headphones, he is making a clear and bold statement that there are others in his field that are using them too and is confident enough to state that it's a future changer for mixers. Not that monitors will die out, just that headphones will become a standard part of that monitoring chain.
So that interests me. It interests me the same way that many biblical scholars and believers that aren't scholars feel it's blasphemy to say that God doesn't know the future in exhaustive detail but can't adequately explain why the bible contains passages that show just that. It interests me the same way that currently in our UK politics, you have the Liberal Democrats saying that they'll do away with Brexit {the vote to leave the EU} even though they actually walked out of parliament only in 2008 because there was no pledge given for a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU. It interests me in the same way that supporters of Charles Manson claim he never lied yet in his own trial transcript, he demonstrably does.
"I'm a very curious man, Ricca."

I also know that it will be along time before you see some pro in a pro studio...mixing on phones, and no monitors anywhere in the room.

I wouldn't argue with that. Things take time. When homosexuality was taken off the AMA list of mental illnesses and in Britain decriminalized, some people felt it would be a long time before men married men and women married women. In fact, it wasn't even on the gay agenda, let alone anyone else's. At least, not in Britain. Yet here we are.

IMO...it's a decent Band-Aid for situations where you can't have the monitors...or you don't have the room...or you need the privacy and convenience

Yet implicit in that statement, band aid or not, is the acceptance that it is possible.

it's unnatural to have sound injected directly into your ear.

It's unnatural to have two boxes directly throw the sound of events possibly years ago at you. Who cares about nature ? If we stopped doing all the things we do that are "unnatural" there really isn't much we would do. It's not natural to refridgerate food. It's not natural to drive or fly. Or use toothpaste. It's not even natural to......write ! Natural has nothing whatsoever to do with whether something is possible.

I think sometimes new technology drives decision making...it's something new, so it must be the way to go...but it doesn't always mean it's the better way.

I agree with that but again, better in whose eyes ? Is it better to fly to another country or to go by train or to drive ? I've done all three to Switzerland.
I'm undecided !

 

[ecc83]

You overlook the reality that those two worlds have been colliding and meshing since the 50s and 60s and there are people who are totally at home with both worlds. You present it as a kind of "either/or." Recording engineers have been known to 'doctor' classical recordings, you know.



When was the last time you heard 90 people crammed with their musical instruments inside two wooden boxes in a front room somewhere ?
I'm being facetious of course. Neither exists in the real world. Both are facsimiles. One happens to be a facsimile of sounds and arrangements imagined and can include 'found' objects.
The moment sound was able to be reproduced, it was. And naturally, that led to different sounds, then created sounds, then manipulated sounds. Thing is, it takes a while before new things or ideas or processes or realizations kick in and in that time, what currently exists can take the form of dogma. The recording world has been a classic for that.


But in a way, you do.

Why not bother ? Back in the day, black and white TV was fine. It didn't stop anyone's enjoyment of what they were watching. Why bother with colour ?
Because that's what humans do. We explore, we try, we attempt. Sometimes we fail, sometimes we break through.

ALL recording is 'doctored' to some degree, true reproduction is not withing our gift.
An example is the reduction in the dynamic range of and orchestra say (even a grand piano!) in order for it to 'fit' on the achaic vinyl and for broadcasting purposes. We COULD have virtually the whole DR of the 1812 on CD (who recalls the smoked speakers from 'that' CD?) but few of us have quiet enough rooms and the stupendously powerful systems needed.

But, just because allowances have to be made is no reason not to use the best method of monitoring 'classical' recordings at least.

Dave.