Industry professional reckons headphones are the future in mixing.

Not saying you can't learn how to use inferior monitoring...or even headphones...but to me, it's like taking a harder road and learning how to make it work, rather than using an easier/better option, and learning how to make that work.
Which sort of brings me back to an earlier point ~ if two paths will take you to the same place but one is 3 miles long and full of rabid dogs that you know how to deal with but which will still come and attack you and the other is a beautiful half mile trek through some of the most gorgeous woodland anywhere on the planet, with scenery and calm to die for, what does it matter which path you take if you reach your destination ?

I am always both amused and annoyed when I see some newbs on the internet arguing that all that high-end, high-priced stuff is mostly hype
It can be annoying initially. But they're newbs. They're newbies for the precise reason that they have passionate opinions but not the experience to match. My eldest child turned 18 today. He's been like that since he learned to talk. We've been arguing about things since 2003. Then his experience catches up and he can see some of what I was saying. Over the years, as I've heard him use my arguments, I don't throw it in his face. I just smile. I remember that I now see things that I simply couldn't once. It's sobering. It happens to most of us.

when in fact, they were simply pandering to their limited budgets and the "convenience monster"
But that's a huge issue when you're starting out in an artistic endeavour. And to a large extent, for many, it doesn't die. Our equipment and ideas become an extension of us so any kind of statement that appears to denigrate one's gear naturally has the net effect of seeming to be some kind of personal attack or statement, even when it isn't. And let's face it, the way some newcomers have been dealt with in the past hasn't exactly encouraged them to see that they might just be taking things the wrong way ! The school of 'tough' doesn't always deliver.

When I'm not sure which way to go...I still always turn to the pro/commercial world for information and suggestions. There's a reason those guys use what they use...and while it may not always be attainable, I try to get as close as possible.
That was exactly part of the rationale behind the thread. A pro said something that challenged many years of a particular strand of thinking. Lt Bob used to say it, Glen used to say it, a few others here have said it down the years. Now a pro is saying it. It's not that that alone made it worthy of debate, rather, that a recording, mixing professional can't just be dismissed as an internet blogger full of fatuous opinions.

if you need info on how to fly to the moon...you go and check out what NASA has to say, and not some blogger on some website or some sales rep
Hence the thread.
 
You can't.
It's not about experience; It's about physics.
So, let me get this straight. You are saying, even though some claim to be able to and even though we have an industry professional telling you that there are those doing it and recommending it as part of the further way of things, that a human being cannot mix a set of tracks into a perfectly playable, translatable song on a set of headphones. That there is the matter of actual, immovable scientific laws that make this an impossiblility, rather like humans flying or breathing unaided underwater for 15 days or males producing eggs that, if fertilized and nurtured for 9 months will become babies, or females producing spermatozoa ? And that no matter how many times in how many years one mixes on headphones, all their experience will count for absolutely nothing because it simply can't be done ?
What does that make Warren Huart then ? A liar ? A charlatan ? A master of self deceit ? Someone who wants YouTube views ?
You won't be surprised to learn I disagree with your quote. It has everything to do with experience and repetition.

it seems to me more about knowing how whatever you are using translates which kinda circles back to using references that you know inside and out when dialing in your listening setup
You won't be surprised to learn I agree with your quote.:D

it's no surprise that he avoids making any claims to quality, or suggesting how people should go.
Well, he'd probably be criticized for doing the latter. But the former is implicit in what he says. If he recommends something and goes as far as to say that the old way of thinking on the subject is dead as far as he's concerned and then goes on to mention 2 or 3 phones that he likes {even going as far as to tell us the levels ie, high end, entry etc}, then he's making some
claims as to the quality and what can be achieved.
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.
Well so what if they do ?
I live in the world of nuances and paradox. I'm well acquainted with life between the cracks. I've heard songs from people here that I regard as fantastic, mixed by guys with Hitachi amps and stereo speakers and off a Tascam Neo. I've also heard songs by people here that were done on much higher end stuff that were fantastic. It makes not a whit of difference to me how much their rigs cost. I'm not at all bothered if "Fred" thinks his rig is just as good as "Pauline's" but only cost a fifth of Fred's. Same way, I don't care if my neighbour's car cost £24,000 and mine only cost £2,500. They both get us where we need to go and the speed limit is the same.
If I had spent £100,000 on putting a studio together and some kid came along and played me his brilliant mixes that were better than mine and he told me he did them on headphones that cost £280, I couldn't care less because my joy comes from what I have when it comes to music. I already said I was a shitty mixer. But using mellotron sounds and being able to come up with what I consider sometimes to be great bass parts, even if they're played on a shitty university project bass that cost me £120 14 years ago and having a few bits that enable me to pursue my hobby......I don't have time to be bothered by someone else's gear or what they think of it.

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.
Yes, there is a difference. But the one can often shine a light on the other. Hopefully, it is noticeable that I am not actually telling anyone that they should go out and now mix with phones. That would be daft, not least because those that are already used to monitors {the great majority, I'd happily wager} would have to spend time on a new learning curve, and for what ? To do something that you certainly don't need to do and in many cases, don't like doing anyway ?
As an aside, would it be fair to say that most of the songs in the MP3 clinic or that have ever been there are not or were not headphone mixes ?

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...
Again, this is nuanced. It really depends on what we are talking about and the different levels of knowledge and experience. A few years ago, a couple of guys ragged on you mercilessly because of your support for the practice of copying a track, adding some delay to the pulse of an organ for a cool effect. What really struck me at the time {I think it was about 2011} was these two's blind insistence that it was shit, even though you, by your own experience had done it a few times. But quite a number of useful things came out of the discussion. And discussions generally have a number elements to them, such as opinion, fact, science masquerading as argument closers, morals and experiences. I won't ignore the role preference plays in a conversation about something subjective. And being located in a paradox does actually mean that there can be a few different levels interacting in a conversation between multiple people.

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
Nuanced again. It depends what you mean. My kids are into music, much of which I think is pretty lame for my own listening. But they dig it. They get something out of it. I listen to much of it and they ask me what I think and I tell them and why. We have great chats about it that go on for ages. But someone using a sampler and just wolfing Ringo's snare, Carlton Barrett's kick, Billy Cobham's cymbals & hats and Tony Williams' toms is on the same playing field as the many greats and not so great in both the pro and home recording worlds. I may not like what they come up with, but like Dave, I don't have to listen to it, whatever it was mixed on. Swapping views is one of the main reasons I like these threads. I love to know what people are doing, how and what they feel about it.

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
In relation to your brain, your ears are a fixed point. Whether I'm cycling, riding the bus, driving or walking, I still love my classical music.
A funny thing happened in the school I work in the other day. It was lashing down with rain so the kids {10~11 year olds} couldn't play outside. So there were 29 kids in a small class and varying degrees of chaos all around me and panrific levels of noise and I was seated, reading a book. One of the kids came up to me and said "how can you just sit there and read with all this noise going on ?" They're so used to teachers and lunch staff screeching at them for the slightest noise.
I guess I thrive in chaos.

Indeed - 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!
But is that because you cannot utilize them ? You may have something to report by mid-Jan.:thumbs up:
 
So, let me get this straight. You are saying, even though some claim to be able to and even though we have an industry professional telling you that there are those doing it and recommending it as part of the further way of things, that a human being cannot mix a set of tracks into a perfectly playable, translatable song on a set of headphones.

Not saying that at all.
I am saying that you can never be sure a headphone mix is going to work on speakers.

It's not a preference, or advice, or a tradition; Hell, it's not even a debate.

Your left ear hears two speakers and your right ear hears two speakers.
Headphones don't recreate that and there's no amount of experience that's going to make you know when cancellation/filtering would have happened, had you been listening on speakers.
 
That was exactly part of the rationale behind the thread. A pro said something that challenged many years of a particular strand of thinking.

Hence the thread.

Well...TBH...I don't think anything he said has changed anything.
He's just acknowledging that headphone use has become more widespread for mixing...and I would say that most of it is happening at the home/project studio level.
Nothing really new there.

I get the feeling that you think *because* a pro made comment of the headphone trend...that somehow it changes things...?
Like it was an acknowledgement of their use value, and that it was OK to go in that direction instead of getting monitors....as though it's now been affirmed as an apples-to-apples, either/or thing.

Like I said, it's just an acknowledgment of a new trend...but it doesn't really prove anything else, IMO.
I also think that manufacturers of headphones saw the growing trend, because many people wouldn't/couldn't pony-up for monitors, plus they wanted convenience...so they quick started working on room simulation processing technology to enhance the headphone experience...and now they can sell even more/new product that was being driven by the headphone trend.

To me...it's all about technology for the sake of convenience and budget limitations. I still think that 90% of people using headphones are doing it because of those things...and not because it's as good as speaker monitoring in a proper environment.
The part I really have a problem with...is that it's all a simulation trying to mimic speakers in a proper room environment.
So like I jokingly (but also seriously) said earlier...it's becoming a "Matrix" reality.

You mention not being abled to squeeze 90 people into two boxes. Well yes, speakers are just a playback system...but the one key difference between them and headphones...is air/space. Again...with speakers it's a more natural (and yes, that IS a key element) listening system because that's how we hear EVERYTHING else around us. So now you take headphones and you unnaturally inject sound into the ear and there is a loss of that L/R hearing thing that occurs naturally...that now has to be processed and simulated unnaturally.
My feeling is...I'll just stick with the more natural approach...naturally. :)

It is a different sound with monitors than headphones, no one can say it isn't. It's the same reason so many people walking into the studio initially have a problem with using headphones...especially singers...because it sounds different than how you normally hear things.
Sure...you can train your ears and brain to mix with cans & string, but a very hard road...so headphones are easier than that...but ask yourself ...why headphones? I mean really think about that...and it will come back to convenience and budget...not because they bring something better to the table, and anything they do bring that is "enhanced"...is just a simulation of the real thing (speakers in a room).
 
Well...TBH...I don't think anything he said has changed anything.
He's just acknowledging that headphone use has become more widespread for mixing...and I would say that most of it is happening at the home/project studio level.
Nothing really new there.

I get the feeling that you think *because* a pro made comment of the headphone trend...that somehow it changes things...?
Like it was an acknowledgement of their use value, and that it was OK to go in that direction instead of getting monitors....as though it's now been affirmed as an apples-to-apples, either/or thing.

Like I said, it's just an acknowledgment of a new trend...but it doesn't really prove anything else, IMO.
"Big deal ~ headphones....headphones are here to stay and they are the way that many of us are working. That's why many of these incredible softwares are coming out....it's the future in not only gaming but in mixing audio and everything else. Soon, we'll be hearing 5:1 and atmos sounding systems in a pair of headphones. Trust me, you will be. So all those people who think it's a crazy idea to do this are in the past. This is the future. This is where it's going."

I think that this is more than just an offhand acknowledgement of a mere trend. That's a pretty seismic change. It has been received wisdom for over half a century that something not just ought not to be done, but can't be done. And now it turns out that that isn't the case.


To me...it's all about technology for the sake of convenience and budget limitations. I still think that 90% of people using headphones are doing it because of those things...and not because it's as good as speaker monitoring in a proper environment.
Maybe. On the other hand, maybe it will turn out to be that the emperor's new clothes all these years were in fact not new clothes at all.
I wonder how many pros {or, come to think of it, experienced home recorders} would seriously turn down $1,000,000 to do a headphone mix {on the condition that it was translatable, naturally} under the aegis that "it's not possible."


The part I really have a problem with...is that it's all a simulation trying to mimic speakers in a proper room environment.
Well, if it's a problem for you, then it's a problem for you. I'd love a Hammond organ. Indeed, I used to have one {I've actually owned 2}. But I cannot use one now. The old version of B4 will do. It has had to since 2004 and I can't tell the difference because I'm not spending my listening time lamenting the fact I no longer have a Hammond. Some simulations are good. Others not so good. But it's largely irrelevant because ultimately, you've either delivered a decent song or you haven't. Even if they are a simulation of a proper, decent stellar room environment, the issue is one and one only; can mixes be done on them ? Not, should you abandon your current mode if mixes can.
It is a different sound with monitors than headphones, no one can say it isn't.

I don't recall anyone saying that it wasn't. But as I pointed out earlier, differences are inherent in playback gear, amps, headphone and earbuds. Every different brand of monitor is different in its sound too. But it is an important point and that one is covered by translatability. Steen stated that no one doing a mix on phones could be sure that their mix would translate to speakers. While I disagree with that, I don't dismiss it. The vice is often versa ~ that's why people check their mixes on a variety of playbacks.

Sure...you can train your ears and brain to mix with cans & string, but a very hard road...so headphones are easier than that...but ask yourself ...why headphones?
For me, a far more salient question is why not headphones ? It seems that virtually everyone has their reasons and those reasons are a mixture of things. Interestingly, you're not saying it can't be done. Just bringing out reasons why it shouldn't be.
I mean really think about that...and it will come back to convenience and budget...not because they bring something better to the table, and anything they do bring that is "enhanced"...is just a simulation of the real thing (speakers in a room).
All of that may well be true. But again, I could say that about autotune or any number of tools that get used that were not part of the standard recording or mixing toolkit until the digital age.
 
For me, a far more salient question is why not headphones?

And I do think that some of us have given very clear answers to that question...but you keep coming back to what some pro said in a video as though the flood gates have been opened, and we all just need to accept it and dive into the new waters. :)

Again...that pro may not be pimping any one specific brand...but don't think that his job doesn't involve pimping new gear as a whole.
Those guys are well in bed these days with the manufacturers...and you may not even notice it, because the endorsement deal is with some global, corporate conglomerate, and not just a specific brand. Heck...many manufacturers intentionally have multiple brands, all for a different target audience at different price points.
So yeah...there is a big "new gear" push always, because that's what makes the industry go around.
Now don't get me wrong, I like Warren and his videos are always very informative...but don't think for a minute that it's not simply about pimping new gear.

That video you posted is a small snippet of a longer video...and you can catch for a split second at the end where he starts to talk about guess what - Sweetwater.
He is paid by Sweetwater to help sell gear...any gear...all gear...that's why he can talk about headphones and monitors all in the same breath...along with other gear....at any price point.

Here is the whole video, and it's just a long advertisement for gear, via Sweetwater.




OK, that doesn't change the fact that headphone use is trending more....but my point is, just because Warren talks about it, it don't make it something really absolute. His purpose is to be an "enabler"...a pro going over all the different gear at different price points, and for different levels if involvement...that way, everyone can find something. He and Sweetwater could care less what you or I decide to use...they are happy to sell you whatever you want, and they will not try and tell you it's a bad choice if that's what you want to use. Oh...it's also funny that in the video he builds the $5000 studio with a pair of speaker monitors for mixing purposes.

I'm kinda wondering who/why took the whole video, and just cut out the part where he talks about headphones, and then posted that on the website where you found it. I mean...it takes things out of context when you see the whole video promo for Sweetwater.

I would like to see pros giving up their $10k-$20k-$30k monitoring systems...in favor of a pair of headphones as their mixing tool...however, they know that you and I will probably never buy a $20k monitor system...so why push that on the average home studio guy if you know they can't afford it. Instead, find something less expensive, and then pimp it so they think it's the next best thing since gaffer's tape for the studio. ;)
 
Steenamaroo said:
Your left ear hears two speakers and your right ear hears two speakers.
Headphones don't recreate that and there's no amount of experience that's going to make you know when cancellation/filtering would have happened, had you been listening on speakers.

There are a number of software products like Waves NX and Abbey Road Studio 3 that simulate room acoustics and crossfeed. How well they work to overcome the physical limitations of normal headphone listening? I haven't used any of them so I don't know.

Do You Mix On Headphones? Take Your Headphone Experiences To The Next Level With These Smart Monitoring Plug-ins | Production Expert


I thought this article was interesting even though it doesn't consider virtual room software:

Considerations for Mixing with Headphones vs. Monitors - Produce Like A Pro
 
You will have to excuse the slow pickup of this old, one eyed, med ridden bloke but...

It was said effectively. "nor is is natural for music to come out of two small wooden boxes"

True, but IF your speakers work that way they are crap! One of the glorious side effects of stereo, IF the speakers are accurate and of low colouration, is that the sound panarama is laid out between them and sometimes a little beyond. Some peeps even report a 'depth' perspective although there is no acoustic mechanism for that.

Speakers that call attention to themselves cannot be in any way called "monitors"

Dave.
 
I like to see the huge mega expensive monitor speaker systems in some studios, then the near fields that are used for what? Confidence in the scale of mega
hifi systems to cheap stereos in bedrooms and then of course the headphone society. If they didn't find those expensive ones useful, why would they have them. Why do hifi folk want products with colouration to subtly distort the perfect balance we, the producers, seek. Not even new is it? Smiley face graphics have been the norm since they first popped up in consumer products in the late 70s. Tone is pretty well understood in terms of bassy and tinny. Loudness too. Stereo is not even a factor. Few people give any real thought to it, apart from in DVDs where they expect voices to be centre and music and effects anywhere apart from centre, and hopefully following the visuals. Nobody closes their eyes and tries to point at the guy who has a couple of lines. in music we seem to follow conventions very strictly, So vocals go centre, bass and drums somewhere close to centre then we pan similar sounds left and right, but rarely does an instrument get panned totally left or right. We're not recreating real life, we're making a product that sounds 'normal'. I'd argue a string quartet should always have the four players arranged left to right in the correct order, and some of my sound samples of pianos can be swapped left/right to give audience perspective (normal) or players perspective. Only pianists and musicians would probably spot the subtle spread.

Headphone mixing is fine if the listener who has musicality listens on headphones. For everyone else, I suspect they don't even notice, as long as it sounds correct for the genre.
 
I do think that some of us have given very clear answers to that question...
Absolutely.
The "Why not headphones ?" wasn't actually directed at a specific person. It would be a bit silly, given that this has been the crux of the discussion. No, you asked why use them, after stating on a few occasions that they could be used but would be harder {or concepts to that effect} or a band aid etc. I was responding to that. I get that they could be harder to learn, much harder in fact {unless one starts with them}. But that doesn't qualify as a reason not to.


but you keep coming back to what some pro said in a video as though the flood gates have been opened
I've already explained that. We've always been told that it can't be a viable means because pros don't do it and spend money, big money, going the other way. That has now changed. It may merely be a blip at this point but I wouldn't put my house on that. People are strange.
I didn't say the floodgates have opened. When DAWs were first developed and people started using them, there wasn't a flooding of the markets with used analog gear. It took a while. Same with drum machines and drum programmes. Actual drums are now so often the exception. But the floodgates didn't open immediately.

and we all just need to accept it and dive into the new waters
The former wouldn't hurt, the latter isn't necessary. Acceptance doesn't have to involve liking. Some double bassists despised the bass guitar initially. Keith Jarrett was as contemptuous as could be about electric pianos, clavinets and all electronic keyboards. "Toys" he called them. In the 21st century ! But Jarrett and the bassists had to accept them. Many of them {and Jarrett} even used them.
It's interesting being in at the dawn of something new. It may grow, it may not. Samplers took off big time. Minidiscs did not.


Again...that pro may not be pimping any one specific brand...but don't think that his job doesn't involve pimping new gear as a whole.
Hmmmm, possibly. But I don't really care. You see, I would expect someone to tell me what gear they use. It is absolutely no different to what has been happening since the 1950s and teens first saw pictures of Hank Marvin playing a strat or later saw Pete Townshend blasting everyone's ears with his 100 Watt Marshall amp. People like what a person does and are interested in what they do it on in music.
Much of the stuff spoken about in the vid isn't even new.
 
Now don't get me wrong, I like Warren and his videos are always very informative...but don't think for a minute that it's not simply about pimping new gear.
It's one thing to say "Just get any old monitors." It's another altogether to say "I use these particular ones and I hear good things about those particular ones." The other week, he had some guy on talking about Reaper. He always tells the viewer that he's been using Pro-Tools since the 90s, yet he gave Reaper a major plug.
We've been doing the same at HR for at least 10 years.
I guess different people see different things in a vid. You can't control what different people are going to take away from what they watch.


That video you posted is a small snippet of a longer video...and you can catch for a split second at the end where he starts to talk about guess what - Sweetwater.
He is paid by Sweetwater to help sell gear...any gear...all gear...that's why he can talk about headphones and monitors all in the same breath...along with other gear....at any price point.
It is true that when he gets to cables {or some other thing} he says go along to Sweetwater. What the heck is wrong with that ? In the past, I'd advise people went to Turnkey or Sound control or Rock Stop or wherever. I've learned so much about music stores in the USA just by listening to my fellow travellers at HR !


Here is the whole video, and it's just a long advertisement for gear, via Sweetwater.

That is not the video that I was watching or culled the clip from.


I'm kinda wondering who/why took the whole video, and just cut out the part where he talks about headphones, and then posted that on the website where you found it.
It was I, your honour.
I watched the video. It came up on that recommended list. Most of them I pass by. I've got about 210 in my "watch later" list. Maybe I'll get through them by July. I'd just gotten in from work and was resting for 20 minutes before going to mix {not with headphones alone !!} and thought, as the telly wasn't being hogged, that I'd catch a quick vid. It could've been "10 facts about "Revolver" or "Bellamy rides again: The sulphur cycle" or "Labour: The wilderness years." It happened to be that. It was pretty 'meh' as it was a subject that I'll watch a vid on once in a while as opposed to something that specifically interests me. But that part interested me. I had never heard an industry pro actively go against the grain of perceived wisdom when it came to HP mixing. I wasn't blown by him saying "it's the future;" hyperbole and people on telly often go hand in hand, especially in the music biz. What really made me perk up an ear was him saying that many of his ilk were working that way. He was not talking about a trend among home recorders.
I thought it was interesting and would make for an interesting topic to discuss in the mixing forum. Most of the replies were what I expected. That doesn't make them any less valuable or informative. If I desire universal agreement, I'll have imaginary conversations with an imaginary friend {or adversary. They're more fun}. I didn't want to post a 22 minute vid because my thinking as far as HR contributors were concerned were those 2 mins 29 secs. I'm not greatly tech savvy but I know that clips can be cut from vids. I didn't want to bombard people with a long video. The site I used gave me the option to download but I wasn't clear where to download it to so I just used HR's link system and hoped it wouldn't be too much bother for people.
They'd soon let me know if it was !:cursing:


I mean...it takes things out of context when you see the whole video promo for Sweetwater.
No it does not. What you're doing there is known as "straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel." The thing you've linked to is about building a studio for under $5000. I've not watched it but if he does talk a lot about Sweetwater, well, to me it makes sense to tell people where they can get some things from. If he's paid by Sweetwater to give them a plug, then he should give them a plug. I cannot see the problem there. Few people watch mixing vids to know which shops to go to. It's incidental. That's why it's a win~win. The viewer, the host and the sponsor all get something.
The context of any of his videos I've seen is not Sweetwater. And of the one I linked to, it was about how much will your studio cost ? It was fairly specific. That's good. No fluff.
The context was mine and mine alone. Warren could've been talking about the pixies at the bottom of his garden for all I care ~ but if that segment was in his oratory on pixie life, my context would have remained the same. It's not "my" thread but it is, at least initially, "my" context. I don't mind if conversations go in all kinds of directions and away from the topic at hand. That's what friends and acquaintances do when they chat, be it verbally or with a keyboard. Sometimes they're the best ones and I've had my fair share of being the culprit or major contributor in that happening.



OK, that doesn't change the fact that headphone use is trending more....but my point is, just because Warren talks about it, it don't make it something really absolute.
Of course it doesn't. He's not announcing the destruction of the world, a new medical procedure or some new religion. Even if he was, it wouldn't make it absolute........yet. It may never.
But as I said in the OP, it isn't carved in stone just because a pro said it.
Equally, it isn't to just be dismissed, just because a pro said it.
One can't have it both ways though. One can't talk about "I'd be more inclined to listen to what someone in the industry says if I'm seeking info, not some blogger or unknown face on the internet" when it suits your stance and then denigrate the same "someone in the industry" as a gear pimp for the big nasty corporations when what they say doesn't suit it.
 
I would like to see pros giving up their $10k-$20k-$30k monitoring systems...in favor of a pair of headphones as their mixing tool...
I wouldn't.
If one person lives in $8 million 23 room house with the latest heating system and 61 inch screen TV built into the walls of each room and someone else lives in a one room flat with a basic heating system and has a 32" table top telly but both watched the same news item, snugly warm in their various abodes last night, what does it prove if the person in the bigger pad gives it all up to move into the small flat because more and more people are opting for smaller flats ?
Now, perhaps it's just my skewed perception, after all, I'm thousands of miles away, but you seem curiously ill at ease by the notion that there just might be increasing numbers of people who may be able to do, with phones, what you can do but at a fraction of the cost. You're the only one that has objected on the grounds of cost. In 5 out of your 10 posts. I'm curious as to why it should matter and why it does matter. It doesn't actually make anything worse for you sticking with what you love.


however, they know that you and I will probably never buy a $20k monitor system...so why push that on the average home studio guy if you know they can't afford it
It's never stopped Massive Master. In virtually the whole time I've been aware of him, he has been consistent about a top quality monitoring system. OK, he may never actually say "drop $20,000" but the point can be almost inferred from much of what he's said ~ you're not going to to get top quality with $150 used.:D
Now, his raison d'être has never seemed to me to get people to part with their moola. Or to have people have the rig he has. He's asked questions and answers them from his experience. it's not his responsibility how the reader appropriates his advice.


Instead, find something less expensive, and then pimp it so they think it's the next best thing since gaffer's tape for the studio
That sounds rather conspiritorial but on the other hand, maybe it's as simple as that.
However, I see a slightly different side. What I see is in concert with moves over the last 15 years. There was a time {late 70s, 80s} when someone that wanted to record their own stuff barely had access to any professional that could show them the ropes, so to speak. The internet has blown that out the waters. Even when I first landed at HR 10 years ago, there wasn't the preponderance of channels of people showing you this, that and the other, let alone industry pros. So the common Joe or Josephine that would like to record has access to so many different people and with that comes the different opinions, the different gear they use etc. Manufacturers would be daft to ignore the potential to sell gear, video makers or hosts would be daft to not make a little money advertising and the punter would be daft not to do some research. Maybe there will be people advertising stuff they never use or don't believe in. If you buy it and can't get it to work as you thought it would, consider it the price of an education. And learn your lessons.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see many more pros coming out and saying they use headphones to mix. I also wouldn't be surprised if many people take to headphone mixing and find that it just is not for them. I can't see the situation being any more different than the one in which one group loves a set of monitors and another group hates them. Or one crew lionizes a particular tool like a compressor and others complain that it prevents the music from breathing etc, etc.
 
[video]https://www.kapwing.com/videos/5de867c45d6b660014bd40d2[/video]I've never been one for following trends or doing things just because a professional says so. On the other hand, I've long taken the view that if someone in a particular industry advocates something, I won't dismiss it out of hand just because it was a pro. I've long felt, particularly in recording, that if someone has found that something has worked, even though the entire world may be against that thing, it's worth looking into and possibly trying out. Just to find out for myself.
One of the staple debates that has been a mainstay of HR over the years has been the "monitors vs headphones for mixing" one and has generated much heat {and possibly some light too}. Therefore I was interested to hear Warren, the English guy from "Produce like a pro" in his "FAQ" session the other week state that headphone mixing was seen by some professional mix engineers as the future. I don't want to represent him in my own words, hence the video clip. But what do people make of it ? It would appear that perhaps there's a tide turning on this.

I work as an engineer with live music, and that's a very different thing to studio work. To put it briefly, if you record from the stereo mixer output to the PA system, then when playing back later on headphones you will effectively get something roughly equivalent to 'binaural stereo'. Assuming that your cans have reasonably good isolation side to side, your left ear will hear next to nothing from the right track, and vice versa. The only 'left to right bleed' will be because your on stage mics will have picked up other sounds on stage, including from the other side, which is another very good reason to use 'close miking', which will minimise unwanted sounds being picked up. All other things being equal, you will particularly notice a very clear stereo separation, giving an excellent spacial representation across the whole sound stage

However, when you listen back over monitor speakers in 'free air' the sound coming at you will have become a complex 'smear' of left and right before it reaches your ears: phase and dynamic differences will produce all sorts of cancellations and reinforcements.

Consequently, a 'purist' would ideally create one mix for monitor speakers, and another for listening on headphones. Further, because of the cancellation effects, including all the foibles of a live performance and the specific acoustics of the particular venue, live recording can get very 'muddled'. Believe it or not, a mono version will often sound 'better and brighter' with much more HF and sheer sparkle. But what you must never do IMO is to try to arrive at 'mono' by merging the two stereo tracks into one; it will instantly sound flat and dull: that's 'phase cancellation' for you. The safer method is to listen to each track using as near instant 'A - B' comparison as you can get, on headphones or speakers whichever you wish, and choose the best sounding track. Ditch the other one completely.

Now I already hear some of you correctly screaming 'heresy' and arguing that this kind of mono from a live gig will result in left side instruments sounding artificially louder, right side sounding depressed, and vice versa. But you'd be surprised just how relatively little difference this makes. To begin with, nobody at the mixer with any experience will have indulged in 'extreme panning'; as far as the live audience is concerned the stereo effect will have come over just fine when, say, three front line vocalists standing in a line, each a few feet apart, and their 'pan' settings in order Left, Centre, Right need only be as little as 11 o'clock, 12 o'clock and 1 o'clock. The most extreme separation you'll ever need might be (for example) a guitarist standing stage far left, and a keyboard player standing stage far right. Again, you'll be surprised at just how little panning is required: in my experience 10 'o'clock and 2 o'clock is all you'll usually need.

The practical effect of all of this is that either track when played 'mono' will usually show much less incorrect instrument balance than you'd expect. Furthermore, it's surprising how a little bit of judicious 'tweaking' of EQ's, or even selective boosting of a 'solo' section here and there where, say, a guitar predominates, will go along way to persuading the listener's ears that the balance is just fine. Live mixingf and live recording is one of the 'Black Arts' - it's all smoke and mirrors.

So if you want a reasonably good sounding end product from a compromised live recording situation - which live recording of Rock music from a PA mixer usually is - then you'll often get a much better result using mono as described above, and I can virtually guarantee you that if it sounds good to you, then hardly anyone else other than another experienced musician or sound engineer will even notice the difference unless you actually tell them. Mono was fine for Brian Wilson with his one correctly functioning ear, and you won't get a better endorsement than that!

Finally, digital personal audio is changing peoples' listening habits very quickly. It's now perfectly normal to listen to music privately on your mobile device using earbuds or headphones; and that's pretty much all a good many people ever do nowadays. So the case for one mix for speakers and another for headphones is now getting stronger, when in the past listening on headphones was either fo record producers and engineers working in studios, or perhaps (for example) the dedicated classical music 'connaisseur' who is seeking the purest and clearest possible representation of the world's greatest orchestras and the world's greatest concert halls.
 
It was said effectively. "nor is is natural for music to come out of two small wooden boxes"

True, but IF your speakers work that way they are crap!
I was actually being literal but ridiculously so. Much of the conversation has brought in the way our ears are meant to work and what is natural verses what is unnatural. All bets are off when it comes to music reproduction. I literally meant you cannot squeeze a group of people with musical instruments into two small wooden boxes in your front room. So nature becomes kind of irrelevant to the debate. We're human. We manipulate nature big time. The way nature was meant to be began to depart music production right around the time Les Paul started mucking about with an idea of recording sound on sound, if not well before.
I actually agree with everything you said in the quote. I just find it to be selective when people talk of nature in order to support their preferences when they will disregard it in other instances that support their preferences.

I am saying that you can never be sure a headphone mix is going to work on speakers.
Well, you can't. And I can't.
I can't even be sure my mixes will work on anything ! Then I check 'em on various and breathe a sigh of relief......or go back to the drawing board.:thumbs up:


It's not a preference, or advice, or a tradition; Hell, it's not even a debate.
When it comes to experience and expertise, it's nearly always going to involve a debate.


Your left ear hears two speakers and your right ear hears two speakers.
Headphones don't recreate that and there's no amount of experience that's going to make you know when cancellation/filtering would have happened, had you been listening on speakers.
That is way too absolute a statement for me.
Physics certainly explains a lot. But it doesn't explain workarounds of a person's experience where those things can occur.
 
If you can tell what's going to cancel and filter without listening on speakers then, to be honest, you don't even need headphones.
The screen alone is fine for you.
 
If you can tell what's going to cancel and filter without listening on speakers then, to be honest, you don't even need headphones.
The screen alone is fine for you.

Ouch! That does make sense.

The bottom line here is that there are pro's and con's to mixing with either headphones or monitors in either a well treated or not treated room. A million variables in between... Not even going to attempt to state the differences.

So, it is personal choice. If one way works for you, then go with it. Who am I to tell someone else what the right way to do anything is? I really only have my personal experience to judge what has worked for me in my environment.

That being said by me previously, I hate headphones with a passion. If someone else finds that way the best for them? Then go ahead and do that.

There is no right or wrong, if the final product shows what the vision that is presented, is given in the way the artist wishes.

It isn't rocket science. It is music recording. The music is what is important. Good songs first. The recording and subsequent presentation to others is the hardest part... If someone you recorded music for loves it, then you win. However you get there is the not means, it is the result that is important. :)
 
I treat all subjects like this as, what is my reality. I have to deal with my reality wich is not the same as a studio for hire. You can mix with headphones. It takes adjusting and some of your skill has to be applied to that goal. However that does mean at some point you have to listen to speakers of different types. I listen to monitors, car, and ear buds before I'm done. The headphones get me close. My monitors are the final tweak. But my headphones get me 80% there.
 
Ouch! That does make sense.

The bottom line here is that there are pro's and con's to mixing with either headphones or monitors in either a well treated or not treated room. A million variables in between... Not even going to attempt to state the differences.

So, it is personal choice. If one way works for you, then go with it. Who am I to tell someone else what the right way to do anything is? I really only have my personal experience to judge what has worked for me in my environment.

That being said by me previously, I hate headphones with a passion. If someone else finds that way the best for them? Then go ahead and do that.

There is no right or wrong, if the final product shows what the vision that is presented, is given in the way the artist wishes.

It isn't rocket science. It is music recording. The music is what is important. Good songs first. The recording and subsequent presentation to others is the hardest part... If someone you recorded music for loves it, then you win. However you get there is the not means, it is the result that is important. :)

It's personal choice, sure, but there is a fundamental physical difference.
There will be things we can hear things on headphones that may not be audible, or always be audible, on speakers.
 
The easiest way to tell what's going to cancel and filter, whether using headphones or monitor speakers, is sum the left and right channels to mono and listen. If you don't, you don't know what you're missing. It becomes more important as the phase coherency and stereo imaging become more complicated.

Stereo imaging and detail perception on headphones is totally different than speakers and vice versa. Very different animals. Room simulation techniques that allow you to do stereo mixing or even surround sound on cans with a head tracker have probably narrowed the gap somewhat, but I'm not aware of anything that will allow speakers to show you what headphones will sound like. Regardless of my own preference, "use both" still seems like reasonable advice.

If there's an uptick in headphone sales happening, I don't think that's a bad thing. I don't think the market for monitors will vanish any time soon, but that's just my opinion for what it's worth.
 
Back
Top