Industry professional reckons headphones are the future in mixing.

grimtraveller

If only for a moment.....
[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.
 
Last edited:
Headphones have always made things sound great , so for listening to your mix for enjoyment and stunning spatial effect, (as he states, software like your being in a great room and 5.1 etc)that's fine but I still check and do a lot of mixing on speakers both on good monitors and cheap crap computer speakers. The cheap computer speakers really show up a lot of distortion and artifacts in the mix. Its a real challenge getting a mix to sound perfectly clear and balanced over garbage speakers. My two cents.
 
He knows his stuff...but I find it funny that you can dig up videos of him reviewing very high-end studio monitors (not the $300 dollar ones he mentions in this video), and he never says in those videos that it might be foolish to buy the expensive monitors, and that headphones will be a better option. :)

If you're in a small, shitty room...then it's pointless to buy expensive monitors that will not sound good in the room...but I can't see mixing on headphones exclusively. I did that for many years, long ago, and I'm not going to go back to that. Also, he mentioned the software...they're making all kinds of apps that apply processing in order to *simulate* monitoring in a good room...so it's becoming too much of a "Matrix" reality IMO....and frankly, even though he is not pimping any one brand, it seems to be the thing by pros to always push for something new. I wouldn't be surprised that after everyone switches to headphones...20 years later they will bring back monitors again, just to keep feeding that "new technology" monster and getting people to keep buying more/new gear. :D

For me...especially now that I'm building a big, proper studio space...it would be a total contradiction to go to headphones (if I even liked using them, which I don't). If anything...I'm already looking to take my monitors up another notch, even though I bought my Focal Twins just a couple of years ago.
I've been considering going to the Focal Trios...they're running a 10% discount plus including their Focal Care for free (a 5 year extended warranty...about $400). I paid extra for the Focal Care for my Twins. It's a pretty good warranty...no questions asked if you pop a tweeter or speaker, or whatever...overnight FedEx replacement.

I know my situation is not the norm for a lot of home rec guys, so the headphone option might seem like the best deal...especially if "everyone" is moving to them, which I know will drive a lot of the newbs and novices to follow the crowd....but I certainly wouldn't use them just because of that.
There is greater ear fatigue and it comes much faster than with monitors...plus, you can hurt your ears even more, because of the closed-in environment. You can find yourself turning up the volume more and more...same thing with monitors...but with headphones, the sound is basically injected right in your ears.
Believe me...I use to use them all the time...and I would get up after a 6-8 hour session and my head would be pounding and it would take a couple of hours for my hearing to seem normal after taking them off...regardless of the headphone quality.

All that said...I would love me a pair or two of the high end Focal headphones he mentioned...just to have for checking things and more critical listening in some situations...but I'm not going to drop $500-$600 for headphones that I may rarely use.
 
The cheap computer speakers really show up a lot of distortion and artifacts in the mix. Its a real challenge getting a mix to sound perfectly clear and balanced over garbage speakers.
Long before I ever started recording on multitracks, in fact, back in the 80s, I noticed that no item of music I had sounded alike on any two things I played them on. Initially, I had the turntable, the tape player that I'd record the record from and the walkman. I never thought about it deeply but I did notice the difference in whatever I was playing. Then when I got a car, I noticed that my albums sounded different on different car stereos. I had previously noted that when one walkman went kaput, or one set of phones or a speaker or an amp, different albums were slightly different on the new item I'd buy {I never bought the same thing twice}. Some brought out the bass better, some brought out aspects that I'd not even been aware of in listening to something for 2 decades. And when boomboxes, CDs and then computers entered the fray, there was more more of that. And of course the different combinations of all those amps, speakers, players and phones made for a different listening experience of the same material.
They didn't change so substantially that it made "Roller Coaster" become "God save the Queen," but those differences were there and after a while became quite noticeable, kind of the way you'd catch differences between the mono and stereo versions of the same songs and albums.
My point ? That ultimately, the mixer has no control over the exactitude in which people hear their mix. They can only really mix as they feel appropriate, with the items they have to hand. It's not their responsibility what the multitudes are going to listen on. With that in mind, I've long been curious at anyone that would state flatly that one can't mix on headphones. I have no problem with a person saying they can't mix on phones or that they don't like mixing with phones. For me, the reality has always been that good mixes, easy mixes, awful mixes, average mixes and really difficult mixes have been achieved both on monitors and phones and a bit like recording with clicks, or electric and acoustic guitars it makes sense to acquaint oneself with both, if possible.
With regard specifically to your point, I'm fascinated that computer speakers would show up distortion and artifacts in a mix but the monitors wouldn't or other speakers wouldn't, if that is indeed the case. But I'm not sure that would apply only if the songs in question were mixed on phones.
 
All that said...I would love me a pair or two of the high end Focal headphones he mentioned...just to have for checking things and more critical listening in some situations
One of the things I've noticed over the 10 years or so that I've been observing things that come up and conversing with fellow recorders is that ironically, there seems to be a consensus that headphones are good for checking details {like reverb tails !} and critical listening......I've long wondered why then, that doesn't apply to mixing, which is surely, if anything, about critical listening.
I've also observed the advice given hundreds of times to possibly hundreds of people over many years to learn one's monitors and how what one mixes on them translates to other systems {even allowing for all those different systems and combination of items that one can't possibly know}. I've never understood how that does not apply equally to headphones in a mix context.
What I do understand is human preference.
One of the things I love about being part of a recording {that's just my catch-all term for the whole process, minus pressing} fraternity {both in terms of a specific site like this and in general} is that I can see that there are many, many ways to achieve the same result. People's experiences, whether pro or otherwise {but mainly 'otherwise'}, feed into the great vat of ideas that are out there to be tried. Some things work all the time, some things work sometimes. Recording {the great catch-all !} by its very nature and the fact that it has a history, doesn't seem static to me. It seems full of innovation and change and every so often, certain status quos get challenged. I don't like all of the new ways and challenges but I can't help marvelling at them sometimes.
 
With regard specifically to your point, I'm fascinated that computer speakers would show up distortion and artifacts in a mix but the monitors wouldn't or other speakers wouldn't, if that is indeed the case. But I'm not sure that would apply only if the songs in question were mixed on phones.

I agree its all what your going for, what's important to you in your mix. I want my lead vocal, kick and snare to be heard a mile away coming from a cheap boom box. For me testing on cheap speakers lets me know how clear they are. Cheap speakers also reveal anything that's at all overdriven in the final mix & master, and I don't just mean the loudness. I'm strictly speaking for myself, I'm not suggesting that professional engineers or anyone else is wrong in mixing however they mix and produce a great mix and master.
 
One of the things I've noticed over the 10 years or so that I've been observing things that come up and conversing with fellow recorders is that ironically, there seems to be a consensus that headphones are good for checking details {like reverb tails !} and critical listening......I've long wondered why then, that doesn't apply to mixing, which is surely, if anything, about critical listening.
I've also observed the advice given hundreds of times to possibly hundreds of people over many years to learn one's monitors and how what one mixes on them translates to other systems {even allowing for all those different systems and combination of items that one can't possibly know}. I've never understood how that does not apply equally to headphones in a mix context.

To me...headphones for "critical" listening is mostly about being able to get that "in-ear" focus on a singular element. Quality headphones are great for that. They help to isolate just that sound from anything else going on in the room, etc.
Now...with monitoring a complete mix for the sake of mixing...headphones remove the room, the "air"...so you get that "injected" vibe, and you don't give your ears the ability to hear both left & right (talking about a stereo mix). What I mean is...the left cup only goes in your left ear, and the right cup only goes on your right ear. With monitors, even if sitting in the perfect center position...some of the left monitor will also be heard by your right ear...etc...etc...and that's where the room and the "air" make the difference in giving a more natural sound.

IOW...when you speak with someone in a room...they don't stick their mouth into your ear (well, maybe in more intimate settings)...likewise, and going back to how music was originally listened to, you were in a room with the players and all that sound moved through the air to your ear. THAT is how ears were intended to work...and NOT to have something "injected" directly into them...and so (and IMO) monitors will always deliver a more natural listening experience.
AFA the "critical" aspect...you CAN absolutely do that with monitors, but you need the room and the monitors that can deliver that. That's why mastering engineers who listen critically, have very high end monitors and very purpose built rooms.

AFA the translation...I think it's kinda the same answer. I mean, if you knew that everyone would ONLY ever listen to your music on headphones...then translation to speakers wouldn't matter to you...but that's not the case, even in this day when you have a lot of folks using ear-buds all day long....something I don't subscribe to, but there are times when they are needed and very convenient. I always preferred at least using the small open headphones, as they still allow the outside sounds to be heard. I just can't take that "injected" thing all day long, and I have strong suspicion that it is NOT healthy for your ears or your brain...it's just not the natural way our hearing was meant to work.
I still also believe that with a good speaker monitoring system in a good environment...you will get the best mix translations to most other systems.
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.
Of course...in this day and age with so many people running "studios" at home (and in even less ideal environments)...
...for many it just comes down to 1.) cost 2.) convenience 3.) and again cost. :)
So they prioritize based on those things, and assume that they can learn to make it all work, and that it will get them to the same place as anything else, and certainly as anything more costly or less convenient.

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...when in fact, they were simply pandering to their limited budgets and the "convenience monster". :D
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.
I mean...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. ;)
 
I use a couple sets of speakers, headphones and earbuds on different play back systems, but TBH, 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.
 
I wouldn't agree with this quote MIRO "If you're in a small, shitty room...then it's pointless to buy expensive monitors that will not sound good in the room."

As well as I wouldn't recommend shitty monitors in a good room. I agree that headphones are great for finding details in a mix, but with quality monitors even in a shit room are better than some KRK 5's. Been there.

But myself being a non headphone fan, as my head and ears just hate them, I could not see tracking and mixing with only headphones.

I suppose what I am giving as my own personal opinion, is that I agree that it would be a struggle to mix on headphones alone. I also do not own headphones that are as expensive as my monitors so maybe I have just not bothered to. Did I mention that I hate things on my ears that sound completely unnatural?

I am all in with what I find in headphones can show some things that shitty monitors, in a shitty room, can tell you. But with worthy monitors in a treated room, most of that is already obvious. Not sure why worthy monitors in a shitty room wouldn't be better than headphones.

I have acoustically treated my room(s) (in multiple stages through the years in different ways) since I started my home studio. I am lucky to have fairly large spaces for a home studio. I have also had the experience of mixing in a 8'x8' room when my foundation caved in. It took a bunch of back and forth between the car and studio, but it worked. No headphones were involved in regards to mixing. But I also already had it mixed for the most part before I was stuck in the cube.

That all being said, it has a shitload to do with the experience of the producer/engineer that is working on a particular project. Someone seasoned in recording can hear what they need in headphones and use that to make their sound.

Did I mention that I despise wearing headphones?

Just my 2c :)
 
I agree with most of what is said here. Headphones are at best a necessary evil and I for one would hate for them to become the preferred method for mixing among 'pros'. My objections (as many of you might guess!) are on both technical and accuracy grounds with a bit of ear health thrown in.

Technically, headphone electrical speccs are a mess. There is no standard impedance, no standard sensitivity for the cans themselves. Headphone amplifiers are very variable in quality, be they the ones in the AI/mixer or external devices. The output resistance can be as low as 30 Ohms or up to 150 Ohms. Which is right? There is also a fashion that dictates that HP amps SHOULD have a near zero (10mR ish) output resistance. I consider that dangerous and the benefits dubious to say the least.

Contrast that with even modest active monitors? They will have an OP level of +4dBu and often a -10dBV option. Most monitors produce around 100dB SPL at max input. All AFAIK have an input Z of 10k or higher and thus will be no bother to drive. It is also easy to compare speakers instantly given a basic switch system or Mon controller. Not so with cans. Even if you can remember how one set sounded the next pair will be at a different level!

A shitty room is best served with high quality monitors IMHO, what the wee Genelecs and the BBC L/S types were made for! Yes, use cans to check the extreme bass.

There was a long article in SoS a year or so ago by a HP mnfctr outlining HOW difficult it is to produce really accurate cans, not least because of the infinitley variable landscape of people's lugs! I shall try to find a link.

IF the use of headphones becomes the norm in studios it will be yet another failure of the industry to maintain high, objective sound quality. The top pros can all use the best monitors and, by definition, the best and most accurate of those tend to sound alike. Not so with headphones and headphone amplifiers.

Dave.
 
I think I see his viewpoint. If the vast proportion of the listeners do it on headphones, then that music should be produced using headphones - the only sensible way to do it. For me that would be futile. The vast proportion of my stuff that earns money is stage tracks - so mixing for big speakers systems placed a fair way apart - and I have trouble mixing this already on studio monitors. Luckily I have access to a big venue and can check all mixes there, and I'd say that 90% then need tweaks in the mix to fix problems not heard in the studio. I suppose the 'bog standard home stereo' we all mixed for has shifted so we must go with it. Headphone mixing is still problematic though as so many have mega loud extended bass sound response or other marketing hype that means so little and lets rubbish headphones find a home. How to mix for quality in-ears or the Doctor Dreadful counterfeits is very difficult.
 
"I think I see his viewpoint. If the vast proportion of the listeners do it on headphones, then that music should be produced using headphones"

That might be his viewpoint Rob but it is wrong headed IMO. Professionals rely on accurate monitors to reproduce the sounds and there are maybe a dozen or fewer REALLY accurate monitors in use around the world? Ok, there are near fields, midfields and huge 130dB soffit mounted monsters but the common theme is to create an accurate sound field both in terms of tonality (well, lack of it really!) and stereo 'space'. There is no concensus AFAIK as to which headphones are reference standards?

To my simple mind, you can only judge sound quality on the best available systems that are as beyond reproach as far as present technolgy allows and, again IMHO, cans and their amps AND the finnagling software around now does not cut it.

Like grott boxes, car systems, G Blasters and the rest, checks should be made on such devices but it should sound 'rightest' on the 'bestest' and that means speakers.

Dave.
 
I'm glad that no one is really saying there is a right and wrong regarding this issue What one prefers is what they should use..........and if they produce results that work for them........and maybe others too......then that's fine. From personal experience I can tell you that you can learn to mix on high quality headphones. I also have monitors in a compromised room. Most importantly.......as has already been said.......if one "learns" how their headphones translate many commercial mixes.....especially those that the listener is familiar with......the outlook for good mixing results is pretty good.
 
Most people neglect to mention that your left ear can hear your right speaker and vice versa.
This isn't true with headphones.

If you're mixing on headphones because the target audience will be listening on headphones, or using headphones as a means of hearing detail better, in combination with speaker-monitoring, then that's cool,
but I don't think you can trust stereo image from headphones to translate properly to stereo speakers.
It can be done, sure, but it's so easy to make mistakes particularly where wide stereo effects and the volume of central information are concerned.
 
I still like to validate on headphones, and I certainly do some late night tweaking on them, but doing even my 5" monitor speakers primarily always ends up saving me time when I get around to checking on other speakers and earbuds, etc. My room is treated, and I'm used to the speakers, so YMMV, of course.

Rambling digression follows..
I did discover something on headphones that was one of those palm-to-forehead "doh" moments just yesterday. I was trying out something that started using a template ("3-mic-scratch") and didn't pay much attention to it. It was for 2 mics on an acoustic and vocal, but I started with a single mic on acoustic and vocal. Then, I went in and fiddled with a "drummer" vst, added a bass, then back to replace the acoustic with an electric, replaced the vocal, then used the 2nd guitar "mic" track for another electric. Was feeling pretty good about the fact that I even completed it (nobody will ever hear it :)), but when I listened to the thing on headphones, I was, like, "why don't I hear any separation in the guitars?" See, the original template had two mics on acoustic, and they were bussed to a single aux for common plugins. It was a *mono* bus because, well, it was just for creating a scratch track to distribute to friends so they'd know what I might show up playing. Listening on my nearfields, I just didn't notice the lack of separation, because I only had the guitars panned a little LR, and was really just fooling around trying to get the balance between listenable, and mostly get the vocal to sit right. But, when I put on the headphones, it was pretty obvious I'd not paid attention to something...
 
I'm glad that no one is really saying there is a right and wrong regarding this issue
That's interesting because that's not how I've read it thus far.
That might be his viewpoint Rob but it is wrong headed IMO. Professionals rely on accurate monitors to reproduce the sounds
Dave, that guy is an industry professional.
I agree with most of what is said here. Headphones are at best a necessary evil and I for one would hate for them to become the preferred method for mixing among 'pros'
Why ? What if there developed a growing number of people who were getting bloody good mixes using headphones ? Ok, I'll give you this; the word "preferred" is a loaded word. But your statement sort of implies that you think headphone mixes {as opposed to mixing} are inferior simply by dint of the fact that they're done on phones. Which, by extension implies that you could tell a mix that was done on headphones.

IF the use of headphones becomes the norm in studios it will be yet another failure of the industry to maintain high, objective sound quality
That high sound quality is objectively measureable, is at best debatable. Equations and formulae do not always translate to real world living. Look at the high octane fights that used to go on between the analogue and digital or Mac and PC camps.
But even if they always did translate, would that mean that the use of headphones in mixing inevitably must produce an inferior mix ?

Most people neglect to mention that your left ear can hear your right speaker and vice versa.
This isn't true with headphones.
Yes, but this seems to me to be somewhat cancelled out by the fact that we nonetheless check our mixes on phones. What are we checking for ? And after using headphones for almost, if not over, half a century, can one not have learned to gauge stereophonic sound in them ? Our actions show that we are trusting them.

but I don't think you can trust stereo image from headphones to translate properly to stereo speakers.
But what if one can ? You seem to be saying that as an intrinsic happening.

It can be done, sure, but it's so easy to make mistakes
How many times has a professional, or for that matter, one of us, done a mix, thought it was the bees knees or the dog's bollocks and then come back to it the next day or a few days or weeks later and had to start over because it was not satisfactory ? Most, indeed, the overwhelming majority, of the tales I've heard in this vein did not occur with headphone mixing. So it happens. Mistakes and misjudgements are a fact of mixing life.

Rambling digression follows..
I did discover something on headphones that was one of those palm-to-forehead "doh" moments just yesterday.......when I put on the headphones, it was pretty obvious I'd not paid attention to something...
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.
 
Yes, but this seems to me to be somewhat cancelled out by the fact that we nonetheless check our mixes on phones. What are we checking for ? And after using headphones for almost, if not over, half a century, can one not have learned to gauge stereophonic sound in them ? Our actions show that we are trusting them.

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

I find that with headphones, the stereo image is not accurately represented unless you expect that everyone will only listen to it on headphones.
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. :)

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. ;)
 
Last edited:
I think I see his viewpoint. If the vast proportion of the listeners do it on headphones, then that music should be produced using headphones - the only sensible way to do it.....How to mix for quality in-ears or the Doctor Dreadful counterfeits is very difficult.
I don't think the end user should have anything whatsoever to do with what a mixer mixes on. For me, the argument that lots of people are using earbuds is as relevant to mixing as whether or not the Russian village of Ryrkaypiy is about to be overun by polar bears. People talk sometimes about earbuds as if they were only invented yesterday or the day before. I was using them at least as early as December 1990 because I remember my friend sewing a sweatband over the metal band because I'd shaved all my hair off and the band was cold on my head ! I also found that because they injected the music right into my ears, unlike headphones, I didn't have to have the volume up so loud, which, in turn, meant that I saved on battery power on my walkman and therefore saved money. I actually had the theory of bone conduction at least 19 years before I actually heard such a thing being spoken of.
Anyway, I digress.
As I said in an earlier point, I was used to hearing my music on a variety of systems and they all sounded groovy to me. Some of the stuff I played music on didn't even exist when some of those albums and songs were mixed. A well mixed piece of music will translate anywhere. Yes, there'll be slight differences here and there but that's to do with the equipment it's played on. The mixer has done their job.
Come to think of it, even listeners on earbuds are unlikely to say "I can't listen to this because the mix doesn't seem like it was done for buds !"

Headphone mixing is still problematic though as so many have mega loud extended bass sound response or other marketing hype that means so little and lets rubbish headphones find a home.
If a professional engineer recommends headphones for mixing, then they would be an absolute oik and imbecile if they said "any old phones will do, it doesn't matter." Therefore, I don't think they'd be daft enough to point to general consumer phones that are hyped in the bass, any more than they'd recommend a pair of 4" bookshelf speakers from ASDA or Tesco for mixing as monitors. Granted, some manufacturers would hype till the cows come home and left again ~ but then, that is, unfortunately, part of the risk. Jimmy wouldn't take a set of KRK 5s if you threw them at him and paid him to have them. Others swear by them. It is also in the interest of headphone manufacturers to develop a product that people won't flood the used market with.
There's also the preference of the listener. I always set the EQ in whatever vehicle I'm driving's player because I like the bass to come through powerfully and to compete with all the traffic I need that bass up.
 
He knows his stuff...but I find it funny that you can dig up videos of him reviewing very high-end studio monitors (not the $300 dollar ones he mentions in this video), and he never says in those videos that it might be foolish to buy the expensive monitors, and that headphones will be a better option

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 recognizes {I noticed Graham Thingummy in the recording revolution say the same thing} that the game has changed from the old days. It has changed big time. Whereas there was once a time when it was like a voice from Heaven to know someone who could show you the rudiments of recording/mixing etc, that is simply not the case anymore. There is such an abundance of information and more importantly, visual tutorial, that so many people {for good and/or ill} record in their front rooms, kitchens and bedrooms and stick their stuff out there and it gets lapped up. It forced record companies to change their approach, {people like Bowie and Townshend were among the first few to catch onto this} and now it is forcing the engine room {the studio} to mightily re~evaluate. And that means that many of the old sacred cows are being felled and turned to burger meat.
Not mixing on phones is one of them.
There was once a time when close miking a bass drum lost people their jobs at EMI. Now one might lose it if they don't close mic a bass drum.
What Warren is doing in the vid is showing people the options that are available. He never calls headphones the better option ~ he simply doesn't refer to it as the inferior option and in doing so, has to make the statement that more and more people are using them. When he says they are the future, he's not saying monitors are dead. It's just that it's been all monitors up to now {for the most part} and he thinks phones are going to be playing as big a role. It is no coincidence that he speaks of both monitors and headphones. He doesn't dismiss one or the other, he dosn't trump one over the other. He includes both for the job and makes it clear that the job can be done with both.
it seems to be the thing by pros to always push for something new.
Because they are at the coal face more than most of us. ∴ some of them are in a position to get enthused about new things. In the hallowed 60s, it wasn't only the artists that were young and innovative in music ~ it was equally the engineers. The older set either adapted or moved on out.


I wouldn't be surprised that after everyone switches to headphones...20 years later they will bring back monitors again,

Well, that's the human way isn't it. We're extremists in many of our endeavours. Something new comes along and many of us don't incorporate with what's already around ~ we jettison the old. Then sometimes, a while later, back comes the old. I think there'll be a balancing out. But think of the things, even from our childhoods that we grew up with but which are now hardly around or have become hard to find or niche {= expensive}.


For me...especially now that I'm building a big, proper studio space...it would be a total contradiction to go to headphones (if I even liked using them, which I don't).
The argument is not being framed as a ditching of monitors, rather, that headphones too can do the job. Some will use only monitors, some will discover headphones can do the job so they'll use those, some will take on both.
I don't think it would be a contradiction for you to go to headphones because you're going to have a great tracking and mixing space so the sky of preference is the limit for you.
You don't like headphones for mixing and all that demonstrates to me is that you are human and are part of the great diversity that exists among human beings. I find I have less and less problem as I get older, with the notion that there are many different ways of achieving the same result. Yeah, some are harder, some are well easier. But that's not the issue.
I'm a case in point. For me, I loved my 8 track cassette portastudio but after 12 years it just became too limiting for me. I moved to a 12 track digital standalone and it is the perfect halfway house for me. It's like a computer portastudio ! I don't want to use a computer because I love my Akai. But I love the music that's made on a variety of craft. As far as I'm concerned, we all co~exist. I'm where I want to be at the minute. That might change and I sometimes struggle with the new moves that crop up every now and then in music. But then I just remember that most new things are where what I've loved were at once. I don't have to go with them.
especially if "everyone" is moving to them, which I know will drive a lot of the newbs and novices to follow the crowd....but I certainly wouldn't use them just because of that.
Sure, some will just follow the crowd. But I don't care about that because it's part of their learning curve. There's something more important than that for me; many newbs will see headphone mixing as an option and will learn how to utilize that option, pretty much the same way that kids from the 80s onwards did so with computers and mobile phones. The level of computing that was taught to 14-17 year olds in the late 80s is now the level that the 7-8s are handling.

There is greater ear fatigue and it comes much faster than with monitors...plus, you can hurt your ears even more, because of the closed-in environment. You can find yourself turning up the volume more and more...same thing with monitors...but with headphones, the sound is basically injected right in your ears.
True. However, as amplification got better in the 60s and 70s {ie louder} we saw the onset of the near deaf rocker. We also saw as a response, a major push to educate people about aural health. Like so many other things that just weren't focused on in a big way when I was younger, ear protection is something many of us are so aware of now.

Believe me...I use to use them all the time...and I would get up after a 6-8 hour session and my head would be pounding and it would take a couple of hours for my hearing to seem normal after taking them off...regardless of the headphone quality.
Agreed, same here. It could be mind numbing when friends and I would be recording vocals for 4 and 5 hours. We'd go home feeling ill.
But that doesn't mean one can't mix on them.

I'm not going to drop $500-$600 for headphones that I may rarely use.
But you might if you'd use them !
I just wish I had $600 !!
 
Back
Top