Asking a potentially stupid monitor question!

[Aled_King]

I realise this may be stupid to ask, but this is the newbie section, so if there was ever a place, this is it.

Why do mixing with Studio Monitors?

As far as I can tell, Studio Monitors are more accurate than regular listening speakers, and give you more detail for different sounds and tones when you are mixing. However, they doesn't sound as nice and clean as regular listening speakers, and at the end of the day, you (and anyone else who listens to you music) will listen to the end result with normal listening speakers.

Would it not make more sense to do the mixing on regular speakers so you hear what it will sound like when you actually have the finished product. Obviously not, otherwise all you seasoned veterens would use them. But could someone please explain this for me?

Thanks for you comments.

 

[wheelema]

... would it not make more sense to do the mixing on regular speakers so you hear what it will sound like when you actually have the finished product...

No.

Studio monitors are harshly accurate. It may appear to you that mixing/mastering on consumer speakers would get you the same sound in distribution but such is not the case. Hopefully MassiveMaster will weigh in here with a technical explanation, but on the off hand chance he or someone else more technically inclined does not, take it on faith.

You won't get the result you otherwise might with consumer speakers, PC speakers, or headphones.

 

[gecko zzed]

I realise this may be stupid to ask, but this is the newbie section, so if there was ever a place, this is it.

Why do mixing with Studio Monitors?

As far as I can tell, Studio Monitors are more accurate than regular listening speakers, and give you more detail for different sounds and tones when you are mixing. However, they doesn't sound as nice and clean as regular listening speakers, and at the end of the day, you (and anyone else who listens to you music) will listen to the end result with normal listening speakers.

Would it not make more sense to do the mixing on regular speakers so you hear what it will sound like when you actually have the finished product. Obviously not, otherwise all you seasoned veterens would use them. But could someone please explain this for me?

Thanks for you comments.

Some quick thoughts:

1 Good monitors reproduce the recorded sound accurately and in detail, as you say. This is so that an engineer can reproduce as faithfully as possible the intent behind the performance being recorded, and can idenitfy (then deal with) things that might detract from this.

2 There is a common perception that monitors don't sound as 'nice', or are 'harsh', when compared to 'regular' speakers. I don't subscribe to this. I mix to get the best possible result on my monitors. If it sounds 'harsh', then it's a problem with the mix, not a problem with the monitors. If I don't enjoy listening to it, then I've done something wrong.

3 It's possible to mix on 'regular' speakers, and, indeed, many people do. Furthermore, there are many domestic speakers that are more accurate than some of the so-called 'studio monitors'. But that is part of the problem: domestic listening environments are diverse and numerous . . . which of these do you pick to be representative?

4 So the idea of using monitors is to create a mix that will sound at least reasonable on the myriad of systems a recorded piece is likely to be played on . . . it's the only reasonable common denominator.

5 Good 'regular' speakers are 'nice and clean', but most are pretty ordinary, and for anything to sound ok on them means the track needs to have to have had a decent foundation. If you mix on speakers that have limitations, it is highly likely that those limitations will be magnified when a track is played on something else.

So you've asked a good question, and no doubt you will get many varied responses, and some that contradict mine. The view you put forward is commonly held, and I admit to having had that same view myself when I ventured into this game. However, after quite a few years of experience, I've changed that view, mainly because, for me, it doesn't make sense.

I can see, though, why some may hold contrary views. We often equate high performance with risk and uncontrollability. For example, an F1 racing car is a highly-engineered piece of equipment, requiring a huge investment and an army of support personnel. It goes very fast, but is impossible to drive unless you've had the right training and experience. Similar parallels can be found in other 'extreme' endeavours. But this doesn't necessarily hold for monitors (though the bit about 'training and experience' is true for audio engineering).

 

[iqi616]

I agree. The purpose of studio monitors is primarily to give you an honest view of your mix. They shouldn't be unpleasant to listen to but they shouldn't flatter your mixes or hide things from you - both of those things will make it harder to make mixes that translate well to other speakers.

Beware of getting cheap monitors. Apart from the convenience of mostly being active these days, they don't necessarily give you any more accuracy than the separate amp and speaker combinations you can get from your regular electronics box store. I think that unless you are going to invest in a good set of monitors, you're better off getting something that doesn't sound too harsh and doesn't have too much presence. Avoid anything that lacks midrange because that is one area that is hard to mix because that's where all the instruments overlap the most.

One of the difficulties as a beginner is that your ears aren't trained (and that takes a good few years) so that makes it harder to figure out if you're being lied to by the speakers and it is easier to make the mistake of buying impressive sounding speakers that aren't necessarily honest. On the other hand, you don't want to buy speakers that sound bad in the hope that badness=honesty. The tricky thing is that hyped speakers that lack midrange make honest ones sound flat when you're doing comparisons in the shop.

Speakers are very important because all of your judgements are made through them from mic selection, instrument balance, through EQ. It's tempting to cheap out on speakers in favour of other gear but if you can't hear what you're doing, spending money on fancier equipment won't make your music sound any better.

 

[Chili]

I agree with all said here. But monitors are just one nomial in the equation. You've got to have a good listening environment and then your ears need to be tuned to that environment.

I see you started a thread about treating your room. I didn't read it yet, but I'm assuming it's for room response rather than sound isolation. It's nice that you are thinking about other aspects besides just monitors. Your mixes will appreciate it.

The other thing to work on is your reference material. Commercially released material that sounds similar to what you want your songs to sound like. Your references should be songs you like to listen to and songs that are highly acclaimed for the production. Do a search of the mixing forum, there's a thread somewhere there that has lots of good suggestions for reference material.

I used to mix on bookshelf speakers and thought they sounded good. Then I bought a pair of Event monitors and after listening to the same songs, I swear I could hear the singer spit when he pronounced his P's. It's the details.

And no question in the Newbies section is stupid.

Peace

 

[Massive Master]

Looks like GZ covered it pretty much.

"Studio Monitor" is more or less a buzzword. There are SO many out there that all claim to be "true" or "flat" etc., etc., etc., but if that were the case, they'd all sound exactly the same - And very few do.

Adding to GZ point-by-point:

1) Monitors really are either reasonably accurate and consistent "within reason," or they're not. Some are designed to be more accurate at close-range (near fields) with short-throw, narrow dispersion drivers, generally limited frequency response and some (generally very large units) are designed to sound like the band is in the room with you. Me? I can't do near-fields. Using nearfields as mains is a new thing --- A thing I just can't get around. I mean, I can mix on NF's, I just can't figure out why anyone would actually want to. True, you can get away with a less accurate room with them to some extent, but you're also dealing with less accurate monitoring in the long run.

2) Absolutely. Great mixes should sound wonderful and bad mixes should sound terrible. The problem is that a lot of "Studio Monitors" (and I use the quotes to indicate a level of sarcasm) *do* sound harsh, washy, inconsistent, etc.

3) Word. When I find a set of "studio monitors" that I like better than high-quality consumer loudspeakers, I'll take two. That's an exaggeration to some extent - I've heard plenty of wonderful sounding studio monitors actually marketed as studio monitors. But I've almost always preferred "audiophile" (for lack of a better term) loudspeakers by a long shot. Granted - I've never walked into a studio that had a set of Genelec 1031's and had a hard time getting a mix to translate. There are great monitors out there - But you really have to know how to listen to choose them and use them.

4) Yep.

5) Also yep for the typical stuff at the local electronics store, but wholly different for the *stereo* store - as in, that place no one ever goes to with system that uses the $40,000 per channel Krell amplifiers in the back room. Not that you have to drop $100k on a monitoring system... But when you stack that many nickels (figuratively speaking), you wind up with no excuses. And recording is all about stacking nickels.

A lot of the stuff from Best Buy and what not aren't going to give you what you'd be looking for. But step into something like a set of used (as they've been discontinued) B&W DM602S3's, which you can get for less than $500 for the pair plus a good used Rotel high-current amplifier and you'll find yourself in another world from almost anything out there marketed as a "studio monitor" in that price range.

 

[wheelema]

To spin this in a different direction... what monitors (regardless of how they are marketed) do the pros around here like? Keep 'em as cheap as reasonable... we'll trust 'ya.

 

[Monkey Allen]

I want to buy some new studio monitors to replace my far away and bass lacking and midrange boosting MAudio Bx5's (which are in Australia) and I'm too scared to start a thread about it. I want to pay up to 500 bucks and have flat response in all frequency ranges. Asking for advice is like trying to find a needle in a haystack though.

 

[Aled_King]

Thanks for clearing that up, and for all your good advice.
I think I will have to use my regular speakers for a few months as I need to save up to get some nice speakers. I will check the forums for advice, but if anyone has any that they would recommend for acoustic music, please let me know?

Many Thanks