best place to listen to a mix, after it leaves the studio.

[Ctrl_Alt_Dlt]

Not sure how great this is, but I would play the song in a room at loud level, then close the door, walk away from the room and listen to it from a distance. I can usually hear how my mixing is and if I need to make any changes.

 

[grimtraveller]

But there comes a point where the idea of over-listening to the mix "in the real world" become just a resource-wasting crutch preventing the ears from learning to not need so much double-, triple-, and quadruple-checking.

I've been interested in engineering and production for close on 30 years and in that time I've read loads of interviews by engineers, producers and the like and it seems a huge number of them listen to their mixes on a variety of sources. Even in the old days, artists would take home the days recording {they mixed quick in those days !!} on an acetate to listen to. Sometimes it gave rise to more work that needed doing, sometimes it didn't. I usually listen to things on four sources, one of which is my van stereo {I drive for a living}, more out of curiosity, but even if it makes me sound like a dork, I like to hear what things sound like on a variety of sources. The point is not to over-listen. That's just pointless. Funnilly enough, the thing that almost all the bigwigs say they do, listening from outside the monitoring room to their mix inside strikes me as a waste of time. Few people listen to their music through walls !
Truth be told though, maybe it's just my ears, but I've found that no two sources sound alike. Even walkmans all sounded different, using the same phones.

 

[NYMorningstar]

I have found that listening on at least 4 different systems to learn your own equipment and room is necessary with like Drew mentioned, the car being the most important because that's where most of your audience is. You definitely want to learn how your mixes break down or hold up with mp3 destruction. Once you learn your system then you should know how it relates to the different environments.

Another good point is the importance of how it sounds to the real world like Waltz mentions.

Not only do you need to audition your mix where it will be heard the most, but equally as important you need to listen to how it sounds at different volumes. I think more often than not music is listened to at a low volume in the background but regardless your mix needs to sound good to those that do listen that way.

You need to know your audience at all the steps of your production.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I've been interested in engineering and production for close on 30 years and in that time I've read loads of interviews by engineers, producers and the like and it seems a huge number of them listen to their mixes on a variety of sources. Even in the old days, artists would take home the days recording {they mixed quick in those days !!} on an acetate to listen to. Sometimes it gave rise to more work that needed doing, sometimes it didn't.

I have also been at this in one form or another for thirty years, and I have read probably most of the same things you have.

One thing to remember is that many of these pro engineers are working in different and unfamiliar studios all the time. In such cases, checking one's mixes against familiar listing environments is absolutely a necessity. That's what a lot of these guys are talking about. They are not talking about working in one studio (let alone with one band in one studio) over and over again.

I find it impossible to believe that any experienced engineer working regularly in a familiar studio should need to do such multi-checking so multi-extensively, because if they've got any ear whatsoever, the results quickly become predictable. You just know after your third or tenth or fiftieth project in the same room with the same gear that if it sounds like such-and-such here, that it's going to sound like such-and-such there, and that if it sounds like such-and-such there that it will then sound like such-and-such over there, because it almost always does. All it takes is paying attention with an analytical ear.

You still have to look for mistakes that may have snuck through, sure. Again, I never said, "don't check your mixes". But if one can't tell how their room and gear are going to perform after the first several passes of such a routine, then they're probably not listening close enough.

That's a big disconnect that happens often in this forum; that people are always comparing what they do with what the pros do, and what they say they do in print (the to are not always 100% identical, BTW). On the surface it makes sense to do as the pros do and as the pros say. Who would argue with that, right? Well, there's often a lot of problems with taking that stuff purely at face value, not the least of which is that both the work conditions and the level of experience are usually entirely different in their world than they are in ours.

Pros apply their compression and reverb in tracking without blinking an eye because they have the experience to know like the back of their hands pretty much what the results will be like. Newb home recorders don't have that luxury of knowledge and experience, so the best advice for them is different from what the pros do. Conversely, pros are moving from studio to studio (though that's starting to decrease these days), everyone of them with different acoustics and different gear, even if they do all have NS10s (which they don't), so they need to double-check their mixes in familiar playback conditions as a reference to make sure their doing right. Home recorders who work only in their own room and own gear, OTOH, have no such variable to have to contend with, and have no excuse not to learn their room quickly and learn how it translates to the outside world, and should not need to be constantly checking against everything all the time for all that long.

This is one of the big reasons (not the only one) why things like recipes and presets and formulas can be so misleading; they only work when all of the other variables remain identical. Well what works for Big Name X in studio Y with Band Z is not necessarily what works for Big Name X in studio A with band B, let alone for us in our own studio with our own band or client. But whether were talking about Big Name Engineer X or Newb A, if the rest of the variables remain mostly the same, like the sams studio with the same gear and acoustics all the time, our ears should be able to tell us mostly what to predict pretty quickly.

G.

 

[miroslav]

...with like Drew mentioned, the car being the most important because that's where most of your audience is.

I find the car to be the last place I want to "listen" to my mixes!

There are how many different cars out there....????
And how many different car systems.....????



Granted, listening in the car is very common place...but the EQ and L/R balance are SO OFF in just about ANY car...that it's really not the place I want to "listen" to my mix.
For me...music in the car is just a pleasant way to drown/mask out some of the road noise and set a certain vibe while driving.

I think people often need a lot of systems to check against only while they are still learning their own studio system...but once that's done, there's really NO point to use any other systems to "check" your mix with...
...other than you just wanting to hear what your music sounds like on them (if that makes any sense).

IOW...once you start chasing a mix across multiple system...you're mix is fucked, IMO.

 

[dintymoore]

I have an old Sony boom box that I still like to hear things through - it gives me another perspective.

I have 2 1992 Chevy Caprices. One has the stock Delco stereo and the other a Bose fancy pants setup. The stock Delco sounds way better but car stereos all suck to me - there's too much glass around.

 

[Waltz Mastering]

There are other reasons for taking home daily's besides listening for sonics. A mixing engineer also has to make arranging decisions and as well as performance and production decisions. Sometimes it's good to evaluate things and get a perspective outside of the studio where you tend to hyper focus on things.

It doesn't seem like there is one bad reason or negative side effect as to why any engineer would not want to check daily's outside of the studio. What harm would it cause if you know how to listen critically?

 

[grimtraveller]

I have also been at this in one form or another for thirty years, and I have read probably most of the same things you have.

One thing to remember is that many of these pro engineers are working in different and unfamiliar studios all the time. In such cases, checking one's mixes against familiar listing environments is absolutely a necessity. That's what a lot of these guys are talking about. They are not talking about working in one studio (let alone with one band in one studio) over and over again.

I find it impossible to believe that any experienced engineer working regularly in a familiar studio should need to do such multi-checking so multi-extensively, because if they've got any ear whatsoever, the results quickly become predictable. You just know after your third or tenth or fiftieth project in the same room with the same gear that if it sounds like such-and-such here, that it's going to sound like such-and-such there, and that if it sounds like such-and-such there that it will then sound like such-and-such over there, because it almost always does. All it takes is paying attention with an analytical ear.

You still have to look for mistakes that may have snuck through, sure. Again, I never said, "don't check your mixes". But if one can't tell how their room and gear are going to perform after the first several passes of such a routine, then they're probably not listening close enough.

That's a big disconnect that happens often in this forum; that people are always comparing what they do with what the pros do, and what they say they do in print (the to are not always 100% identical, BTW). On the surface it makes sense to do as the pros do and as the pros say. Who would argue with that, right? Well, there's often a lot of problems with taking that stuff purely at face value, not the least of which is that both the work conditions and the level of experience are usually entirely different in their world than they are in ours.

Pros apply their compression and reverb in tracking without blinking an eye because they have the experience to know like the back of their hands pretty much what the results will be like. Newb home recorders don't have that luxury of knowledge and experience, so the best advice for them is different from what the pros do. Conversely, pros are moving from studio to studio (though that's starting to decrease these days), everyone of them with different acoustics and different gear, even if they do all have NS10s (which they don't), so they need to double-check their mixes in familiar playback conditions as a reference to make sure their doing right. Home recorders who work only in their own room and own gear, OTOH, have no such variable to have to contend with, and have no excuse not to learn their room quickly and learn how it translates to the outside world, and should not need to be constantly checking against everything all the time for all that long.

This is one of the big reasons (not the only one) why things like recipes and presets and formulas can be so misleading; they only work when all of the other variables remain identical. Well what works for Big Name X in studio Y with Band Z is not necessarily what works for Big Name X in studio A with band B, let alone for us in our own studio with our own band or client. But whether were talking about Big Name Engineer X or Newb A, if the rest of the variables remain mostly the same, like the sams studio with the same gear and acoustics all the time, our ears should be able to tell us mostly what to predict pretty quickly.

G.

Yeah, I'd largely agree with pretty much all of that in varying degrees. One of the things that I always still marvel at is the variety of opinion and practice that exists among people doing the same thing, or rather, aiming at the same result. I've never found two people who are totally in agreement or who were totally matched. I mentioned the 'pros' mainly coz for many of them, checking things out on different systems was something they said they did. Alot of them were very much ensconced in their own rooms and are familiar with them but still do it. I find that interesting.
To be honest, I don't bang a drum for it either way. As is often the case, I'm just fascinated in the range of opinion and more importantly, that whichever side of the street one is on, the reasons for being there are well thought out, eloquently and articulately put and pretty persuasive. The perfect ingredients for being able to make up one's mind !

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Yeah, I'd largely agree with pretty much all of that in varying degrees. One of the things that I always still marvel at is the variety of opinion and practice that exists among people doing the same thing, or rather, aiming at the same result. I've never found two people who are totally in agreement or who were totally matched. I mentioned the 'pros' mainly coz for many of them, checking things out on different systems was something they said they did. Alot of them were very much ensconced in their own rooms and are familiar with them but still do it. I find that interesting.
To be honest, I don't bang a drum for it either way. As is often the case, I'm just fascinated in the range of opinion and more importantly, that whichever side of the street one is on, the reasons for being there are well thought out, eloquently and articulately put and pretty persuasive. The perfect ingredients for being able to make up one's mind !

And, likewise, I agree with a lot of what you say here too.

The frustrating part for me personally is how the point of any given post gets totally lost. That's the second - and very sharp - edge of forums like this. Here we are on page 2 and there are still people who think that there's an argument being made *AGAINST* checking mixes outside the studio or a recommendation made that one not do that. I just went through the whole thread again, and don't see anyone anywhere who ever took anything close to that kind of position.

The only point I was every trying to make is that I see home-rec'rs all the time who check their mixes nine ways to Sunday, go back and *change* their mixes nine different times, each nine different ways to Sunday, and keep going back and re-re-re-re-checking on all these different systems, and a year later they've gotten nowhere and still have a mix they don't like. Why? Because they listen to their mixes and the different systems *passively*, they just try to let the playbacks *tell them* what to do, instead of them actively listening to and *thinking about* what they hear these different systems to actually learn anything, about what they should be changing about what they hear back in the studio.

In short, their ears never actually get educated. They are using those playbacks as a crutch, not as an education.

There is no reason why anybody should have to suffer through that more than one or two times without at least seeing *some* progress in their ability to anticipate what they are going to hear outside. Hell, we talk about this *all the time* in these forums; that you need the ability to translate what you hear in the studio to the outside world.

That translation is what I'm talking about. It's not radical, it's basic stuff. That does not mean that one should not check their mixes to some degree outside the studio. They should. Of course. I've said that all along.

But the need to check on a million different systems when working in a familiar studio is something that should disappear fairly quickly, because that translation ability should get one at least most of the way past that need. If it doesn't, if one finds they can't make progress in that regard, that means there's something seriously wrong somewhere along the line, either in the studio or in the head, and *that's* where the focus should go.

G.

 

[Bguzaldo]

Sad to say, but I think lately the best way to check a mix is to throw it on an Ipod and listen with those crappy ear buds. Its a terrible way to listen to music but its the way most people will listen to it these days.

 

[miroslav]

Here we are on page 2 and there are still people who think that there's an argument being made *AGAINST* checking mixes outside the studio or a recommendation made that one not do that. I just went through the whole thread again, and don't see anyone anywhere who ever took anything close to that kind of position.

The only point I was every trying to make is that I see home-rec'rs all the time who check their mixes nine ways to Sunday, go back and *change* their mixes nine different times, each nine different ways to Sunday, and keep going back and re-re-re-re-checking on all these different systems, and a year later they've gotten nowhere and still have a mix they don't like.

Exactly.

There's a difference between listening to your mix on a bunch of different systems...and listening to your mix on all those systems in order to make mixing decisions.

While I certainly don't believe that my studio is one of the best out there AFA sonics...I do know that it's certainly more accurate than any car stereos, home stereos, computer speakers, or iPod ear buds!
So that's why I woudl NEVER "measure" my mix by those systems...but yeah, I'll pop a CD into my car stereo just the hear it.

 

[MCI2424]

hey all,

i was wondering, where are some good places people use, to test their mix out straight after it leaves the studio.?

youve got to know your songs gonna sound good everywhere right?

i use these...

-of course my comp speakers, good quality logitech, i bought them cause literally all of my friends that play my songs, have logitech speakers.
so it seems natural to play them there first. if its sounds good on here, im good for the next test

-old computer, if i mess with the plug on my speakers i can make only the left or right speaker play, sometimes i do this, just incase they play my track through a busted stereo.

- next stop is my old dads kenwood sound system he gave me. its probably 15 or 20 years old, but was top of the line back in its day.
its the kinds with the CD player, tape deck, amp, graphic EQ all in different units. has an old turntable on top too.
really this is the place where i will mostly judge the mix from, along with the next test

-the car. always a good test, the only place my songs get played more then on the internet, or on someones computer is in a car. so this is a really important one. im fond of massivly heavy basslines, so really this is an essential test, with a good car sound system and subwoofer.

-2 smaller portable CD players. i usually just give these a check through, because if its sounded good on everything else. its most likely going to sound good on this unit.

-last test for me is my iPod touch, and my cheap mp3 player, on a few different sets of headphones, including the ipod headphones, some cheapies and all my studio sets.

i like to pace the room like a mad man hearing the sound from different angles each time i hear it back, you get the effect of maybe what it would be like at a party by doing this.

its not like these are in a set order or anything but generally over a few days of making a song ill have heard it multiple times in all these places.

what would you all say gives you the best idea of how its going to sound for everyone??

I find the best place to listen to my mixes is in the studio before it leaves. It is amazing how much I miss that I hear 2 seconds after hitting "play" outside of the studio. There is something in the studio that makes me do some moronic things and miss other obvious things. I take my time now and really listen before I deem the mix done.

 

[audio_leak]

yeah glen you made some awesome points, and im going to cut a few listening sources out, theres really no point and i should try to use my monitors for that.

but like miro said, im not listening to the sources to make decisions on the actual mix, im just listenings to tests quality, unless something stuck out to be dreadfully wrong with the actual mix on a good quality sound system

you'd know its just your listening source thats not accurate right?

i just like to check those inaccurate sources because i know alot of people with a stereo with only one speaker working, or that only cost 20 bucks and it will fizzle and pop here and there or whatever.

not disagreeing with you at all though, you made some great points all through this thread and im going to change my old habits a bit.

cheers

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

yeah glen you made some awesome points, and im going to cut a few listening sources out, theres really no point and i should try to use my monitors for that.

but like miro said, im not listening to the sources to make decisions on the actual mix, im just listenings to tests quality, unless something stuck out to be dreadfully wrong with the actual mix on a good quality sound system

you'd know its just your listening source thats not accurate right?

I'm going to take these paragraphs in reverse order, from bottom up, if I may.

Well, none of what you're listening to is all that accurate (that's true for almost all of us, I'm not singling you out here). There's certainly nothing even close to accurate about a car stereo (certainly among the absolute worst of listening environments one could find), a boom box or a set of MP3 ear buds. Using them to determine if your source (your studio) is accurate is like using a fun house mirror to see if you look fat or not.

In an ideal world, your studio mix room would be the most accurate playback - and therefore the best "sound system" - you have, with your dad's Kenwood system being a close second. Home recorders, however, do not live in very ideal worlds very often, and the mix room often suffers from inaccurate speakers, bad speaker placement (probably the worst offender, IME), and/or poor room acoustics.

This is why we do have a serious need to check our mixes "on the outside", not only to catch mistakes or review mix/arrangement strategy - which are indeed valid reasons as well - but to make sure our mixes and our rooms are not lying to us. Or. more to the point, to figure out that if they are lying, just *how* they are lying so that we can first learn to translate as best as we can, and eventually, if/when we can manage, to make changes to the design, layout or inventory of our mix room to get rid of the lies. For many home recc'ers, those changes, while the best answer, many be a long time coming because of budget or other home logistics; so the need to learn to anticipate those lies and translate them to truth on the outside world becomes paramount.

So what we need is another system we can more or less trust to be a double-check of our mix room. In your case the best candidate for that is your dad's K'wood system. It's not immune frorm it's own lies and exaggerations - no system is - but it's going to be the most truthful and the most accurate of any of the other options you mention. It might even be better than your mix room, if your room is particularly troubled, or if you mix on 'phones or computer speakers or the like. But it should at least be good enough to tell you if there are any glaring problems with your mix.

All this assumes, of course, that one's ears are up to the task. Notice that I said way back in the first post something along the lines of, "if it sounded Ok on the Kenwood, but broke apart on other systems, then it probably didn't actually sound good on the Kenwood; your ears just didn't catch the bad stuff there."

It's for this reason why it often is necessary for those new to this stuff to test on more than just one system, and taking you mix to the Kenwood and to the car and maybe elsewhere may be necessary, so you can learn the whole "if it sounds like this here, it'll sound like that there" thing, and make sure you have the ear practice and training to be able to spot problems on the Kenwood. But that process, if you apply yourself, should not take that long, and INE/IMHO, if done right, you should find yourself soon enough not *having* to triple- and quadruple-check your mixes much past that Kenwood, and your'll find yourself discovering just what you have to do in your room to make things sound mostly "right" on the Kenwood and beyond. What you just can't get right with your current setup, even after hours of practice and training is probably best addressed then by making changes to your mix room.

So, yeah, I'd say go ahead and make your multiple checks like you are now. But IMHO, I'd be looking to make progress as you do that, both in the form of your mixes getting less mistakes and needing less remixes, and in your confidence that you'll be able to better predict beforehand just what your mix is going to sound like on those systems when you do test them. The progress could be slow or fast, but it should be there. If it's not, and you find yourself burning through as many test CD-Rs or MP3s a year from now as you do now, I'd treat that as a warning flag that there's something wrong that needs to be addressed.

IMHO, YMMV, TEAC, PTSD, etc.

G.

 

[Ninja_Drummer]

I agree with most here that listening in different areas is an ideal to learn different scenarios and setups.

Because what I've learned is that the truth is, you won't ever hear the same thing you hear through your studio monitors/headphones when you mix and finalize. Every system has its own little EQ, compression, blah blah, and if your mixes ever hit the radio, then it'll get hit even worse because the DJ, depending on what music, will always peak different frequences (usually the lows because everyone MUST have the biggest bass in the world apparently).

But I think it's good to test different areas, but it is an ideal thing to try and reduce doing that so constantly. For each scenario that you test, you should take note what changes, just as earlier said. Then in future references, you take note of those scenarios and adjust your frequences, EQs, compression, what have you, to the point where it will be universal to all scenarios.

I usually find that songs from the studio sound just perfect, then when they hit the radio, they sound like a booming menace.

I think if one could lay off the bass a little bit or cut down on the highs a little and bring out the mids some in most cases I find, then it will still retain that almost perfect sound.

But I think adjusting your mix, if you plan to go public with it, to not just the way you want it then and there, but how you can retain that elsewhere without out too much alteration.

 

[DrewPeterson7]

Home recorders, however, do not live in very ideal worlds very often, and the mix room often suffers from inaccurate speakers, bad speaker placement (probably the worst offender, IME), and/or poor room acoustics.

This is why we do have a serious need to check our mixes "on the outside", not only to catch mistakes or review mix/arrangement strategy - which are indeed valid reasons as well - but to make sure our mixes and our rooms are not lying to us.

This is why I always dump a new mix onto my iPod and play it back in my car (again, which I like just because I'm familiar with it). I have known bass response issues I have to work with, and while moving things around somewhat has helped I still have some phase cancellation going on that's giving me iffy bass response, making it hard to tell if I have enough low end in my mixes (which, as a result, usually have too much). I've started adapting by just mixing with less bass than I think I need listening on my monitors, but I'd be terrified to fly blind like that without also giving it a quick sanity check on another known "real world" system, just to make sure I got it about where I wanted it to be.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I've started adapting by just mixing with less bass than I think I need listening on my monitors, but I'd be terrified to fly blind like that without also giving it a quick sanity check on another known "real world" system, just to make sure I got it about where I wanted it to be.

And IMHO you're doing the right thing in that regard. But I'd venture the proposition that after some time, you won't think of it so much as flying so blind, and you'll be able to at least rough-tune your mixes in the bass well enough to cut down on the margin of error you do make.

You're kind of lucky in a way, because I think that adjusting for sitting in a positive bass mode is much easier than trying to adjust for sitting in a negative one. In a negative node, you can add and add and add bass and still not tell whether your mix has enough, but in a positive one it's easier to remove until it sounds like you have the right amount of bass deficiency to compensate.

I don't recommend this as a permanent fix by a longshot, but you may want to run a spectral analysis of your speakers by placing the best/flattest mic you have where your ears would normally be, and pumping white noise through them. Record for a while and then play back through a decent spectrum analyzer. Look for any *obvious* bumps in the bass area - I mean ones that could not be easily explained by the microphone itself - and that may give you at least a rough idea of just exactly which frequencies are moding on you in your room and by what approximate amplitude. That may help you zero in on getting flatter-sounding mixes on the outside.

G.

 

[14yearoldkid]

white ipod ear buds...

 

[DrewPeterson7]

You're kind of lucky in a way, because I think that adjusting for sitting in a positive bass mode is much easier than trying to adjust for sitting in a negative one. In a negative node, you can add and add and add bass and still not tell whether your mix has enough, but in a positive one it's easier to remove until it sounds like you have the right amount of bass deficiency to compensate.

No, actually, that's the exact problem I'd been having, that I could crank up the bass and by the time I finally got it sounding right, I'd take my mix out to my car, hit play, and be lost in a wash of low end.

Simply re-arranging my room did wonders - I had a thread on this a while back, I think, but I used to have my desk facing across the short side of my room, off to one side, and after rearranging I now have it centered with the longest part of my room behind it. I do need to do some bass trapping, but unfortunately I don't have the cash sitting around to do much right now. :/

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

No, actually, that's the exact problem I'd been having, that I could crank up the bass and by the time I finally got it sounding right, I'd take my mix out to my car, hit play, and be lost in a wash of low end.

Simply re-arranging my room did wonders - I had a thread on this a while back, I think, but I used to have my desk facing across the short side of my room, off to one side, and after rearranging I now have it centered with the longest part of my room behind it. I do need to do some bass trapping, but unfortunately I don't have the cash sitting around to do much right now. :/

Oops, sorry, I misunderstood you. My mistake.

You might still want to try that experiment I described. It's not something I'd ever recommend as an actual "fix", but it might at least help you narrow down somewhat exactly where and how big your problem may be, and may help you cut down on the number or re-mixes you need to do.

G.