Do you have to be in your monitors' near field for mixing?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bigus Dickus
  • Start date Start date
B

Bigus Dickus

New member
I'm a bit ahead of myself here, since I haven't bought the mic, pre's, etc. that I'm planning on, and obviously then haven't recorded the first track, but I was just wondering and figured I'd go ahead and ask... at some point this will be a concern, and perhaps I should think about it now rather than later.

I'll be recording on my computer. I don't have "monitors" available, and would rather not spend the money on them. The speakers for my computer are decent, as far as computer speakers go (Klipsch), but I know you guys would laugh me off the planet if I intended to use those for mixing.

My other alternative (and this is interesting): I have a really nice home audio/theater setup. You know, nice Rotel preamp and amps, Marantz A/D converter, Magnepan planar magnetic speakers (almost perfectly flat from about 40Hz to 25kHz). Oh, and a Velodyne sub that is as smooth as it gets.

This does wonders for audio playback, but what about mixing? I'm going to be recording my grand piano almost exclusively, and one reason I selected the Magnepan speakers is because piano recordings sound more lifelike and natural on these than any other speakers I auditioned, for any price. How would that influence my mixing (and it's really not going to be complex mixing, only having two channels of audio, but I will need to play with panning, reverb, eq., gain, etc. as necessary)? Would I have to change the positioning of my speakers so as to sit in their "near field"?

This really is interesting, because I have a fairly powerful computer connected to my home theater that is on the same LAN as my recording computer, so transferring files to do mixing in front of my audio system really is no problem (I also have a pretty sweet PC based CD jukebox that I made... looks just like a CD player, but holds over 600 CD's worth of uncompressed music... but that's another discussion!).

Am I insane in thinking I can do this? Would having the world's best speakers for piano recordings (IMO :) ) bias the way I would EQ etc. the mix? Would not being in the near field screw up my perception (although that's the way I listen to them...)? Would having a separate sub (nice as it is) be bad?
 
The short answer is this. Without a decent pair of real monitors you're working blind.
 
Well... I have to ask then: what separates a "monitor" from just a great speaker? If it's being flat, I have that covered. If it's a difference between near field and far field, then speaker placement is the only concern, and that I can address for mixing sessions easily enough I suppose.

If it is something else that I'm missing, please elaborate. I've learned a great deal about mics on this forum, a decent amount about preamps and digital soundcards, so some knowledge of monitors would probably come in useful as well. :)
 
You can do alright with those magneplanars. But you have to LEARN how to relate what you hear to a good mix. Same as with the good nearfield monitors.
 
And I suppose, other than the obvious guidance, widsome, and advice that this board's members can offer when it comes time for that, the best way would just be to make a sample mix and listen to it on a variety of system?

I have the luxury of having access to audio systems ranging from RadioShack Optimus to Magnepan and B&W (and many in between). Nothing like trial and error, I suppose! :)
 
Actually, the Radio Shack Optimus are decent for secondary reference (I think the model is the Optimus 7's).

The primary problem with most "consumer" speakers is the fact that they are designed to "hype" certain frequncies to make music sound good - but when you are trying to mix you want the music to sound accurate. When you mix, you want a speaker system that helps you to translate the mix to various possible listening environments.

To a certain extent, I think anyone can "learn" to mix on any speakers, if you truly understand what frequencies the speakers hype, vs. accurately reproduce. Obviously your "consumer" speakers are better than most.

The key is to use reference CD's in whatever music style you plan to mix. If you know what the Steely Dan song sounds like on your speakers (Steely Dan is often a favorite source of reference material) - then you know what your mix should aim for.

I use Tannoy Reveals, Aurotone Cubes, Monitor Ones and yes Optimus 7's to cross reference my mixes (not to mention, my car, my wifes car, the boom box in the kitchen, etc etc) - now that I think of it - I've never actually completd a final mix - I just keep listening to the board mix, over and over and over............

Good luck.
 
I think part of your origianl question was should you pretend your home stereo speakers are near-field monitors?

My guess would be no. Near field monitors are specifically designed to be listened to from 4-6 feet away. The bass and treble elements are aligned to hit the listener in phase at that distance. Your stereo speakers are probably not designed with that in mind.

The guy to ask speaker questions around here is named "Barefoot". You may want to PM him with specific questions, or at least ask him to visit your thread.
 
Actually, the Radio Shack Optimus are decent for secondary reference (I think the model is the Optimus 7's).
Click to expand...
Actually they are Pro LX7's and they make for very decent monitors. The frequency graph that came with each of them was very flat with no drastic bumps or dips in the graph. Pretty much flat all the way across. These are really nice monitors. Who would've thought RatShack would come up with something like this is a retail consumer store?

I've been mixing on them for the past five or so years and my mixes translate well to any system I've tried them on. Practice and knowing them helps too.

Too bad they don't make them anymore.
 
lol, I didn't even know RatShack made decent monitors... I was just using the typical Optimus speaker as an example. :D

In any case, I think you guys have answered my qustion for the most part. I do listen to a tremendous amount of piano recordings on my system, and indeed that was a large factor in deciding what equipment I wanted to buy. Thus, I would probably have a very good frame of reference for comparing my recordings to when mixing and mastering.

littledog said:
I think part of your origianl question was should you pretend your home stereo speakers are near-field monitors?

My guess would be no. Near field monitors are specifically designed to be listened to from 4-6 feet away. The bass and treble elements are aligned to hit the listener in phase at that distance. Your stereo speakers are probably not designed with that in mind.
Click to expand...

Hmm... not sure how that would translate into my speakers, being a planar design with such a large surface area. There really aren't separate parts of the speaker that reproduce bass/treble, except for the ribbon for extreme highs, but that is fairly well distributed across the area of the membrane as well.

Also, I can't help but wonder what difference being a bi-polar speaker would have on near-field far-field listening. I almost wonder if I shouldn't be in the near-field to reduce this bi-polar effect. Then again, if I just use other good piano recordings as a reference point, what does that matter?

Bah, too much to worry about at this point. I need to bite the bullet and order the mics and pre's first! :D I'll drop Barefoot a note though.
 
Hey Sennheiser,

I got a kick out of seeing someone else useing the Pro 7s. I first became aware of them when I read an article in Home Recording mag. Rodney Crowle (spelling????) used them to mix a Rossanne Cash demo (that went on to actually be the final CD release). In the article it mentioned that Bob Clearmountain liked the Pro 7s so much he bought a pair.

I checked em' out, and I liked the specs, liked the sound and liked the price. I prevoiusly depended on my Cubes (and have worked with a pair of NS10s a fair amount) and I like the Pro7s better for a good reference to a "consumer mix" (ie: boom box, basic car stereo, etc.)

B.D. - not trying to redirect your thread - just wanted to tell Sennheiser the story.
 
That's the first I've heard of professionals using them. It's nice to know I'm in good company.

I guess they know a good set of monitors when they hear them.
 
Hey BD, got your PM and I'm happy to lend my expertise.

Many people on this board automatically accuse hi-fi speakers of "sounding good but not accurate". In some cases they are right, but in many cases they are wrong. There are high-end hi-fi speakers out there that leave most nearfields choking in the dust when it comes to accuracy. But unfortunately, in the case of the Magnepans, this "sounds good but not accurate" label is correct.

First of all, the +- 3dB (that's a 6dB spread!) response they quote is for a very... very... did I say very specific sweet spot. If you move off axis just a little, the direct field response goes crazy. Since these are dipole speakers you don't notice it so much because half the power is radiated from the back and they create a very significant ambient wash that blurs the sharp direct field lobing. But then of course, when you have such a high percentage of ambient signal, the room suddenly becomes extremely important. This is now a very complicated situation and even an experienced acoustician would have a quite a task making this system even reasonably flat for recording monitoring purposes.

Another big issue with planar magnetic speakers is dynamic compression. They have quite low sensitivities. Most dynamic loudspeaker sensitivities these days come in around 89dB at one meter for one watt into 8 Ohms. Your Magnepans (MG 12?) are rated 86dB/m/2.83V into 4Ohms. So that's 86dB at 2 watts, or 83dB per watt - half the volume of a dynamic speaker per watt. This low sensitivity combined with the fact that the magnetic field strength drops off quickly and asymmetric as the diaphragm moves from its nominal position creates rather significant nonlinear dynamic compression effect at normal listening levels.

Finally, the last major problem with planar magnetics is poor transient response. Most planar speakers taught their "ultra-light and super-fast" radiation surfaces compared to heavy cone drivers. But both planar and dynamic drivers derive most of their damping electrically from the motor system. How quickly the driver can start and stop, it's acceleration, comes from Newton's simple relation A = M/F. And yes, planar magnetic diaphragms do have a much smaller mass per unit are than cone speakers. But what they don't tell you is the force their motor systems can exert on the diaphragm is much, much smaller than a dynamic driver can with it's long tightly wound coil in a narrow high field strength gap. The fact is, when you compare the impulse responses of planar magnetic with dynamic speakers, even mediocre dynamic speakers win hands down. The planar speaker's low sensitivity, despite having such a large surface area, also hints at its poor damping.

I hope you don't take this as a big slam on your equipment choice. The Magepans are truly fun and pleasurable to listen to. They create a dramatic effect of depth and impact in the music. But, this is really just an "effect". The 'depth' results from the dipolar ambient wash I talked about, and the 'impact' results from their significant dynamic compression, just like the extra punch you get from running your signal through an electronic compressor. These are great for listening, but a bad choice for monitoring.

Hope this helps! :D

barefoot

http://barefootsound.com
 
Last edited:
A post like that makes even putting up with poseurs like me worthwhile! Bravo, Barefoot!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top