Good Monitors = Good Mixes

[Boray]

Checking on multiple environments is ALWAYS a good idea, regardless of the calibre of your primary mixing monitors.

Yes, but it will be less important the better monitors you have.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

"Crappy" is "crappy" - what's the difference??????????

We have a different idea what is "crappy". I said "As long as the speakers are that crappy that it makes sense." For example a 25 years old stereo.

You mean to say there's "degrees of craptitude" now?

NS-10s have a crap factor of 5 while "AudioSound" (Walmart-type stuff) have a crap factor of 7??? At what "crap factor" exactly does it become ok to use EQ on them???

Nevermind - I forgot you argue in circles....

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

Yes, but it will be less important the better monitors you have.

Nonsense.......... it's not the monitors alone that are responsible -- it's also the listening environment that's important in the reference testing.......

 

[Boray]

Re: "Crappy" is "crappy" - what's the difference??????????

You mean to say there's "degrees of craptitude" now?

NS-10s have a crap factor of 5 while "Acoustic Research" (from Walmart) have a crap factor of 7???

Nevermind - I forgot you argue in circles....

It's not me arguing in circles, it's you who can't understand the logic of a simple sentence: "As long as the speakers are that crappy that it makes sense. You won't find that crappy speakers in any "control room" today btw..."

If a speaker is that crappy that EQing it for flatness don't degrade the sound quality, then it makes sense.

 

[Boray]

Nonsense.......... it's not the monitors alone that are responsible -- it's also the listening environment that's important in the reference testing.......

The better monitors (and listening environment) you have, the less important will listening on other systems be. You must agree to that. If you have a really crappy stereo to monitor on, then listening on other systems is increadibly important!!! If you have great monitoring, then it will be less important than that.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

It's not me arguing in circles, it's you who can't understand the logic of a simple sentence: "As long as the speakers are that crappy that it makes sense. You won't find that crappy speakers in any "control room" today btw..."

If a speaker is that crappy that EQing it for flatness don't degrade the sound quality, then it makes sense.

Here we go again.......... why the FUCK can't you get it thru your thick head that using EQ to "flatten" speaker response degrades the sound more than if you had just left the speakers alone and learned how to translate mixes on them as is???

It absolutely boggles my mind exactly how dense someone can be not to understand that!!!!!!!!!!!

But again, I forget who I'm talking to........

 

[Boray]

Here we go again.......... why the FUCK can't you get it thru your thick head that using EQ to "flatten" speaker response degrades the sound more than if you had just left the speakers alone and learned how to translate mixes on them as is???

It absolutely boggles my mind exactly how dense someone can be not to understand that!!!!!!!!!!!

But again, I forget who I'm talking to........

And why can't you understand that there actually are speakers that are that crappy that you can't hear this degradation? You keep forget this is a home recording BBS, not a pro recording BBS. You are so used to great monitoring that you have forgot how old stereos sound...

It was you who brought this up again, so I assumed you wanted to discuss it...

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

The better monitors (and listening environment) you have, the less important will listening on other systems be. You must agree to that.

No... I "must'nt"... and in fact, don't agree at all.... you will hear things jump out at on a car stereo that you won't hear in the control room.... no matter how good the control room is. Period.

Whether it's a problem or not requiring a re-mix or adjustment is another issue altogether and very subjective to the mix in context.... but listening in multiple environments will always give you far more information about a mix than listening in a control room alone gloating about how good your EQ'd monitors really are.

This is yet another "basic sound engineering truth" that you just don't seem to get.........

 

[Boray]

No... I "must'nt"... and in fact, don't agree at all.... you will hear things jump out at on a car stereo that you won't hear in the control room.... no matter how good the control room is. Period.

Whether it's a problem or not requiring a re-mix or adjustment is another issue altogether and very subjective to the mix in context.... but listening in multiple environments will always give you far more information about a mix than listening in a control room alone gloating about how good your EQ'd monitors really are.

This is yet another "basic sound engineering truth" that you just don't seem to get.........

Once you have said something, you can't change your mind, can you? It's pure logic that it's more important do double check your mix on different systems the worse speakers you mixed on.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

You're tying it to the quality of the monitors.... I'm saying you have to proof your mix on multiple systems REGARDLESS of monitor quality.

Ged'dit now?????????????

fuuuuuuuuuuccccccccccccckkkkkkkkkkkk...

 

[Henri Devill]

You're tying it to the quality of the monitors.... I'm saying you have to proof your mix on multiple systems REGARDLESS of monitor quality.

Ged'dit now?????????????

fuuuuuuuuuuccccccccccccckkkkkkkkkkkk...

Yes you have to proof your mixes outside..A fact of life!



Don

 

[Boray]

You're tying it to the quality of the monitors.... I'm saying you have to proof your mix on multiple systems REGARDLESS of monitor quality.

Ged'dit now?????????????

fuuuuuuuuuuccccccccccccckkkkkkkkkkkk...

It's always good to test your mix on different systems, but this still is MORE IMPORTANT the worse speakers you mix on. Many many has the same experiance. They have tried to mix on some old stereo and they had to listen somewhere else and go back and change something, go and listen somewhere else again, then go back and change.... With decent monitors, you don't need to do this as the mix will be better right away. Of course it's a good idea to always check the mix somewhere anyway. But this is A LOT more important if you have crappy monitoring. If you don't have this experiance yourself, then you probably never have mixed on anything else than at least "decent" monitors. This would explain many of your strange remarks.

/Anders

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

This would explain many of your strange remarks.

I love it... this guy is calling *me* strange?!?!?

whatever you say, bore-ay.........

(what's the emoticon for "gimme a fuckin' break...."?)

 

[Gunther]

Wow. What a silly little argument. Can we get any more trivial?

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

Can we get any more trivial?

Give him time - he will...

 

[littledog]

Re: NS10M's

Ok guys, lets get this straight once and for all. The Yamaha NS10m's were never considered to be the creme de la creme of nearfields, having a slightly harsh 1k presence to them - everyone knows they sound a little harsh. The NS10's were used ( and this has been mentioned earlier ) because EVERYONE could go into nearly any studio and use the same speaker's for reference. Thats why they were called reference speakers !
This monitoring thing DOES require the ears to "learn" their environment ( why do good engineers carry a set of trusty speakers with them at all times for reference ??! ), and where NS10's were widely used, it meant any engineer could enter a strange studio and instantly be comfortable knowing they were using a "familiar" set of speakers ( regardless of whether they had a flat or even for that matter - a nice frequency response ).
The same still applies to monitor's in that a flat response is NOT necessary provided the engineer understands the workings of the speaker itself and is used to the shortcomings of the speaker ( or presence areas, phase probs etc ) and the environment into which it is placed ( dont get me wrong though - the flatter the better ! )
Obviously a truly flat response would be nice too, but thats not what the NS10's did. They were there to provide a speaker "staple" ... and thats why engineers used to check their mixes on them ( this had NOTHING to do with them trying to match consumer gear - thats the most idiotic thing Ive ever heard Freeman !! - why would they spend so much money trying to match bad consumer speakers when they could just BUY some bad consumer speakers for a tenth of the price !!!??? ).
Plainly and simply it's up to the engineer/producer to get "intimate" with their monitor's, and understand their shortcomings and plusses, and then to mix bearing these factors in mind when doing so.
Consumer speakers and amplifiers are "loaded" to appear more full on certain frequencies and to "colour" the sound coming out to make it sound more pleasureable. Given that monitor speakers are designed NOT to colour the sound, THAT is what you are looking for - a flat frequency response, so that you can mix in an uncoloured environement, and let the consumer gear do the colouring later once the album is finished. ( Watch out also for doubling of the lower frequencies, and odd X-over frequencies amongst other things ).
Im afraid I agree with all the posters here that disagree with Mr Freeman ! Mr Freeman, it is up to the engineer ( as it always has been ) to use a speaker that best resmbles a flat response for the budget. Then it is again up to the very same person to understand the misgivings of their reference monitors, and to mix accordingly.
The NS10M's were never flat. Please explain then Mr Freeman why, after years of successful NS10 mixes, I wouldnt be able to do the same on some Yamaha MSP5's once I understood their characteristics and how this translates to the recorded energy on my multitrack.
I believe the NS10m is possibly the best example of how a not so clever speaker can be used as a great monitor, provided the engineer is up to the task of doing their job and using their brain to compare what they are hearing with what they know about the translation of the speaker.
If ONE MONITOR speaker was the be all and end all, why would anyone bother inventing another one ????
Rest assured, monitor's are a personal choice ( with some rather fanatical giudelines of course ! ) and it's up to the engineer to understand their monitoring environment and translate the mixes accordingly.
If you are looking for some active monitors, then consider the following cheapies :
KRKv6 and 8's
genelec 1029A's
Behringer Truths
Yamaha MSP5
HHB Circle 3
KRK V6
Yorkville YSM1P
Alesis M1
Tannoy Reveal Active.
And let your EARS do the critical listening for you - most shops will allow you to test bench htem if you look like a buyer, so just ask at your local, set em up and let your ears decide ( dopnt forget to bring various CD's to test them on ).
There is another new one on the market, I havent had a chance to test yet - the Samson Resolv series. I have no idea what these are like ... anyone tried them yet ?

Before this became another Boray-athon, sms posted the above excellent response. Didn't want it to get lost in the ensuing effluvia.

jmfreeman, your theories about powered vs. unpowered monitors are interesting, but i would like to hear a monitor designer comment on if you are making an accurate portrayal. i will try and see if i can get barefoot to weigh in.

 

[cavedog101]

jeeeeez...louuizzzzze.....ns-10's...used in almost every 'pro' studio the world over for one reason only....they sound like ass BUT!!! because they are so UNFORGIVINGLY accurate, IF you make them sound GOOD, your mixes will translate EVERYWHERE on EVERY OTHER SET OF SPEAKERS....and because the cones are WHITE, its easier to 'see' the low end bass response thru the movement of the cone....ever see them being used with the grill cloth on em? i didnt think so...why are auralexs used? because its easy to check the TRANSLATION of your mix to OTHER types and quality of speaker systems on them...these being you typical boombox type of system...mix doesnt sound even on them...find out why...it aint the speakers!..the original ns-10's did not have a 'bump' at 1k...ikn the newer ones, a lot of folks treat this bump with tissue paper....really...try buying a good used set of ns-10's...did you find any?why the fuck not?they sold 18 billion of em...where are they?these are not...NOT good home stereo speakers...they are way too flat...home speakers have all kinds of pleasing little eq bumps built right in....and!(i'm almost done) to that 'boray guy talking about eqing the monitors?????? go ahead on dude...knock yerself out.....send yer dissappointed clients over here...i can use the werk........anyone that wants the complte rundown on the ns-10 go over to recording.org and ask bill about em.......pack a lunch...............

 

[Gunther]

Hey Blue Bear,

I was checking out your website and I noticed you had a set of Yorkville YSM1s. On a 1 to 10 scale how would you rate them?

I have a set of the powered version on order but it was not possible for me to get a listen to them before I bought so I’m pretty nervous. I’m pretty much going on faith on what the people here said.

Also, do they sound good? Like when listening for pleasure, not mixing?

 

[shackrock]

it seems like everyone is saying that you need to KNOW YOUR MONITORS to be able to use them.

if this is true, why even buy monitors? i got a pair of baby advent II's....just normal stereo speakers...i'd say i know them pretty well..so can i mix just as well??

 

[littledog]

while I might agree with your overall conclusions, i'm sorry cavedog, but flat and accurate are just not appropriate terms to be used in conjunction with the NS10m's. They are a known quantity - that is why they are useful.

For that same reason, shackrock, that's one reason why they are not interchangeable with random crappy stereo speakers. Because no one knows how the hell those will translate. While you could argue that if you spent enough time with your stereo speakers you could (even if no one else could) learn to mix on them. And that might be true, except that many stereo speakers are not really designed to be used as close field monitors - their components might be physically spaced too far apart for that - so you might not be able to find a good sweet spot except at a distance that introduces far too many room reflections.