T
TheDewd
New member
Sorry, but giving me bad rep is pretty much the only thing you can do to me...Thunder33 said:
..and that doesn't hurt a bit...
..and that doesn't hurt a bit...
Thunder33
New member
TheDewd said:
Um, I really don't want to "do" anything with you. You make me laugh.
bennychico11
...
how in the world do you hear phase relationships when mixing with headphones, The Dewd? That alone seems reason enough not to mix with them.
Thunder33
New member
bennychico11 said:
easy now. he has more money in his headphone system than most of us have in our entire set up!
T
TheDewd
New member
I answered to that to lengths in another post...but simply put, I check my mixes everywhere and on a nice mid-field system that gives me the low down on the phase relationships issues (but there are always none). As I said before, if you track and mix properly, there are no phase issues to be had...bennychico11 said:
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Dewd, I admire your dedication to the science of electronic engineering, and you have learned well. But I fear you have learned a particular specialty a bit too well. You are so busy concentrating on the details of the bark on the trees of EE specs and details, that you often fail to discern the whole forest of systems performance.
In this case, you are emphasizing flatness at the cost of translation. Now, I don't have reason to doubt that you have trained your ears to mix just fine though your cans. More power to you, that's wonderful. But even if that's true, that is somewhat akin to training youself to read a book held up to a mirror. It's a wonderful talent, and it works, but it's an awfully long way to have to go just to be able to read a story.
There is no such thing as a perfectly flat loudspeaker. And I'll stipulate for the sake of argument that your phones are flatter than many monitors. Yet people are making fantastic mixes on non-flat-monitors in less-than-perfect acoustic environments every day; they know how to translate what they hear in the studio to how things will generally sound "in the real world", so to speak. You have done so with your headphones as well. Great.
However, concentrating on the alleged "flatness" of you headphones and ignoring the inherant extra difficulties in translating from headphones vs. translating from monitors is like saying that an M1 tank is a safe way to drive and ignoring the more practical difficulties of maneuvering one through Times Square.
The biggest problem with headphones has nothing to do with the flatness of their frequency response. The problem is the human brain is wired to distinguish the difference between stereo sounds coming from headphones and those coming from discreet sources. A perhps overly-simple but dramatic illustration of this is the fact that the brain will never interpret a mono signal coming out of a pair even perfectly matched monitors as coming from the top of one's head. Long story short, the brain has to be "trained" to take extra steps to accurately translate what one hears in headphones to what the end user will hear "in the real world." By humans, not oscilliscopes.
It's a hell of a lot easier to make an accurate translation in somewhat colored monitors in a somewhat colored room than it is in even perfectly designed and tuned headphones. Not because of anything having to do with electrical engineering, but rather entirely because of the principles of human engineering.
G.
In this case, you are emphasizing flatness at the cost of translation. Now, I don't have reason to doubt that you have trained your ears to mix just fine though your cans. More power to you, that's wonderful. But even if that's true, that is somewhat akin to training youself to read a book held up to a mirror. It's a wonderful talent, and it works, but it's an awfully long way to have to go just to be able to read a story.
There is no such thing as a perfectly flat loudspeaker. And I'll stipulate for the sake of argument that your phones are flatter than many monitors. Yet people are making fantastic mixes on non-flat-monitors in less-than-perfect acoustic environments every day; they know how to translate what they hear in the studio to how things will generally sound "in the real world", so to speak. You have done so with your headphones as well. Great.
However, concentrating on the alleged "flatness" of you headphones and ignoring the inherant extra difficulties in translating from headphones vs. translating from monitors is like saying that an M1 tank is a safe way to drive and ignoring the more practical difficulties of maneuvering one through Times Square.
The biggest problem with headphones has nothing to do with the flatness of their frequency response. The problem is the human brain is wired to distinguish the difference between stereo sounds coming from headphones and those coming from discreet sources. A perhps overly-simple but dramatic illustration of this is the fact that the brain will never interpret a mono signal coming out of a pair even perfectly matched monitors as coming from the top of one's head. Long story short, the brain has to be "trained" to take extra steps to accurately translate what one hears in headphones to what the end user will hear "in the real world." By humans, not oscilliscopes.
It's a hell of a lot easier to make an accurate translation in somewhat colored monitors in a somewhat colored room than it is in even perfectly designed and tuned headphones. Not because of anything having to do with electrical engineering, but rather entirely because of the principles of human engineering.
G.
T
TheDewd
New member
Very good post.SouthSIDE Glen said:
It's all up to the choice someone makes. You have to compromise between a flat response, a more natural phase representation, etc...I choose to favor the response and accuracy over the phase, but others might disagree, thus the importance of multi system checkups.
Also, since I RARELY listen to music on loudspeakers (I always have my headphones on) I have (as you said) become so used to listening to headphones that mixing on them feels more natural to me than mixing on speakers, this is no joke.
I wouldn't be so upset about all of this, if it wasn't for BlueBear who, with his "Whadddddya meeeeannnnnnnn" article, says that one CANNOT do it, while my approach is that you CAN do it. You can't say there is only one way of doing things and while reading a book with a mirror is not as straight forward as reading normally, in the end, the story is understood the same way. And there is no time loss if the mirror reader has developped his skill to the point that he will not take more time than a normal reader. Bottom line to me is that I get upset really fast when people try to oppress me for being different than most. I guess it goes to show that even in 2006, going with the pack is the best way to go.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Viva la difference!TheDewd said:
My only problem is when that "difference" flies in the face of reality, compounded with the fact that this face-flying is in response to questions from those who still need to learn the rules before they wil be ready to learn how to break them.
From your "all amps and preamps with the same published specs sound the same" drivel, to the "RMS is needed to compete" statement in another thread earlier today, to this "good headphones are better than monitors for mixing" defense (you never said until now that your method was simply different, you were claiming it was *better*), to many others over the past few weeks that I can't even remember, let alone enumerate, you are IMHO having the effect of spreading disinformation all over this board.
You're right; reading in a mirror will result in the same story. But when someone who wants to learn how to read, and is having trouble doing so, and who wants to get along in the world of printed word comes along, are you really going claim that teaching them to read in front of a mirror is really the way to go?
G.
T
TheDewd
New member
Well this board is meant as an exchange of opinions, methods and ways of thinking. Also, about the "RMS to compete" part, I disagree. It is a reality in today's music and it's much easier to defend than headphone mixes since the PRO mastering stuff do itSouthSIDE Glen said:
If I master my band's demo at -12dBRMS (which is my choice for a good balance between level and good sound) thw producer and people won't think it sounds good. Loudness equals quality to the common individual. Thus, you better learn to do it loud first.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Yes, that is the fad in audio production these days, you're right. It also represents a quality trend with longevity about as well as the polyester leisure suits of the '70s did. And, BTW, isn't that rather "follow the pack" thinking?TheDewd said:about the "RMS to compete" part, I disagree. It is a reality in today's music and it's much easier to defend than headphone mixes since the PRO mastering stuff do it
In a world where every other song is squashed to a pancake, the one song with the quality dynamics will stand out.TheDewd said:
G.
CoolCat
Well-known member
ATTN!! this is now the CONVERT THE DEWD TO MONITORS THREAD
If you can make great mixes and are happy using cell phone speakers or whatever one wants to use, or empty soup cans with a string between them. your a lucky som-bitch (or have very low expectations?)
I wasn't so lucky and too skeptical. I'm used to data, quantifiable results, repeatability testing, specs, manuals and all that shit.
How do you know what the Freq the guitar string is at?
> Most use a Guitar Tuner these days.
Many wasted hours of my life painfully listening to bands tune by "ear", arguing...it was fhkng horrendously painful. Ah, nowadays...its the entire bands done in minutes.. Guitar Tuners...love 'em!
Same thought pattern..
How do you know the Freq response of your HR setup?
>You use a Tuner...analyzer, db meters...
Its great fun too for some, to see in real time your bass drop off as the volume goes up because your in a drywall shit studio and the nodes and crap.
Or your high end level out as you turn the speakers a few inches.
Technology today is making this kind of shit easier and easier and cheaper.
No different than voltage meters, ampmeters, temperature meters, speedometers....and in my exp. the $20 reads like the $300 one or pretty damn close.
But back to The Dewd,
I did headphones from 1979 to 200something....heard about monitors here, argued with BlueBear and others flaming me, I tried the monitors and it was a vast improvement in the final product per my ears.
My brother same thing...same results.
A Paradigm Shift, large change for the better.
and something else..my ears don't ring for 3 days after recording...that's something to take into serious consideration!
If you can make great mixes and are happy using cell phone speakers or whatever one wants to use, or empty soup cans with a string between them. your a lucky som-bitch (or have very low expectations?)
I wasn't so lucky and too skeptical. I'm used to data, quantifiable results, repeatability testing, specs, manuals and all that shit.
How do you know what the Freq the guitar string is at?
> Most use a Guitar Tuner these days.
Many wasted hours of my life painfully listening to bands tune by "ear", arguing...it was fhkng horrendously painful. Ah, nowadays...its the entire bands done in minutes.. Guitar Tuners...love 'em!
Same thought pattern..
How do you know the Freq response of your HR setup?
>You use a Tuner...analyzer, db meters...
Its great fun too for some, to see in real time your bass drop off as the volume goes up because your in a drywall shit studio and the nodes and crap.
Or your high end level out as you turn the speakers a few inches.
Technology today is making this kind of shit easier and easier and cheaper.
No different than voltage meters, ampmeters, temperature meters, speedometers....and in my exp. the $20 reads like the $300 one or pretty damn close.
But back to The Dewd,
I did headphones from 1979 to 200something....heard about monitors here, argued with BlueBear and others flaming me, I tried the monitors and it was a vast improvement in the final product per my ears.
My brother same thing...same results.
A Paradigm Shift, large change for the better.
and something else..my ears don't ring for 3 days after recording...that's something to take into serious consideration!
T
TheDewd
New member
If I write a story using the "mirror", the story still has to be appealing to the masses or the book will not sell, regardless of how it was written. A loud mix is competitive, no matter HOW you mixed or what you used to mix. Sometimes you have to follow the trends facing competition, otherwise, you will not get comparable results, which is the key in today's radio pop mania.SouthSIDE Glen said:
OTOH, how you write the book doesn't matter, since you wil get (nearly...) the same printout no matter what method you use.
As you can see, I lump the "loudness decision" into the artistic part of the process, since the songs and it's content as a whole has to be appealing.
T
TheDewd
New member
Glad you found the tool that suits you bestCOOLCAT said:
1) My ears never ring
2) I can mix at night and whenever I want
3) I don't have all that trouble with the RTA
So I stick with the headphones until I pay someone to build myself a perfect tuned room and buy myself some energy veritas coupled to a classé omega amp,
CoolCat
Well-known member
TheDewd said:Glad you found the tool that suits you best
1) My ears never ring
2) I can mix at night and whenever I want
3) I don't have all that trouble with the RTA
So I stick with the headphones until I pay someone to build myself a perfect tuned room and buy myself some energy veritas coupled to a classé omega amp,
yeah thats it exactly, it works for me and was a big help as my mixes were in serious hell.
I haven't heard your dissatisfied with your mixes...so yes, I agree Why Change? and you apparently keep the volume in your phones at a good level.
Dewd..you've some high goals and hi-end equipment on the list in addition to the studio itself...good luck