Headphones or Speakers??

[Kujo]

For monitoring purposes, which would you suggest?

I'm recording digitally in my basement, which is really not set up for sound quality. My speakers are hardly the greatest for mastering, so I was leaning toward the slightly cheaper route and buying a good set of headphones.

I ask the question, because I notice a difference between listening to music on my MP3 player, and on my computer at home. I'm pretty sure that all has to do with the type of speakers I use on my PC, and the acoustics of the room.

Basically, does playing through headphones make much of a difference when mix/mastering music? I'd rather not spend a small fortune on soundproofing my basement, and buying expensive monitoring speakers.

Thanks!

 

[Beck]

Both. You definitely need a decent pair of loudspeakers. Near-field monitoring will reduce the effects of room acoustics, but you'll need to invest in some room treatment nonetheless. IMO, room treatment is the first step… you work from the monitoring environment back when building a system. Headphones are a secondary monitoring option to have along with loudspeakers. Don't rely on headphones alone.

Some may argue it doesn’t matter as much as it used to because everyone’s listening through crappy iPod earbuds anyway. I say mix as though this crappy music trend is going to pass.

There’s a huge difference between open monitoring and headphones.

For monitoring purposes, which would you suggest?

I'm recording digitally in my basement, which is really not set up for sound quality. My speakers are hardly the greatest for mastering, so I was leaning toward the slightly cheaper route and buying a good set of headphones.

I ask the question, because I notice a difference between listening to music on my MP3 player, and on my computer at home. I'm pretty sure that all has to do with the type of speakers I use on my PC, and the acoustics of the room.

Basically, does playing through headphones make much of a difference when mix/mastering music? I'd rather not spend a small fortune on soundproofing my basement, and buying expensive monitoring speakers.

Thanks!

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I'd rather not spend a small fortune on soundproofing my basement, and buying expensive monitoring speakers.

None of us do (except for the gear sluts, of course). But the hard reality is that this racket does require a certain set of tools to do the job right. It doesn't necessarily have to be a $100K studio, but it's going to take a lot more than a set of headphones to make a mix that most will consider to be ready for anything other than playing for friends and family.

And - once again - if you know that what you are talking about is not good enough for mastering, it's certainly not going to be good enough for tracking or mixing. 90% of your sound has got to come from the front end of the process; quality sound is not made in mastering, it is only supported by mastering. If you don't have good quality tracking (in a good sounding environment) being mixed on a monitoring system where you can actually hear what's going on, mastering is just (blow me, Sarah) lipstick on a pig.

G.

 

[Pigfarmer Jr]

You can use headphones, but after each mix go play a fairly finalized version on several devices (mp3 player, car cd player, home system, computer etc etc) and learn what translates. In other words, it is a lot more work, but you can learn to mix/master with inferior listening devices. If you learn your speakers you'll be able to use them.

That being said, even with higher dollar stuff you should do the same thing, so the better your stuff, the easier to "learn" them and hear what is really going on.

 

[iqi616]

Use speakers. Even the best headphones distort your perception of relative loudness of elements in the mix. Whenever I've done a mix on headphones, the first listen through speakers has revealed problems that weren't evident in the cans (and I don't use cheap headphones).

I do use headphones when I mix but only to get a different perspective. For example, my Sony headphones have exaggerated but very deep bass which is handy for checking out the low end.

 

[Kujo]

Well...given that I only plan to make music for myself (sharing only with family and friends), I was willing to sacrifice perfect sound quality. At least for now.

My electronic music teacher back in High School once told me that making music at home, using whatever it is you have available to listen through, is often sufficient enough if its the same kind of equipment you'll be listening to the end product through anyway.

Most other sites I have browsed regarding speakers vs. headphones seem to be bias toward "Professional" recording. Which, in their eyes...proper monitors are the only way to go, and using headphones for tracking-only while recording.

I have a 4.1 Surround speaker setup on my PC, which plays music very well. But I realise that they are designed to give audio a more "pleasing" sound...rather then the harsh reality of sound that a monitor would provide. I would like to produce my music at least to some degree of CD-quality, for listening to on my own stereo. And...as I said, for sharing MP3s with friends/family, whom most of them would playback on cheaper computer speakers, or through stock car audio.

I'm thinking the advice of my former teacher might apply better to me. At least for now.
I would love to pick up a set of nice monitoring speakers, and set up my room acoustically...but I fear my wife would kill me LOL

 

[gecko zzed]

Use what you've got . . . headphones or your 4.1 surround system. If you are recording stuff for informal use, then there is a chance that you can get something reasonable from your current gear.

But:

1 Listen to commercially made CDs through your system so you get to know what they sound like and you can compare your results to them.

2 If you are aiming for "some degree of CD quality", then, as Glen noted, you should be aware that that is going to be extremely difficult without a CD quality recording environment, i.e. room, signal path and monitoring system.

That is why recording sites have a "bias towards professional recording"; that's the way to get a professional sound.

And:

If you pursue this interest more vigorously, it is highly likely you will become dissatisfied with your results and aspire to better. Then you need to convince she who must be obeyed of the wisdom of your proposed purchases.

In the meantime:

Yes . . . the advice of your former teacher probably applies at this stage of your recording hobby.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I would like to produce my music at least to some degree of CD-quality.

And there it is, the little ol' bugaboo that winds up afflicting virtually every self-recording newcomer; the insistence that they just want to do home recording for mostly social purposes and aren't looking to to make "professional recordings", yet they do have some expectation of what really turns out to be commercial quality in their recordings.

This very popular thread on this BBS contains a poll asking what everyone's expectations were when they started. By that poll, almost two out of every three newcomers either expected they could get reasonable commercial quality, or hadn't even thought about it when they started. It's just not that easy.

I agree with Gecko zZed's last post. Use what you can and what you got recreationally, and you'll get some quite listenable recordings that on their own will sound surprisingly and pleasantly good.

But be forewarned; you probably should take any expectations of reasonable commercial quality off the table. As fine as your efforts will sound on their own, chances are very high that they will stick out like snowballs in a coal bin when you or your friends insert them into your playlists along with commercial CD or MP3 tracks. This will be true whether playing on a home entertainment system or on a mePod; you'll hear a distinct difference between what an amateur recording done on amateur gear sounds like and a commercial release.

Don't get us wrong Kujo, we're not saying that you HAVE TO buy all sorts of expensive stuff to record yourself and have fun with it and enjoy it. We're just saying that there's a reason why all the experienced folks on all these boards are telling you what they're telling out about speakers and treatment; because 3 out of 4 of you guys wind up coming back on here a couple of days after making your first mixes and asking why your stuff just does not sound as good as the rest of what you listen to and how to get your stuff sounding more like that.

G.

 

[Kujo]

And there it is, the little ol' bugaboo that winds up afflicting virtually every self-recording newcomer; the insistence that they just want to do home recording for mostly social purposes and aren't looking to to make "professional recordings", yet they do have some expectation of what really turns out to be commercial quality in their recordings.

Don't get us wrong Kujo, we're not saying that you HAVE TO buy all sorts of expensive stuff to record yourself and have fun with it and enjoy it. We're just saying that there's a reason why all the experienced folks on all these boards are telling you what they're telling out about speakers and treatment; because 3 out of 4 of you guys wind up coming back on here a couple of days after making your first mixes and asking why your stuff just does not sound as good as the rest of what you listen to and how to get your stuff sounding more like that.

G.

Thus, is exactly the reason why I ask the question in the first place. I know you guys are experienced...and it's exactly this constructive criticism that I am seeking!! Thank you all

I suppose I was being pretty archaic in believing I might get "some degree of CD-quality" out of my music lol. (Thats why the recording studios make the big bucks, right? )

Based on the response, I think for the stage I'm at right now in music production (at a hobby level), Gecko zzed is right. I'll use what I've got, and perhaps at a later time (where funds allow), strive to take my music to "the next level"

Thanks all

 

[woodpeckerproxy]

Mix with shitty monitoring..but try to test the mixes on as many shitty sources as you can. and try to make a mix that sounds decent on all of them. Thats my opinion atleast.

 

[Freya]

Mix with shitty monitoring..but try to test the mixes on as many shitty sources as you can. and try to make a mix that sounds decent on all of them. Thats my opinion atleast.

This is sort of good advice and many "professional" studios have multiple monitoring options too.

I think you need both headphones and speakers but they can be almost anything if you are just starting out. I would have thought you must already have some speakers but if not then there are often speakers being thrown out if you keep an eye out and if you look into the second hand market you can buy very high quality speakers very cheaply.

You definitely need closed back headphones if you intend to do any tracking. They could be £6 educational speakers tho! For mixing you ideally want something better but pull stuff together and make the best of what you have.

To some extent this has always been the case with recording studios. Back in the 60's they used to check their mixes on a nasty little mono speaker because they knew most people would end up hearing the mixes in mono through car speaker(s). So it's not as limiting as could be expected.

I think headphones are very important right now as that is how a lot of music is heard at present and I would also suggest that headphones don't neccesarily mean low quality. It's just a completely different listening environment to speakers and it used to be that people would listen on headphones for a hi-fi experience. Headphones seem to be getting a bad rap right now, perhaps understandably, but it doesn't have to be that way.

 

[Freya]

And there it is, the little ol' bugaboo that winds up afflicting virtually every self-recording newcomer; the insistence that they just want to do home recording for mostly social purposes and aren't looking to to make "professional recordings", yet they do have some expectation of what really turns out to be commercial quality in their recordings.

This very popular thread on this BBS contains a poll asking what everyone's expectations were when they started. By that poll, almost two out of every three newcomers either expected they could get reasonable commercial quality, or hadn't even thought about it when they started. It's just not that easy.

G.

While it is an intresting kind of question, I felt that the poll was incredibly loaded, and your interpretation of it takes it even further.

The people who hadn't thought about it when they started may not have actually cared. It wasn't perhaps why they were doing it or what they were intrested in.

Also there is no effort to define what "commercial recordings" might be. It could mean anything and almost certainly means different things to diferent people.

It's a bit like the phrase "cd quality", what does that actually mean really? I'm sure we have all heard .mp3's described as being of cd quality, it's one of those phrases that is thrown about to mean high quality in some manner but has actually become mostly meaningless.

The truth is that music has many different kinds of qualities.

 

[gecko zzed]

Also there is no effort to define what "commercial recordings" might be. It could mean anything and almost certainly means different things to diferent people.

It's a bit like the phrase "cd quality", what does that actually mean really? I'm sure we have all heard .mp3's described as being of cd quality, it's one of those phrases that is thrown about to mean high quality in some manner but has actually become mostly meaningless.

I have no basic disagreement with what you say, and I'll go further and say that, in this context, the terms 'commercial', 'CD quality' and 'professional sound' tend to be used interchangeably.

I agree that they are used to 'mean high quality in some manner', but I'm not so sure that they have 'actually become mostly meaningless'.

From my perspective, I run a comparatively small-scale studio, and I don't command the resources, nor have the high-end equipment, of the major studios. Nevertheless, my aspiration is to produce recordings that compare favourably with those studios, i.e. so that someone listening to a track would not realise that it was recorded on a shoestring; not realise that it was a 'home recording'. In this sense, the terms have a meaning that relates to the perceptions of a listener.

I agree, though, that we hear 'many different kinds of qualities', but I don't think that matters here.

I expect that my case is not unique, and that many other home recordists have similar aspirations, and indeed, particpate in this forum for tips and techniques to achieve that aspiration.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

While it is an intresting kind of question, I felt that the poll was incredibly loaded, and your interpretation of it takes it even further.

The people who hadn't thought about it when they started may not have actually cared. It wasn't perhaps why they were doing it or what they were intrested in.

Also there is no effort to define what "commercial recordings" might be. It could mean anything and almost certainly means different things to diferent people.

It's a bit like the phrase "cd quality", what does that actually mean really? I'm sure we have all heard .mp3's described as being of cd quality, it's one of those phrases that is thrown about to mean high quality in some manner but has actually become mostly meaningless.

The truth is that music has many different kinds of qualities.

A strong intellectual argument which I don't really disagree with in principle, Freya. But it doesn't change the realities on the ground:

- first that the absolute number one question asked - both on the Internet and off - is, "How can I make my mixes sound more like the commercial CDs/MP3s I'm used to listening to?" IME this is so overwhelmingly the number one question that it has no competition.

- second is that a newb with that perfect storm of improper ears, improper monitoring, and lack of knowledge to recognize the pitfalls of either, is working with the kind of handicap that simply cannot be overcome by sheer will, effort or luck. Those mixes are most likely going to sound deficient now matter how you slice it.

Nobody is a bigger critic of the state of commercial productions than I. There are a million emperors out there walking around naked, and I state this all the time. One of the basic biases that one must ignore or overcome is the bias that just because it's a commercial recording with money and brand names behind it, that it therefore must sound good. It is very often not the case. We're all human and we're all fallible.

But the fact remains that - with only a few exceptions IME/IMHO - even the crappiest commercial studio recordings still will have a sound or a feel to them that is virtually impossible for a rookie with no gear, no technique and no ears to reproduce.

The test is simple and the bar is low. It's the same one the rookies themselves use all the time in their questions on this subject: if they stick their song into the middle of a commercial playlist, will it sound like it "belongs" or will it sound like an amateur recording stuck into the middle of a commercial playlist? Even if one assumes similar musicianship and adjusts playback volume for perceived volume, there is still usually going to be a rather noticeable difference.

The best of those independent recorders here can make recordings that will fit into that playlist seamlessly, sure enough. But they have had a few years of experience and OTJ ear training, and are most likely NOT doing it on systems with $100 headphones for monitors or desks stuck in corners in untreated rooms with computer speakers, and are working with tracks where as much or more care have been taken in the recording conditions and quality as in the mixing situation.

G.

 

[gecko zzed]

There are analogies in many other fields. A related one, which occured in the PC do-it-yourself boom that preceded home recording, is desk-top publishing. What had once been the domain of firms long on experience and equipment become the province of the amateur publisher. Being able to lay up your own newsletters, brochures and posters becames possible for anyone with a computer. Consequently we saw a rash of the worst designed, worst produced amd worst edited material around. Simply being able to do something (even with reasonable equipment) doesn't guarantee quality, and in the case of printing, graphical and grammatical expertise is not an optional extra. In this forum we are talking about the audio equivalents of that.

We can look at woodworking: "why doesn't my home-crafted coffee table look as nice as even the cheapest flat-pack that I can pick up for a fraction of what I paid to make mine?" There's no doubt that mine was made with love and enthusiasm and the desire to create something of my own, rather than the mass-produced dross around. All the passion I have doesn't guarantee the legs won't fall off in a couple of months (and, knowing my woodcraft skills, probably sooner). Unless I have the right tools, the right skills and an eye for good timber and good design, I will never build more than a rickety crate, no matter how enthusiastically.

Most readers would accept readily the need for woodworking skills and equipment to build something acceptable, and I expect quite a few know this first hand from attempting to saw a straight line, or hammer a nail in straight.

But it seems that, as far as recording goes, many people want to bypass this learning and development stage; have computer, will record! The generic question is something like "I'm new to this. My band needs to produce a demo by the end of next week. What gear do I need to record a CD-quality demo?"
You might as well ask "I've not done much running, but I've entered the marathon next week, and I want to be in the top ten. What tips can you give me?"

Now, everyone has to start somewhere, and these are good questions to ask. You won't find out otherwise. But for some reason, there doesn't seem to be a realisation in this field that there is in others that it may not be as simple as it looks. So it's good to have high expectations, but it's also important to have realistic expectations. In the case of the generic question above, probably the best answer is "pay a studio to record the demo for you."

In the case of my coffee table, the best advice someone could give me is "by all means, make your own. Use whatever tools and skills you've got. Your friends and family will be delighted with your endeavour, and say suitably flattering things. But do not expect it to earn you a living, or to stand the test of time, or to be comparable to Chippendale."

So when someone asks whether they need monitors or can they use headphones, my response is that they can use what they like. Their asking the question indicates that they are part way down a long road, and at this particular milepost, monitors (and room treatment, preamps, fancy mikes and all the rest of it) are not that important. They will become important later, a couple more milestones down the track. But they will know that when they get there.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

+1! Winner: Best Post of the Year Award.



BTW...

"I've not done much running, but I've entered the marathon next week, and I want to be in the top ten. What tips can you give me?"

Be born in Kenya or Ethiopia. Something about countries along the Great Rift Valley; maybe it's something in the waters of the Nile?

j/k

G.

 

[Tim Gillett]

I know a musician with a home studio. He had been monitoring on modest consumer speakers. But for important work he'd take his basic tracks to a professional for mastering. Consistently the mastering engineer told him there was too much bass in his mixes. Obviously the speakers and/or the acoustics of the musician's studio were inadequate in the bass region and he had been boosting to compensate.
I suggested that since money was an issue that he purchase some good quality headphones (I suggested a model or two) so that at least he could more reliably check bass on his tracks. He did. Now his mixes check out about right in the bass region when he takes his mixes to the professional.

For about a tenth of the money you can purchase a set of headphones with as good bass response and general flatness across the range as a pair of expensive speakers. Headphones are essentially unaffected by room acoustics. They are portable and you can use them anywhere with consistent results. For someone on a tight budget who wants to ensure his mixes are in ballpark especially in the bass region I think they are a good idea.

I generally monitor on good quality speakers but their bottom end is unreliable below about 100hz. As a check for the lower bass end I use my headphones.

FWIW Tim

 

[Kujo]

+1! Winner: Best Post of the Year Award.

Agreed! Gecko, you couldn't have described any better, the 'milestone' that I am at right now. Great analogy.

Freya and Tim both give me reason to purchase a set of headphones. I just know my current speakers are going to lack certain frequencies...and given the treatment of my room (rather, total lack thereof), headphones are going to give me back at least a bit of those frequencies, and somewhat 'uneffected' by room acoustics.

Given my music is only being written for myself, as a hobby...I am not concerned in making sound like it had been recorded in a million-dollar plus studio, however I do have this uncontrollable urge for perfection. I am truly my biggest critic LoL. Sharing my music with family/friends...chances are it will be played back on mediums that are poorer quality then my own.

However, as I listen to an album/artist that I really enjoy, I think: 'Is it possible I can get that same tight sound in my guitar tracks?'
I realize I have a lot still to learn about the whole process, but I'm taking things one step at a time, in order to reach a point where I can get at least as close as possible with the equipment I have.

 

[austinm08]

I know a musician with a home studio. He had been monitoring on modest consumer speakers. But for important work he'd take his basic tracks to a professional for mastering. Consistently the mastering engineer told him there was too much bass in his mixes. Obviously the speakers and/or the acoustics of the musician's studio were inadequate in the bass region and he had been boosting to compensate.
I suggested that since money was an issue that he purchase some good quality headphones (I suggested a model or two) so that at least he could more reliably check bass on his tracks. He did. Now his mixes check out about right in the bass region when he takes his mixes to the professional.

For about a tenth of the money you can purchase a set of headphones with as good bass response and general flatness across the range as a pair of expensive speakers. Headphones are essentially unaffected by room acoustics. They are portable and you can use them anywhere with consistent results. For someone on a tight budget who wants to ensure his mixes are in ballpark especially in the bass region I think they are a good idea.

I generally monitor on good quality speakers but their bottom end is unreliable below about 100hz. As a check for the lower bass end I use my headphones.

FWIW Tim

It is possible he was mixing at a much lower volume (or sound pressure level) than the professional he took his tracks to.

I don't know if you're familiar with the Fletcher-Munson curve, but as we start at 0db and increase, we hear certain frequencies before others. The sound pressure level of low frequencies must be much higher before we perceive the volume of them to be the same as mid-range and higher frequencies.

When you mix at a low SPL, you're going to overdo the low frequencies in order for them to sound correct. Then, when you listen to that mix at a much louder volume, the low end is going to be way over the top. When you mix at a much higher SPL than what the listener will listen at, you may under-compensate the lows.


EDIT: I guess the "Fletcher-Munson curve" is to be referred to as "equal-loudness contours" now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fletcher%E2%80%93Munson_curves

 

[DarkFriend]

I track and mix with headphones (Sennheiser HD 280 Pro), and rarely use my KRK RP5 monitors. After mixing a number of songs on the headphones and moving the mix to a boombox, a TV, a car stereo, a home stereo, an iPod, etc., I now know what levels will produce the best results.

Some people will say you can't effectively mix on headphones, but look around. What's the main way people listen to music these days? iPods - with headphones. Might as well mix for them.