hifi monitoring

[tc4b]

I like my monitors, they seem to work well enough despite being 'budget' models (m-audio bx8a).

However, I also like to make mp3's of my mixes and listen to them in itunes, just to see how they'd translate. I listen on consumer-level headphones (koss portapro and apple earbuds) and these cheesy little speakers that came with my computer, and that's well and good.

I DO want to add some kind of home hi-fi monitoring to my rig, just to get a different flavor. Does anyone here do this? What do you use? One of those high-end boomboxes/low-end shelf systems? Regular receiver/speakers? I'm considering just going on ebay and getting a reliable receiver and speakers (denon, boston, nothing fancy just solidly built) but I wanted to get your thoughts first. Thanks!

 

[miroslav]

I have an older Techincs 3-way Hi-Fi set of speakers in my studio, along with two sets of actual mixing monitors. They have a 10” (or is it 12”?) speaker with a front port, and with level-adjustable mid and high tweets. They are pretty large, and have a very big sound.
My sister picked them up when she was visiting Japan in the early-80’s (I don’t think they were available in the USA). I’m not in my studio at the moment, so I can’t recall the model number.
They sound really nice…I like to throw up my mixes on them when I am done just to get the classic Hi-Fi perspective, but I still mainly use my Mackie HR824 monitors for all my work.

 

[ofajen]

I've pretty much used the same pair of monitors and amp since the 80s. It's my old hi-fi rig that I bought in 1981: Polk RTA-12Bs and Hafler DH-200 amp. I've tried smaller monitors on occasion, but they always pale in comparison to the Polks. The sound stage isn't as good and the bass isn't there.

In my room the Polks are roughly flat to about 20 Hz (the room, however, has peaks at about 35 Hz and 70 Hz). Above that it's pretty tidy, because these days I wrap the monitoring area with Studio Traps.

I use other monitoring options elsewhere, but only one set-up... the best, most complete and accurate one I have... in the studio, and I try to keep consistent monitoring levels there.

Cheers,

Otto

 

[Dogbreath]

Yeah, I have my monitors (Adam A7) and I also use an old Pioneer amp runnin some old Yamaha stereo speakers (both of which are obsolete and seriously rock ) then when I burn a CD, I use a new home stereo system with a sub, my computer speakers with a sub, a boombox and the final test is my truck. If it sounds good in my truck, it's good.

 

[miroslav]

If it sounds good in my truck, it's good.

I'll have to bring my mixes to your place and audition them in your truck!

Every time I try the "car test"...I'm never happy.
Mind you...I'm not talking about my mix quality.
I'm just not happy with the sound of ANYTHING in the car!

Right now I'm driving a ’08 VW Passat...and it ain't too shabby, has the 6-way (or whatever it is) stereo system...yada, yada, yada...and everything sounds way heavy on the Bass, and the Treble has some ice-pick-in-ear frequencies. This is how everything sounds in the car...even stuff off the radio.
I can dial the Bass and Treble...but things just get dull and muffled sounding if I stray too far off the default settings.

In other vehicles, I've had other frequencies that really either pop out...or are missing altogether...plus, if you are driving while auditioning, that completely changes things, as the road noise masks a lot of the detail. Same goes for your AC...if it’s on, the fan noise will mask some frequencies.

I could never find a *good* car test that was anywhere near "accurate"…there’s always some tradeoff.


Personally, I’m not a big fan of the multi-speaker car systems…I think that’s part of the problem. They must employ some odd X-Overs to make it all work…plus, most of the low-end comes from your trunk space and your door cavities.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I set my my current rig with a secondary 'home stereo" monitoring chain with a Denon receiver and Klipsch ported 2-way "bookshelves" that I mounted on telescoping wall brackets. I have since upgraded the Denon receiver to a Nakamichi AV-1 (for reasons having nothing to do with actual audio needs.)

This worked wonderful for me for a short while as a way of back-checking the mixes I make on my HR 824s. But frankly, I rarely use the home system for checking any more. Oh, I'll check once in a while just to keep myself honest; but it didn't take too long for me to learn how the 824s sound and translate, pretty much to the point where back-checking on the consumer gear wasn't really all that necessary. Put simply, I learned what things should sound like on my mix system in order to translate to the home OK. As of today, I don't think I've fired up the Klipschs for well over a year now, and that was just to test the new Nakamichi, and not actually test any mixes.

G.

 

[Waltz Mastering]

If your wanting to get an idea or read of how your room translates, it good to hear you tracks back on as many systems as possible; ipod - car - home hi fi - boom box - computer speakers - head phones - p.a. - etc.

Not sure if you'd need a different receiver if it's the same room, different speakers would do, and different rooms can usually reveal where the problems are. Once you get your mix room tweaked and can trust what your hearing to be somewhat true, you won't need to count on the other systems so much.

 

[miroslav]

Tom

That room that is pictured on your main page at the Waltz Mastering website looks quite sweet!

How are the side panels constructed?
I see that the tops are wood...but what is the composition underneath the wood?

Also...I notice in your photo gallery that you have quite a few different rooms pictured, and quite a few different gear setups. Is that all part of your current studio digs...or are those also pictures of your past studio locations?
Either way...some cool spaces and gear!

My project studio is one main space, nothing monstrous, but big enough for my purposes. I have a full drum kit in there, plus plenty of amps, organ, etc...not to mention my mixing space and gear.
I went for the "one-room" approach, choosing not to box in the mixing space, so I kinda have the mixing stuff in one half of the room, and my amps & instruments in the other half...but there are other rooms I can use if needed, though they are not part of my "studio proper".
I may push into the adjoining room one of these days, as I keep adding gear as it's starting to get a bit full...but I'm OK for now.

Anyway...nice website...nice studio!

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Not sure if you'd need a different receiver if it's the same room, different speakers would do

In his case, a different amp or receiver is necessary because his current BX-8as are self-powered.

G.

 

[Waltz Mastering]

That room that is pictured on your main page at the Waltz Mastering website looks quite sweet!

How are the side panels constructed?

Thanks , I designed and built the mastering room that's pictured on the home page about 6 years ago.

The side reflection panels are covered with 1/2 inch birch - held on by wood bracing and filled with mineral fiber.

The rest of the studios are part of a 6000 sq' multi room facility in Boston that I've run and owned for the past 19 years and have just recently sold.

In his case, a different amp or receiver is necessary because his current BX-8as are self-powered.

Your right, I wasn't familiar with those speakers.

 

[vostok88]

I agree with Tom at Waltz Mastering as well - use as many different reference 'monitors', speaker set-ups, headphones, ipods, etc, as possible. When you can get a really 'nice' mix that applies to all of your various monitors (and it sounds fairly 'even' throughout) you're in good shape - and your ears will eventually get used to what to actually expect within your room as well.

And by the way Tom - would you mind listing some of your gear you're using in your main mastering room? Some of it, I've actually never seen before.

- thanks man,

 

[Massive Master]

(His gear list in right there on his web site)

Going sideways on that point -- I want to stress the latter part -- The point is to not need to listen on a dozen different systems. If you have and learn ONE accurate and consistent system, you'll know how that material will translate to other systems. Too many people I know go through the "listen on this, listen on that, listen on (etc., etc., etc.)" technique and never "get it" - It's like shooting at a moving target.

You can make a mix sound good on headphones (really - it takes no talent at all). You can make a mix sound good on small speakers. You can make a mix sound good on a plastic boom-box. You can make a mix sound good on an old Fisher system with 18" woofers. You can make a mix sound good for your car -- Or, you can just make a good sounding mix which will sound good on everything. If it takes a lot of "running to the car" and what not to find out if your mix sounds good, you're using the wrong monitoring chain or your room isn't up to the task. The only way to fix that is to fix it.

 

[ofajen]

(His gear list in right there on his web site)

Going sideways on that point -- I want to stress the latter part -- The point is to not need to listen on a dozen different systems. If you have and learn ONE accurate and consistent system, you'll know how that material will translate to other systems. Too many people I know go through the "listen on this, listen on that, listen on (etc., etc., etc.)" technique and never "get it" - It's like shooting at a moving target.

You can make a mix sound good on headphones (really - it takes no talent at all). You can make a mix sound good on small speakers. You can make a mix sound good on a plastic boom-box. You can make a mix sound good on an old Fisher system with 18" woofers. You can make a mix sound good for your car -- Or, you can just make a good sounding mix which will sound good on everything. If it takes a lot of "running to the car" and what not to find out if your mix sounds good, you're using the wrong monitoring chain or your room isn't up to the task. The only way to fix that is to fix it.

Uhhh... that's what I was trying to say. You said it better.

I recall reading in Bob Katz's book Mastering Audio something along the lines of "you should monitor using one, high-quality, accurate, full-range system and then your mixes will translate as well as any to the full range of inaccurate systems in the world."

The basic idea is that a truly accurate system should be relatively neutral and roughly in the middle of the range of inaccurate systems all over the world, so mixing on that accurate, neutral system tells you what's really there and hopefully minimizes the horror of playing your mix on a radically different system, like might happen if you mix on a totally bass-heavy system and turn the bass way down, then someone plays back your bass light mix on really tinny, crappy headphones.

Any mix is a compromise of sorts, calculated to work as well as possible on many different systems, but the accurate monitors tell you what's really there and help you make the best compromise.

Cheers,

Otto

 

[vostok88]

I have to respectfully disagree on this one.

I do know what you mean by 'mastering' your ears to one set of decent monitors and it sounding fairly good across the board.

- but on the other hand:

a) it just never hurts to listen to a mix on several systems or various monitors of some sort. I just can't see where that's ever been a problem for anyone.

b) I can't count how many 'professional' studios I've been to over the years that have several 'various monitoring' set-ups. Everything from car-speakers, TV speakers, to huge P.A. speakers. (and that certainly couldn't mean that all of those really nice studios 'rooms' are screwed-up.)

c) If I'm going to do a mix for a 5.1 surround system - I'd rather mix with an actual 5.1 surround sound system (or 5.1 monitors) vs. my one 'main' pair that I usually trust.

Again, i do know what you mean by a 'well-trusted' pair of monitors (that's mainly what I use as well) - but I just don't see where it hurts to try other monitoring methods in order to maybe get a better final mix in the end, especially for something in particular.

- plus, it's just 'fun' sometimes to hear the playbacks on various speakers.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I just don't see where it hurts to try other monitoring methods in order to maybe get a better final mix in the end, especially for something in particular.

I would think that the #1 reason is that life is too short to waste time if you don't need to.

Fun is fun, sure, I'm not against having fun, but for me, anyway, by the time I'm done with a mix, listening to the song I just got done working on for the past hour or two (or whatever) another three times for three different systems is not exactly my idea of fun. I'm done, and I want to move on. Perhaps a number of hours or days (or weeks) into the future I might go back to a song I liked and listen just for recreation, but please, don't make me make my job any longer than it needs to be.

Which leads to reason #2. This will not apply to hobbyists, but for those who are getting paid to mix or master, whether it's a homebrew $25/hr rookie or a $50-$100/hr pro, time is money.

I can understand where when one is first learning their studio monitoring chain or first training their ears that checking their work on other playback systems will make for a good reference point. This is what I originally set up with the consumer bookshelves.

But if after a little while one doesn't find that their mixes are getting closer and closer on the first try and shortly thereafter that the need for checking on other systems pretty much disappears because you find yourself not really needing to make any changes after the first try, then there's something wrong. Either you're using the other systems as too much of a crutch and your ears are not learning to make the proper translation when listening to the mix or mastering monitors, or as John said, there's something wrong with the monitoring system or environment that is preventing you from being able to make the proper mental translation.

And finally, there are plenty of car stereos where everything sounds awful. Hell, if I tried making mixes that sounded decent in my previous car, they would sound so contorted and awful on everything else as to be useless.

As far as the 5.1 checking, if one is making or mastering a 5.1 mix, they should be mixing or mastering on a 5.1 monitoring setup. Mixing for 5.1 on a stereo playback system makes about as much sense as producing color video with just a monochrome monitor.

G.

 

[BushmasterM4]

1970's Sansui 9090DB with 1970's Polk Monitor 10's. Over 30 years old and kicks out the jams.

 

[Seafroggys]

God damn, this thread has inspired me to go to Goodwill and buy some nice ass Hifi stereo systems. Outside of my studio, my PA, and my comp speakers, I really don't have much in the way of playback, except for my parents' stereo system, which I wouldn't say is the best in the world.

 

[ofajen]

1970's Sansui 9090DB with 1970's Polk Monitor 10's. Over 30 years old and kicks out the jams.

I listened to the 10's before I bought my 12B's in 1981. The 10's are good, but I really felt the image and high end of the 12B's with their top mounted tweeters was a noticeable improvement. In fact, most every speaker I like has a top mounted tweeter. B&W make fabulous speakers of that design (801, 802, etc.) and Dahlquist is another one that has made several good designs like that (in fact those are all better than mine). I don't really research this market, because I have no money for new speakers, but I suspect many of the high end monitors used in mastering have that sort of design.

Cheers,

Otto

 

[ofajen]

God damn, this thread has inspired me to go to Goodwill and buy some nice ass Hifi stereo systems. Outside of my studio, my PA, and my comp speakers, I really don't have much in the way of playback, except for my parents' stereo system, which I wouldn't say is the best in the world.

Yeah, it was funny to see on eBay that you can buy a Hafler DH-200 amp like mine for between $100-$150 and my RTA-12Bs would cost at most $200 for the pair. My Studio Traps are worth ten times what the monitors and amp are worth.

Cheers,

Otto

 

[vostok88]

(ok then, allow me to retort.......

I would think that the #1 reason is that life is too short to waste time if you don't need to.

'Life is too short?............(I don't think it's quite that short)

- What if you do need to invest more time? And why is it a complete 'waste of time' to try 'new' or unconventional things?

listening to the song I just got done working on for the past hour or two (or whatever) another three times for three different systems is not exactly my idea of fun. I'm done, and I want to move on.

Hell, it's 'fun' for me! - That's engineering my friend! Myself (and a lot of other fellow engineers I know) can go much longer than 1-2 hours on plenty of systems, and we're all still having a blast in doing so, because recording music is one of the best things on earth to do! I don't know, but It's almost like you're making the process out to be one, big 'dreadful job' that you can't wait to hurry up, finish it, get paid & get the hell out of there.

- I'm sorry, but there's a lot of up & coming, very talented engineers out there who would absolutely 'kill' to do engineering for a 'job', or better yet, a living. (I guess you & I are just on 2 different pages of 'recording' or something. I don't know.)

but please, don't make me make my job any longer than it needs to be.

- again, it just sounds like you either not all that crazy with your 'job' as an engineer, or you're very 'attached' to that one set of monitors, one way of doing things, & just want to get home again as soon as possible.

Which leads to reason #2. This will not apply to hobbyists, but for those who are getting paid to mix or master, whether it's a homebrew $25/hr rookie or a $50-$100/hr pro, time is money.

- (again with the 'time & money' thing) Well, technically speaking, if it's your client who's wishing to hear his or her mixes played back on multiple monitors, or a beat-up car-stereo system - it's their time they're paying for, therefore, you're the one who's making more money - where's the problem?

Either you're using the other systems as too much of a crutch and your ears are not learning to make the proper translation when listening to the mix or mastering monitors

- I never said anything about using other systems as 'crutches'. I said use mainly for 'fun', or that there was no harm or problem in doing so. I still don't see where the problem is if one wants to take a mix & crank the absolute hell out of it in a car stereo system to perhaps get a better physical 'feel' of what that mix would sound like at that high of an insane level. I'm sure as hell not going to crank a pair of my $3,000 monitors up to the sky for the same effect, only to damage the monitors.

As far as the 5.1 checking, if one is making or mastering a 5.1 mix, they should be mixing or mastering on a 5.1 monitoring setup. Mixing for 5.1 on a stereo playback system makes about as much sense as producing color video with just a monochrome monitor.

I'm not exactly sure as to why the sarcasm was needed there, but the whole point I was trying to make with this 5.1 example, is exactly what you just 'repeated' me on - 'yes', you would have to do the mix on a 5.1 set-up (which would be another good reason for 'alternate' monitors) - but you were saying in your earlier post that you could do any solid mix for any type of playback speakers or monitors with just your HR-824's - I was simply just giving another example of why it's good to have multiple sources of monitors - NOT for 'crutches', or because our ears suck, or 'rooms' sucks, etc.

Please understand that I'm NOT attacking you by the way. But man, I still try to learn new things every,single day myself. (and I, like yourself, also have been in the biz for quite some time now - not a 'rookie' as you call them) But this is a forum, and we all have 'opinions' and should share them alike. I opened mine with 'I respectfully disagree' with yours - but you seem to make it out to be like there's only 'one way' to do things like this or something's just 'wrong' or a complete waste of time.

Again - I was only trying to point out 'what's the harm in trying something new or using both methods'? There's plenty of other reasons why a lot of other people do this, and again, i just don't see any reason why people should be 'warned away' from trying out new things, especially if it actually 'helps them' in some way, keeps them from being bored to death with hearing every, single mix on the same set of monitors, every, single time, (maybe that's why you're ready to go home after 1-2 hours?

- or 'yes', maybe some of us just still simply do it for 'fun' and something 'different' from time to time

- That's all.