hifi monitoring

  • Thread starter Thread starter tc4b
  • Start date Start date
The main thing to be careful about or to be aware of (and what I think SouthSIDE Glen is really talking about)...is that when you start A/B/C/D-ing your mix...it gets harder to know which system to trust....A, B, C or D...???

Yeah...it might be interesting to see how it sounds on those other systems, but if your primary $$$ "A" monitors sound a certain way...and then you get to the D system, and things sound a bit bright for example...if you let that influence your mixing decision, then what do you do for system B or C...or that primary $$$ "A" monitor system...???

It might make more sense to really learn your "A" system...play some of your favorite "great" commercial mixes and see how they sound on your "A" system. Then use that as your reference point for your own mixes...and after that, don't second guess yourself.

But by all means...go try that mix on all those other systems just for the "ha-ha's" if you are so inclined.. :D
 
I understand what you're saying Miroslav, I really do.

Maybe that's where I'm not making myself as clear as I could have (even though I think I've tried it 3-4 times now:) - but I'll try it once more:

I do have a main set of 'A' monitors, and I do use them for nearly every mix I do, and I 'trust them' as well. Nearly each & every mix I do thru them will playback on nearly any system, just fine. I've 'learned' & studied that particular system for several years now with those monitors, so all is good there.

But to answer your question - if the 'D' mix is suffering, or too 'bright', I know I can still go back to the 'A' monitors & correct the problem. (this is why I say I 'agree' with that much.) I never said to start 'correcting' or jumping around with 'b', 'c', or 'd' for further complications or corrections - only for playing back the final mix, just to be able to hear it & enjoy it in other ways. (and sometimes, it may inspire you to try a different mix, who knows? - but that's certainly not a bad thing.)

It's also like some of the major 'rap artist' engineers do: they get the 'final mix' down at the studio with their 'main 'A' monitors' and then head to the closet dance clubs to hear it at the 'maximum blast' levels - however, (according to what I've read) they may hear things that they want to change - NOT because the 'A' monitors were bad, but simply because the huge, blasting PA systems gave them another idea on how to try something 'different' - (does that make any sense?)

So I just meant that once you get your mix where you like it (i.e. the 'A' monitors) - then you can have 'fun', experiment, 'crank-up', etc, etc - with the 'b', 'c', or 'd' systems - and go from there - that's all.

(I hope that better explains myself :) - no harm, no foul:cool:
 
(ok then, allow me to retort.......:cool:
And allow me to respectfully re-retort :p. I think we have a little Cool Hand Luke/failure to communicate thing happening here, because you're completely mis-interpreting me, my Russian spacecraft friend :).

I'm not saying that mixing music is no longer fun for me, it is. If it weren't, I'd have moved on a long time ago, because life is too short and too PRECIOUS to waste it doing something you don't enjoy. Lord knows we certainly aren't in it to become millionaires, so we had better enjoy it, right?. :D

But, assuming your CR monitors are doing the job you bought them to do, once your ears are up to speed with them there should be no reason to *have to* check them on other playback systems. I stopped automatically checking on my home system a long time ago, because I found myself being happy with what I heard and not needing to make changes...or perhaps more accurately, any further changes would wind up chasing a phantom mix; what I had was close enough to as good as the tracking would allow it to get as to define re-mixing as a waste of time. You shake your dick at the urinal too many times and it's not getting any drier, you're just playing with yourself ;).

And maybe we are a bit different, but after I've spent my hour or two on a mix, I've heard that song a good 15-20 times in whole or in parts in that time. Not only does the prospect of hearing it a 21st time in a row not sound very appealing at that time, there's also the question of dealing with ear fatigue; that's - for my ears anyway - not the time to be listening to the mix either for fun or for final analysis. my brain has had enough of this hook and that bridge to last me for a while, entertainment-wise, and my ears have probably had more continuous sound pumped at them than is good for them and can use either a rest or a change in source material to the next track.

I love peperoni pizza just as much as - and probably more than - the next guy, but after the 12th 'za in a row (;)), I'm not only going to be kinda tired of peperoni pizza, but it's not exactly good for my gut or my heart either.

And unless it's a Beach Boys/Queen type of super-mix - which doesn't come my way all that often ;) - if I'm not done in an hour or two, I'm probably chasing phantoms again; it just shouldn't take that long to finish your standard three minute mix. Not because of being in a hurry - I take pride in my work and don't rush things - but simply because it just (usually) doesn't take that long.

And as far as charging the client, I'm not going to stretch out my time just to pad my bill. If I have the mix ready in 2 hours, I'll charge for two hours, and I won't add a third hour to the bill just because I spent an hour "testing" the mix on other systems, unless that testing were necessary. Now for some unusual mixes or some styles or genres I may not be used to, perhaps some such cross-testing on my part may be called for, and if so, I'll charge for it. But again, I have a mixing monitoring system that is good enough and ears that are good enough to have made that unnecessary most of the time.
What if you do need to invest more time? And why is it a complete 'waste of time' to try 'new' or unconventional things?
If you do need to invest more time, then by all means, do it. Take as long as you need. And charge for it.

My point is that if after getting used to one's monitoring, assuming one has the ears to take advantage of that fact, checking the mix on a bunch of other systems should not be all that necessary. In fact, I'd extend that to say that being able to get one's mixes right without *having to* do such checks should be a goal to strive for. If, after a significant amount of time or practice towards that goal one is not making progress, that should be a good litmus test that maybe there's a problem somewhere that probably should be addressed, because it's obviously impeding ones ability to reach the final mix. If it's slowing it down, it's probably affecting it in other less obvious ways as well.
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.
I'm sorry that you misinterpreted me that way. But frankly, after some five years and eight thousand posts, I'd figure that anybody who hasn't "gotten me" yet, and doesn't realize that just because I only caveat half of my posts with a liturgy of niceitys and IMHOs and "with respect"s and so forth doesn't mean that the other half of them means I'm being an asshole, are probably a lost cause to me. You said yourself that you didn't see where there was a waste of time, so I did my best to represent that POV. Nothing more.

Relax, brother; no disrespect intended, Just because I don't couch every damn thing I say in that disclaimer doesn't make it different. :) Hell, I'm sure you don't go around in life couching everything you say that way. If you're going to take such responses so personally, you may want to re-think posing the questions, because you'll give yourself a heart attack otherwise. Then you'll learn the real meaning of "life is too short" ;) :D.

And I stated everything I said as fact because it IS fact. That doesn't make my opinion the only valid opinion out there, and I never said it was. But it is a valid opinion nonetheless. You stated facts to back your opinion as well, and I took no offense. We live in a world where there can sometimes (not always) be completely factual "truths" that conflict and overlap. Don't kick my ass for stating one that conflicts and overlaps yours, especially when it was meant to help illuminate a POV that you yourself said you didn't understand.

G.
 
Last edited:
...after I've spent my hour or two on a mix, I've heard that song a good 15-20 times in whole or in parts in that time.


God, I wish I could keep some of my mixing time that short! :D
I mean....if I'm working on someone's stuff I try to wrap it up in as short a time as possible.
But when working on my own stuff, well...I just can't help myself at times, and I can get carried away with the "tweaking".

It's hard for most people not to get too "personal" when working on their own music.

Yeah...after hearing the same song (or even worse, the same part) about 50 times, I'm reaching for the aspirin! ;)
And then even much more so in those cases...since I've become VERY familiar with the mix on my main monitors, if I do go to another set, my head will start to spin 'cuz stuff just doesn't sound the same (the stuff I already spent way too much time on getting it the way I want it).
So if I do listen on another system, I try to do it with a good dash of salt!
 
God, I wish I could keep some of my mixing time that short! :D
I mean....if I'm working on someone's stuff I try to wrap it up in as short a time as possible.
But when working on my own stuff, well...I just can't help myself at times, and I can get carried away with the "tweaking".
Well, I'm using those as ballpark values here. One song or another may take three hours or so. But I figure if I can average a rate of mixing 2-3 songs a day on average, that I'm probably pretty much on track Not that I have that much work all that often to keep that busy, I have other concerns taking up my time these days, but if I get an album's-worth of stuff, I'll usually give that rate of completion in my estimate. Again, on those rare occasions where it's a very complicated mix project (a la Pet Sounds or the like), those numbers will change, of course.

You're right, when it's your own you have a tendency to not want to let the mix go. I don't record my own stuff, but I find the same thing happening when I'm working of material of my close friends. Hell, I have a piece from the 90s that I'm still trying to re-mix :o.

But (IMHO, IME, YMMV, ©, LSMFT, QWERTY, ETC. ), I have found that more often than not, it doesn't take long before one reaches a point of diminished returns, and that most attempts past that point are what I personally call "chasing a phantom mix"; i.e. just trying to get the mix to go somewhere it just doesn't want to go. And for me, on an average of a couple of hours per average pop track, that mix is pretty much where it's going to go.

Again, that's just my experience. I'm sure there are others with more who can get things done faster and better, and others for whom more time is required.

Have I disclaimed enough?

G.
 
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.
I agree with this 100%. The first priority would be to have an acoustically tuned room and system that you can trust for translation and not have to rely on any other system for verification.

But as important as that is, it's still important to train your ears.... to trust your instinct and not second guess yourself and be proficient at working in an accurate room or adapting to a room that is not so great and still know how to come away with a good mix.

Try to learn the characteristics of different systems. Learn the characteristics of what makes good sound, what makes a room sound good, the characteristics of different speaker designs, amp designs etc.

Imo It all goes hand in hand. ears > environments .> systems

If your working in a room with standing waves and comb filtering you can definitely be chasing your tail for a while. It's good to learn how to spot and correct acoustic problem areas in a room. Once you develop your ears and have an accurate room and system you won't need to rely on anything else to tell you your mixes will translate.
 
But (IMHO, IME, YMMV, ©, LSMFT, QWERTY, ETC. )

....................

Have I disclaimed enough?

:D :D


I guess I also should have been more specific.

The thing that eats up the majority of my time is not the actual mixing. I can usually knock out a mix in 3-4 hours...and that's taking a lot of time for coffee and whatnot.
What takes up most of my time is when I’m editing! :(

Mind you...it's not that I'm trying to edit total crap into something great, rather it's just the fact that a DAW gives you surgical capabilities, and being rather anal about some stuff, like my music ;) ...I can get caught up doing extensive slice-n-dice...just because I can! :)
 
to trust your instinct and not second guess yourself
I think that's a very important point, Tom, and I'm glad you brought it up.

This pretty much sums up where I'm coming from when folks ask me how I think something sounds and my typical response is something along, "How do YOU think it sounds?"

You gotta be able to trust your own ears. If you can't do that, then the playback system means nothing.
The thing that eats up the majority of my time is not the actual mixing. I can usually knock out a mix in 3-4 hours...and that's taking a lot of time for coffee and whatnot.
What takes up most of my time is when I’m editing! :(

Mind you...it's not that I'm trying to edit total crap into something great, rather it's just the fact that a DAW gives you surgical capabilities, and being rather anal about some stuff, like my music ;) ...I can get caught up doing extensive slice-n-dice...just because I can! ;)
I can see that. I have a few curiosity Q's in my head about that but I once again seem to have managed to de-rail yet another thread, so I'll leave them alone for now ;) :D.

G.
 
I have a few curiosity Q's in my head about that but I once again seem to have managed to de-rail yet another thread, so I'll leave them alone for now ;) :D.

I wouldn't say it's de-railed...more like it's been switched over to the south spur... ;)

Perhaps your curiosity Q's for another thread....?
 
Glen, nothing has been de-railed my friend - and you & I are cool man. (and I'm glad to see you picked-up on the russian spacecraft thing by the way):D

Trust me, I never come into any forums to 'argue' or 'start' arguments - anything like that. Like you said, I think you & I just had a 'cool-hand Luke' moment there for awhile, and we also just have 2 slightly different 'styles' to how we do certain things.

In truth, neither of us are 100% 'correct' on every, single thing we've ever learned, practice, or know (nobody is.) We all have different techniques & reasons why we do them that way. Your first couple of posts on this thread kinda sounded to me like you were saying, 'there's ONLY one way to do this & no other way' - but after reading some of your more recent posts - it appears to me that's not really the case (thank god);) and your 'preference' on this topic is just one that you know, works for you, and you are very comfortable with - which I completely understand, because obviously I'm the same way with mine.

And again, I still use my main $$'A' monitors (like you) for just about everything I do too. I guess it's just the 'old man' in me to sometimes wish to hear certain mixes played back on other systems & such. For whatever reason, I still really 'enjoy' it, and it's 'fun' to me. Not to mention, even though as 'well-trained' as my ears are (with my $$'A' monitors) - I've had many of times where I was actually 'inspired' to create a mix differently by hearing it on something else (not because my $$'A' monitors 'lied to me'):o - And that is mostly why I always still like to keep that option open.

But 'all is well' between you & I, and I do really appreciate you 'respectively retorting':D That's what a lot of this is all about, and a great way to keep everything 'fun' in here as well.

(and 'yes' - 'fun' is a big thing to me in this 'recording world' of ours, because if you lose that - it really seems to take the pure 'heart' out of what we all do, and 'why' we do it - and then can turn it into a 'dreadful day-job' at that point.)

Keep the various opinions & 'respectful disagreements' going my friend - that's how we all continue to learn things, no matter how 'old' & experienced you really are;)
 
Last edited:
In truth, neither of us are 100% 'correct' on every, single thing we've ever learned, practice, or know (nobody is.)

I find you learn way more when you're wrong.

Being right usually just confirms what you already know.

So once you've got some success under your belt, enough to know that you can do at least a few things pretty good, you welcome being wrong... you almost want people to prove you're wrong so that you'll learn something.

That's what I've found anyways.
 
I always listen to my mix through my Polks at the end. I can route my DAW mix to my vintage gear. But I agree with the many others who state that too many reference points can cloud judgement. It does me all the time. I mix totaly with my monitors and then route it to the vintage stuff. And alot of times I find myself wanting to tweak it more, because maybe the vocals are to loud in the vintage gear. But I then realize "oh hell, I was listening to a vinyl record and had raised the mids or high on the reciever to my liking. It a never ending story if you go that route. :) But !!!!!! There is something magical about running your stuff through vintage equipment that new stuff cant manage to do. Go to that local Thrift Store and buy that vintage gear. I hace a few sets of RTR's and Pioneers that I need to refoam. Got them at yard sales for pennies.
 
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

I was surprised at the bass the old polks can pound out. No need for a sub !!! My brother is 50 and when he was 19 he bought some of these Sansui's SPX9700's. They are the bomb !!!!!!!! 15" Woofer !!!!! I remember putting on the Cars tune "Since your Gone" and the bass was breakin beer bottles. You didnt need subs in those days.
SPX9700_3.jpg
 
In truth, neither of us are 100% 'correct' on every, single thing we've ever learned, practice, or know
Hey, I AM! JUST KIDDING!!!! :D :D

I admit to a few traits which I can over-exercise to a fault on this forum at times; there are some subjects about which I get quite passionate (e.g. the death of mixing, the theft of intellectual property, the death of dynamics, the lack of respect for the recording process - those come to mind), and that on many other topics I do enjoy a good, honest debate with peers more than many others do, and that I often do often speak with a self-confidence that usually gets interpreted as arrogance. Guilty as charged on all counts.

On subjects where I am not confident, I try to just say quiet and learn (which I do a lot more than many people believe). When I don't I will usually try to say something along the lines of "Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but...", or something similar.

Anyway, vostok, I always appreciate it when someone responds like an adult as you have, and doesn't let silly misunderstands get blown out of proportion into adolescent flame wars. You're new to this forum, but I have read some helpful posts from you already, just out of the gate, and hope to treat you with the respect you are already earning here. :)

G.
 
No problem at all Glen, - same to you my friend.

However, I've actually been a member of this forum for many years now, but have had to change 'email addresses' a few times over that same period - and it wouldn't let me 'come back in' as the same member & with a 'non-active' email account. So basically, I've had to 'start all over again', but with a new account, avatar, etc.

(I still can't figure out how to change the 'newbie' thing under my avatar, back to my original one I had for so long - oh well.)

This is a really great forum though (probably the best I've ever been a part of over the years.) And like yourself, I usually 'read' more then I do post - but I'm trying to post more these days and quit being so 'lazy':D

- and also, to poor 'tc4b' who originally posted this whole 'thread fiasco' - "so, did you get your answer?" :D:D
 
Back
Top