IR and convolution on cans - how far we are from this?

[Nola]

You can "fake" the crosstalk in headphones.

Can't you also just mix in mono until the end so you hear equally in both ears, then pan as the last step? That's how I mix in headphones. I try to get depth first using EQ and volume, then I pan later, then reassess everything after the pan.

 

[miroslav]

Talk about "derp"!!!


OK...so YOU figured out something about headphones that the rest of the audio engineering world doesn't know....and that's why for them monitors have been and continue to be mistakenly THE choice for both mixing and mastering...???

Guys like you are the ones who feed so much of the home rec, DIY, nothing matters, rules aren't important nonsense.

Any time there's a technical discussion...there's the standard, accepted audio world way...and the ashcat way.

 

[ashcat_lt]

Can't you also just mix in mono until the end so you hear equally in both ears, then pan as the last step? That's how I mix in headphones. I try to get depth first using EQ and volume, then I pan later, then reassess everything after the pan.

Sure. I do that pretty regularly on speakers, too.

I'm not really trying to advocate in either direction. There are pros and cons on both sides. I'm more interested in the theory behind this argument than the actual practice, and more interested in what we end up with in our mixes than how we got there.

 

[Nola]

there's the standard, accepted audio world way...and the ashcat way.

That's how things evolve. If everyone did things the same nothing would move forward.

 

[miroslav]

That's how things evolve. If everyone did things the same nothing would move forward.

Sure, there's always technological changes....but some things are also locked by the physics, and anything else is just pure simulation of that reality.

How do you prefer to work?

 

[Nola]

Sure, there's always technological changes....but some things are also locked by the physics, and anything else is just pure simulation of that reality.

How do you prefer to work?

Yeah but plates and chamber reverbs were simulations of the real thing, and I never hear people get on the Beatles or Phil Spector. I mean that all gets on a tangent. But those engineers and musicians all broke rules and faked reality.

I think people are way too hung up on this and final outcome is all that matters.

 

[Greg_L]

Well actually, Greg did mentioned that headphone mixers are the reason why homerecording is going down to shit. If that doesnt mean that he meant headphone mixes are enourmously inferior to monitor ones, then maybe I misunderstood him.

You did misunderstand him.

Since you're now reading in-between the lines...then I think what he really meant was that home rec is more focused on shortcuts and the easy way out...and that's why so many home rec mixes are going down to shit.

This is what he meant. The extreme defiance from some people over basic studio fundamentals are disheartening and it shows in people's mixes.

No one loves defiance more than I do, but some of you need to pick your battles better.

 

[ashcat_lt]

There are people who blindly follow the rules and do things the accepted way because that's what "everybody" does. There are people who actually stop to think about the underlying principles in some logical and scientific way. Then there are people who have both the theoretical understanding and the practical experience to make reasonable, informed decisions about the best approach in a given situation.

Which would you rather be?

 

[CMolena]

You did misunderstand him.


This is what he meant. The extreme defiance from some people over basic studio fundamentals are disheartening and it shows in people's mixes.

No one loves defiance more than I do, but some of you need to pick your battles better.

Yeah, but I dont have any other way to mix. And I dont do it because it is a shortcut...I do it because it is the onyl way I can do it.

Also think about what ashcat said...physically headphones are more accurate because there is no interference between the sound source and your ears. There is no air or walls that sound can possibly cancel out frequencies or enhance some. The only actual interference would be the headphones frequency response.

And I also agree with what Nola said again. You pick Geoff Emerick for an example. Back in the day, the rule at Abbey Road was to place the kick drum mic at a certain distance, because the engineers thought that the mic could be damaged. But Geoff couldnt get the sounds in his head that way. He then began to place the kick mic inside the hole in the kick drum. Guess what...most of us do it like that now.

So point is...I believe that the role of a recording and mixing engineer is...get the sound he and the artist have in their heads. And you can do it in headphones, fuck modern standards, fuck if everyone is against you. Just goddamn do it. Especially if it is the only way you can do it.

 

[Greg_L]

I think people are way too hung up on this and final outcome is all that matters.

Ah, there it is. I knew this discussion would end up here. I totally reject that philosophy. It's a cop out. I think it's intellectually lazy. To me, the process is important. I'm not impressed by someone that manages to paste a bunch of pre-recorded fake drums and no-skill-required sim tracks together. What's "recording" about that? Mixes and entire albums are made without so much as an actual sound being made besides vocals. That to me is not progress. It's not pushing any envelope. That's not evolution. That's regression.

 

[Greg_L]

Yeah, but I dont have any other way to mix. And I dont do it because it is a shortcut...I do it because it is the onyl way I can do it.

Also think about what ashcat said...physically headphones are more accurate because there is no interference between the sound source and your ears. There is no air or walls that sound can possibly cancel out frequencies or enhance some. The only actual interference would be the headphones frequency response.

And I also agree with what Nola said again. You pick Geoff Emerick for an example. Back in the day, the rule at Abbey Road was to place the kick drum mic at a certain distance, because the engineers thought that the mic could be damaged. But Geoff couldnt get the sounds in his head that way. He then began to place the kick mic inside the hole in the kick drum. Guess what...most of us do it like that now.

So point is...I believe that the role of a recording and mixing engineer is...get the sound he and the artist have in their heads. And you can do it in headphones, fuck modern standards, fuck if everyone is against you. Just goddamn do it. Especially if it is the only way you can do it.

You're mired in a dangerous combination of ignorant defiance and only hearing what you want to hear. Suit yourself dude. I don't care how you mix. Shit, you're not even using headphones. You're using fucking earbuds. So whatever. Knock yourself out. But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining because unlike you, I do know better.

 

[ashcat_lt]

Also think about what ashcat said...physically headphones are more accurate because there is no interference between the sound source and your ears. There is no air or walls that sound can possibly cancel out frequencies or enhance some. The only actual interference would be the headphones frequency response.

This is not exactly what I said. I was kind of talking about consistency. Somebody earlier (thought it was miro, not going to scroll...) was trying to say that somehow speakers could be more consistent than headphones, and that statement is just plain false. In headphones, you get a lot more control over the kinds of cancellations, reflections, and crosstalk that you're talking about, and that's what the OP here was all about.

 

[Greg_L]

For what it's worth, I use both headphones and monitors in a treated room. Could I make a headphone-only mix? Sure. If I had to. Do I want to? No. Because I know that it will come out better, faster with the monitors. Headphones are good for some things, monitors are good for finishing things.

And with that, I'll bow out and leave you mouth-breathers to it. Have a good weekend!

 

[Nola]

Ah, there it is. I knew this discussion would end up here. I totally reject that philosophy. It's a cop out. I think it's intellectually lazy. To me, the process is important. I'm not impressed by someone that manages to paste a bunch of pre-recorded fake drums and no-skill-required sim tracks together. What's "recording" about that? Mixes and entire albums are made without so much as an actual sound being made besides vocals. That to me is not progress. It's not pushing any envelope. That's not evolution. That's regression.

I guess Machiavelli was intellectually lazy then because all I am saying is the end justifies the means.

Machiavelli: The end justifies the means

Why do you care how people make sounds? I really wanna know why a sound made one way is superior to one made a different way. Like some absolute reason not opinion or because that's how you do it.

 

[RFR]

Well shit! Never thought this would go on this long.

Since the analog versus digital debates have worn themselves out, I guess the new debate topic is cans vs monitors.

 

[Nola]

Since the analog versus digital debates have worn themselves out, I guess the new debate topic is cans vs monitors.

The weird thing is there is no debate b/c those of us using cans would probably use both if we had good rooms. I think what's pissing us off is the implication we can't create a good/great mix on cans.

Then that gets distorted into an argument that we're saying they're better all the time. Just have some respect for the can people; we're doing what we can. *badump tsh*

 

[ashcat_lt]

Well shit! Never thought this would go on this long.

Since the analog versus digital debates have worn themselves out, I guess the new debate topic is cans vs monitors.

This argument predates that analog/digital one, actually.

This thing about trying to get over the "limitations" of headphones and/or improve their utility via room simulation and impulse responses is relatively new, and not something I really remember seeing on this particular forum. There's been some discussion over at the Reaper forum. This thread includes a MonitorFX chain and track templates for Reaper, and some discussion, but there have been a couple lately.

 

[Greg_L]

I guess Machiavelli was intellectually lazy then because all I am saying is the end justifies the means.

Machiavelli: The end justifies the means

Lol. Please. I can counter that with the oft used quote "It's not the destination, it's the journey that matters". I don't know who to credit it to though.

Why do you care how people make sounds? I really wanna know why a sound made one way is superior to one made a different way. Like some absolute reason not opinion or because that's how you do it.

The reason I care about how a sound is made is because this is a RECORDING site. And I wouldn't even care at all if halfassed defeatists weren't constantly trying to take the easy way out all of the fucking time, and then present their halfassed easy way as better or pushing envelopes..

But for real, I answered your question, and now I'm really out of here. I got a gig, playing actual music, making actual sounds. I might even record it.

 

[RFR]

@ Nola, ( i should have quoted you as other posts came in as i was typing)

Me, I don't care. One should use all the available tools at one's disposal.

Just an interesting conversation, that's all.

I got a buddy, not a big name, but a pro producer/ engineer/mixer. I say pro because he makes his living that way. A good living at that.

He does both audio and video. He does from the range of classical music to bluegrass.

Every record he's done sounds great.

For the last couple of years he's been completely mobile using only cans (focal spirit pros, I believe. ) 90% of the mix work is done on those

But guess what, for all his final mixes, he'll rent a "real studio" for a few days.

Then the finals go to mastering with kazillions of dollars of gear.

The cans only go so far.

If that's all you got, use the cans. No shame in that. Dont let gear limitations get in the way.

But if one is striving for the top, you'd better be using as good as if not better gear than the competition is using, not to mention having the skill.

Recording technology has come a ling way from the days of the cassette 4 track.

One can do great stuff with the proper skill with just a basic home setup and cans.

However, you're not gonna make records on that gear.

 

[Nola]

However, you're not gonna make records on that gear.

why do you think that?

i think if someone has really good songs anything is possible, since the song trumps production.