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

[RFR]

Out of all that you choose to quote just my last sentence? You seem very argumentative.

Demos are what you do in a home studio.

Records are what you do in a real studio, with real gear, with real producers, with real mixers. You're working with pro gear and with pro people. People that know what the hell they are doing and with a track record.

Also making a record implies commercial release.

Despite the financial disarray of the business of the music industry, a record is a commercial product.

Unless you have an infastruture of some kind to promote and sell your music that you made at home, you dont have a record. You have a demo, and you are a hobbyist.

People like to bring up Bruce Springsteen, doing Nebraska at home with a 4 track cassette.

Well, he already had an established career and could get away with that. An unknown can't. Sure, there may be that occasional exception, but it's a rarity.

Good songs should be recorded with good gear and pros running that gear.

 

[Nola]

Out of all that you choose to quote just my last sentence? You seem very argumentative.

Demos are what you do in a home studio.

Records are what you do in a real studio, with real gear, with real producers, with real mixers. You're working with pro gear and with pro people. People that know what the hell they are doing and with a track record.

Also making a record implies commercial release.

Despite the financial disarray of the business of the music industry, a record is a commercial product.

Unless you have an infastruture of some kind to promote and sell your music that you made at home, you dont have a record. You have a demo, and you are a hobbyist.

People like to bring up Bruce Springsteen, doing Nebraska at home with a 4 track cassette.

Well, he already had an established career and could get away with that. An unknown can't. Sure, there may be that occasional exception, but it's a rarity.

Good songs should be recorded with good gear and pros running that gear.

I'm not arguing with you I just wanted to know why you thought that because it seems like a self imposed limitation.

There's a really large underground movement since the early to mid 80s of bands recording their own records and those are the final product, and many sell 100s of thousands of records. It's not just Bruce. Check out bands like GBV, Pavement, Sebadoh, Beck, etc. There are hundreds of these bands in my record collection alone, so probably thousands out there. Great songs is the common denominator. Even in the mainstream genres, you have people getting discovered on youtube (eg lana del rey) recording things on their phones or whatever they have. Her youtube was a huge hit before she was, and nobody cared about the recording quality. they just liked the songs.

 

[miroslav]

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?

It's got NOTHING to do with "blindly following rules".
It got everything to do with understanding basic principles, knowing the physics, applying tried and true methods...BEFORE you even think about breaking the rules.
It's about respecting what's come before and not always pissing against the wind just to do so...just to be "different" because you are "breaking the rules".

Your one of the "oddballs" around here (and I don't say that as any insult)...but from listening to most of the stuff you do, it's all "noise art" (and I don't say that insultingly either)....so from your perspective, anything goes, and if you were to drop your guitar during a performance or a recording, I'm sure that screeching noise coming from it would simply become part of your "song".

When you have no structure rhythmically or melodically, where there is no concern for harmonious blending and intentional execution of arrangements and productions...it's easy to preach "break the rules". In your world, there are no mistakes, you just absorb everything into your production, which makes it very easy to never be wrong or make a mistake...so any sound is a good sound.
People try talking about gear and how to approach a technical solution...you come along and practically want to toss away the known solutions and you instead start talking about soup cans and string. OK you never did that, but the point is with you everything has to be off the wall and not following any norms/rules...and THAT all stems from the style of music that you do.

Those approaches don't work very well with more formal recording, and with more formal music.

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.

No...what I said was that music mixed on studio monitors will translate to more listening systems than music mixed on headphones.

If that were not true, and it was the other way around (which is what you keep implying one way or another)...then EVERYONE would be mixing with headphones.

 

[miroslav]

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.

I can respect that, and we've all made accommodations from time to time because few of us are recording/mixing/mastering over at Capitol Records.

That said...do you even consider that because "it is the only way you can do it"...that your arguments and perspectives are entirely driven by that...?
IOW...if you had a really decent room and nice monitors, might you then be arguing for that...?

That's the point that was made earlier about self-serving views and living in denial because it allows you to keep those views.
That's not meant to attack or insult...but it's like getting a bicycle when you're a kid, and immediately feeling like it's the best form of transportation...because you're a kid and cars are a long way off and out of your reach.
Then one day you get a car and the bike becomes just a discarded toy.
IOW...don't formulate finite perspectives when you admit "that's the only way I can do it".

 

[ashcat_lt]

No...what I said was that music mixed on studio monitors will translate to more listening systems than music mixed on headphones.

Sorry, yeah, it was Massive that made the assertions re: consistency.

If that were not true, and it was the other way around (which is what you keep implying one way or another)...

I never said that headphones were better in those ways, in fact I've repeatedly mentioned how and why I personally prefer speakers. I never actually said that monitors were overrated, either. I am not just trying to be contrary and do things my own way just to be different. I am trying to have a reasonable conversation about the relative pros and cons, to consider the possible merits of this particular alternative, to cut through some of the pre- and misconceptions on both sides, and to advocate for folks to fucking record something whatever it takes rather than sitting on their hands wishing they had the right stuff.

I'm not even going to get into what you think of my personal recordings. They are deliberately challenging, and I can completely understand how you may not hear the underlying structures and all that, and frankly don't care. It sounds pretty damn close to what I was shooting for, I know where it falls short, and I generally know why. When I mix other people's stuff - noise or music, live or recorded - they are always at least satisfied and often surprised at just how good it sounds. That's all that's ever really mattered to me.

 

[miroslav]

Well...while you prefer speakers...you've been countering all arguments for using them.

I get the "just go make some music with whatever you have"...but that doesn't mean ignore certain realities, or snub all rules just so you can say that you don't follow any.

Oh...and I gave no specific opinion about your music other than to say the style of it frees you from having to follow too many rules, approaches and formal processes. I mean...that IS your mantra around here even if you never state it.
I got no problem with that...make whatever music you like...but that "free-form" approach doesn't always work well with formal recording and more structured music.

And the OP of this thread specifically asks the question about monitors VS headphones + simulated reality...so all views are about that conversation and the relative pros cons.

 

[RFR]

I'm not arguing with you I just wanted to know why you thought that because it seems like a self imposed limitation.

There's a really large underground movement since the early to mid 80s of bands recording their own records and those are the final product, and many sell 100s of thousands of records. It's not just Bruce. Check out bands like GBV, Pavement, Sebadoh, Beck, etc. There are hundreds of these bands in my record collection alone, so probably thousands out there. Great songs is the common denominator. Even in the mainstream genres, you have people getting discovered on youtube (eg lana del rey) recording things on their phones or whatever they have. Her youtube was a huge hit before she was, and nobody cared about the recording quality. they just liked the songs.

Ill get back to you on that. Right now, I'm busy. But rest assured the conversation will continue.

 

[ashcat_lt]

Oh...and I gave no specific opinion about your music other than to say the style of it frees you from having to follow too many rules, approaches and formal processes. I mean...that IS your mantra around here even if you never state it.

Maybe that's how you see it.

That might be my fault and it might be yours, and it's probably a lot of both. It is true that a lot of the "science" quoted in this and similar forums is really kind of third-hand information that is poorly understood by the person trying to make an argument. It is absolutely true that a lot of the "accepted" ways of doing things can and do work, and have been proven empirically time and again. It's also true that a lot of that stuff works fine, but not for the reasons people normally state, and in fact may not really be the absolute best way to do it in every case.

I'm perfectly cool with arguing these sorts of things, sort out the bullshit, find out which statements are actually true and which maybe need to be rethought. I'm also cool with discussing opinions of how and why one person might prefer this or that. This is what I thought a forum was for.

A lot of times I feel like you would much prefer every thread go:
"Hey, how do I do this?"
"Buy this."
"Why?"
"Because it's the right way to do it."
"Why?"
"Because it's the way everybody else does it."
"K thanks."

or

"Should I do this?"
"No, do this."
"Why?"
"Because it's how everybody does it."
"K thanks."

But honestly, what really gets me is that we're not actually discussing relative merits, science, or even much opinion at this point, but rather just arguing who said what to who. Does nobody any good, and is the reason I stopped responding to a damn thing you or Greg had to say for quite a while. I thought things had gotten quite a bit cooler lately, that we might be able to engage in meaningful conversation. If it's going back to the silliness, though, I'm out.

 

[miroslav]

But honestly, what really gets me is that we're not actually discussing relative merits, science, or even much opinion at this point, but rather just arguing who said what to who.

Maybe that's where it's now evolved to...but my first few posts were always alluding to the science, if not getting specifically into the math of it.

AFA your interpretations of where I'm coming from....no, that's not it.

Never said do something JUST because everyone else does it...I'm saying that how can you argue against something when everyone is doing it that way because it works, and those same people are smart enough to be aware of the "other way" and few have gone that other way.

Sure, you can present a new way of looking at something, but there are some rather dismissive attitudes around here JUST because some people have no other options, so they only argue only in favor of the options that they have.
How's that innovative or "breaking the rules"...?
That's more about living within your limitations than it is about trying something new..etc...etc.

 

[Nola]

That said...do you even consider that because "it is the only way you can do it"...that your arguments and perspectives are entirely driven by that...?

I don't think anyone said headphones are better. I said monitors are overrated, and i kinda regret that because what I meant was they are overrated for my situation with a bad room.

I don't think anyone is attacking monitors if you have the budget and a good room. I think all the headphone crown is asking is that you guys acknowledge a good mix is possible in headphones. We're not saying they're better.

 

[ashcat_lt]

Sure, you can present a new way of looking at something, but there are some rather dismissive attitudes around here JUST because some people have no other options, so they only argue only in favor of the options that they have.

But that ain't me, dude. I do sometimes try to help people figure out ways to get around limitations, but I also try to help people figure out the difference between hype and myth and actual practical reality.

And honestly, I know you claim not to mean any insult, but it is insulting when you make assertions and imply that because LT is challenging in a number of ways that means that I can get away with like half-assing things and just taking whatever happens. There are aspects that can work that way, but if you think that I'm not making real conscious decisions about damn near everything that you hear in my stuff, you are sorely mistaken. People who are not just automatically put off by the unusuality of it all hear the subtleties, and comment on them, and ask me how I did it, and wish they could make their shit sound as good as mine. Also, LT is not the full extent of the things that I mix. I work with more conventional music in both recorded and live work on a regular basis, and I apply many of the same principles and techniques, and it works just fine, thank you very much.

 

[miroslav]

I didn't say you said "better"...etc...just saying that you guys are arguing in favor of an approach mainly because that IS the only option you have.

Don't you see that?

AFA the possibility of doing a good mix with headphones...never said it wasn't possible, just said that it's not really the norm in the studio/audio recording world...and it that sounds like "blindly following the norm"...ahhh, OK.

 

[Nola]

I didn't say you said "better"...etc...just saying that you guys are arguing in favor of an approach mainly because that IS the only option you have.

Don't you get that?

AFA the possibility of doing a good mix with headphones...never said it wasn't possible, just said that it's not really the norm in the studio/audio recording world...and it that sounds like "blindly following the norm"...ahhh, OK.

I'm not arguing in favor of it, though. I said I'd prefer monitors and a good room!
I'm arguing in favor of people admitting a good mix is possible with headphones, that headphones are a better option than monitors in a bad room (debatable but I think so),....or donating money so I can buy monitors and build a good room (*joking*)!

 

[RFR]

I'm not arguing with you I just wanted to know why you thought that because it seems like a self imposed limitation.

There's a really large underground movement since the early to mid 80s of bands recording their own records and those are the final product, and many sell 100s of thousands of records. It's not just Bruce. Check out bands like GBV, Pavement, Sebadoh, Beck, etc. There are hundreds of these bands in my record collection alone, so probably thousands out there. Great songs is the common denominator. Even in the mainstream genres, you have people getting discovered on youtube (eg lana del rey) recording things on their phones or whatever they have. Her youtube was a huge hit before she was, and nobody cared about the recording quality. they just liked the songs.

I agree with you in that its all about the song.

I'm also aware that there are thousands of bands and artists doing the indie thing and self financing "records"
In your list I only know of Beck, and he comes from a very monied, musically connected family. Hardly an underground artist.

Steve Albini talks of this being a great time for artists getting out there. The internet has certainly opened up doors and the youth of today knows how to use it. If it's organizing a flash mob or promoting one's band, the kids have got the networking aspect down.

Herein lies the problem. Talent, and skills. Recording skills, songwriting skills, production skills, etc.
For the most part those are lacking.

I've seen too many cases of kids who cannot play, can't write, cant sing, ect, ect, get together and form a band. Through their excellent networking skills, they can get people to the shows who tell them they are great and boost them up. So shit talent gets rewarded.

Nowadays kids are growing up with computers. (My 3:year old niece has an ipad, and knows how to use it).
Gear is cheap. That recording revolution guy even has a video series about recording to "pro" level results for 300 bucks.

The point is any idiot with no talent can now be a bedroom rockstar. So yeah, there's a lot of "recording artists". But most suck.
Yeah there is a percentage that is good, but I figure only 10%

Since anyone in the civilized world can make "music" easily, many do.

Sadly many don't put in the work to actually develop real talent, but do the bare minimum to get by. Yet they will find enough people to bolster them up and tell them their shit is great.

In the old days one worked hard at perfecting their craft. Since recording studios were expensive, only the better artists got the interest and financial backing to record a record.

Today, except for the major income producing artists, it's a fend for yourself industry. Labels aren't signing shit, budgets arent shit.

I applaud the do it yourself pioneering spirit, and lots of people are putting in the effort to get a great result, but a lot aren't. Most are just doing mediocre shit.

Yes, it is all about the song, but delivery matters too.

So seeing how you're not anti monitors, save up some moola and buy some. We're not gonna chip in and get you any.

 

[Greg_L]

I stopped responding to a damn thing you or Greg had to say for quite a while. .

And it's been very nice. Please continue.

 

[Guitargodgt]

EVERYBODY that does serious mixing for serious $$$...is using monitors for the bulk of critical mixing decisions.
.

As someone who gets paid. I can confirm this.

Even cheap monitors, bands will take you a lot more seriously.

I don't really know why you wouldn't have monitors if you are recording full bands anyway.

 

[Guitargodgt]

OK fine...but this thread is asking IF headphones + plugin can replace monitors & room....and it seems like a couple of you don't want to hear the simple answer....no, they can't.

Also this.

I do not think you can fake (even convincingly) the sound of speakers on headphones.

If we are asking if it's possible to mix on headphones? Yeah I've heard some stuff done only on cans, but it seems rare to find people good at doing it.

 

[Bobbsy]

Lowering the bar...hmm. lots of truth there.

Anyone who has had the good fortune to work in a real pro studio, and has heard something in that environment, knows that "it dont get any better than that" ( well, except maybe in a mastering room)

That's the source point. Then it trickles down. Finally to the point of degradation of where someone is listening to the song on ITunes, Spotify, Pandora, etc.
On a phone! At best with earbuds, at worst with the shitty IPhone speaker.

Ovetall, just the listening of music itself has become downgraded.
In a world where so many have grown up with shitty music delivery systems, this has become the new "normal".

A lowering of the bar for sure. Why lower the bar at the source point??

Just because people listen on shit, why should someone monitor and mix on shit?

You've just said largely what I was thinking when I started reading page 1 of this topic.

I'm one of the old gits around here and, for the first 40 years or so of my life, changes to the audio world were designed to improve quality. As a child, my father still even had some 78s--then the move to mono LPs then stereo, then CDs (different argument about whether that was an improvement but no more scratches and dust at least). Cassettes were a slight distraction--I recall a noted audio expert writing that, while convenient for dictation and such, music could never be played properly at 1 7/8 ips.

By the time I was out living on my own, every home I visited had some form of stereo hifi. Quality and cost varied but, except for when the neighbours pounded on the wall and you put on headphones, that was how you listened.

Then along came MP3 and earbuds and such. Suddenly the emphasis was on being able to carry your whole music library in your pocket and listen wherever you want via earbuds.

The LISTENING bar has been lowered so far that the bet limbo dancer in the world couldn't get under it.

However, this is exactly why it's important to make the original material as good as possible. A great mix will still sound better at 128kbps on earbuds on a noisy train than a mix that's got problems in the first place.

Can clever software make headphones imitate the sound of good studio monitors? I've learned never to say never. If they can create virtual reality good enough to fool you (and that's coming) then who knows what can be done to headphones. However, for now, if you can possibly use monitors in an acoustically treated space, then that's still the best way to go.

 

[RFR]

Word

 

[Guitargodgt]

I think even if it were to become possible to somehow fake studio monitors in headphones the system would be expensive.

I liken it to amp sims. There is only 1 that comes close enough to the original to fool me, but it costs $2k.

And even as good as it sounds, most people I encounter would still prefer the real thing.