Looking to find some kickass headphones

[TheDewd]

No - it's NOT the same... the room acts as a buffer to the differences.... with headphones, you're wearing to INDIVIDUALIZED tiny rooms on your ears... with speakers, what everyone hears is NOT as iindividualized.......

Why do you even care about what everyone hears? I can't get your point. When I mix, I am the one in control. I don't give a damn what others think, it's my own thing. I am the judge, no one else can tell me how to do my thing. Mixing is an art, not science. Monitors are tools, like the paint for the painter or the guitar for the guitarist.

Also, if you learn those "indivual tiny rooms", don't you think you can mix with headphones? You don't seem to get that speakers, headphones or any kind of monitoring device has a learning curve. once you learn the headphones, you are okay to mix. How come don't you get this for headphones while you understand this principle when applied to speakers?

You do what you like, Dewd, but poo-poo'ing the experiences of professionals is doing a disservice to novices -- when they don't get the results you say they can (which WILL happen if they follow your er, "advice"), then you'll have helped them waste their money..........

I'm not pooing anyone's experience, just trying to make some BASIC principles clear for everyone:

1) You can mix with any monitor you want, as long as you learn it properly
2 Mixing is MUCH easier with accurate and flat monitors though
3) Mixing is thus about getting the most accurate sound for your $$$
4) The most accurate sound for the $$$ comes with headphones, not monitors.

Tell me if you disagree with those principles. Those are basic facts of audio engineering. Beginner or not, everyone needs to know those. If you can come up with a speaker system that has better sound characteristics than my $500 headphone setup for the same price, I will bow. Since such thing doesn't exist at present, I think headphones are the way to go.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

1) You can mix with any monitor you want, as long as you learn it properly

Definitely true....

2 Mixing is MUCH easier with accurate and flat monitors though

Sort of true.... there's no such thing as flat monitors... all loudspeakers and headphones introduce coloration and coloration can also come from a room OR the tiny rooms headphones create around your ears.

3) Mixing is thus about getting the most accurate sound for your $$$

Wrong.... mixing is about creating a good-sounding blend of multiple tracks. A good mix must sound balanced across the audio spectrum and have good imaging, and as well - it must exhibit that sound across a wide variety of sound systems. To acheive this, you need a reliable mechanism of judging a good blend of the tracks -- headphones by their very nature are less reliable for this type of sonic analysis than monitors are - period. It's not IMPOSSIBLE to mix with headphones, just far more difficult to obtain mixes that translate across a wide variety of stereo systems.

4) The most accurate sound for the $$$ comes with headphones, not monitors.

Wrong again..... skewed audio response (due to the proximity of the drivers to one's ears, along with an individual's unique response to the proximity), as well as exaggerated stereo imaging is common to ALL headphones, regardless of price. The same is not true of monitors - again due to the fact that the room the monitors are listened to buffers the variances to what each individual is hearing. Those variances are significant with headphones due to ear proximity...

 

[SonicAlbert]

1) You can mix with any monitor you want, as long as you learn it properly
2 Mixing is MUCH easier with accurate and flat monitors though
3) Mixing is thus about getting the most accurate sound for your $$$
4) The most accurate sound for the $$$ comes with headphones, not monitors.

I'll agree with principles number 1&2, but you fall down in number 3&4. The reason being is that you bring money into the equation. Money has no part of this discussion. It's not about "the most ________ for the $$$", not at all. In fact, it's not really about the most accurate either.

It's about this: translating what you are doing in your mix room as best as possible to the majority of your listeners systems. So the ability to translate well is the primary goal.

If you mix on headphones you are creating headphone mixes.

However, I am willing to believe that you have somehow sorted out how to translate headphone mixes to speakers, but frankly that's with some skepticism. I'd have to hear it to believe it. Further, I think it's important to note that most people listening to music don't listen in acoustically treated rooms, and most music listening doesn't occur on headphones either.

My own experience is that headphones are extremely deceiving when it comes to mixing. I've found the translation to speakers to be very poor. I also find your arguments simply don't hold up because you dismiss the most important element: translation. You instead hold up "accuracy" as the ultimate standard, and that is a chimera, if I don't mind saying so myself.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

I'll agree with principles number 1&2, but you fall down in number 3&4. The reason being is that you bring money into the equation. Money has no part of this discussion. It's not about "the most ________ for the $$$", not at all. In fact, it's not really about the most accurate either.

It's about this: translating what you are doing in your mix room as best as possible to the majority of your listeners systems. So the ability to translate well is the primary goal.

If you mix on headphones you are creating headphone mixes.

However, I am willing to believe that you have somehow sorted out how to translate headphone mixes to speakers, but frankly that's with some skepticism. I'd have to hear it to believe it. Further, I think it's important to note that most people listening to music don't listen in acoustically treated rooms, and most music listening doesn't occur on headphones either.

My own experience is that headphones are extremely deceiving when it comes to mixing. I've found the translation to speakers to be very poor. I also find your arguments simply don't hold up because you dismiss the most important element: translation. You instead hold up "accuracy" as the ultimate standard, and that is a chimera, if I don't mind saying so myself.

Well said!

 

[mrface2112]

i find headphones to be a useful tool in the midst of mixing--namely for checking subtle things--reverb tails, etc.........but the thought of doing an entire mix on headphones and having a hope that it'll translate to speakers? yikes!


cheers,
wade

 

[TheDewd]

I'll agree with principles number 1&2, but you fall down in number 3&4. The reason being is that you bring money into the equation. Money has no part of this discussion. It's not about "the most ________ for the $$$", not at all. In fact, it's not really about the most accurate either.

It's about this: translating what you are doing in your mix room as best as possible to the majority of your listeners systems. So the ability to translate well is the primary goal.

I don't agree with those statements:

1) It's not about the most accurate? Then why do all engineers strive for the most accurate pieces of gear? You, me and Bruce included ? Accurate gear eases the mix process as there are less things to think about and compensate while mixing. Okay, now tell me Accurate doesn't equal Money? In life, you pay for what you get. If you want more accurate, you have to pay. All I'm saying is that headphone systems are much more accurate for much less $$$ than a comparable speaker system. Why don't you agree about that ?

2) A mix made while being conscious that it must translate well will suffer some quality loss compared to a mix that's made to sound good on good gear. There is tradeoff to acheive here:

Excellent mixes that sound stunning on studio monitors and good equipment (my type of mixes)

VS

Mixes for the masses (tom lord alge and most of you guys type of mixes)

I'm sorry but I choose quality ANY time over mixes for the masses.

Remember: If something doesn't sound right, 99% of the time, the problem is your gear, not the mix!

 

[TheDewd]

It's not IMPOSSIBLE to mix with headphones, just far more difficult to obtain mixes that translate across a wide variety of stereo systems.

Mixing with headphones is difficult for engineers trained on speakers. I was trained on headphones and HATE speaker listening as it sounds so bad unless premium gear is used! You guys should be conscious of your conservative attitude towards mixing. I don't know where all this attitude comes from, but I'd like to know !

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

I don't agree with those statements:

1) It's not about the most accurate? Then why do all engineers strive for the most accurate pieces of gear? You, me and Bruce included ? Accurate gear eases the mix process as there are less things to think about and compensate while mixing. Okay, now tell me Accurate doesn't equal Money? In life, you pay for what you get. If you want more accurate, you have to pay. All I'm saying is that headphone systems are much more accurate for much less $$$ than a comparable speaker system. Why don't you agree about that ?

2) A mix made while being conscious that it must translate well will suffer some quality loss compared to a mix that's made to sound good on good gear. There is tradeoff to acheive here:

Excellent mixes that sound stunning on studio monitors and good equipment (my type of mixes)

VS

Mixes for the masses (tom lord alge and most of you guys type of mixes)

I'm sorry but I choose quality ANY time over mixes for the masses.

Remember: If something doesn't sound right, 99% of the time, the problem is your gear, not the mix!

This whole post is wrong on so many levels I can't begin to start correcting it.... I'll sum-up by saying your assumptions are fundamentally flawed so debating about it with you is pointless until you grasp the concepts we've already pointed out.... but hey, if it works for you, stick with it -- but please don't try convincing anyone else unless you you actually have something more than flawed conjecture to back it up.............

 

[TheDewd]

This whole post is wrong on so many levels I can't begin to start correcting it.... I'll sum-up by saying your assumptions are fundamentally flawed so debating about it with you is pointless until you grasp the concepts we've already pointed out.... but hey, if it works for you, stick with it -- but please don't try convincing anyone else unless you you actually have something more than flawed conjecture to back it up.............

Bruce, you are an intelligent man and you CAN grasp what I mean when I say mixes for the masses could sound better if they were oriented towards the audiophile crowd...no ? Same thing as the volume war with ME. Most ME could make records that sound a LOT better, but HAVE to push the limits.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

I don't think there's a single pro engineer out there that creates a mix without having overall sound quality of the song being foremost on their minds.

For you to think that AE's somehow cripple their sound intentionally gives me a very good indication of how little you understand the recording process and what's involved in production from an AE's perspective.

 

[TheDewd]

I don't think there's a single pro engineer out there that creates a mix without having overall sound quality of the song being foremost on their minds.

For you to think that AE's somehow cripple their sound intentionally gives me a very good indication of how little you understand the recording process and what's involved in production from an AE's perspective.

Well, creating a mix that sounds good on a car stereo is not perfection-seeking in my mind....

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

Well, creating a mix that sounds good on a car stereo is not perfection-seeking in my mind....

You don't seem to understand... a mix is not "good" until it sounds correct on a wide variety of stereo systems, including a car.... a well-balanced, well-executed mix DOES translate across all systems -- until that is achieved the mix process is not complete.

You seem to think that the reproduction mechanism (headphones, speakers, whatever) define the mix when in fact, it's the complete opposite. For a mix engineer to have done their job, the mix has to sound "right" everywhere. Period.

Mixes done on headphones invariablyy NEVER sound right everywhere, only on headphones. Mixes done by a pro with a proper acoustic environment and proper monitors sound good everywhere.

 

[TheDewd]

You don't seem to understand... a mix is not "good" until it sounds correct on a wide variety of stereo systems, including a car.... a well-balanced, well-executed mix DOES translate across all systems -- until that is achieved the mix process is not complete.

You seem to think that the reproduction mechanism (headphones, speakers, whatever) define the mix when in fact, it's the complete opposite. For a mix engineer to have done their job, the mix has to sound "right" everywhere. Period.

Mixes done on headphones invariablyy NEVER sound right everywhere, only on headphones. Mixes done by a pro with a proper acoustic environment and proper monitors sound good everywhere.

Yes, I agree with what you are saying and it's called "mixing for the masses" which is different than mixing for high-end audiophile users.

A good mix for record companies is a mix that exports well onto other systems. A good audiophile mix is a mix that sounds good through great gear.

EDIT: When you say an headphone mix doesn't sound right you contradict the fact that you earlier said one could (with some trouble though) mix with headphones.

EDIT2: To get "proper equipment" and "proper acoustic environment" it takes a lot of $$$. Headphone systems offer better value than el cheapo powered mackie shitty nearfields or wharfedales for the same $$$. don't you agree?

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

Yes, I agree with what you are saying and it's called "mixing for the masses" which is different than mixing for high-end audiophile users.

A good mix for record companies is a mix that exports well onto other systems. A good audiophile mix is a mix that sounds good through great gear.

uh, no.... are you arguing just for the sake of arguing now???

Again, your ignorance in the field of audio production is showing greatly with that comment....

 

[TheDewd]

Again, your ignorance in the field of audio production is showing greatly with that comment....

I am not ignorant, I know how the whole "mixes for masses" things work.

I just point out what NO ONE here dares to say....that most commercial mixes could be better if they were meant to be played on audiophile systems.

And if you could stop pointing everyone towards your "whaddaya mean..." proliferation of old sayings, maybe you would see more and more people mix with headphones and get good results.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

EDIT: When you say an headphone mix doesn't sound right you contradict the fact that you earlier said one could (with some trouble though) mix with headphones.

No - I never said one "couldn't".... I'm saying one SHOULDN'T unless they don't care about how their mixes sound. Did you even read my article????

EDIT2: To get "proper equipment" and "proper acoustic environment" it takes a lot of $$$. Headphone systems offer better value than el cheapo powered mackie shitty nearfields or wharfedales for the same $$$. don't you agree?

No, I don't............... first off, it simply isn't true - the proximiity coloration and skewed imaging that occurs on ALL headphones defeats your assertion.

Secondly, one will have an easier time in getting better-sounding mixes by learning to translate shitty monitors than they will by trying to learn to translate on good headphones. And for a novice who's in the process of training their ears on top of it, the task is virtually impossible via headphones.

 

[TheDewd]

No - I never said one "couldn't".... I'm saying one SHOULDN'T unless they don't care about how their mixes sound. Did you even read my article????

Long time ago

No, I don't............... first off, it simply isn't true - the proximiity coloration and skewed imaging that occurs on ALL headphones defeats your assertion.

And you previously agreed that one could use any monitor to mix as long as he gets used to it ? If I get used to the coloration what's the problem?

Secondly, one will have an easier time in getting better-sounding mixes by learning to translate shitty monitors than they will by trying to learn to translate on good headphones. And for a novice who's in the process of training their ears on top of it, the task is virtually impossible via headphones.

Are you sure ? Shitty monitors have dips and are NOT accurate at all. It would be HELL to mix on those (though possible). Headphones are much more accurate than shitty monitors.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

I am not ignorant, I know how the whole "mixes for masses" things work.

I didn't say you were ignorant... I said your ignorance in the field of audio production is showing - not the same thing at all..... reading comprehension is a helpful skill.

I just point out what NO ONE here dares to say....that most commercial mixes could be better if they were meant to be played on audiophile systems.

And again, your audio ignorance shows.

Professional mixes sound OK on bad stereos, good-to-great on the higher-quality consumer stereos, and sound excellent-to-outstanding on audiophile systems. There aren't "different mixes for different systems...."

 

[ROblows]

The fact that interaural crosstalk is eliminated with headphones creates massive descrepencies between headphone listening and speaker listening. If you want to know what a mix will sound like on speakers (good or bad), even cheap speakers will give you a better idea than headphones will. I guess you can "learn it" to an extent by figuring out all the inaccuracies and compensating for them, but it's usually much easier just to get a set of speakers. You're still going to have to deal with inaccuracies, no matter how good the speakers or the room, but you will have to deal with fewer than if you are mixing solely with headphones.

 

[TheDewd]

Professional mixes sound OK on bad stereos, good-to-great on the higher-quality consumer stereos, and sound excellent-to-outstanding on audiophile systems. There aren't "different mixes for different systems...."

Since you are more experienced than I in this field, I give you the benefit of the doubt. But I never heard a commercial record since 1991 that sounded good on great gear. All instruments are flawed, the bass is off, the kick drum is too rounded, etc.