making it sound good on everyones system

  • Thread starter Thread starter mixmkr
  • Start date Start date
mixmkr

mixmkr

we don't need rest!!
here is the deal....I use a pair of JBL4311's and some old Auratone cube speakers. I love them both, and feel very comfortable with them, as I have had them for years. My mixes (to me) sound great in MY control room on these speakers...no EQ...no nada...just the amp (an Alesis RA100) and the speakers. I am extremely satisfied with how the mixes sound and in general how they sound on other systems. In comparison to pro CD's they make me happy too. I have heard my mixes in pro studios and they sound OK to me there also. The catch is when they are played on crappy systems...like someones overly EQ'ed boomy Walmart system or something with no high end...whatever. Then they sound really bad in comparision to even the FM radio it seems sometimes. Every now and then, a cheapie boombox makes the mixes sound decent, but it is the crappy systems where they suck. Good systems = great; Bad systems = Tarzan no like Jane. What gives?
 
Well, the obvious question is...

How does "professional" CD's sound through those same systems? Bad? Good?

Ed
 
better, but not great. Just cleaner sounding, more punch. I guess I am saying the good playback systems really seem to disguise the faults of my mixes, rather than bring them out. Good systems really make my stuff sound good, where bad systems make them sound...well bad, but worse than expected.
 
Without being able to hear the mixes that you're talking about, in general, I have found that many of the amateur (no disrespect, because I also fit into this category) mixes that I come across don't sound punchy or clean because of problems in the low mid-range. This usually involves certain instruments or voices (vocals, guitars, keyboards) in the low midrange that are fighting for space over instruments that really should be there (bass, kick drum). As non-pros, our first reaction would be to start boosting high frequencies to compensate. This usually doesn't help, because it cutting offending frequencies that gives recordings the necessary punch to cut through cleanly (even on crappy systems) without feeling like everything is so "thick".

Just a guess.

Rev E
 
My monitoring speakers, in my studio sound great without EQ.

The speakers, in my living room sound great when playing CDs radio etc. This is where I make MP3s of my own stuff. I definatlly have to EQ to make things sound right on these speakers.

I don't think you can get around, not using EQ, but I agree with Rev E It's better to cut than to boost.

I do think that when you EQ your mixes, it's more for making them sound as good, on as many speaker systems as you can. I have found that a cut, at 250 cycles, helps more than any other frequency in making things sound better on just about any speaker.

GT
 
Beating me to the punch damnit!!!

The above two threads stole my thunder!

Well said guys (RevE always give good stuff :)) And of course so does GT.

Ed
 
thanks...I'll try some cutting in that approx. freq. range and test it out. Rev, the word "thick" describes my mixes sometimes, so I think you are on to something correct. With just a couple of tracks, it is SO easy for me to get that wall of sound, and finding some "air" and "space", and keeping things not so "thick" sometimes becomes a conscious effort. And yeah, I can understand boosting highs to get "sheen" in trying to keep a balance. I do notice on some "pro" hard rock drum sounds for example, the lack of lower mids, or upper bass seems to be thinner than what I like to hear. My speakers are able to sound good boosting EQ's without whimpering, and I have to be careful. I find however, since I record so much direct in, I use EQ very little actually, but maybe some needed subtractive adjustments like you guys suggest will be the trick.
 
Those 4311's are classics by now. I always had to watch the midrange (3Khz) with them. You had to make them bark a bit to be right and watch the bottom end below 100hz.

cheers :)
 
yeah..gotta keep 'em turned up

you're right...I suppose they are classics...but God knows, they love to bark!! I'd love some of the new LSR series in the same size range. I always lust over the Uries I see on the auction sites,(for my bedroom maybe!) but I suppose they are dinosaurs too by now.

btw John, your final layout on your current studio project looks awesome. I am seriously contemplating building behind my house (to keep those long-hairs outta da house
;-O), and would love to do an adaptation of it.
 
lots of good advice in this thread already,but i think i'll give it a go and hope i don't wind up with my foot in my mouth,so here goes.....when you compare your stuff to bigtime commercial stuff you hear on the radio,you are usually hearing a mega-buck mastering job as well as the mix.that factor,in my humble opinion,is a major player in the consistency of the bigtime product as compared to ours.....so here are a couple of sugesstions from a guy who has spent some sleepless nights reading all i can find about mastering and trying to apply it.first off,get some up to date monitors.i know those old jbl's are as comfortable as an old shoe,and i bet your mixes rock on stereo speakers of the same era.but the guys that are designing reference monitors are designing them based on mainstream consumer gear that is prevelant today(cd boomboxes,bookshelf systems etc.)...don't be afraid of some radical panning,this can give the instruments their own space in the mix,along with some width enhancement at the mastering stage.i use cool edit pro and soundforge,both of which have some cool enhancement.....check often in mono though,to make sure it isn't collapsing on you.cheap boomboxes and such don't always boast the best stereo separation specs,so they can use all the help they can get.someone mentioned cutting at 250 hz,which clears out low,mid mud,try a cut at 150-160 of about 2-3 db also...my final step is usually to normalize to rms(average loudness)in soundforge usin the equal loudness contour(fletcher-munson curve)to an average loudness for the song of about -12 to -14 db,depending on the type of music i am doing.i have spent a lot of time loading commercial cd stuff into cool edit and loading up the statistics and looking at them and looking at the freq. rseponse on the cool real-time anylizer and trying to copy it.my stuff still doesn,t sound as mega-buck as the big guys,but i'm getting a little closer every day.hope i've been able to help....good luck
 
strmkr...I have both S/forge and C/edit and like them also. I must say, you are among the first to say ditch the 4311's ....it used to be you wouldn't see a picture of a control room without a pair of these (and the Auratones)...but yeah..that was back THEN, and yes..I agree, speakers have improved. What do you monitor on? Anyone like the LSR series?
 
mixmkr,

I have used the JBL LSR28p's for over a year now, and like them a lot...in fact, I can't find a single thing to complain about with these monitors, other than they're heavy, and have a large "footprint" for a nearfield. Actually, I think of them more as a midfield.
Anyway, great definition for reverb tails and all that, and one of the few "studio" monitors that do their job right and still manage to "sound" good, in an audiophile sort of way!

Highly recommended, at least for a test drive.

BW
 
i am using alesis point sevens and love them.gotta watch the very low end though,the woofers are only 5.25" but they are rock solid down to 85 hz i have a pair of sony mdr 7506 phones that area ahuge help for cross checking the basement stuff and a pair of old radio shack mach one stereo speakers in my main room with 15" woofers.i mostly use them for live monitors for band practice or whatever,but sometimes i'll pump the mix out there and listen to the low end.good luck
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top