Monitors or HI-FI speakers

  • Thread starter Thread starter soundboy
  • Start date Start date
soundboy

soundboy

New member
Which is better for mastering?Monitors or HI-FI speakers. I read an article by paul white (who ever he is) in which he said HI-FI speakers should be used. :D :) :( :o :p ;) :cool: :rolleyes: :mad: :eek: :confused:
 
I'd guess most mastering studios would prefer to call their speakers "monitors". It feels weird calling speakers that can cost tens of thousands of dollars for "HiFi speakers"... :)
 
Good monitors. And not near field monitors. And not in your bedroom. And especially not consumer-grade Hi-Fi speakers.

This is because it is especially important to tune your final master so it will translate well to all formats of playback devices. This means it will sound good on headphones, hi-fis, boomboxes, car stereos, etc. Consumer hi-fi speakers enhance the sound of your recording. Thus, a recording mastered for hi-fi speakers generally won't translate well to boomboxes, etc.

You want you mastering speakers to be as unforgiving as possible. They should translate every subtle nuance of your recording. You should also learn how a recording translates from your speakers to all different playback devices. You should further have a separate mastering room that is acoustically tuned for mastering and is free of any noise sources such as PC HDs and fans...

Eh. This could go on for a while.


Mastering Disclaimer:

I am using the term "mastering" loosely to mean "waxing and polishing the fucker." I am not using the term to imply obtaining results similar or even remotely close to a mastering house. This post is not meant to be legal advice. Please consume alcoholic beverages before reading this post. Side effects from post may include nausia, drowsiness, or flame wars. Do not read this post before operating heavy equipment. If reading this post causes bean sprouts to grow out of your ear, immediately consult a physician.
 
Genelec 1031 actives are good for mastering. ;)
But Hi-Fi speakers can be used in setup:
big 3-way system with matched subwoofer, average :rolleyes: sony or technics 3-way system, 2-way Hi-Fi "micro monitors" ( mission or something ), and some fullrange mini cubes crap.
If your mastered material sound good on all these system, it is ready for real world.
Paul White is Sound on Sound editor.
 
On the subject of monitors/speakers, would it be detrimental if I used the same type of coaxial cable you use for leads on my speakers instead of speaker cable?
 
What do you mean "leads"? Coaxial is usually used for high frequency cabling, like to connect antennaes. What kind of cable are you talking about?
 
If you use shielded interconnect cable, this is not good. You need good quality speaker cables 2.5 mm2 minimum - low resistance, low capacity, big diameter ( because skin effect ).
 
I'm mean the stuff you use with 1/4 inch jacks as patch leads or guitar leads.
 
See Igor's post above. i.e., you shouldn't use coax cable fo speakers for the reasons Igor mentions. Use speaker cable.
 
Question for BBB

Hey Brew Town guy- I hail from Madison. You mentioned NOT to use nearfield monitors. I'm using a pair of Alesis Monitor One mkIIs for mixing, but I plan on sending the completed disc to Pacific North for mastering. Do you think I'll get decent results? If not nearfield monitors, what would you recommend?
 
I was wondering if you got the alesis active or if you bailed dude.

Mine were a good choice.

And a good mastering house will give you good results, but cost about 50.00 a sng( going rate locally ) but having my material in someone elses hands kind of irks me. So do the safe thing and get the stuff copywrited before.
 
I didn't bail on the Alesis, but I found a pair of Monitor One mkIIs in stock at Mars shortly after I wrote that post. So I did cancel the order on the M1 actives. So far I'm happy with the Monitor Ones, but I haven't done a lot of mixing on them (still tracking). Thanks for the advice on copywriting. I plan on it- have the forms, but it's like $30 a song! Ouch. Multiply that by 11 songs! Pacific North quoted me $35 bucks an hour for mastering. They told me it usually takes 5 to 6 hours so about $300 -not bad. I asked them what kind of equipment they were using they said Event monitors, Avalon EQ, Focusrite compression- good equipment but I really don't know how good any of them are- don't really know what I'm doing yet but everything I read in Recording Mag tells me to get the thing mastered for best results.
 
Its your music you should go a step furthur and talk to other musicians that got results like you want and ask them which place and who did the mastering and go to them with your stuff.

I saw in a thread that theres a blanket copywrite for a group of songs you can get that may save you some dough.
 
StillAwake said:
Hey Brew Town guy- I hail from Madison. You mentioned NOT to use nearfield monitors. I'm using a pair of Alesis Monitor One mkIIs for mixing, but I plan on sending the completed disc to Pacific North for mastering. Do you think I'll get decent results? If not nearfield monitors, what would you recommend?
Click to expand...

Hey Mad-Town guy,

I mentioned not using near field monitors for _mastering_. Here's why:

Near field monitors do not adequately develop deep bass. They are good for mixing, but not necessarily good for mastering because they do not adequately project the entire frequency spectrum.

However, most consumer grade speakers also do not develop deep bass, so the near field monitors may be ADEQUATE for mastering. This is also true because most home recording setups are not in acoustically tuned rooms. To properly employ a perfect mastering setup, the room must be matched with main (far field) monitors. That is to say, the monitor system must be time-aligned and tuned to the acoustics of the room and vice versa.

Therefore, while a home setup will not obtain the results comparable to a mastering house, near field speakers can be employed for waxing and polishing the f*cker before spitting out some quick CD-R's that aren't intended for widespread circulation.

That being said, you are using near fields for _mixing_. They are fine for mixing. After obtaining a good mix on the near fields, it is also especially useful to compare your mix on different speaker types. For example, run the mix through your Monitor One's, through some small boombox speakers. Even better, press your mix to CD or tape and play it on different systems, such as a car stereo or a stereo system in another room or another house. That way you can ensure that you are not compromising aspects of your mix to compensate for your mixing room acoustics.

Thus, you can get a good result with your Alesis near fields for sending to the mastering house (however, I'm not the biggest fan of Monitor One's...).

One final note, be sure you don't add compressors, enhancers or EQ to the final mix. Leave this to the mastering house.


Matt
 
Thank to both of you Darrin and Matt. Darrin I have some time before I'm ready for mastering- I'll definately take your advice on which mastering house to use.

Anyone out there have any recommendations?

Matt- it's good to know I'm OK on the monitors as far as mixing, at least. When you say not to add compression or eq to the final mixes, I'm assuming you mean on the song files once they're mixed down as a whole. I planned on that, however, I do use a certain amount of compression (not too much) on the individual tracks- on bass to handle that wild monster, on vocals to even them out a little, and on electric guitar just a tad (I have a Line modeling amp and some of the settings have compresion built in).
I don't usually add anything for piano or keyboard tracks.

I add eq and some reverb and noise reduction on the individual tracks to create the sort of mix I want. I assume this is OK? I sounds pretty good- I thought about telling the mastering people to go easy on the compression since some of the tracks already have it.

Thanks for your advice!
 
OK... you're stupid! ;)

And the answer is yes... believe it or not, someone actually copyrighted the term "nearfield", so other manufacturers had to resort to using the term "direct field" instead.

Outside of adverts though, "nearfield" is the term everyone else uses.

Bruce
 
StillAwake:

Yeah. I was refering to the mix as a whole, not to individual tracks.

Bruce:

I'm sure you meant they trademarked, not copywrited, "nearfiled."


Matt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top