Monitors - their true purpose?

  • Thread starter Thread starter malgovert
  • Start date Start date
M

malgovert

Member
Hi everybody - finally got myself a pair of Genelec near-field monitors at a great price - trouble is I still can't get my head around their true purpose - I understand they produce a flat, uncolored sound, and for a while I thought that this would mean that people who played the resulting mixes on more 'hyped' systems would get the 'version' of the mix they desired (ie with extra bass or treble, or whatever) since the mix was in effect 'neutral'. However, there is another scenario which I know has been mentioned before - that if the mix is tailored to the monitors - then unless everybody listens to the results on the monitors they aren't gonna hear the same as I hear... I have this mix sounding great on the Genelecs then played it thru my fps 2000s (my 'noraml' speakers) and it sounded crap - really bassy and boomy. Previous mixes which had been done on the fps 2000s sounded fine. I know it isn't true but it seems logical to me that it would be better to mix on the same kind of speakers that people are likely to be listening thru - I have also heard it said that if you can get it sounding good on monitors then it will sound *really* good on a consumer system - however - what sounded great on my Genelecs sounds crap on my fps 2000s - how do I resolve this - and wherein lies the true purpose of my monitors??? (BTW it also sounds great thru my Beyer headphones - oh yes - they are new too - no one else got a present last christmas)... Thanks - Malg.
 
Last edited:
Which Genelec are they?

There are several reasons for the use of near fields monitors. If you would like a full describtion I will post the reasons.
You should know that there was a time when many engineers that that the concept of monitoring on a Hi Fi set of speakers was the right way to work and that if it would sound good on them then you nailed it.

The bottom line is if you cant trust the speakers to output a flat freq response and not to have a problem with freq's getting to your ear at different times causing phase problems, allow you change volume with out sounding sharp and with out distorting, small in size to allow you to see into the recording room, withstand the hard work in daily use, and more and more.....
then you have the chance to make the better desicions as to how to process your audio.

Mix's that sound good on only the monitors is a problem
everybody faces and not just newcomers. This is something that has to be dealt with compensation.
It is simply not true that if they sound good on your monitors then it will sound good every were.
It is also not correct to talior them to your monitors.

When I mix I have a set of three different types of monitors I listen to and that is what gives me a better picture. I always go down to my car after that and listen there as well. This why I get the whole picture.

Can you be sure that the mix doesn't sound good in your room and that in another room it wouldn't sound that great ( using the same monitors) ?
 
Last edited:
Hello friend,

While monitors come in a variety of flavors (some good and some not so good), it is important to know that you will need to learn to use your monitors.

Regardless of whether you have good or bad monitors, you can achieve a good mix if you learn how the sound they produce translates to other systems.

The only difference between good and bad monitors is that the good ones make the job a lot easier and more pleasant.

Give it some time and you will eventually get it right. I got a pair of Fostex monitors (no where near as good as your Genelecs) last September and I am still learning how their sound translates to other speakers. One thing to keep in mind so you don't get descouraged is that I do not spend a lot of time with them, but I am getting there.

I hope this is helpful

Peace
Joe
 
Yo Malgo:

Your question looks like some of the PH.d dissertations I've proofed.

A simple pair of Yorkville YSM-1 monitors would have eliminated your logorrhea query.

Green Hornet
 
What??? you mean I spent hundreds of dollars and I still have to DO SOME OF THE WORK MYSELF??? Thanks for the tips - yes - I read something about 'mix translation'/compensation in previous posts - I thought it was just someone trying to scare me. They are Genelec 1029As and I think they are pretty damn cool. But yes I know I have to listen to the mixes in some different environments. Thanks again. Malg.
 
The Green Hornet said:
Yo Malgo:

Your question looks like some of the PH.d dissertations I've proofed.

A simple pair of Yorkville YSM-1 monitors would have eliminated your logorrhea query.

Green Hornet
Click to expand...

Hey GH -

1 Ph.D., not PH.d.

2 "logorrheic query" not "logorrhea query" (adjectives modify nouns)

How about proofing your posts? :D

Malg.
 
Ahhhh, Malgo:

You got me. But I've run across some Ph. D types who are not worthy of the correction.

Then, there were a few who were marvelous teachers.

Could the Ph.D also be an oxymoron? Depends on the group communicating.

Logorrhea was the word that won a spelling bee championship about a year ago.

My error on the adjective ending. But, isn't it possible to have a noun modifying a noun? Like the word, "for" can function as a preposition or an adverb.

But, thanks for the correction.
It was late at night....but, now I sound like a student.

Green Hornet
 
grammar check

Nouns can modify nouns, usually to denote specific nature or character (vegetable soup, office building...). 'For', on the other hand, can function as a preposition or a conjunction (meaning 'because'), but not (as far as I am aware) as an adverb. Adverbs modify adjectives or verbs. If only learning to use my new monitors were so simple… :D Malgo.
 
...their true purpose? .. Ego Gratification. Get the most expensive ones U can afford.
 
I think the biggest lie ever told was that speakers that cost more translate better. Thanks for verifying, malgo. ;) I didnt know they had christmas in dahrahn, saudi arabia.
 
here we go again :)

Mixing, like mastering, like tracking - they are all artforms which you have to learn. Learning takes time and patience. If you want to be really good at it, you'll need some brilliant ears as well, and a dose of talent thrown in.

The reason I wrote the above - Expensive monitors are great, I think they are essential to my way of working - but more hits have been referenced on cheapass horrible sounding NS10's then anything else. So, if you think expensive monitors mean you can suddenly mix better, think again.

Just think - a huge number of people spend thousands on home 'HiFi' speaker systems. A good pair of accurate monitors is much cheaper! Then why doesn't everyone use pro monitors?

Monitors are made to be accurate, flat and directional. UNDER IDEAL CIRCUMSTANCES. these ideal circumstances only excist in especially designed, acoustically treated environments.
If you purchase a good set of monitors and you find your mixes sound good on the monitors, but not on anything else, analyse what doesn't sound right, in which frequency bands. To much bass? Using a High Pass Filter? What setting? To close to walls? To much absorbsion? etc.

It takes time to learn to use certain monitors. Some brands suit some people,others don't. I can mix on NS10's - even tough they sound awful. I can mix on Quested, I can mix on JBL LSR's, I can't mix on KRK or Genelec. Don't ask me why, they just don't suit me.

Take your time, listen critically to what you are doing, play your stuff on other systems, and learn to use your monitors. Accurate monitoring is a combination of monitors, environment, ears and experience
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top