as soon as I think I understand this a bit, I see studio pics of the pros and the monitors are sitting behind a large desk blocked from view partially, and not even very good monitors.
then you hear several pro's saying "I got the crappy speakers because if you can make it sound good on them it sounds great on translating to better stuff.." (aka NS10, ALTEC605, Auratone)...of the CLA who mentions Levinthal or someone doing Gold records on Radio Shack Optimus 7's!!

I'm confused...just reading the Ken Scott book and again, he repeats this "the monitors were so crappy, they had to work hard to get a good mix, but he thinks because they had to work so hard to make it sound good on those...that's why it translated so well and stands up today, decades later.
and the old concept of pristine $100,000 monitors don't give you what the average joe is listening to, so its often said "whats the point of mixing to 1% of the people who have $100,000 speakers in a $200,000 room".....
and then its back to ear bud pods, and laptop speakers, and pc speakers which seem to be the norm for todays generation....with the car the main "good listening" environment. Ive two kids now grown, and I don't know even one of their friends who have the traditional old school HiFi system, its all digital and downloads. I doubt CD's will be around much longer.
then theres a concept of being able to perfectly hear everything you get more informative decisions by having well engineered stuff in a great room. which makes sense, logically.
answer for the OP...no, you are not crazy. lol
