New to Mixing

[Gohanto]

Sorry if you get this question too much, mostly I hang around film production and home theater forums and it's rare to find people who know a lot about sound mixing. (And finding this forum too a while)

Long story short, I'm a student film director, majoring in acoustical engineering (designing speakers). I write, direct, edit, and sound design my own films. I edit sound with a pair of Sony MDR7506 headphones, but now I've gotten to the point where I need a better way to mix.

I've got a ~$6k 7.1 home theater system, but from what I've read I need to invest specifically in monitors designed to show the weaknesses in tracks (although I'm still thinking using my home theater sub would be fine to save some $$). Audio mixing is current done in Adobe Premiere (video editing suite) with just the most basic audio controls. Hoping to upgrade to an Avid/Pro Tools setup in the near future though. And I've got an M-Audio 5.1 sound card in a PC. (Got desktop speakers, but at ~$25 I got what I paid for)

So, I'm currently looking for good monitors for mixing film sound with (good 80Hz and above unless someone has reason to suspect "home theater" subs would have a noticeable different from "monitor" subs). And, if need be, getting a different sound card. My current budget is in the $500 market.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Welcome to the gritty side of production town .

Don't believe everything you hear about audio monitors; there are a ton of myths and untruths out there surrounding that subject. In a nutshell here's the basics of what you really need to know to start out with:

THE ROOM
Being a student in acoustical theory and design, you should take to this idea like a duck to water: The room and it's acoustical properties are as much a part of the monitoring chain as are the monitors themselves. You want to design the location and placement of your audio workstation and your monitors within the room in a way to minimize any negative effects the room may place on your monitoring.

Check out the Studio Building Forum here for many, many more details on this; but the Reader's Digest version may go like this: Place your audio workstation symmetrically centered along one wall, but not butted up against the wall - your stereo and center-channel monitors should be anywhere from 8"-24" off the rear wall at a minimum. However, you do not want your workstation set up in the dead center of the room, either. You should be significantly closer to the wall behind your monitors than you are to the wall behind your back. Keep your monitors out of the corners of the room. Use diffusion/absorption panels on the points of the walls and ceiling where you'd get first reflections from your monitors; i.e. if you put a mirror on that surface at that points you'd see that monitor in the mirror from where you're sitting (that may be slightly different for a 5.1 setup than it is for stereo, look it up.) Use plenty of bass traps in the corners to reduce/smooth it bass modality in the room (this is one of the main problems we have in this forum; people can't get their bass right because the room is messing with them.) And finally, when on a tight budget, often times available furniture can be used to help out, some bookcases can make decent diffusers, and big, upholstered furniture can help with absorption or bass trapping in a pinch.

MONITORS
Don't put much meaning whatsoever into the term "studio monitor". This means nothing more than the fact that the manufacturer is trying to sell that product to the home studio market; it says nothing about whether the monitor is actually suitable to the task. The #1 key word that you do need to keep in mind is the word "translation". What the audio engineer needs in a monitor is something that will allow then to translate what they are hearing in the studio to what it will actually sound like in "the real world".

The difficult thing about that, though, is that everybody's ears and tastes are different; what works best for Engineer A is often hated by Engineer B, and vice versa. There are two competing theories here. One says that if you can get your mix to sound good on a limited-response, midrange-heavy speaker, it will sound good everywhere. The other says the wider and truly flatter the response of the monitor, the better you can hear what is really happening and the better you can control it.

The truth is that it almost completely depends upon one's ears. Some people find the limited-response speakers to sound "natural" and "flat", and the truly extended-range, flat speakers to sound "hyped" and fatiguing-sounding, even though that's not what test instruments show to be the truth. Others hear more like the test instruments do, and find the limiting or midrangey speakers to be fatiguing sounding and the extended range speakers to be smooth and truthful.

Still others think both speakers sound like crap and don't work well for them.

The best advice here is find something in your price range, get it from a dealer with a good return policy and a salesperson that understands, and try them out for yourself. If they don't work for you, try something else. You may or may not find something "perfect"; what you need at minimum is something that doesn't sound fatiguing to you yet will allow you to make a mix in your studio that you can predict will sound "right" in your target playback environment(s).

G.

 

[Bob Womack]

Hi! I've spent the last 27 years mixing for video and film. I've got a prescription for you that is counter-cultural, but works. First off, a monitor is simply a speaker that, when listened to while mixing, helps you produce the kind of mixes you want to hear. Who gives a flying flip what it sounds like. Well, we all do aesthetically, if we are honest, but the main job is to make your mixes sound good.

With that agreed upon (it is, isn't it? ), when you are looking for a monitor system, you probably want to find something that has a proven record of producing the desired result, no? Guess what? We live in a time when there has been a big sea change in the world of audio, and an entire way of monitoring has been abandoned, leaving lots of proven monitors unused and looking for homes. I'm speaking of large-format monitors.

I spent years working on UREI 813cs and 811cs and they have now fallen out of vogue. Thousands of sound tracks and albums have been recorded and mastered on these, but they are now out of vogue, having been replaced by near-field monitors. You can find these, and large format JBL monitors on Ebay every week for fire-sale prices. I picked up a pair of UREI 811cs for $100 for home use.

I put them on top of Sony stereo subs and get a very acceptable broad-band sound

I found a pair of JBL 4411s (medium format) for $50,

both in great shape. You'll need good amps to drive them, but, by coincidence, they are for sale as well. Studios are closing all over the country (nee, world) and stuff is up for auction.

Find more about large format monitors over at The JBL FORUMS .

Bob

 

[Gohanto]

Thanks for the replies. I am still a little confused about what to look for in good monitors. Shopping for home theater speakers it makes sense to buy what sounds good, but for monitors my understanding is that the speakers are just trying to be completely flat and honest about the sound. So why does everyone audion for what sounds good to them?

I would think it would be more helpful to take in a CD still with some minor mixing/mastering errors and listen to what speakers showcase the weakness that still need to be fixed. (Clearly that's not what people do, but I'm just having trouble grasping why people don't as that would technically be the exact detail people want to hear while playing soundtracks through high quality monitors)

 

[Bob Womack]

Thanks for the replies. I am still a little confused about what to look for in good monitors. Shopping for home theater speakers it makes sense to buy what sounds good, but for monitors my understanding is that the speakers are just trying to be completely flat and honest about the sound. So why does everyone audion for what sounds good to them?

There are lots of uneducated folks in this field. There are also lots of fashion trends in this field. Whenever a trend comes through there are lots of people trying to copy it. Still, "absolutely flat" isn't exactly the criterion - whatever makes you mix properly IS. To discover whatever that is, you need to follow the chain from recording to mix to delivery and see which monitors cause you to create the proper mix. In my case, for stereo TV mixes, for example, I'll record and edit on a known set of large format monitors and mix on either a known set of TV speakers or Auratones. I find that Auratones make me mix the background too low, though, so I have to consciously force myself to add enough background to be uncomfortable to me. That knowledge was gained through repeatedly producing product and hearing it at the delivery point.

I would think it would be more helpful to take in a CD still with some minor mixing/mastering errors and listen to what speakers showcase the weakness that still need to be fixed. (Clearly that's not what people do, but I'm just having trouble grasping why people don't as that would technically be the exact detail people want to hear while playing soundtracks through high quality monitors)

Many of these problems are based on subjective choices rather than objective criteria. For instance, I deal with incoming soundtracks that have been both recorded and mixed on small-format near fields with no subwoofers, and it shows. There are common mistakes made when there is limited low-end bandwidth or limited low-end dynamic range but there is copious or exaggerated high-end. I jokingly call it "NS10m syndrome." No near field without a subwoofer will let you know what is happening in the VLF (very low frequency) range. And any speaker with exaggerated HF that is monitored at reasonable level will eventually force the mixer to pull in his neck and reduce HF in the mix until it doesn't rip off his head. The result is a dull, lifeless mix.

But the decisions made are either in equipment choice or in the aesthetic realm. In the case of the former, once they are outfitted with the wrong monitors, the engineers/producers will predictably turn out problematic mixes. In the latter cases, it doesn't matter what monitors you put in front of them (ie even very flat ones) - they'll probably still turn out problematic mixes.

Bob

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Thanks for the replies. I am still a little confused about what to look for in good monitors. Shopping for home theater speakers it makes sense to buy what sounds good, but for monitors my understanding is that the speakers are just trying to be completely flat and honest about the sound. So why does everyone audition for what sounds good to them

"Monitors" are just loudspeakers, just like home theater loudspeakers are. There are just as many designs and colorations as there are model numbers. With some few exceptions they ALL try to be relatively flat and accurate, whether "monitors" or theater speakers (the idea that "studio monitors as a whole are any flatter than consumer speakers as a whole is pure myth), but they manage to do so to varying degrees.

There are two things that are important in a studio monitor; the ability to let you hear what you need to hear to create a good mix that will translate to the majority of playback systems, and the ability for it to do so without causing your ears and head to fatigue quickly.

No two sets of ears or tastes are the same. There are some who find flat and extended frequency response to sound "hyped" and have a hard time learning to translate what they hear on them into something useful. There are others who find some of the most famous and oft-used nearfield studio monitors to be lacking on the low end and way too harsh in the midranges - they are certainly not anything close to "flat and extended" - and can't abide by them, yet thousands of commercial mixes have been made with or at least checked through them.

You've got to figure out what works for your ears.

I would think it would be more helpful to take in a CD still with some minor mixing/mastering errors and listen to what speakers showcase the weakness that still need to be fixed.

Ah, but the catch there is, how do you determine what the mixing/mastering errors are to begin with? What are you using as reference monitors to decide that?

The best you can do is take the commercial CDs that you are most familiar with and provide the widest tests for any loudspeaker and listen for which loudspeaker make the most "sense" to your ears. That's half the battle.

The other half will be figuring out how they actually work for you at home. If after setting up the best acoustical treatment you can practically afford and execute, you sill find the speakers to just plain sound irritating or fatiguing, you may want to consider alternatives. If they sound at least serviceable to you, then you need to figure out how they "translate". Just for an example, you may find that what sounds right bass-wise at your desk winds up being way too bassy or muddy when played back elsewhere, you'll need to learn to adjust your ears and preferences to compensate for that by making the mixes slightly more anemic in bass content at your desk. Or vice versa. or it may be something else that is not a direct 1:1 translation.

Some speakers will be easier for you to translate than others, and that list of speakers will be different for every person. Barring any actual hearing problems with the ears, anybody can learn how to translate just about any speaker, given enough time and work; but the best of course is to find ones that are easiest for you to work with.

It does take being honest with yourself and with your ears, though. Forget the specifications; don't let the printed numbers and charts fool you or talk you into anything. Ears don't know printed specifications from a pile of spaghetti. They only know what they hear.

G.