Speakers for Mastering...nearfield or farfield?

[ashcat_lt]

My comment pertained to the accuracy of low frequency sounds traveling through air using speakers within a room where headphones are different animal. Sure our ears can adjust differently when we have transducers shoved in our ear canals, but It's comparing apples and oranges and I would not trust any headphone to be so accurate in the low end nor would I want to rely on them to master with.

Your comment read suspiciously like the common myth that the long waves of bass frequencies are somehow not as loud at the source as they are a few feet away, that they need "space to develop" before you can capture the full extent of their energy. This is just untrue.

It may be true with a given room and listening position that stepping away from the speaker will allow you to hear more bass. That's because you're moving out of a null (or into a peak) in the room's frequency response. Moving the speaker while maintaining the original relative listening distance will likely have the same result.

 

[Waltz Mastering]

Your comment read suspiciously like the common myth that the long waves of bass frequencies are somehow not as loud at the source as they are a few feet away, that they need "space to develop" before you can capture the full extent of their energy. This is just untrue.

Nah, I didn't mention loudness and in fact believe that the better speakers have the tendency to be quite linear across the frequency spectrum at any volume given the right amplification and room, but there's other things to take into account like the Fletcher - Munson curve / Equal Loudness contour, etc.

 

[Beck]

Also +1 ..as anything mentioned is just someone's preference based on their own experience, but I am curious to know what model of speaker you are using and if you also incorporate a sub?

After a long arduous search for the "Perfect" nearfield solution I chose Yorkville YSM1i passives... the ones made in Canada. I've had these for about ten years now. Unfortunately they began outsourcing the manufacturing to China and shortly there after discontinued the model. The new YSM 2-way nearfields are much different design and now all made in China. The only ones I can recommend are the original YSM1 and the second generation like I have, YSM1i... both made in Canada. You can also find them branded as ART SLM1, also made in Canada at the same facility, and they're basically the same except for the branding. Yorkville acquired ART (Applied Research & Technology) back in 2000. There are some great monitors out there, but these really fit me well. I can't say enough about them.

Yorkville Sound: Studio Monitors

Yes, my system includes a Yorkville sub with 12" kicker, but I don't use it regularly.

 

[2infamouz]

Near Field is often a budget solution more than a better way to monitor for mastering. You should of course monitor in various settings from various sources of speakers/monitors, but typically the reason I've found that people are only using smaller near field monitors is because that's what they could afford in terms of the monitors themselves and the room design/construction.

 

[Waltz Mastering]

After a long arduous search for the "Perfect" nearfield solution I chose Yorkville YSM1i passives... the ones made in Canada. I've had these for about ten years now. Unfortunately they began outsourcing the manufacturing to China and shortly there after discontinued the model. The new YSM 2-way nearfields are much different design and now all made in China. The only ones I can recommend are the original YSM1 and the second generation like I have, YSM1i... both made in Canada. You can also find them branded as ART SLM1, also made in Canada at the same facility, and they're basically the same except for the branding. Yorkville acquired ART (Applied Research & Technology) back in 2000. There are some great monitors out there, but these really fit me well. I can't say enough about them.

Yorkville Sound: Studio Monitors

Yes, my system includes a Yorkville sub with 12" kicker, but I don't use it regularly.

Thx. Always on the look out for good speakers. Other ones that I've heard good things about are from Unity - The Rock and The Boulder, Neumann/KH 310's, Trident Hg3, and Tyler

 

[SafeandSound]

In mastering you are looking for accuracy, scale, full range reproduction, exceptional detail, excellent stereo imaging. These traits are never found together in near field monitors and as such you cannot use them to professionally master music. Some peoples definition of professional may be different though.

cheers

SafeandSound Mastering

 

[karumba]

I think John mentioned earlier but if you mix and master for the best sounding systems in mind, it will trickle down and translate to the lowest common denominator.

that is very very logical in theory, but in practice, it doesn't seem to be true (maybe for jazz or classic music where you don't need to "shape" the material that much). my friend likes to master on his tyler D1, but he also makes incredible mixes, but not on the tyler. it just doesn't translate, it is sounding too big (which is making you mixes making sound small).

i think the reason might be the following:
in mastering, you need to make some decisions & those need the be very accurately (e.g. within an 0.1dB range). in mixing, you need to make a looot decisions & they don't need to be that accurate (e.g. 0.5dB is sufficient, just as an example). mastering speakers let you focus on very very detailed things & this is what distracts you from the more important & way more decisions during mixing.

this is just my theory & also my own experience when trying to mix on big full range mastering speakers.
but to put it into a different perspective: you also have to ask yourself, why basically no mixing engineer is mixing on duntech, b&w, tyler, etc. - i mean hey, its not the cost of the speakers nor the placement. these are all top notch full range speakers & no mixing engineer has discovered that up to now? mixing is just a completely different thing than mastering.

near field is not always a budget solution, it may also be a different viewing angle.

 

[chatterbox272]

With the full wave cycle of a 20 Hz frequency being over 50 feet long it's hard to get an accurate gauge on the lows when using near fields that are 4 feet away, so giving the lows more time to develop seems to work best with full range speakers placed farther from the listening position.

That is so many different shades of wrong. At any instant your ear drums are being compressed by a single piece of the waveform. The entire wave does not need to be in the air around you for you to hear the infinitely small piece that you're hearing at any instant, because your not hearing the whole wave, you're hearing the part of it that is at your ear drum at the time. What is typically perceived as "developed bass" is actually the reduction of the highs that more easily disperse through the air creating a natural lowpass filter that increases in intensity the further you are from the source.
'cmon man that's pretty basic stuff and you're a pro, you should know this stuff.

 

[grimtraveller]

'cmon man that's pretty basic stuff and you're a pro, you should know this stuff.

Even if you disagree with Waltz on this, was that really necessary ?

 

[godchuanz]

Chill, guys.

So am I right to say, generally speaking, if I were to use mid-field speakers that mastering engineers typically use during the mixing stage, my mixes would probably turn out better than if I were to rely on mainly near-fields?

 

[Waltz Mastering]

At any instant your ear drums are being compressed by a single piece of the waveform. The entire wave does not need to be in the air around you for you to hear the infinitely small piece that you're hearing at any instant, because your not hearing the whole wave, you're hearing the part of it that is at your ear drum at the time. What is typically perceived as "developed bass" is actually the reduction of the highs that more easily disperse through the air creating a natural lowpass filter that increases in intensity the further you are from the source.

Hi Chatterbox, Thanks for taking the time to sign up under anonymity to have your first post point out something I did not say.

I did not say or imply that "the entire wave needs to be in the air around you" as you've written above.

The quote by me was not even stated as a fact by me and I am not doubling down on it. It was more a theory that I was thinking about concerning low frequencies related to wavelength, maybe open for discussion, but I will admit that I do not have a degree or phd in the physics of sound and think it is wrong for you to assume that just because I make my living mastering that I never fuck up or say something that is not totally 100% correct...

I have trouble understanding what you are saying above about "creating a natural lowpass" and in the interest of learning would be very interested if you can provide any links that backs up your explanation.

 

[CoolCat]

Chill, guys.

So am I right to say, generally speaking, if I were to use mid-field speakers that mastering engineers typically use during the mixing stage, my mixes would probably turn out better than if I were to rely on mainly near-fields?

I think so, thats the simple comcept that if you can hear it all then you can make better judgements.

But that collides with a small HR environment and a closet studio, so then comes the demand to engineer out the best we can...so like Ethan's site , it goes into the room and the 3ft triangle of Nearfields and this helps a small HR setup. Large speakers obviously wouldnt work in a small HR studio, so the nearfield thing has that crowd.

As I understand the whole nearfield history, the other approach wasnt due to the room size, but with the Auratones and NS10's the concept was to simulate a average listeners environment of those years. Auratone was like car -radio days and NS10 as the consumers began more stereo hi-fi...in general.
Im sure others on this site actually watched a lot of this evolve in the industry.

I wonder at what size room, and room design- is the starting point to get into the Mid- throw or larger full range speakers?

Obviously a closet or small bedroom wont allow huge tower speakers to work very well.

 

[Massive Master]

So am I right to say, generally speaking, if I were to use mid-field speakers that mastering engineers typically use during the mixing stage, my mixes would probably turn out better than if I were to rely on mainly near-fields?

I would say "yep" assuming that (and this is the part where it all falls apart much of the time, so don't shoot the messenger) you have the listening skills and experience with that monitoring chain to know how those mixes will translate to other speakers.

Having speakers that are capable of the task is certainly the foundation -- Intimately studying and learning those speakers is what makes the engineer capable of taking advantage of the speakers.

The best mechanics tend to use the best tools - but having the best tools doesn't make the best mechanic.

 

[godchuanz]

CoolCat and Massive Mastering,

Thanks for the insight! Really helpful posts.

Just curious, does anyone know any well-known mix engineer who uses mid-fields as the main monitors? Most studios I have seen almost exclusively use near-fields as the mains.

 

[Massive Master]

Just curious, does anyone know any well-known mix engineer who uses mid-fields as the main monitors? Most studios I have seen almost exclusively use near-fields as the mains.

I don't know *any* studios (I'm talking professionally designed, set up and normally functioning) studios that use nearfields as mains... I know one or two pro engineers that rely on them (nearfields), but that's about it.

 

[Beck]

Chill, guys.

So am I right to say, generally speaking, if I were to use mid-field speakers that mastering engineers typically use during the mixing stage, my mixes would probably turn out better than if I were to rely on mainly near-fields?

I'll have to disagree with Massive here but maybe we aren't understanding your statement the same way. You're taking about mixing now and not mastering, right? So the midfields typically used (if there is such a thing) for mastering aren't necessarily best suited for mixing. Nearfield monitoring for mixing has even more advantages than it does for mastering. Many traditional mastering houses resemble home theater environments and the speakers used have more in common with a hi-fi speakers. That's not the best setup for the mixing phase, though great for mastering if that's the method you prefer and are accustomed to.

I remember when Ed Long's nearfield concept started to really take off. It wasn't long before mix engineers were using nearfields and leaving the big speakers off. I remember studios that didn't even have the big speakers hooked up anymore, but they looked impressive to clients so they left them there for decoration. Many large studios did it that way and many still do... but unfortunately there aren't many super studios left to go see for yourself. And the trend to smaller studios and project studios embraced the nearfield from the get-go, so there never were any large speakers in the mix (no pun intended).

 

[karumba]

I don't know *any* studios (I'm talking professionally designed, set up and normally functioning) studios that use nearfields as mains... I know one or two pro engineers that rely on them (nearfields), but that's about it.

there are a lot of famous mixing engineers that are known to mix mainly on nearfields: bob clearmountain, the lord-alge brothers (they both go even in the other direction by switching to their ghettoblaster from time to time), tony masterati, dave pensado, etc. most of them even don't have big mid fields in their studio.

 

[Manor Music]

This discussion kind of reminds me of the argument for muscle cars or import tuner cars...I will go with the classic muscle car