Stereo speakers vs. Recording speakers - What the difference?

I'm not saying the monitors should be lifeless. They should simply not flatter the mix, i.e., make it sound better than it really is. A good mix should sound good, and a bad mix should sound bad. You should be able to hear what's on the tape. A good mix isn't going to mean diddly if it's played back on one of those trendy new systems that doesn't strive for musicality in any case. But it's a safe bet it will sound awesome on a well-designed hi-fi system.
 
I always try to catch threads about this topic. It fascinates me, although the 2nd half of this thread is way over my head.

I just had to mention that I use bose 301 speakers for both monitors and general listening. Far from being horrible, I think they make great monitors. I do not really have problems with my mixes not translating well to other systems (as I've said before, I readily admit to having lots of problems, I just don't think that's one of them). I think I paid roughly $500 for them in the early '90's. I power them with a denon 80 watt amp (same vintage more or less). I like the sound. That is what is most important to me.

All models of speakers/monitors/headphones sound different to me. I don't think I'd know flat if I heard it. I'm not convinced any of us would. It all seems pretty relative to me.

My advice to newer folks would be to find a pair of monitors/speakers that sound good to you. Listen to a ton of music that you like on them. Get used to how they sound, and just store that away when mixing your own music on them. Your mixes are going to sound slightly different on anything you play them on. If they translate horribly to one system or another, then I think your problems extend well beyond having chosen home stereo speakers as your monitors.
 
I think there's a general agreement here. The only thing is...I suspect most people who would feel the need to ask the question would also the the sort to "like" the heavily-voiced, "nice sounding" speakers rather than the good ones, hence my typical reply to this sort of question.
 
I suggest that if you can't afford to buy studio monitors, at least save up for a good quality small pair of studio monitors. Then you can set up the hi fi speakers that you love to listen to music on as a second pair of monitors. You can then set up the mix on the studio monitors and check it on the hi fi speakers that you listen to all your music on. It if sounds good on both you are there.

Alan.
 
Bobbsy said:
I think there's a general agreement here. The only thing is...I suspect most people who would feel the need to ask the question would also the the sort to "like" the heavily-voiced, "nice sounding" speakers rather than the good ones, hence my typical reply to this sort of question.
Click to expand...

I think most people prefer the "nice sounding" speakers. Unfortunately, those speakers lie to you. Monitoring a mix isn't about which speakers sound the best. It's about hearing the mix for what it is.

Here's an anecdote you may find amusing. My third New Class A amp arrived today. It's a later model in the series. While my other two earlier models have switches to defeat the tone knobs and go straight DC, this one has a "Super Bass" switch instead. And it sounds very charming with the Super Bass turned on. It's an awesome amp for kicking back and listening to music. But would I mix with something like that? Hell no.
 
Bobbsy said:
Yup....just like the dreaded "loudness" button on so many amps!
Click to expand...

The old fashioned loudness button has a purpose. It boosts highs and low when you're listening at low volume. Fletcher-Munson curve, and all that. Most idiots keep it turned on all the time though.
 
diggy_dude said:
The old fashioned loudness button has a purpose. It boosts highs and low when you're listening at low volume. Fletcher-Munson curve, and all that. Most idiots keep it turned on all the time though.
Click to expand...

We won't even talk about the sound disaster that happened when common folk were given a graphic equaliiser on their hi fi system :eek: How many were just set up with smily faces or sad faces or even one smily (left) and on sad (right) coz it looked good.

Oh and how many home surround setups are right, with the big hall effect on all the time and stereo CD's being played with canyon effect and through the centre channel :laughings: and the surround speakers on top of the left right speakers coz the cables are too short :spank:

It's all right, back on track, I feel better now ;)

Alan
 
witzendoz said:
We won't even talk about the sound disaster that happened when common folk were given a graphic equaliiser on their hi fi system :eek:
Click to expand...

:laughings:

Say no more. We live in a culture that is 100% advertisement driven. Madison Avenue says you have to have something, and the cattle flock to Best Buy en masse to purchase it. Never mind that they don't know what it is or what it's used for. The advertisements tell them to buy it, and they obey.
 
monitors

i have a small set of speaker and was wounderen if i could set the flat setting on a eq and get a flat sound
 
Depends on the speakers. Likely not. You could certainly try to (probably radically) EQ pink noise at a specific level to be reasonably "flat" - If the speakers are even capable of the task - But that doesn't mean it's going to be anything resembling accurate or consistent with typical program material.

But what sort of speakers are we talking about here? KEF? Tyler? Sonus Faber? You might get something useful out of them. Sony? Bose? Polk? Probably not.
 
diggy_dude said:
The old fashioned loudness button has a purpose. It boosts highs and low when you're listening at low volume. Fletcher-Munson curve, and all that. Most idiots keep it turned on all the time though.
Click to expand...

The better systems (not saying true audiophile, but mid-level, at least) were designed so that as you turned up the volume, the "loudness" flattened out. You can tell if a system does that by simply turning it up, and turning the loudness on and off as you go. If you hear less and less difference, that's one that's designed that way (or at least, that's been my observation.)

witzendoz said:
We won't even talk about the sound disaster that happened when common folk were given a graphic equaliiser on their hi fi system :eek: How many were just set up with smily faces or sad faces or even one smily (left) and on sad (right) coz it looked good.

Oh and how many home surround setups are right, with the big hall effect on all the time and stereo CD's being played with canyon effect and through the centre channel
Click to expand...

I actually had lots of fun with the EQ's I used to use with my home audio system. I tried to use them to make the system sound it's best, but I was never completely satisfied with the results. And, it was a Sanyo (I think) EQ that was my bridge between just recording my own cassette tapes from vinyl or CD's and recording my guitar playing or vocals to a cassette- it had front-panel inputs marked for guitar and mic, and gain controls for each- you could record a song from a CD or other source, and record your own playing or singing to the recording, too. You couldn't over-dub, as it recorded using the cassette deck you already had, but it was a start. I didn't make any memorable recordings with that (and mercifully, did not keep any of them,) but it was fun to muck about with.

I even tried using a 10-band home-audio EQ to EQ out feedback on a live sound set, about 8 years ago. It got rid of the feedback, alright, but the bands were so wide it muffled the overall tone way too much. Not a success, but I was (and am) glad I tried it, if only so that now I know it doesn't work, first-hand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top