Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco  Saying this assumes that listening over any pair of loudspeakers gives you an accurate reproduction of any and all mixes, |
I didn't say that listening over any loudspeaker gives an accurate reproduction of the mix. I didn't say that at all! That would be so moronic it makes my brain hurt. You're deeply confused.
In fact, I was only making a joke on the semantics (and word mix-up) of the quote you co-signed. But now that we're discussing such things, let's get talkin'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco and any room and speaker placements are more accurate in reproducing a neutral center image than a pair of headphones (not "center channel", unless we're not talking about stereo but rather surround, where a center channel is actually employed). |
First of all, stereo absolutely has a center (or "middle") channel*, and headphones localize it poorly/unrealistically. Both of these points are fact, with exception for those specialty headphone amplifiers that modify their playback to correct the latter phenomena.
Second, there are rooms that offer incredibly accurate playback, and - for better or worse - the way the mix translates in those rooms is the way it'll translate everywhere (even in headphones!). I'm not so sure that there's a single set of cans I've ever heard where I could say the same thing.
My point is that headphones are inherently misleading; that is, if you want your mix to translate over anything other than the headphones you're mixing on. On the other hand, a room with speakers can be designed to offer near-if-not-completely-perfectly accurate playback.
(*I suppose we could debate my use of the word "channel" and your use of the word "image"; but that's boring and pointless because both are completely accurate. I would like to point out, however, that in headphones, there really
isn't a center image (but there IS a center channel
), which is pretty much the crux of my point, actually, and one of the primary obstacles of mixing in the ol' ear-goggles.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco What the mix "really sounds like" is subjective from person to person, from speaker to speaker, from room to room. There's no "perfect" standard for which mixes can be benchmarked to, otherwise there would only be one post about amps/speakers in audiophile forums. |
I'm not so sure that there's no way to hear what a mix "really" sounds like. Whether the mix is perceived as "good" or "bad" will vary from person-to-person; spectral balance, dynamics, and depth, on the other hand, will not. It is possible that a speaker or acoustic environment could alter a person's perception of the sound, however that doesn't change the recorded sound itself.
As for the audiophile internet fourm set: 9 out of 10 times they're so full of shit that your point is lost on me. Anyway, we're talking about the devices we use to CREATE a recorded sound. The audiophiles are talking about the devices they use to LISTEN to recorded sound. It's a subtle distinction, but IMHO, hugely important with regards to this discussion.
Anyway, I've sorta drifted off course. I'm not saying it's impossible to mix in cans, but I am saying that cans lie, the same way a poorly treated control room or cheap speakers lie. You have to learn the deficiencies in your system and compensate. Unfortunately, the deficiencies in headphones are quite severe and make compensating very, VERY difficult, with often disappointing surprises when you listen back through a good old fashioned set of loudspeakers.
Actually, come to think of it, at the get-go I was really just teasing staudio. Talk about going OT...