Some questions on mixing and monitoring...the low mid-war

[van Overhalen]

This goes to the more experienced/commercial guys:

When you're mixing, do you definitely HEAR wether your mix will translate well in any possible situation (TV - / Radio - / Hifi - / Computer-Speakers)
or do you KNOW it because of your experience ?

I mix on Nearfields and I definitely can not judge the lower mids on them.
Checking my mixes on boombox speakers almost always reveals that there is way too much energy in the low mids.

When I fix them the mix doesn't sound any different on the Nearfields but drastically better on the boombox speakers.

I simply can not hear them on the midfields.


This is a quote from Michael Brauer :

1- I’ve used Proacs 100’s for many years and I love them. Some clients don’t like them so I always have some Jams or Genelec’s in the room for a second reference.

BUT, most of my mixing time is spent on my little Sony boom box that I got in Japan in the early 90’s. It’s sits behind me on top of the Soundtowers Rack. Once I have my balances, panning and bottom end tweaked on the Proacs, I monitor through the radio behind me for the remainder of the time. I get a good vocal balance using the radio and it magnifies anything wrong with the mix.

So, is this "actually mixing on radio speakers" a common practice ?
Do you always have to check your mix on boombox-speakers ?
Does your mix actually suck on your main monitors until you get it right
or do you know the situation where you have a mix that you really enjoy to listen to on your main speakers
but you KNOW at the same time that it needs further tweakening because it will make boom box speakers explode ?

and this is not meant to be a "You need to buy monitors X" or "you have to treat your mixing environment" - thread
cause a guy like Mr. Brauer can mix on anything he wants in any room he wants to and still uses a boombox.

Thanx very much

Michael

[airmate]

the room treatment is much more important than the speaker brand - given you ain't working with some crappy cheapo speakers.
i've recently replaced my adam speakers with genelec 8050 (wow, never thought i would prefer genelec one day, but finally it happened. the 8050 are just amazing and much better than their 10xx series...).

but rthe major improvement for my own studio was the room treatment. i've also had some nasty low mid issues, and they've been completely solved by my DIY broadband absorbers.

i've posted some pictures and info recently:

******//gearslutz.com/board/showthread.php3?t=61293

conclusion: check your room acoustics before you might want to get yourself a new pair of speakers...

[nukmusic]

Originally Posted by airmate

the room treatment is much more important than the speaker brand - given you ain't working with some crappy cheapo speakers.
i've recently replaced my adam speakers with genelec 8050 (wow, never thought i would prefer genelec one day, but finally it happened. the 8050 are just amazing and much better than their 10xx series...).

but rthe major improvement for my own studio was the room treatment. i've also had some nasty low mid issues, and they've been completely solved by my DIY broadband absorbers.

i've posted some pictures and info recently:

******//gearslutz.com/board/showthread.php3?t=61293

conclusion: check your room acoustics before you might want to get yourself a new pair of speakers...

can't agree more. After I built some DIY treatments for my CR in New Orleans. Mixes start to come out much better and in much faster times. My fellow engineers and producers would could to the studio and say..."Dam, my Mackie's don't sound like that! What did you do to your's?"

If you have the money hire an acoustic consultant to come out and measure(test) your room. Every room is different. Also, he/she should be able to tell you what size monitor might work best in your room based on its size and type music you do.

Some monitors do produce audio more accuractly than others, but the differences may not be as important as balancing the acoustics in your control room. Kinda like trading your car in for a new BMW, but still driving on streets filled with pot holes.

[drew]

you guys are missing his point. why does Michael Brauer, working in an acoustically world class room with great monitors, still ref a boombox? that's his basic Q. personal pref and point of reference is why i would.

[u b k]

Originally Posted by van Overhalen

When you're mixing, do you definitely HEAR wether your mix will translate well in any possible situation (TV - / Radio - / Hifi - / Computer-Speakers) or do you KNOW it because of your experience ?

...

When I fix them the mix doesn't sound any different on the Nearfields but drastically better on the boombox speakers.

I simply can not hear them on the midfields.

as to the first question, i'm unclear on the distinction. i know it because i can hear it, and i can hear it because i know what to listen for. i can't think how else i'd be able to 'know' something like this.

to the second point, it is impossible that it doesn't sound any different on the nearfields. if you've changed the mix, the monitors have to reflect that, it's inescapable physics.

what's happening is probably a combination of factors. first, boomboxes greatly exaggerate certain freq zones, making any excesses or lacks in those areas extremely apparent. my boombox does this for the 100hz zone, and reveals incredibly well the marriage between kick and bass, and how much of each there needs to be to match the energy of the song. my mains also reflect any changes made there, but it's much less exaggerated and so is less glaring when things are off.

the other thing happening is that your monitoring environment (speakers + room) may be masking these freqs that are giving you trouble. modes are muddying up the picture, nulls are confusing your brain, and your speakers may not be terribly honest about the truth to begin with. a boombox, because it's so low-energy, doesn't excite these room issues nearly as much, making it easier to deal with the offenders.

boomboxes, like auratones, clock radios, and the speakers in a studer, are great tools, each giving a different and unique perspective on a landscape that is very difficult to view all at once from all angles. whatever helps you to identify problems and clear them up, use it.


gregoire
del ubik

[drundall]

I think what ubik is saying is that on many near fields, you might hear something that's not glaring or over the top, but you know from experience that it won't work in the mix.
I think it's great to check mixes on different systems, and I check stuff in my car regularly. I also have some sucky little computer speakers that I call my "myspace speakers".

The boombox thing has been around for quite awhile. some guys put it in the tracking room for a vibe on a less controlled environment (than in the CR on the console or something).

[van Overhalen]

Originally Posted by u b i k

as to the first question, i'm unclear on the distinction. i know it because i can hear it, and i can hear it because i know what to listen for. i can't think how else i'd be able to 'know' something like this.

I know that this is a somewhat ill description BUT often when I am mixing in my room I simply KNOW from experience that there are too much low mids in the mix rather than hearing them, unless I check on a boombox.

Originally Posted by u b i k

to the second point, it is impossible that it doesn't sound any different on the nearfields. if you've changed the mix, the monitors have to reflect that, it's inescapable physics.

You gave a good description about that here:

Originally Posted by u b i k

my mains also reflect any changes made there, but it's much less exaggerated and so is less glaring when things are off.

I shouldn't have said " it doesn' t sound any different" but "the change in sound isn' t THAT apparent on the nearfields"

Originally Posted by u b i k

a boombox, because it's so low-energy, doesn't excite these room issues nearly as much, making it easier to deal with the offenders.

I think that this is a good point.
Though I did treat my room with broadband absorbers it still isn't ideal.
But I do not think that this is the main point here.
By reducing the volume on the nearfields I prevent them from exciting the room, too
but it does not mean that I don' t need to do the boombox check any more.

Originally Posted by u b i k

boomboxes, like auratones, clock radios, and the speakers in a studer, are great tools, each giving a different and unique perspective on a landscape that is very difficult to view all at once from all angles. whatever helps you to identify problems and clear them up, use it.

It seems that the need for using a boombox to check a mix is common here and that's what I basically wanted to know.

Ubiks description:

Originally Posted by u b i k

my mains also reflect any changes made there, but it's much less exaggerated and so is less glaring when things are off.

as well as Drundalls:

Originally Posted by d r u n d a l l

I think what ubik is saying is that on many near fields, you might hear something that's not glaring or over the top, but you know from experience that it won't work in the mix.
I think it's great to check mixes on different systems, and I check stuff in my car regularly. I also have some sucky little computer speakers that I call my "myspace speakers".

are great answers to my actual situation.

Thank you very much for that !

Michael

[airmate]

Originally Posted by van Overhalen

BUT often when I am mixing in my room I simply KNOW from experience that there are too much low mids in the mix rather than hearing them, unless I check on a boombox.

keep in mind that it is very much likely that you're extremely close-up to the speakers when monitoring through the boombox (at least compared to you regular monitors).
so it's going to be some kind of ultra-nearfield situation where negative effects of the room are less interfering with the playback.
so it's not only the boombox itself, it's also (and perhaps much more important!) the smaller distance between your ears and the speakers.

as i stated before - in my experience low mid issues most of the time are caused by less-than-stellar room acoustics.

[van Overhalen]

Originally Posted by airmate

keep in mind that it is very much likely that you're extremely close-up to the speakers when monitoring through the boombox (at least compared to you regular monitors).
so it's going to be some kind of ultra-nearfield situation where negative effects of the room are less interfering with the playback.
so it's not only the boombox itself, it's also (and perhaps much more important!) the smaller distance between your ears and the speakers.

as i stated before - in my experience low mid issues most of the time are caused by less-than-stellar room acoustics.

Hi Airmate,

the boombox and the nearfields are at the same distance.

Certainly my room is less than stellar, but I treated it with broadband absorbers and
I had an acoustic consultant checking it.
He didn' find any major problems...

As I stated elsewhere on this forum,
sending a mix through my boombox speakers makes them almost explode because of hi energy low mid content.
The nearfields aren`t bothered at all by this energy.
I do not believe that this is mainly a room problem.
It is just that the nearfields do not reveal that there is a problem in the mix.
I end up with mixes that I quite enjoy on the nearfields but I know that they are unusable because of low mid content that would kill boombox speakers.
It is not the room.

It is like Ubik said:

boomboxes, like auratones, clock radios, and the speakers in a studer, are great tools, each giving a different and unique perspective on a landscape that is very difficult to view all at once from all angles. whatever helps you to identify problems and clear them up, use it.

Another thought:

If the room would suck out low mid frequencies I wouldn't be able to hear them on a boombox either.
It' s the physics of the speakers.
My midfields can deal with a hell lot of boom and bass and the mixes sound great and full and very pleasing to my ears but a cheap little speaker simply can't deal with it.
So I have to make a reality check and reduce some energy so that the mix will translate well.

I guess that a more experienced engineer is able to keep that in mind while mixing and won`t overdo it, but I am still in the situation that I am forced to reduce energy that I liked on my mixes in the first place.

I will learn. (hopefully)

Thanx

Michael

[airmate]

van overhalen, i didn't want to say that the boombox couldn't have any positive effects on your mixing.
i just wanted to mention that there MIGHT be some other aspects that should be taken into account when talking about the boombox and its sonic effects.

what kind of nearfields are you using, btw?

[van Overhalen]

Originally Posted by airmate

van overhalen, i didn't want to say that the boombox couldn't have any positive effects on your mixing.
i just wanted to mention that there MIGHT be some other aspects that should be taken into account when talking about the boombox and its sonic effects.

what kind of nearfields are you using, btw?

That's alright !

So you do not feel the need to check your mixes with a boombox ?

I really do not want to go into discussing different brands 'cause I don't want anybody to think speakers X suck only because I can't mix on them or something...

I went to my dealer with a bunch of my favorite CDs as well as some own recordings and really had the possibility to check a lot of different monitors and liked the one that I use now best, so...

But maybe this was the wrong approach...who knows ?

Maybe one day I'll find the ONE AND ONLY monitors that will
reveal every aspect of a mix...?

[guerillamixer]

You just have to learn the sound of your speakers/room.

Sound like you are on the way there, 'cause you are starting
to know when too much lo-mids is happening.


With regards to the boombox issue;

Those little speakers and shitty amps distort very easily and the
cabinets are generally designed to resonate in the lo-mids, hence the
squashed sounds are very obvious clues pointing to too much
lo-mid info.

Acoustics:

I think your boombox is not putting out enough energy to drive the room
modes, where as your nearfields are. The boombox may seem as loud, but
they are probably voiced differently to your nearfields, with more of
a speech range emphasis.


Discussing brands and speakers might help, if someone else has the same
problems with the same gear.

[u b k]

Originally Posted by van Overhalen

I end up with mixes that I quite enjoy on the nearfields but I know that they are unusable because of low mid content that would kill boombox speakers.

...

I went to my dealer with a bunch of my favorite CDs as well as some own recordings and really had the possibility to check a lot of different monitors and liked the one that I use now best, so...

this gives some good insight into the problems you're having. you chose your monitors on the basis of their *playback* characteristics; this is the right way to go when choosing speakers for listening enjoyment, but the completely opposite of how to choose monitors for mixing.

what you want is monitors that brutally reveal deficiencies in your mixes. the fact that you can listen to a mix with excessive low-mid info and enjoy it is the problem. with great monitors in a great room, that low-mid buildup would be untenable. things would sound "off" in a big way, and you'd be compelled to fix it. and if your monitors were truly up to snuff, you'd know exactly what to do about it.

the only way to find monitors that work like this is to try them out, in your room, on your material. some boxes need to be learned, and take a few mixes to get the hang of. in the last few years, companies like adam and atc have begun producing monitors that have almost no learning curve... things either sound right, or they don't, and it's easy to tell what's wrong.

it sounds to me like you've outgrown your monitors. you've taken them as far as you can go; while it's okay in the sense that you've got a second reference to help you fix the flaws, my guess is your mixes would go to new levels if you were working on boxes that were more accurate and less forgiving than the ones you currently have.


gregoire
del ubik

[Drumsound]

I'm gonna guess that you are using bi-amped active monitors. Active crossovers seem to leave a bigger hole than passive crossovers to my ears. You might want to try some passive monitors.

I also agree with comments that you may have out grown your monitors and that new ones should be tested in your room. I recently had two different sets in to choose (or maybe send both back...). I found a set I'm quite happy with that are working out wonderfully. And guess what? They're passive.

[van Overhalen]

Originally Posted by u b i k

what you want is monitors that brutally reveal deficiencies in your mixes. the fact that you can listen to a mix with excessive low-mid info and enjoy it is the problem. with great monitors in a great room, that low-mid buildup would be untenable. things would sound "off" in a big way, and you'd be compelled to fix it. and if your monitors were truly up to snuff, you'd know exactly what to do about it.

Yes, that`s what I want !

Originally Posted by d r u m s o u n d

I'm gonna guess that you are using bi-amped active monitors. Active crossovers seem to leave a bigger hole than passive crossovers to my ears.

Good guess !

So assuming it' s not me being deaf nor my room being THAT bad (I still believe it's the speakers, not the room)
what monitors could you recommend for testing ?

[u b k]

the passive truth audio's can be had (used) for a song, are wonderfully easy to mix on, and are relentless about low-mid problems.


gregoire
del ubik

[Drumsound]

Truth Audio TA-1Ps are what I just got and I'm really loving them!

[van Overhalen]

Truth Audio...

these seem to be the answer to my problem.
Too bad that the company is out of business
Looks like it' s impossible to get a pair for testing over here...
It' s a shame.

Well, thanx for the tip anyway !